Hey, there! Log in / Register

Menino to developer: Keep your $50 million

Interesting: Even as the city looks to give one developer a $16-million tax break, it rejects a $50 million offer from another. Of course, one is longtime local stalwart Liberty Mutual, which wants to build its new headquarters in the Back Bay, while the other is Menino foe Don Chiofaro, who wants to put a 59-story tower (and a tinier 40-story one) right on the waterfront. The BRA says it will deign to let him put a 16-story building on what is now the aquarium parking garage.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

Don't end up on the naughty list. And don't forget - Lib Mu is in line to get another $20 million from the state for a total subsidy
of $36 million - since they paid less than $30 million if they get the tax break their net land cost will be LESS than zero! How do you get on THAT list? Sign me up.

up
Voting closed 0

Is there are legitimate and even consistent reasons to turn down Chiofaro's money:

The Greenway. Yes, it's a barren little prairie now, but the BRA at least has been consistent about trying to make it shine (recall how they told another developer to make the Dainty Dot replacement more boring to not detract from the Greenway).

The waterfront. City and state have spent the past two decades or so trying to reclaim the waterfront as a public resource. Can two new skyscrapers fit in with that?

The airport. Oh, yeah, what about the FAA and Logan?

But, of course, everybody knows Menino and Chiofaro hate each other and that that probably plays as much into the calculus as the above reasons. The BRA drafting regulations to limit the site to 16 stories is particularly amusing, given that they gave the Dainty Dot guy permission to build roughly twice as high as allowed under the parcel's zoning.

up
Voting closed 0

Your whole post illustrates what a failure the BRA is.

I don't understand how 2 towers will make the waterfront less accessible than a hulking garage. I hope all Boston Libraries close as well.

up
Voting closed 0

Come now, Adam. Sixteen stories isn't even a plausible limit. It's a bad joke. As the Globe reported yesterday, before the latest guidelines were announced:

For Chiofaro’s site at the parking garage, the consultants have suggested restricting new buildings to 400 feet tall, roughly 25 to 30 stories.

There are two things at work here. One is Menino's penchant for playing petty politics when anyone in this city has the temerity to challenge his primacy. He wants to teach Chiofaro a lesson, to humiliate him for his public challenge, and to make an example out of him so that others won't dare to buck his administration. I admire many things about the mayor, but this side of his personality is distinctly unattractive, and seems likely to cost our city rather dearly. We need developers who are willing to dream big. Instead, Menino is determined to allow only those developers who are willing to subordinate their own visions to his. That's incredibly unfortunate. Indeed, it's scandalous.

But, even worse, is the basic urban planning vision that Menino is advancing. I simply don't understand the hostility to density. We have terribly high rents for high-quality office space in this city, which substantially raises the cost of doing business, and helps drive many companies out to the suburban belt where space is vastly cheaper. Housing prices continue to rise. Everything that makes a downtown area attractive to business and to residents flows from density. And we're not talking about leveling vibrant and vital neighborhoods here, either - what stands on this site is vast, brutalist parking garage.

So on the one hand, there's the potential for density. For residents and office workers who might actually, you know, use the vacant parkland next door. Who might help support the sort of retail and services that the waterfront area presently lacks. To achieve these benefits, you have to build tall buildings. And what's the downside? Some very wealthy downtown residents lose their view and have more difficulty finding parking. My heart fairly bleeds for them. If they didn't understand when they purchased their units that their view was not guaranteed in perpetuity, they were unbelievably naive. Their towers blocked the views of other buildings; now it will be blocked in turn. That's the way it works. Then there's the terrifying prospect of ::gasp:: shadows. I don't see the danger. At the moment, no one uses that stretch of park. And for all of Menino's railing against the 'Manhattanization' of the waterfront, the fact remains that even the narrowest parks in Manhattan that fall within the shadows of adjacent buildings fairly hum with life, while our own glorified media strip remains vacant. They're alive and vibrant because of the surrounding skyscrapers, and the people they deliver. This is where the city can easily support density, and it should. As for the waterfront, I fully support preserving it for as many people as possible. But is a sixteen-story building really better than a sixty-story structure, as far as access is concerned? Height actually gives you advantages. Strict limits force developers to maximize space closer to the ground. There will be no glass-enclosed atrium providing pedestrian access through the building to the harbor in a sixteen-story building - no developer will be able to afford it. Build two profitable towers, though, and there's enough margin to provide some real amenities.

Low-density development is bad in almost every respect. It's bad for the environment. It's bad for affordability. It's bad for economic development. And it's bad for the future of the parkland and the harbor.

