Hey, there! Log in / Register
Who would you rather have deciding what gets built downtown: The BRA or the state legislature?
By adamg on Mon, 12/14/2009 - 10:40pm
John Keith reports a bill by state Reps. Marty Walz, D-Back Bay, and Byron Rushing, D-Roxbury/South End, would effectively block all new development in parts of downtown, the North End and the Back Bay.
H.R. 853 goes before the Joint Committee on the Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture for a hearing tomorrow (Dec. 15), at 11 a.m. in State House Room A2.
The bill would bar any buildings that would case "a new shadow" on the Esplanade, Christopher Columbus Park, the Commonwealth Avenue Mall, Copley Square Park or the Kennedy Greenway - along with Magazine Beach Park in Cambridge. Currently, only Boston Common is subject to such restrictions - the BRA controls the heights of buildings near the other parks.
Keith is no fan of the bill:
[I]t would stop any and all significant development from happening anywhere in the downtown Boston area, bringing the city to a standstill and potentially damaging prospects of future growth.
The Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay, which rarely likes any new development, enthusiastically supports the measure:
We are excited about this legislation, which will be critical in protecting our historic parks from shadows cast by excessively tall buildings.
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Negatively affecting Cities and Towns since the 18th Century
"It would set precedence that Commonwealth state legislators can, at will, write and enact laws that negatively affect cities and towns"
This piece of legislation would set that precedent? Oh John, dear John, where have you been since the founding of the modern Commonwealth? Without putting too fine a point on it, the cities and towns, as political subdivisions of the Commonwealth exist at the pleasure of the Commonwealth. As a matter of fact, there are many, particularly within the ranks of those who preach regional planning, who argue that many of us would be better served by ending certain cities and towns. But I digress.
While it is absolutely an absurd bill, it is also a vast overstatement so say that it would "stop all significant development from happening anywhere in the downtown Boston area". That presupposes, amongst other things, that you define "significant development" only as really tall buildings.
Semantics aside...
Email or call your state rep ASAP. This is a terrible bill based on a rediculous notion that shadows are a greater threat than urban sprawl. Boston needs more density in its core... even if it means more shadows on some of our incredibly historic parks like the Rose Kennedy Greenway (completed c. 2008). Density is good for the environment, the economy, and quality of life. Those who want to turn Boston into a vast suburb should move to Weston and be done with it.
The whole point of cities is
The whole point of cities is to build densely going up and not out. The bill in the long term is going to destroy more pristine land through sprawl in an attempt to stifle mere shadows in parks. This is tantamount to using a shotgun to kill the mosquito on your face or amputating a finger over a broken nail.
Density != high rise development
Many cities acheive density without using high rise buildings - Dublin and Paris come to mind. What they do is consistently build out the city with 4-6 storey buildings on small lots with small set-backs.
Somerville is one of the most densely populated areas in the country, without many high rise developments to drive that. Portland has squeezed in 250,000 people to join the 450,000 that were there, mostly through mid-rise infill within existing geographic development limits and not with high rise development.
Rather than pack the core with high rises, Boston would do much better to densify the residential districts - the areas that generate sprawl - through infill and rebuild with row houses at moderate heights on small lots. In the short run, improving transit to existing densely builit (but not densly populated) areas would also drive infill and rebuilding with more density. This results in housing that is attractive and plentiful and close in, and preserves light and space.
The BRA just likes high rises because they make huge profits for their friends, look like they are doing something about housing, and spare the suburbs from having to change their sacred sprawling ways. If they really wanted to "redevelop Boston", they would do so in a vastly more comprehensive way that is sensitive to the history of the city.
There's an idea
Maybe instead of making the Back Bay look like Houston, we could make the rest of Boston look like the Back Bay...
Somerville is not really all
Somerville is not really all that dense. It's a city of mostly 2 and 3 story houses with yards. The figures are misleading because Somerville doesn't have significant industrial areas or open water figured into their total square mileage.
