Hey, there! Log in / Register

Residents of 12-story luxury building on Greenway object to proposed 13-story hotel

NorthEndWaterfront.com reports on a community meeting about a proposed hotel on N. Washington Street that grew cries of opposition from a number of nearby residents - including an official of the condo board at Strada 234, who said the building is 60 feet too tall and would block some of his residents' views of the Custom House, which means it's worth suing over, if it comes to that.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 


Ad:


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

Comments

It seems like it's more the equivalent of 15 stories.

up
Voting closed 0

Should consider themselves lucky they have windows they can look out of at all, and not only windows into an air shaft that if open or un-obscured would give the neighbors on the other side a free show. Someone needs to make the complainants live in a sewer with CHUD.

up
Voting closed 0

Come on everybody, let's be sympathetic. These people moved to downtown Boston, right next to North Station, looking for a little bit of peace and quiet. And now this HUGE hotel is going to ruin the small town village feel of the area. Pretty soon there will be so much crowding, and noise, and traffic in the area that their kids won't be able to happily play in the middle of Causeway Street, as their parents did, and their own parents before them.

up
Voting closed 0

There's more than NIMBYism going on here.

...residents living on N. Washington Street and at the Strada building on Causeway Street expressed major concerns that the height exceeds zoning of 100 feet in the Bulfinch Triangle. At 147 feet (before 10-15 feet in mechanicals) the 88NOWA hotel will be slightly below that of the neighboring Murano which is 160 feet. Neighbors noted that the 100 feet limit has been repeatedly exceeded by the ongoing developments in the area.
. . .
Another North End resident took issue with how the 88NOWA proposal extends into the existing public sidewalk space and narrows access at the intersection of Valenti Way and N. Washington Street.

If zoning restrictions are being ignored, it's a real issue, as are the concerns about buildings encroaching on public-access ways like sidewalks and streets. When developers are allowed to eat into those spaces, we won't have anywhere to put our spacious new bicycle lanes and community gardens.

up
Voting closed 0

Its annoying when people say dumb crap like "you can't block my view of the Custom House" because it can overshadow real issues like developers screwing over pedestrians, park users, etc.

up
Voting closed 0

The building complaining also got a variance, and exceeds the 100 foot zoning.

Being Boston, it is seemingly easier to give everyone a variance than it is to try to rezone anything.

Also, insert general sarcastic remark about someone living next to an empty lot, then being shocked when something is built there...

up
Voting closed 0

If zoning restrictions are being ignored, it's a real issue

The issue is that the current zoning code is outdated, unreasonable, and needs to be replaced. But status quo will be maintained because NIMBYs know more development will be allowed as of right and City Hall knows they won't be able to cut their backroom deals.

up
Voting closed 0

What gets me about this site is that everyone is out to skewer the people who live in luxury downtown condos. Yet, all the "feel the bern" socialists are more than happy to give away free money to billionaire developers so they can profit by breaking zoning laws.

Zoning is 100 feet here and that was set fairly recently. So why is a developer allowed to go to 160 feet?

The title of the article blames the residents for complaining because they invested in a condo with a view (protected by zoning around them) and now that is being taken away. You have to be pretty bitter to celebrate when other people get the shaft.

Residents, no matter who they are, should be able to live without fear that a well-connected developer is going to hurt them because the city gives out zoning variances like candy. This doesn't happen in other cities. Variances need to prove hardship. There is no hardship here and the last thing that area needs is a micro-hotel.

Courts have long upheld that light, air and even views around a property are rights held by the property owner. Developers who take those away should pay damages or be prevented from doing so in the first place.

up
Voting closed 0

Yes, reasonable restrictions on development are needed and should be maintained. People can disagree on what is reasonable, but a bigger city isn't always better.

up
Voting closed 0