It's good, however, for some people who already live downtown and don't want their views blocked. And it's seen as good by those planners and consultants who are essentially hostile to the notion of urbanism - who value suburban space above urban diversity, and would like to impose that vision on the city as well as its sprawling environs.

up
Voting closed 0

+1. Perfectly said.

up
Voting closed 0

Make that +100 and a hearty bravo!

up
Voting closed 0

agreed. Menino had a chance to make the Greenway relevant during the planning stages, but instead sat by as it was chopped up by highway ramps and an excessive amount of cross streets. Pretending that limiting the height to suburban office park sizes will make the kennedy median strip a place to visit like Chicago's Millenium park is ridiculous. Menino is increasingly making Boston a place that can't get things done.

up
Voting closed 0

Same here

up
Voting closed 0

can we please have this published in the globe?

up
Voting closed 0

Yeah, I don't understand how a 16 story building provices more access to the waterfront than a 60 story building.

up
Voting closed 0

"Some very wealthy downtown residents lose their view and have more difficulty finding parking. My heart fairly bleeds for them. If they didn't understand when they purchased their units that their view was not guaranteed in perpetuity, they were unbelievably naive."

So should we ignore all zoning and just let everyone build what they want? Where do you live? Should we just let the city or a developer buy all the land around your home and build towers using variances not accessible to those on the naughty list? How about a landfill in the middle of West Roxbury if zoning really doesn't matter - we do need someplace to dump our trash and is it fair to haul it off to the leafy suburbs?

I'm not a fan of Harbor Towers - but everyone that bought there bought with the understanding that zoning laws were in place limiting heights to I believe about 125 feet. If your neighborhood were being illegally "rezoned by variance" would you be as big a fan of flouting the laws that control development to a sensible level (the Harbor Towers residents are a rare incidence of where owners have the deep pockets and stamina to fight the BRA's constant efforts to get variances for height - most people just shrug their shoulders or move away). If you think it needs to be rezoned - fine - there's a process for that - simply granting Chiofaro a variance to build 4 times the legal height is not the process. He gambled paying so much for the land - he lost - so far.

And if you want density - height is not the answer. Boston's most densely populated areas by day and night are actually where you have clusters of midrises like the Back Bay - it's not the height - you can typically pack more floor area ratio with midrises.

up
Voting closed 0

You throw a lot out there, so let's take it one step at a time.

So should we ignore all zoning and just let everyone build what they want?

No. Where did I say that? I thought I was fairly specific - we need zoning that permits height and density where it's appropriate. A sixty story tower rising amid a neighborhood of two-story structures, without access to transportation infrastructure, would be very odd. Putting that same sixty story tower within walking distance of multiple T stations, alongside a major arterial highway, and in the middle of a neighborhood of somewhat shorter skyscrapers makes a great deal of sense.

Should we just let the city or a developer buy all the land around your home and build towers using variances not accessible to those on the naughty list?

No. I specifically castigated Menino for this practice. But when the BRA rezones an entire district - as it's doing right now - it ought to put in place new zoning rules for every potential developer allowing the area to be developed to its maximum supportable density. That's smart planning. Instead, we get a process with artificially restrictive rules so that every significant development in this city will require a variance from the BRA. Menino sets the heights lower than economic viability so that anyone who buys land still needs his permission to do anything with it. That's an absurd and corrosive system.

How about a landfill in the middle of West Roxbury if zoning really doesn't matter - we do need someplace to dump our trash and is it fair to haul it off to the leafy suburbs?

What does putting an enhancement in a dense urban district have to do with putting a landfill somewhere else? My whole point is that new towers along the waterfront benefit the local neighborhood and the city at large. Landfills never benefit their surroundings.

Here's the bottom line. Zoning rules aren't fixed, and the Harbor Towers residents certainly knew it at the time. If it's not in the deed, it doesn't count. Your claim that "most people just shrug their shoulders or move away" from dense new developments reminds me of the famous Yogi Berra line about Yankee Stadium, that no one goes there anymore because it's too crowded. Can you point to an area where a new skyscraper created vacancies in the adjacent buildings? If some people move out because they dislike urban life, that's their right - but experience shows that many more are clamoring to move in. And, as a rule, new buildings like this actually enhance the values and desirability of nearby buildings. The Harbor Towers suites are likely to be worth more. That doesn't mollify the residents, because they'd rather live there with their views than sell. But it's still true. As for high-rises being low density, I'm almost speechless. Mid-rise districts achieve higher residential densities because they're generally single-use residential areas. But a sixty-story residential tower will always higher density than a six-story midrise. And, given the demand for office space, letting developers build as high as the FAA permits is the best chance to develop a real neighborhood in the area - it allows developers enough room to split their projects between residential, commercial, and office space.