Additions/corrections
1) I believe current shadow laws protect the Boston Common AND the Public Garden
2) I don't think you'll find that the Neighborhood Association has objected to a single project in recent years that conforms to zoning (although there have been cases where they have criticized the architecture - especially the Mandarin which in hindsight was very well deserved and the current proposals for the former Shreve's building at Arlington and Boylston. I believe the Neighborhood Assn did agree with a group working toward landmarking the property - it's a fairly unique to Boston art deco building, especially the interior - but the landmarking request was denied. A private group continues to pursue landmarking in the courts). Neighborhood objections come from two primary concerns:
a) the BRA changes the zoning to fit the project (surprised?) knowing that virtually anybody that has standing will simply not put up the tens of thousands of dollars and years of effort to fight the project -
b) projects on turnpike rights/PDA's etc. that are not subject to zoning - like the Simon Properties Neiman Marcus project
3) There are at least five projects approved or in planning that affect these parks:
a) 888 Boylston - approved (will add shadows to Comm Ave Mall)
b) Simon Copley - planning (shadows to Copley and Comm Ave Mall)
c) Garage next to Back Bay station - planning (shadows to Copley and Comm Ave mall)
d) Christian Science Church Plaza - planning (shadows on Comm Ave mall)
e) Berklee dorm/classroom/administration - planning (shadows on Comm Ave mall)
If all are built, you could have a total of 7 buildings that cast shadows on the Comm Ave Mall intermittently and five that would shadow Copley plaza until mid-afternoon most of the year.
To the best of my knowledge the BRA supports all of the projects in planning
You can add the government
You can add the government center garage and the aquarium garage developments that will be affect by the legislation as they will both cast shadows on the RK Greenway-Boston's most historic park of all!
Does it occur to people that parks are only used, at most, 6 months of the year? Certainly not a reason to prohibit shadows. Especially projects that only cast shadows for a few hours a day!
Also, the current situation has not lead to the common being completely shadowed.
Development on the Christian
Development on the Christian Science Plaza will cast shadows on the Comm Ave Mall? Really? Is the building going to be 138 floors tall? I'm not an astronomer, but that seems like a stretch to me. Nonwithstanding the mere distance between the two, there are dozens of other buildings that would intercept the shadow before it reaches the Mall, not the least of which is 360 Newbury (which itself is one block from Comm Ave and doesn't cast any shadows there. By this reasoning, I suppose the proposed One Fenway project near Kenmore Square will cast shadows on the Arnold Arboretum?
Agreed. Plus state involvement in zoning issues not new.
Stevil is right on the above, especially 2a.
If the BRA could be trusted to enforce the zoning code, we wouldn't have zoning by variance for favored developers, as is the case now, and there wouldn't be a need for this legislation. However, the BRA doesn't, so the legislation is needed.
Maybe we wouldn't have had this issue if the Legislature had not authorized the BRA charter in the first place. Since they did, however, I don't have a problem with the Legislature now effectively policing the BRA. Yes, the proposal applies beyond BRA development, but so what. State money created the Greenway and many other parks, so the state has an interest in protecting them.
So
So are you pointing out things or are you taking a side?
Both
In this post pointing out things. However, I definitely support the legislation - there are many places to build without creating shadows on these parks. Just as an example, I looked at some proposed new zoning for Stuart street area today that had at least 6 possible locations for towers. Only one would cast new shadows on Copley and that wouldn't if they cut it from 300 feet to about 200 feet. some were too far away or were blocked by existing buildings that already cast shadows.
Heard a) you didn't testify today - what happened?
and b) also heard the Greenway has been removed from the legislation
That's just half the problem
Protecting neighborhoods is a valiant goal, one I would support.
It's how we get there that's the problem. "Orders from on high" are not the appropriate way to get things done. I thought we had a mayor in this town?
I did not make the hearing as I am working full-time in an office for a month or two. I did hear rumblings last night that plans were under way to modify the proposal so that it wouldn't include the Rose Kennedy Parkway (it would continue to include the Christopher Columbus Park, however).
That's at least an improvement.
Marty Walz just took money out of Simon Properties' pockets. Do you think they'll be pleased by that?
Oh, and need I mention, the "Back Bay" barely reaches the mall and is on the "other" side of Boylston Street, meaning it would, in normal circumstances, be outside the control of the Back Bay neighborhood associations.
What she's attempting to do here is expand her fiefdom.
