Hey, there! Log in / Register
Shadow war shifts back to City Hall
By adamg on Sat, 07/29/2017 - 10:03am
Gov. Baker yesterday signed a bit that will let a developer tear down the condemned Winthrop Square garage for a skyscraper that would cast some shadows on Boston Common - but only briefly, and in the winter, the developer says.
The law, which replaces one banning shadows on the Common, will ban other developers from erecting structures that would cast shadows on the Common, at least unless they offer the city a lot of money and officials ask the legislature to amend the law again.
Millennium Partners' 775-foot tower, for which it will pay the city a total of $153 million, some upfront, some as condos in the building sell, next goes before the BPDA for approval. Parks supporters who opposed the plan could try to convince the agency to block the structure, but the chances of that happening because of shadows are approximately zero. In a statement yesterday, BPDA Director Brian Golden hailed the governor for signing the bill:
This common sense change will better protect the Boston Common and Boston Public Garden for years to come while allowing a project that will generate hundreds of millions of dollars for Boston’s neighborhoods, parks and public housing to move forward.
The project could also face scrutiny from the FAA, which has been trying to tamp down new tall buildings in Logan flight paths, such as most of downtown.
Neighborhoods:
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
Wow
Wish I was rich enough to have the laws changed when I wanted to do something illegal.
The City/State
Is amending the law in order to sell a property the city owns to the highest bidder. The city is getting more money because of this.
Money
If money is all that matters they could just sell the Common outright.
Unfortunately
Money is what matters, its not a residential area so it tend to not have the same political ramifications from local residents.
Money changes everything!
Money changes everything!
Great cover! Let's recognize the wonderful original
.. by The Brains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLWbp3w2eqM
Song written (and originally performed, I guess) by Tom Gray.
Sell the Boston Common then ask the legislature to pass a law
Sell the Boston Common then ask the legislature to pass a law that says the Boston Common can't be sold again. Give the money to developers to build a new neighborhood at Widette Circle without schools or fire stations. Then give the developers 40 years of tax abatement. Then tell everyone you're running for re-election as the champion of the people.
Does it matter
Judging from what see on a pleasant stroll the other night. Bring on privatizing!!!
Dangerous from the looks of things.
BS
The city gets about $50 million incrementally above the other buds over time as the condos get built. Maybe. Thats about 1.5% of one year's budget. Once. This is not a deal worth changing laws over. Would you let someone build a permanent shadow over YOUR property for 1% of your income? Not me.
And let's face it. Next time someone waves a few mill at the city, Yogi will roll over in his grave and mutter deja vu all over again.
Well, yeah...
"Would you let someone build a permanent shadow over YOUR property for 1% of your income?"
I mean, yeah, I sure would. I'm getting a bargain if I'm being paid at all for what you do with your property. What a steal! I'd be able to pay for a round-trip flight to somewhere pretty nice every year.
Can the FAA block the building?
If so, through what means?
My understanding
is that they can reduce the height of the building. Maybe to 725 feet? Not sure.
Yeah, but what legal standing do they have?
Is there a federal statute which requires their approval for any structure within a few miles of an airport and above a certain height?
Drones
Same authority as when they banned drones wishing 5 miles of the airport?
Didn't realize this building would be able to fly
I remotely piloted drone and a building are two very different things.
That's reasonable
They already have federal authority to regulate anything which flies.
Buildings don't fly. (Too bad, as it would solve the current housing shortage.)
My understanding is that
the FAA height standards near airports do not have the force of law. But good luck getting insurance for your building if it's over the FAA height standards. No insurance no building.
My understanding also
My understanding also is that the FAA forced a reduction in height of the Harbor Towers because it was too close to the airport.
Say goodbye to ....
... Winthrop Square itself. A beautiful quiet little oasis where a little light comes in to brighten dark cramped streets. The trees there will die. Ubers will surround it. Even the pigeons will abandon it to the rats.
How nice for all the foreign investors and the wealthy looking for another pied à terre.
Baker is no friend of Boston.
In that regard, neither is
In that regard, neither is Marty
On the other hand, think of
On the other hand, think of how much nicer the Square will be when there's something across the street from it besides crumbling concrete walls and chain link fences with no trespassing signs on them.
I wouldn't ...
So, would you live or work in a building where the FAA says it's too tall and in the flight-path of jets full of fuel?
I wouldn't.
It will sink.
Just like the Millennium Tower in San Francisco is now sinking and tilting. Millennium sure knows how to build them!
That would be interesting if it sank
I used to work in the tower next door - these buildings are on original land, not made land (aka fill). Building on fill is usually what causes sinking problems.
You can find what is original land in the city from old maps.
Speak with
your votes. Getting angry on the Internet is cool and all, but if this upsets you (as it should), make sure you're out there on Nov 7 of this year and Nov 6 of next to really be heard.
Would love to
But what's the alternative?
Give me the $153 Million and
Give me the $153 Million and I'll come up with an idea that benefits everyone. Meanwhile let's settle for sunlight and affordable housing.
Boss
Who is the BPDA's boss? It doesn't seem like they have one, unless it is Baker and therefore the BPDA backs what he says. Tito, please come out against the BPDA - and the District 7 candidates.
Closest they'd get would be Walsh
Because he appoints its board members. Baker has no direct control over them (he got involved in this case because a state law that limited construction in certain areas near the Common and Public Garden had to be changed to allow the new tower). But despite its new name as an "agency," the BPDA in fact is an authority that is largely independent from city government. It was created by an act of the legislature, so if you want to get it under the direct control of city officials, you'd have to convince the legislature to do something.
I think it may be harder than that
Would have to check the charter again to be sure, but they are a creation of the legislature. However, they can only be disbanded by the board which has to determine that they have completed their urban renewal mission.
You'd think the fact that they changed their name to be a planning and development agency would be evidence of such, but apparently not.
Curious...how did the
Curious...how did the Millennium Tower escape this scrutiny? Surely it casts a long shadow over the Common as well/