Boston is in a deep fiscal crisis at the moment, which points to the shallowness of its tax base. Many of the areas largest businesses have decamped for the suburbs, where they can build what they want when they want to. Boston has enough advantages to keep many here. Luring others back, and providing the current businesses room to grow, makes a tremendous amount of sense for the city as a whole. If people really care about libraries, they should flood this BRA hearing instead of the City Council meetings, and make their voice heard there. The way to keep the branches open is to raise revenues - and straightjacketing development, so that every project needs a variance, is inimical to that goal.

up
Voting closed 0

Boston is in a deep fiscal crisis at the moment, which points to the shallowness of its tax base.

We have the one of the highest commerical r.e. rates in the area. Imagine what Boston would look like if our rate was the same as Cambridge or Brookline! Imagine if Boston had been as wealthy as Brookline for all these years.

Your strategy is the opposite -- to keep the high rate and allow corruption and evil tactics on the parts of connected businesses. This keeps the population desperate and makes it easier for these arm-twisting developers to destroy our environment.

up
Voting closed 0

Who's advocating corruption or high taxes?

But since you raise the issue, my understanding is that both Cambridge and Brookline are hovering right at the state-imposed cap of the classified property tax levy shift. In plain English, it means that their commercial property tax rates are lower than Boston's because the state won't let them raise the rate any higher.

If you're really worried about Boston's taxes being too high, the solution is not to cut them first - any cuts will have to be offset by corresponding cuts in city services, or shifts to other revenue sources. That's just transferring wealth from residents to businesses. Instead of changing how you divide the pie, the key is to make the pie larger. To do that, you need to increase the number of businesses and residents in Boston - particularly at the high-end. And there are two good ways to do that, already highlighted by others in this thread - bring professional workers to live in the heart of the city, and make more space more cheaply available. Yes, there are vacant properties, but rates remain fairly high. They're vacant because landlords are convinced that we're going through a short-term downturn, and they expect demand to soar again with recovery, because there's not enough office space in the city and there are huge hurdles to building more. Make it cheap and easy to build taller, denser buildings in those parts of the city that are well-equipped to handle them, and you can expand the tax base.

This is how everyone wins. The denser the development, the cheaper the provision of services. That's the basic rule of thumb for municipal government. So you expand the tax base, lower office and commercial rents or hold them in check, increase the desirability of living and working in the city through network effects, and do all of this at the least possible additional cost to the city.

But let's not forget the downside. Some parkland will have shadows at some times of day. And some residents will lose their views.

It's a tough call, right?

up
Voting closed 0

Something that you touched on:
"bring professional workers to live in the heart of the city"
This is a very good point, I tell my friends and everyone who is willing to listen: Boston exports the greatest asset of all, Education. We must find a way to make Boston a more attractive city for these newly grads to stay! Imagine the possibilities and how dynamic this city will become.
We need a change in the status quo.

up
Voting closed 0

But how many newly minted grads are going to buy a multi-million dollar high rise condos with doormen on the waterfront (or anyone else for that matter)? As for the Vancouver post below (have you been to Vancouver - I don't recall any high rises on the harborfront) - the main thing they have is population growth - a lot from Asian ex-pats - without it they couldn't expand density. Our only hope for greater density is to steal from the burbs - not a formula for long term regional success and retired empty nesters aren't going to fill those empty office buildings.

up
Voting closed 0

I've been to Vancouver. It left an enduring impression of cranes. I liked it.
That part about tall buildings on the waterfront that you don't like? That is Vancouver.

up
Voting closed 0

From your last sentence, are you saying Nat Bosa should develop in Boston, perhaps with a tagline-

This is Vancouver- with snow!

up
Voting closed 0

It's been 10 years now since my last visit so perhaps romanticized some of the memories. Yes indeed there are a handful of taller buildings along the waterfront - most however separated from the harborfront by a park or (in the downtown core) the cruise terminal and convention center (and sadly, as spectacular as the rail station is, the tracks cut you off from the water). Can't say any of those tall buildings made a lasting impression like Gastown, Stanley Park, the Western beaches, the quiet streets of the northern neighborhoods or the restored rail yards in the south - none of which have imposing tall buildings nearby (although I think the rail yards might be under an elevated highway). Note that most of these waterfront towers appear to be about 20 stories- or just slightly larger than what the mayor has proposed. The maximum height in the city is noted as 40 stories - not the 50-60 Chiofaro proposed.