Normally I'd agree
In an ideal world - but we have a mayor who looks at the Back Bay and more generally downtown as an ATM - build a giant condo building - get $15 million worth of incremental taxes that cost almost nothing to the city (no kids in the schools, virtually no police needed, modern fire code building, infrastructure already in place). Build an office building and it's maybe $30 million. The mayor should be all over this legislation- but is apparently opposed because it would disrupt the cash flow he desperately needs.
This isn't suburban yankee legislators forcing things down the throats of Bostonians like Storrow Drive. This is Bostonians reaching out to their own legislators asking for help from a too powerful mayoral system that has failed them - there are reasons Menino lost Ward 5 and this is one of them. I heard one State Senator quipped when asked about the process of the BRA that "There's a crisis of confidence in the BRA".
The simon tower (which I liked above the 6th floor or so and would have been almost fully visible out my back window) will probably never get built - nothing to do with shadows - the engineering is near impossible - and as I said elsewhere the base was a giant monolithic glass block - really ugly at streetlevel.
BTW - Do you know where there is a map online for Reps districts?
Boston has a long - and
Boston has a long - and notorious - history of building height regulation. The Custon House tower was added on to the original, smaller building. When built, it was the tallest building in the city. The only reason the now-landmark was able to be added was that it was Federal property, and not subject to city regulations. The city of Boston fought it at the time, huffing and puffing all the way.
By the middle of the 20th Century, downtown Boston was a run-down shit-hole, with hardly a new building erected since the 1800s. Those non-existent building would have held jobs, which would have brought spending and tax income. Instead, Curley raised taxes on businesses to higher and higher levels, compounding the effect. All of this lead straight to the backlash of the New Boston and the razing of the West End.
What is the cost of a shadow?
Assignment for ya, notwhitey
Starting at Faneul Hall, walk up Congress Street into the financial district, cutting right at Devonshire. Do this on a dark day, within the next 10 days.
What you find won't be welcoming - it is foreboding. There is no light to be had anywhere. Except for the little park that will be overshadowed by the proposed Mennego Monument.
Thn explain Post Office Square's popularity
So why is it, Swirly, that when faced with a choice between Post Office Square and the often just-as-close Greenway, office workers in the "foreboding" financial district choose on nice days, to sit and eat in shadowed POS rather than the open-sky Greenway?
Because it looks like San Francisco
Or Vancouver, or Seattle there. At least that's what most of my coworkers exclaimed when I led them to it once we moved downtown.
It isn't all that much in shadow or else the trees wouldn't grow - the buildings to the south aren't so tall and the streets surrounding it are wide. If the BRA had been involved, however, it would have been another egomonumental high rise crammed in there.
But, hey, I mentioned other cities and now some anon is going to attack me for that, too.
But guess what...
The buildings that surround Post Office Square were there BEFORE the park. If conversely the park had been there first, and this law was in effect over the square, those buildings wouldn't have been built. You'd be left with a much less vibrant plot of green space... more like what the Greenway is today and will continue to always be if this law passes.
People go to Post Office
People go to Post Office Square because it has SHADE!, the dreaded, foreboding SHADE! When it's hot, people want to be in the SHADE! and our sun is too low and weak the rest of the year to make much of a difference. That's way there are trees in the park and outdoor cafes have awnings and umbrellas. Because SHADE! is a good think. It's not to be feared and dreaded. You'll survive the SHADE!. Don't be scared. Hanging out in the sun leads to premature aging (best case scenario) or skin cancer (worst case scenario). Don't fear the SHADE!
So you personally find that
So you personally find that disquieting. Some of us find it intriguing. But the point is that decisions about height shouldn't rest on individual aesthetics. It's a larger discussion than that. And though it may well be a discussion we should have, a restriction shouldn't be forced down from above.
The legislature used to love passing laws that controlled what Boston could and couldn't do. They just hated to see power move in to Irish hands. This sort of legal structure is outdated and should not be encouraged.
It gets old quick
Yeah, sometimes I like to think of it as biking or walking into the Emerald City ... but that wears off as the light dims in winter.
There is the additional problem of energy efficiency - lights on all the time because there is no natural light is expensive and wasteful.
I agree the legislature should stay out of it - unless they want to mandate comprehensive regional land use planning with authority for the entire Boston connurbation. That would be the best of all situations.
