Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

nepatz11 said:
Can someone answer one thing for me.


The part of this building that will cast the shadow if I remember correctly is like the top 50 feet. So if this trade off goes through, a developer could still build pretty high right?

So maybe they wont be able to go to 775, but if they could go to 6 or 7 hundred or even five still and we get this one done maybe it would not be such a bad deal.

So the question is how high can a developer go with the restrictions that are being proposed here? Thinking about that Bromfield proposal as well.
Click to expand...

You couldn't remember more incorrectly! (don't take it personally; everyone misremembers things all the time, of course...)

"In order for this building to be within the current Shadow Laws the proposed tower would have to be cut in half to be from 350 feet to 440 feet tall." (4th paragraph of story below)

http://beaconhilltimes.com/2016/12/16/winthrop-square-project-draws-large-crowd-over-shadows/

Also, 1 Bromfield is in the Midtown Cultural District zoning overlay, where different shadow laws apply. I doubt it makes any sense to lump that proposal in with 115 Winthrop, on this particular matter...
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

DBM said:
You couldn't remember more incorrectly! (don't take it personally; everyone misremembers things all the time, of course...)

"In order for this building to be within the current Shadow Laws the proposed tower would have to be cut in half to be from 350 feet to 440 feet tall." (4th paragraph of story below)

http://beaconhilltimes.com/2016/12/16/winthrop-square-project-draws-large-crowd-over-shadows/

Also, 1 Bromfield is in the Midtown Cultural District zoning overlay, where different shadow laws apply. I doubt it makes any sense to lump that proposal in with 115 Winthrop, on this particular matter...
Click to expand...
IIRC, the shadow proposal would affect the Midtown Cultural District zoning (probably as part of the Financial District rezoning).
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

curcuas said:
Shadow laws are almost the purest distillation of NIMBYism - something that sounds so reasonable on the surface yet ignores pretty much all of human behavior and empirics in order to obstruct building.

People. Like. Shade.

And the limits on shadows are for such picayune portions of days at odd hours of the year.
Click to expand...

Should I assume you are a horticulturalist or arborist studied in shadow impacts on flowers, grass and trees on Boston Common and in the Public Garden? Or should I assume the Friends of the Public Garden's horticulturalists are NIMBYs?

Was there any excusable reason why BPDA didn't host a single forum to air varying views on shadow impacts? FTR, the "public meeting" BPDA announced and hosted (after the shadow law was brought to public attention by the media) was a de-centralized open house with a standing army of proponents rallying for offsite benefits.

Would a tower of 400' that cast no new shadow on the Common and Garden provide revenue meeting or exceeding BPDA and COB's assessments of Winthrop Square's land value?

When you state "People. Like. Shade." did you Google average temperature for September from 7 AM to 9:30 AM? It's 60-65 degrees.

What's troubling to me is how "NIMBY" is used constantly as a cudgel to marginalize debate and excuse BPDA from providing hard data when spot zoning projects. I understand that $153 million is a significant sum, but shadow impacts will be with Boston forever and merited an informed debate, even among those who could care less.

Today's Boston Globe states that Downtown Crossing has 10,000 residents. Anyone here challenging that number? Where's the BPDA master plan anticipating some residential zoning to ensure downtown evolves with 24/7 activity? Or are we just to accept that it will become a neighborhood by BPDA spot zoning one building at a time. Millennium Tower first, Winthrop Square second. Good luck with that, height fetishists.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Sicilian said:
Was there any excusable reason why BPDA didn't host a single forum to air varying views on shadow impacts? FTR, the "public meeting" BPDA announced and hosted (after the shadow law was brought to public attention by the media) was a de-centralized open house with a standing army of proponents rallying for offsite benefits.
Click to expand...


Shadows were talked about in great detail at both previous meetings including a sneak preview of the shade videoette, and blustered over ad nauseum.....

The last 4 embattled skyscrapers are all getting built.

Then, the >180m stuff will end for a good very long while......
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

odurandina said:
Shadows were talked about in great detail at both previous meetings including a sneak preview of the shade videoette, and blustered over ad nauseum.....

The rest of your post is pretty lousy too.
Click to expand...

Can you identify the two meetings? I'll ask BPDA for notes.

In those meetings, were you viewing presentations by Winthrop Square proponents or by concerned organizations such as Friends of the Public Garden? Because FOPG has had no such forum.

Councilor Zakim wrote a letter to BPDA regarding the meeting I cited.

Please provide a link to media accounts regarding shadow impacts on the Common and Garden being discussed in great detail.

With respect to the "videoette" I'd guess you're referring to Millennium's video, circulated by BPDA. It presents 1.5 hours of shadow on September 10 in 7 seconds. If anyone thinks a 7-second video is suitable to discern impacts on flowers, plants, grass and trees, so be it.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

So should we remove some trees so the grass gets more sun? Its the middle of a downtown business district.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Yeah, I don't know why they put the Common right next to the Financial District. That was dumb!
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

no plants
grow and no new
trees can grow at the bottom
of a rain forest because
of the shade that
is there....
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

until the head gardener/groundskeeper at the public garden comes forth to say that the trees, flowers, and plants at the garden will be adversely affected by a few minutes of early morning shade during a couple days of late summer/early fall, then i call absolute BS on the "horticulture" argument.

i am NOT a horticulturalist, but during the spring and summer months there are plenty of tomatoes, peppers, flowers, herbs (and -- duh -- trees) -- in my own back yard and all seem quite vibrant and happy, despite a few hours (shudder!) of shade per day.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

chrisbrat said:
until the head gardener/groundskeeper at the public garden comes forth to say that the trees, flowers, and plants at the garden will be adversely affected by a few minutes of early morning shade during a couple days of late summer/early fall, then i call absolute BS on the "horticulture" argument.

i am NOT a horticulturalist, but during the spring and summer months there are plenty of tomatoes, peppers, flowers, herbs (and -- duh -- trees) -- in my own back yard and all seem quite vibrant and happy, despite a few hours (shudder!) of shade per day.
Click to expand...