If you were to mimic Vancouver's harborside plan in Boston, virtually nothing would/could be built on the waterside of Atlantic and Commercial. Again - for better or worse, they have vision and planning for development. Our idea of planning is "the blue plate special" - pile it high and see if it'll fly (unless you're on the naughty list).

up
Voting closed 0

How many decades has it been? Did you bother to look at the pictures in the article? It's not a handful. It's a forest.
Set back from the waterfront? Some of the towers have retaining walls at their bases. They're about as far from the water as Rowes Wharf.
If we were to follow Vancouver's harborside plan in Boston, all of the South Boston Seaport area would have been redeveloped as a single megaproject with about 5,000 apartments.

The best known is Concord Pacific Place — 204 acres expected to house about 15,000 people in 9,000 units. The Coal Harbour and Bayshore projects occupy a combined site of 60 acres, with an expected population of about 5,400 in 3,250 units. In addition, new neighborhoods are taking shape in the interior of the peninsula — Granville Slopes, Triangle West, Library Square, Yaletown, Downtown South — none of which existed prior to Expo ‘86.

It's a vastly different perspective on development than we have in sleepy Boston. And here's the part you ought to like:

Secondly, none of this development, save for the public housing, is subsidized. Growth is expected to help pay for growth. A long list of public benefits must be provided by the megaproject developer: waterfront walkways and roads, parks and marinas, school sites, child-care centers, community centers, and even public art. All this makes the developer’s product attractive. Public benefit, in short, adds private value.

As to what I liked, I liked Vancouver a lot. I liked Stanley Park. I liked downtown. I liked how successfully they're integrating vertical development with a lively streetscape. The setbacks preserve sky view and avoid the concrete canyon feeling you get in New York. I thought immediately about how Boston could be more like that, and about how that would be good, but it won't happen.

up
Voting closed 0

I traced google maps from the southeastern corner of Stanley Park to the East side of Gastown - I think there are 3 or fewer tall buildings within 200 feet of the waterfront. (one or two downtown perhaps - but they are behind the cruise terminal and the convention center). For the most part all is separated by at least a walkway and with the 2-3 exceptions noted, a large park with a 200 foot or so separation. If you stepped back from the water 200 feet in Boston you would be IN the greenway. Yes there are hundreds of towers inland - and can't say those are particularly attractive to me either - although I'll agree that they've done a better job than many places managing the height. However, to get the density that Vancouver has we'd have to build these clear out to JP and beyond (Stanley Park appears to be about 20% of their land area).

I prefer lower architecture - spent a weekend in DC last fall and LOVED the wide open streets, sun hitting the sidewalks etc. And still lots of cool architecture to look at (though not in the way of tall buildings). It was fantastic to walk around.

If you like tall buildings so much - move to NY or Chicago - you'll be much happier. As I said - not opposed to tall buildings per se - just need to be very careful with architecture and limit where you put them - and on the waterfront is generally not good - and in Boston it's particularly not good where we have a more traditional organic escalation of height from the waterfront to the financial district. Even these buildings on vancouver's waterfront are only fractionally taller than what the mayor has proposed.

And you still haven't answered the core question - who is going to live in twin 60 story luxury towers in Boston when we can't sell the three empty towers we have now - and Manny Ramirez can't dump his posh pad for a mere $8 million? The market for multi-million dollar condos with $5000-$10,000 a month condo fees is kinda slim even in the best of times. If you want growth you're not going to get much on the waterfront - do you think you can talk JP and A/B into some 30 story condo towers - dorms excluded?

up
Voting closed 0

I should just change my name to Straw Man, shouldn't I? The core question is really are you going to argue with the facts, or just keep arguing with your imagination?

Thirdly, this is not just a city for the rich. Specifically, 20 percent of all units on the megaprojects is reserved for social housing, and 25 percent is designed for families.

These aren't luxury towers we're talking about. Vancouver has figured out a way to offer middle-class housing downtown, which is why they expect the downtown population to double within a generation. But you can continue arguing with your imagination if you want to - you'll win every time, guaranteed.

As for New York and Chicago, I love them both. I go to each city every year for a nice city vacation. There are things I don't like about them, as well, particularly the way the straight-up buildings at street tend to make concrete canyons. This is something they've largely avoided in Vancouver. If we tried to make Boston more like New York and Chicago, we'd only succeed in making it more like Hartford. Vancouver is a better model for development. The population is comparable (about 600K for both). And they're preserving parkland and an open feel while expanding downtown residency. You can't have residential density without actual buildings that people live in, and they can't all fit in the Filenes hole.

As for talking JP into 30-story towers.... well, they've already got some - surprise! And I honestly think that more wouldn't be such a bad thing.