Yeah, I would support a move
Yeah, I would support a move toward regional planning, and don't think there is any way to do that without state legislative action. For one thing, regional planning would make it easier to avoid the over building that leads to shadow canyons. We have far too large a standard deviation for density, and the current system tends to only support locating new density where it already exists. Hence, the NIMBY complaints about shadows. But lacking such a structure, we can't selectively tighten zoning to suit the needs of one neighborhood at the expense of others and vice verca. It needs to be comprehensive.
Also worth noting -- the canyon you've described would not be intentionally prevented by this legislation.
I was walking up Congress
I was walking up Congress street long before you got to town, dearie. Boston is a city. That's C-I-T-Y. If you don't like cities, go live and work in the 99% of the country that's not a downtown district. There's no shortage of sunshine in Keokuk.
And Happy Holidays!
I like cities - well planned ones
So you walk up Congress Street - ever walk in any other city? Doesn't sound like it.
So list the other cities you have walked around. I challenge you to call San Francisco, Paris, London, Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Dublin to be "not cities". Yet, you just did by your definition of a "city" as equivalent to "poorly planned mess of towers and narrow streets running in random directions".
It's not really fair to
It's not really fair to compare Boston with some of these other cities. I can't speak for London or Dublin, but Paris and San Francisco benefit from a substantially newer street pattern than Boston has. San Francisco was a grid from the start (which, incidentally, was a bad choice), opening the ends of the canyon and providing sunlight. Paris was once like Boston but thanks to the whims of royalty, it is now broad boulevards and rational. Much of Boston would have to be destroyed to achieve the sort of open pattern required to lessen the impact of shadows.
And not for nothing, but the narrow winding streets we have in Boston are quite a bit of the reason that so many find our city charming.
Consider this
Many older cities rationalized their street plans after massive fires, Chicago being one of them. Boston widened a few streets after the last big fire, but refused to buck the big landlords and reassign land to reallign the street grids. It isn't so much about destroying something now as it was about an opportunity that was lost to history - despite there being more than ample precident at the time on two continents.
Thanks for the history lesson,
but we are talking about zoning away shadows today, not lost opportunities from several decades ago. To fix the problem you've described, we'd need to pull another West End. Try selling that to anybody!
The issue isn't preventing perma-shadow over an entire street-scape -- nobody thinks that is a good idea generally speaking. But are we going to let passing shadows stop development? Two different issues, really.
Doughnuts
There's a hole in your argument - most of the parks we are talking about are all or mostly in the Back Bay - a district modeled after Paris with straight roads and broad boulevards. The Kennedy greenway also forms the broad boulevard created by government fiat when they built the elevated expressway.
Bottom line - just about anything built to current zoning standards would not cause shadows on these parks with the exception of turnpike air rights where there are no zoning restrictions (probably only the FAA and homeland security could technically put a stop to a 10,000 foot tower). We are looking for protection from the BRA that approves just about anything put in front of them that will create incremental taxes for the city (I've heard the assessing department now sits in on a lot of development meetings)
In almost all of these locations - except maybe the Columbus Park which is threatened by Chiofaro's tower - you could easily build to 200-250 feet without any shadow impact. It's beyond that where shadows encroach on the parks - although most of these areas are zoned about 100-150 feet.
Notwhitey asks what's the cost of a shadow? Hard to tell exactly - but ask the people on the north side of Comm Ave that pay a premium to live on the "sunny side" of the street or the restaurants on the north of Newbury who probably get 3-4 weeks of extra season out of their patios because they are in the sun. Check with the restaurants that have the Mandarin now looming over them all day how the construction has worked out for them? Not seeing a booming patio biz over there even in the nice weather. I won't even walk there unless I am going to a specific store - too depressing - I go over to the north side of Newbury whenever possible.
Want to see the impact of shadows - forget Congress Street - wander over to Copley early/mid morning even on a nice day and see how inviting the square is in front of the church - it's not and you'll only see the City Year kids doing exercises and people scurrying to work - even in better weather.
PS - swirly - you left off DC - one of my favorite cities - and save the Capitol - I don't think there's anything over 150 feet for miles due to well enforced zoning.
Im sorry, did you just
Im sorry, did you just suggest that the BRA approves everything? Even suggesting that the BRA approves "most" proposals would be laughable. I'd raise my eyebrows at the statement "the BRA approves a large minority of projects"
It's sort of hard to continue reading an argument that starts off so very, very wrong.