"until the head gardener/groundskeeper at the public garden comes forth to say ..."

That's exactly what FOPG, supported by data, not conjecture, has been saying. FOPG is also the caretaker of trees on Boston Common, which they also state (in fora never provided by BPDA) would be impacted. As I understand, they consider changes to soil and also draw from historical data.

For the record, I think the "density" argument so often registered on this forum is a pretext for height fetishists to see individual projects move forward. If folks wanted density, where are you all in my lonely world -- registering outrage directly, publicly, that BPDA has had Winthrop Square for 10 years now and hasn't even begun planning for rezoning large swaths of downtown. What's even more disturbing is the Home Rule Petition filed yesterday makes a state law that requires BPDA to plan -- BPDA can't do its job without a state law?

There's plenty of height and density within existing laws, available through planning and rezoning. But BPDA continues to rally the troops in support of spot zoning one-offs.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Yes there is height and density within existing laws, but for most of these parcels, there are already buildings there. Unless we want to demolish a lot of historic buildings, I don't see height being increased in most locations. (I would personally much rather have a few more shadows on the Common rather than lose much of our historic building stock.)
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

stupid trees
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

what have they ever done for us?
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

I read a comment by someone who claimed to be a horticulturalist, but am struggling to put the correct search term into google to verify it.

Basically, he spoke about the peak sun (unsure if that is the exact term which is why my google search is stalling) and how it is strongest between specific hours of the day. I think this is typically from around 10-4. Think of yourselves getting sunburnt. Nobody is going to get a burn between 7-8 in the morning no matter how out in the open they are. The sun isn't "strong enough" yet to cause that damage. Similarly, the sun isn't "strong enough" yet in the early morning to say, grow a tree.

In this tower's case, all of the shadows will have long passed by the time the sun is peaking in the sky. Again, despite all the sky-is-falling hoopla, all we are really fighting to protect is our right to be blinded, unimpeded, by a horizontal, early morning sun.

Regarding the FOPG claiming an adverse conclusion, I would say this is similar to the cigarette companies claiming that smoking doesn't cause cancer. They are cherry-picking data to fit their agenda.

Now maybe I am wrong here, but the FOPG are not the ones to prove it. Basically, ask a horticultural expert from another city/country, who has never visited and has no connection to Boston, whether a shadow that is normally completely gone by 9 am is enough to kill existing vegetation.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Sicilian said:
"until the head gardener/groundskeeper at the public garden comes forth to say ..."

That's exactly what FOPG, supported by data, not conjecture, has been saying. FOPG is also the caretaker of trees on Boston Common, which they also state (in fora never provided by BPDA) would be impacted. As I understand, they consider changes to soil and also draw from historical data.
Click to expand...

i want to be very clear that i am not in any way, generally "against" friends of the public garden. i think they do amazing work that has done immeasurable good over the years.

i know that they help with the maintenance of the garden, it's trees, it's flowers, and more.

but, while they clearly have amongst them -- or pay to employ -- folks with serious gardening/horticultural skills, this is not an impartial body capable of providing unbiased analysis of how the plants or park might be impacted by a few minutes of early morning shade during a few days of the year.

i wouldn't expect the stewards of ANY special interest group to be impartial. by all accounts chuck heston knew quite a bit about firearms and marksmanship and hunting -- i wouldn't have gone to him for an objective analysis of gun ownership laws in the u.s.

they're an advocacy group, looking to preserve this whole chunk of boston as near to possible as it was towards the end of the 19th centery -- a goal i appreciate elements of, but which is by definition averse to change of any sort. they're protective of the park, which is great; they're selfishly digging their heels in on this particular topic, though, in my opinion. it's not 1893, it's 2017.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

One has to wonder: if shadows for a few minutes a day during a few days out of the year are so catastrophically detrimental to the well-being of trees, how in God's green earth can the likes of Bryant Park exist? I was in Hong Kong Park last week and I had to repeatedly stop passerbys and ask, "Are those real trees? You'll have to excuse me, I'm from Boston, the trees in our parks shriek like banshees if a tall building's shadow touches them, shattering all glass within earshot."

It simply boggles the mind.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

shawn said:
One has to wonder: if shadows for a few minutes a day during a few days out of the year are so catastrophically detrimental to the well-being of trees, how in God's green earth can the likes of Bryant Park exist? I was in Hong Kong Park last week and I had to repeatedly stop passerbys and ask, "Are those real trees? You'll have to excuse me, I'm from Boston, the trees in our parks shriek like banshees if a tall building's shadow touches them, shattering all glass within earshot."

It simply boggles the mind.
Click to expand...

Not to mention four supertalls going up within two blocks of Central Park...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top