But if you and the historical preservation types want to dig your heels in and declare that nothing over four stories or not made of red brick may be built in Boston for all eternity, then you'll succeed in turning us into Baltimore instead. The only reason Washington is not a completely depressed, run-down hellhole is the money shaken out of the government. Enjoy your tax money at work.

up
Voting closed 0

The project at hand is Chiofaro's towers which will be 50-60 stories tall, hard on the water and run well over a million dollars a unit - there will be little if any affordable or family housing in this place (Chiofaro and the BRA will promise to build somewhere else - then the BRA will do what they always do - pocket the money and forget about it). Vancouver is a nice example of how we can make a similar approach to planning and zoning for some buildings - and there are certainly some lessons to be learned - but we can't import it wholesale and even their waterfront vision more closely resembles the Mayor's, not Chiofaro's.

JP does indeed have some 30 story towers - I think they were built 30-40 years ago. I don't see anybody clamoring for more of that except you and a few others with edifice complexes and Big Apple envy. Personally I'd rather see 3-5 story buildings with storefronts/restaurants down Centre Street as more in keeping with the character of the city/neighborhood - but that's for JP residents to determine - not me.

I've stated - I'm not a 4 story brick type (even though I do live in one) and have noted several places where tall buildings might make sense, preferably a mix of residential, office, retail, restaurant etc. (St. James, behind the Hancock tower on Stuart, where Neiman Marcus stands and a few others). But I think a 60 story tower looming over the harbor and the greenway is a dumb, short-sighted idea for our city, totally out of character for the context. These would be almost right in front of the Custom house, probably the most enduring icon of our skyline and trading heritage. In my opinion that is one of the most striking buildings in the city.

You still haven't answered my question - twin towers, 50 stories tall, say 6-8 units per floor - that's about 600-800 units - or about the equivalent of the W, the Clarendon and Province Place combined - which are sitting mostly empty. Who is going to buy all these things? Or would it be OK to end up with a 60 story steel shell on the harbor when the advance sales fall flat and the developers walk away? Vancouver gets growth largely from Asian immigration based on geographic proximity to HK, Taiwan and China - where do we get that growth from? Hartford?

up
Voting closed 0

I was in Vancouver as a young teen and wandered its streets in 1981. I returned in 2008 and found it immensely changed, yet immensely unchanged. It still had the feel of a place you could walk around and visit shops and restaurants or go to a grocery store to get supplies for a bike ride ... but it also added a hundred thousand people in a very short time while maintaining the same feel.

Ten years in Vancouver = a century in Boston.

Consider this: When Sock_Puppet brings up city wide stats for Vancouver, you constantly argue about SINGLE PROJECTS, as if that were all that there is to talk about. You and the City of Boston have the same problem: failure of ability to think holistically across the whole city. Sure, Vancouver has multimillion dollar waterfront condos - but that isn't ALL that is being built - unlike the pathetic "set asides" in Boston set one high end luxury project at a time. For every flagship development in Vancouver near the water, there are dozens of buildings going up with prices that a typical family can afford - even without the tax breaks we get for home ownership in the US. I know, because I walked and biked and stopped to look at the public displays made of plans because I consider it a top place to move in the future.

You make it sound like development is only about single projects - and that's a Boston problem. In Vancouver and in Portland, which has doubled population in 15 years, they plan and design and zone for the city AS A WHOLE, including rich people housing in wealthy areas and middle class housing in other areas of the city and the things people will need to stay there - grocery stores, affordable clothing places, etc. Until you and this city can get past this fundamental inability to see past single projects, we will never see any sort of integrated street life downtown or in expansion areas. The "tacked on" nature of pedestrian amenities and the lack of signage to areas of restaurants near the Seaport - not to mention the distant hotel locations - is a testimony to Boston's difficulty with crafting urban ecosystems.

up
Voting closed 0

High-rise people love to talk about downtown, but downtown is actually a very small part of Boston's geography. When you want to see what Boston is, go to Dorchester, because that's where a big chunk of the population lives.

up
Voting closed 0

John Palmieri came to the neighborhood a few years ago - I asked him why we didn't do a central plan for the whole city (like Singapore where I lived for 2 years) and preferably work with the state to integrate it for the region esp. vis a vis transportation. If you care I can get you several dozen witnesses who have seen me in numerous forums request a citywide plan, broken down by neighborhood and calling on EVERY neighborhood including my own Back Bay to figure out how to share in the growth of the city at a reasonable rate including a balance of office, retail, residential, instutional, transportation networks and nodes etc. The BRA refuses because the one off deals as pointed out elsewhere in this thread are politically expedient.

My number one complaint is why don't we a) make a plan b)integrate modified zoning to fit the plan and c) demand that the contractors build to fit the zoning instead of this waste of time piecemeal crap we have with most of the development crammed downtown and in Southie focused on projects that only the top 10-20% of even our affluent region can afford.

You aren't just off base on this one - you are in the wrong ballpark.