Irony!
Interesting that you should cite this for an example. The Mandarin is just the type of building we will get if taller buildings are outlawed. Imagine a llower (than the Mandarin) street wall punctuated here and there by a tower. That would cause less shadow on most sidewalks, though I admit the parks would get a bit more than they do now. If you can't build towers, the economical alternative is the landscraper. Talk about guaranteeing shadowy canyons for a street pattern!
Not true
Stevil, below is a link to a page where you can view what is being proposed for Parcel 9 on the Greenway.
The building is, I think, six-stories tall. As you can see, shadows are already creeping into the street at what may be around 3 PM in the afternoon.
The legislation outlaws any building that would cast a shadow at any time from one hour past sunrise to one hour before sunset.
This simple six-story building would be banned from being constructed if the law was passed as proposed.
Does that make any sense?
http://johnakeithrealestate.com/wp-content/uploads...
Boston only has a small area
Boston only has a small area of narrow winding streets. For the most part, Boston has wide streets. If you want to see what a city with narrow streets is like, go to Philadelphia. (I'm serious)
I notice you conveniently
I notice you conveniently left New York off that list.
Idiocy knows no end. I'll
Idiocy knows no end. I'll borrow and paraphrase Mark Twain's take on the local weather. Don't like the shadow cast by that building? Wait 15 minutes!
common sense
This bill is rediculous and will kill a lot of new developments for the city. And as far as city's financial health goes, a city is ether growning or dying. This will truely have a negative impact on the city. Shadows arn't the end of the world and they pass by. What do these same people propose about the large trees in the common that also cast shadows?
Just a little historical tidbit
When the Back Bay was filled in the 19th century, the city was bumped out of the process and the land was divided between private developers and the Commonwealth. A state commission got to hire the architects and develop the rectangle between Beacon Street, Arlington Street, Boylston Street and Exeter/Fairfield streets.
"The city, which had been uncooperative throughout, and rapacious in its demands, was excluded from the distribution of land for filling, although it and the Commonwealth agreed to build jointly the new Arlington Street, from Beacon to Boylston Streets, west of the Public Garden."
-Walter Muir Whitehill's topographical history of Boston
This bill has absolutely no justification.
People need to realize that Boston is a major city, not a suburban town. Shadow is and will always be a factor in this city's future. However, barring any shadow on parks, any parks, those mentioned and those that aren't is absurd to the point of ridiculous. How much prime space are left underdeveloped, especially those in Downtown and Back Bay where towers should be allowed to be built if this bill passes. They talk about how barring shadow will be helpful for the environment but fail to mention that taller and higher density buildings are much more environmentally friendly and efficient than low-rise buildings. People complain about the lack of shades on the RFK Greenway but then makes a complete U-turn in saying that any shadow cast on the Greenway will turn it into a wasteland. I went by Post Office Square and it is always in shadows. Yet it is one of the more successful park and it is definitely not full of gimpy trees that are deprived of sunlight.
The Neighborhood Association of Back Bay are against buildings of excessive height but does not define it. In fact, excessive height to them is any building that would require an elevator. Obviously there should be a line that should be drawn for how much shadow a building is allowed to cast but barring any shadow on parks is overdoing and threatens the cities future. Think about it, if this bill passes, what stopping another bill from passing that protects all other decent size parks. Developers will have no where else to build but into low-rise neighborhoods, something that is very undesirable for many communities.
So to issacg, no, it isn't a overstatement on what John Keith said. Developers will not able to develop in the vicinity of the parks mentioned which encompasses a large part of the Downtown and Back Bay area. It's not even a question. Any area around the parks will be official off-limits for high density development. Developers will be forced to build in or near low-rise neighborhood and getting any approval from the BRA, the city, and the community is impossible. There WILL NOT be any significant development with the signing of this bill.
The BRA isn't going to rescue
The BRA isn't going to rescue Boston. The BRA has run the development show with graft, favoritism, and not-quite-indicted leadership. When that kind of government landed Chelsea in the hole, the state took over and turned it around -- it's not a vacation destination, but it's a lot better than it would be today if they'd simply given the powers-that-were yet another chance to shaft its residents.