I only happen to comment on one project at a time because the Mayor and the BRA use this approach to extort, I mean extract, concessions from each and every developer. If we had zoning that was enforced none of this would even be an issue and developers like Chiofaro wouldn't pay $155 million for a lot zoned at 125 feet and then stroke the BRA and the mayor (well maybe not Chiofaro) until they acquiesce to the latest zoning by variance scheme. Like all of us I am also a victim of the mayor I didn't vote for.

This particular project as proposed is a short-sighted money grab. Fortunately Donny boy is on the mayor's naughty list so we won't end up with the tallest (or almost the tallest) building New England smack on the historic harborfront. If you look at Google maps I believe you'll also notice that not a single tall building in Vancouver (that seems to be the object of worship du jour) stands between the historic Gastown district and the water - they are all in the newer section of town that is essentially less than 50 years old and even there most are separated from the water by a park or other lower waterfront building. Want tall towers on the waterfront - fine let's build a buffer like they have in Vancouver and put up co-op city where UMASS Boston stands today - right next to the T station! That's possibly/probably appropriate - smack in front of the custom house is not. You are playing right into the hands of the "no-plan" crowd.

If you approve this, you can't just do it for one site - it has to be for everyone (barring a variance that's the law). Zone this strip for 600 feet and you end up with the entire town walled off from the harbor by a ribbon of glass and steel.

up
Voting closed 0

You're right in the sense that we don't need more luxury or low cost housing. What we do need is some means-tested middle class level of income type housing, as well as artist live/work spaces.

up
Voting closed 0

You're right in the sense that we don't need more luxury or low cost housing. What we do need is some means-tested middle class level of income type housing, as well as artist live/work spaces.

"MEANS-TESTED"?

C'mon! Why can't we just make it easier to develop space, and let that little thing called the invisible hand guide prices to where the demand is.

up
Voting closed 0

Instead of changing how you divide the pie, the key is to make the pie larger. To do that, you need to increase the number of businesses and residents in Boston - particularly at the high-end.

Over half the land in Boston is tax exempt. It's a classic sign of a tax rate that is so high that it is costing more than it is bringing in. Brookline has been raising its commercial rate for a few years but also wisely cut it during the 90s. Brookline did not experience the Curley Era and its outdated tax approach that denuded the city of Boston. That is why Brookline is nice and Boston is struggling. If the tax rate was $16/sf, you can bet the Salvation Army property would have been renovated, rented, and bringing in tax revenue years ago.

And there are two good ways to do that, already highlighted by others in this thread - bring professional workers to live in the heart of the city, and make more space more cheaply available.

Your development approach makes it worse for professional workers, except the few who for some personal reason or political stance will put up with a degraded environment. The history of the 20th century has been an outflow of professional workers to places that are nice and sunny and quiet. You are depending on some attitude shift to the left that just isn't there.

As for make more space cheaply available -- there is already a glut of space and further building is not the way to do it. I propose an alternative: make people richer and able to afford the more expensive space. This has the added benefit of giving the residents power to fight these creeps and developers. Maybe that's why the politicians don't want to do it!

up
Voting closed 0

The history of the 20th century has been an outflow of professional workers to places that are nice and sunny and quiet. You are depending on some attitude shift to the left that just isn't there.

The history of 1990-now has seen the opposite in many cities in the US. Sure, there were still those people who moved to Arizona, but a lot of cities that were depopulated over the years from 1950-1990 have now seen their populations increase over the last 10-20 years. Even Boston has seen increases from 1980-1990, 1990-2000, and 2000-now.

up
Voting closed 0

The city population has grown while the school population has fallen.

up
Voting closed 0

Brookline did not experience the Curley Era and its outdated tax approach that denuded the city of Boston. That is why Brookline is nice and Boston is struggling

So you see no other difference between Boston and Brookline?

Really?

up
Voting closed 0

I pick Brookline because it defies the suburban distance argument. From the point of view of geography there is no difference.

up
Voting closed 0

Can I vote for you?

up
Voting closed 0

Seriously, can we put this guy in charge of something major? Like, the BRA for instance?

up
Voting closed 0

In case you missed the recent Globe op-ed, What's Vancouver Got that We Don't?", its conclusion is very similar to yours: a plan for density.

“Density was very much our goal,’’ Beasley said. An economic analysis showed that Vancouver was 75,000 residents short of the critical mass needed to keep the downtown vibrant. “But we didn’t talk about density, we talked about quality of life. We had to make it delicious.’’

Vancouver’s residential towers are tall by Boston standards, but thin enough to protect view corridors and make the best use of natural light in a gray climate. The bases of the buildings are at a more human scale, with townhouse-type entrances and stoops. “We pushed [architectural] details down to eye level for the first six floors,’ Beasley said.

For Beasley, density is the secret to sustainability, because big population increases create enough wealth to support good amenities and public spaces.

If you bring more people to downtown Boston, businesses will follow. One of the reasons that businesses locate out on 128 and beyond is because of how many of their workers commute from out that way. If a study shows that their employees' average commute would shorten by relocating to downtown Boston, they will be more likely to do so. So we have to bring the people first, and it's not happening with tit-for-tat arguments about shadows and height. One will have to fight continuously against the NIMBYs, who will make up any numbers they need to argue why their gardens can never be shadowed. But Boston can grow instead of shrinking if we get our act together and, as you say, make a plan for development that doesn't need a variance for every single project.

up
Voting closed 0

We could go on forever but a couple of points:

a) Did not see any acknowledgement of zoning in your first post - other than references to "planning" and "limits" etc. - unfortunately around Boston that usually does not refer to zoning - it means we'll grant a variance to do what the BRA wants. We will forever disagree on height by the harbor. Every city I've been to where I find the waterfront appealing (eg - San Diego - but not where they have the hotels, San Fran, DC, Boston, Singapore etc.) - has relatively low density or no density near the waterfront. Every city I've visited where people don't even go near the water in most areas (eg - downtown Hong Kong and Manhattan) have tall buildings near the water. I am in rare agreement with the Mayor on this one. Wish he were as thougtful in the rest of the city.

b) as for shallow tax base - Boston has essentially the highest tax revenue and highest expenditures per capita of any city in the Commonwealth except Cambridge. Our problem is we spend too much and give out lavish benefits - and it will get a lot worse for all of us unless we make some changes soon. Overbuilding is a huge part of the problem - but for another thread.

Just for the record - I do not oppose tall buildings where appropriate- I supported the proposed tower on top of Neiman Marcus which would be visible from my bedroom window until I saw the behemoth that was the base (an engineering issue) and I recently supported a doubling of zoning heights (with a couple of reasonable limitations) along St. James a block over from where I work and walk every day. I'm also a fervent supporter of density through low/mid-rises in areas like Comm Ave West of BU, Centre Street in JP and West Rox, Rozzie Square and others). I just think we can do a smarter job of getting stuff we need to attract incremental residents - not just rich empty nesters from the burbs - who are welcome to buy in the 3 empty luxo condo towers we already have.

up
Voting closed 0

Hi Cynic,

I live at Harbor Towers and actually, the height limit on the Harbor Garage is in our deeds - when the city sold the land to the Harbor Towers/Harbor Garage developer, it established a 125' height limit on the Garage site that was written into the deed from the city to the developer, which is still in effect, and Chiofaro is the legal successor to the original developer. That height limit is specifically referenced in the Harbor Towers Master Deed, and the unit deeds.

So you should check your facts before you start attacking the 1,200 folks who live here.

Besides, even if Chiofaro could convince the city to up-zone the site he'd still have the state (state law also imposes a 155' height limit on the site) and the FAA's 400 foot height limit on the site. Again, pick your battles and find another place for height in the downtown - there are penty of places, just not here.

up
Voting closed 0

Where does he suggest doing away with zoning? You're making a classic straw man.

And just to echo previous sentiments on the original comment, A+, +100, etc., etc.

up
Voting closed 0

West Roxbury was, in fact, home to the city's landfill for decades, so not the best example. Also, it's the only neighborhood in the city to have a) a working quarry (complete with dynamite blasting) and b) a trailer park (granted, cut off from the rest of the neighborhood - and city - by Rte. 1).

We now return you to your regularly scheduled downtown-development debate, already in progress ...

up
Voting closed 0

With residential, commercial, and office vacancy rates at very high rates, especially downtown... What need is there for a mega-tower eyesore in Boston?
There are maybe a dozen skyscrapers across the world that are actually aesthetic. The rest are just phallic monstrosities.

In fact I would argue the Hancock and Pru need to be dismantled and replaced with buildings half their height or shorter. The Hancock hemorrhages money and the Prudential is the ugliest building in the city only after the Saltonstall. And both make the Back Bay full of unfriendly wind currents.

up
Voting closed 0

I'm sorry, but do you live in Boston? If so, why?

up
Voting closed 0

Yes I live in Allston/Brighton. Because I enjoy living in close proximity to my job downtown (B train complaints aside), yet relatively affordable. And in an area that has a neighborhood feel with a mix of houses and low rise buildings and corner stores and yet urban enough to have conveniences like large selection of nighttime eateries, bars, retail stores, tattoo parlors, etc.