The Legislature, bad as it is, can't possibly be worse than the Boston Redevelopment Authority.
Keep the Greenway Green
After waiting decades for the Expressway to be dismantled, and the Big Dig to be completed, and The "Greenway" installed, many Boston residents and workers value and want to enjoy the health, aesthetic, and spiritual aspects of greenspace and Nature in the urban environment. If anyone wants to enjoy being outside, one is inclined to seek sunshine, not shadow. The variety of plants that can be grown in sunshine is more vibrant and varied than shade plants. Real estate in the sun is more valuable than in shadow.
Let's be real...
Developers who overpay for properties need not be rewarded for their error. No one is trying to stop development. Why does the public have to suffer for their folly of paying too much? Reasonable sized buildings, with a human scale along The Greenway, instead of monuments to ego benefit the city. Boston is considered the most "European" East Coast city because of charm.
There is no need to have shade because of individual developers who don't make reasonable acquisitions. Ask them why they paid so much, when others would not?
It was their mistake to buy in the height of the market and not know what they were buying; it is not the public's responsibility to bail them out by sacrificing public sunshine, public greenspace, and billions of dollars in public investment in The GREENway.
It's not a "greenway", it's a
It's not a "greenway", it's a six lane surface highway riddled with on and off ramps and a missed opportunity to fix the scar left by the central artery. Boston doesn't need more sloppy undefined open space, it needs less of it.
Having some shadow DOES NOT turn the Greenway less green.
Your comment makes it seem like buildings' shadows will cover all parts of the Greenway all day like some ominous cloud that won't move. Get real. The Greenway will be in sunlight for a large portion of the day. Also, if a part of the Greenway is under a bit of shadow, THEN MOVE to the other side of the park. The whole park will not be under shadow especially when the park curves around the waterfront so that buildings do not cast a shadow on the whole length of the park at any point. You probably only need to move 20 feet to find yourself a nice area with a lot of sunlight.
Real Estate in the sun is more valuable? You're partially right but you have a great flaw. Let's be real here:
If the bill is passed, none of the land around it will be allowed to be developed into higher density. What holds more value, a high density building that can provide housing or office space or both with a park nearby, or a three story stump that fits maybe 20 units of converted condos or maybe one small company? You guessed it right, the high density building.
Your second and third paragraph is also based on perspective and does not speak for the entire public. Some people prefer having higher density development in the city because:
1) It creates construction jobs, badly needed jobs
2) It creates more housing, help increase the population in the city which benefits the city because higher population=more funding from the Government.
3) It creates more office space, further driving down office space cost and attracting more business into the city instead of sending them out into the suburb and around route 128.
4) The culmination of 2) and 3) creates a more walkable city. Instead of having to drive to the suburbs to get to work, they can just walk to their workplace or take the T.
5) It is more environmentally friendly and more efficient.
6) And for the NIMBYs, this keeps the skyscraper and high-rises in one place, next to all the other tall buildings instead of being built in their neighborhood.
And what would you consider as reasonable and human scale? The existing buildings? If so then yes, that's stopping development because nothing can be built any higher then them. In fact, if they did not exist, any building proposed at their height will probably be rejected as well for they too cast shadows on the park. The bill clearly states NO ADDITIONAL shadow, which means, regardless on how big a shadow a building cast, it will not be built.
And your last point, I would have to ask why should developers need someone else to dictate what they can do with THEIR land that THEY bought? It's like me telling my neighbors they need to chop down their trees because they are casting shadows down onto MY lawn.
Good news!
Good news, Fenway fans, your neighborhood will be protected, too!
According to this week's Boston Courant, State Representative Byron Rushing said he would "push to include the Fens if the bill passes, which would prevent the construction of buildings that would throw new shade on parks the first hour after sunrise through the last hour before sunset."
The Fenway Civic Association strong supports expanding the proposed bill.
Go, Boston!
I also propose that Audubon
I also propose that Audubon Circle, Kenmore Square and all of commonwealth ave (all the way!) gets added. There are trees that need sun there too.
Oh wait, this a state thing, so lets add beacon street in brookline as well, just in case.
Question
Ignoring "zoning free zones" like turnpike air rights, where could you build a project that complies with current zoning and casts shadows on these parks?