You see this same pattern repeated in JP, Roslindale, Cambridge and Somerville, the South End etc. Even in the Back Bay to some degree.
What does not have that feel is Downtown. It alternates between barren concrete canyons and a gutted war zone where what little retail or dining options there are mostly shutter by 6PM.

Developers need to concentrate on better usage of existing buildings and property not grandstanding with more tall and empty buildings. When building something new they shouldn't try to make it stick up like a middle finger from the skyline. Build something friendly to nightlife and retail and open spaces.

If you ask me exactly what should go where that parking garage is? I would say a 10-20 story building with a grocery store, no less than two restaurants, and no less than 4 retail stores in its lower floors. And with a rule that none of them can close before midnight. You can't make Boston into NYC or Chicago just by adding tall buildings. They need to be alive at night.

up
Voting closed 0

I was at the program with Larry Beasley of Vancouver, the way to get those grocery stores and retail is to fill buildings with lots of people!

No grocery store will go into an area without a very strong residential population. By allowing developers to make money on the buildings, you can also require them to put a lot of public amenities in place, which serve their residents and the general public - everyone wins!

up
Voting closed 0

The highest density in Boston, last I heard. Or maybe it was Humboldt Street? Either one will do.

up
Voting closed 0

random question, but if you live in A/B and work downtown, why do you take the B-line instead of the 501/503 buses? It's something I've wondered a lot when I see people taking the B-line from my hood to points beyond BU.

up
Voting closed 0

The B Line is literally right outside the front door whereas such express bus stops are far far away.

up
Voting closed 0

Why do people like BlackKat even visit forums like this if they hate urban life so much? All these people should feel free to enjoy their Applebees and Route 9 strip malls if that's their idea of what makes a neighborhood. Enjoy your life in Natick. But please spare us your opinions about the city - something you clearly care little about anyway, not to mention know little about.

I hope the evil Prudential Wind Current doesn't get you when you make your annual visit to downtown.

up
Voting closed 0

If you read above you will note I live in Allston. Like most people in this city I love urban life which is why we choose to not live in a part of the city that is a ghost town at night. You can't make a city great with tall buildings alone.

And my biggest argument isn't that there shouldn't be tall buildings. Just that they need to be necessary which based on the office vacancy rate in downtown Boston of 15% and rising... seems not to be the case. You should not build for the sake of building alone.

up
Voting closed 0

I don't think the problem is towers per say, but lack of mix zoning and residential. Things that people only recently have been trying to reintroduce to those areas where commercial space used to be [and still is] the king.

I do find it very odd that you find that area around the Pru not to you're liking. It has a pretty vibrant night life past 5, even if it's retail shops close earlier.

The financial district is the worst offender, and I really think DTX's woes have more to do with the financial district, then anything else. There's just not enough residents in the area for a bustling community to grow. It's a rest stop for those heading to and from all the commercial buildings, and that needs to change. It is, but very, very slowly. And luxury condo's where people lock themselves in, complain about everything, all have cars in an underground valet lot, and have everything delivered to their door aren't going to help DTX.

Funny enough, right next door is China Town and the Theater district, where residential densities are up there, and you get that vibrant community popping up.

up
Voting closed 0

BlackKat seems pretty urbanoid to me, probably in the fifth of Bostonians who vote, she is in the leftward fifth, which loses all the time to the other voting blocs... and you're to her left... which is to say, she is in the 20% of 20% that might agree with you, but she's not urbanist enough for you. You might be surprised who else lives in this city. It must be a world of wonders to you.

up
Voting closed 0

You don't even seem to have a clue what "urban life" means for most vibrant, thriving cities.

Go tour Vancouver, Chicago, Portland, San Francisco, Manhattan and then reread what BlackKat has to say. As someone who visits other cities on a regular basis, I can tell you that she's spot on about the need for life in a city - life that we don't have downtown. These cities all have clear requirements for developers and clear plans for development other than "we can solve all the problems of egotowers with blank facades by building another egotower with blank facades in our cemetary of downtown".

Other cities do have their problems, but thriving cities have a vision of "urban life" that is not 7-11 and Dunkin and CVS and nothing else, with blank building walls creating a fortress effect elsewhere. You seem to want Boston to be something like LA or Dallas - places that die at night - and yet you accuse her of wanting the city to be a suburb because she wants the things those of us who travel see thriving in better run cities?

up
Voting closed 0

You took everything that has been rolling around in my head(and heart, because I Love Boston, and I want to see it progress...), un-jumbled it, and put it in words that need to be published city wide!!!
Do you have a blog??
Thank you so very much for your post, I am completely against this way of thinking of Mumbles and the BRA.
Is there anything we can do as Bostonians to change this way of thinking? I am really passionate about this, as I dream of Boston getting the respect it deserves in the cities of the world.

up
Voting closed 0