Hey, there! Log in / Register

Councilor seeks exemption for law aimed at protecting the Emerald Necklace from tall nearby buildings for proposed Fenway apartment building

The Boston City Council this week agreed to consider a proposal by Councilor Sharon Durkan (Fenway, Back Bay, Beacon Hill, Mission Hill) to amend an ordinance aimed at preventing some city parks and parkways from being overwhelmed by tall buildings next to them to allow a tall residential building next to the Charlesgate section of the Emerald Necklace.

The then BPDA board last month approved plans by Scape, a European developer that has several Fenway-area projects underway, to replace three little used commercial buildings where Boylston and Ipswich streets meet Charlesgate overlooking the turnpike with a 28-story, 400-unit apartment building along with a new open stairway and elevator to connect Boylston and Ipswich. The proposed building would have 68 affordable units - 16 more than required by city regulations.

The problem is a city ordinance that forbids new construction of buildings more than 70 feet tall on lots within 100 feet of parts of the Emerald Necklace (as well as certain parkland in South Boston and Brighton), and the proposed 2 Charlesgate West would be both within that zone and 280 feet tall.

At a council meeting earlier this week, Durkan said Boston's need for more housing is just so acute, the city needs to let the Scape project proceed.

"We don't have option to not build more housing," she said.

She emphasized that, if approved, the exemption for the project would be a one-time exemption, rather than a precedent that could lead to more towers along the city's famous stretch of parkland, one that would respect the "context" of the park.

Her formal request for an exemption written into the ordinance has the approval of the city Parks and Recreation Department, which wrote that without it written into code, it could become a precedent that would lead to additional development right on the park's borders if, for example, the Zoning Board of Appeal granted a variance.

To gain BPDA approval, Scape agreed, in addition to the new outdoor stairway and elevator, to "provide an accessible public bathroom for park visitors that will be open year-round and feature wayfinding" that would point people to those restrooms, give the Parks and Recreation Department $500,000 for "parks and open space improvements in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site" and give DCR $200,000 for tree care on nearby state land.

The approval also calls for another $30,000 to the city for tree care and $40,000 to install lighting near the Leif Erikson statue on the Commonwealth Avenue mall.

This is not the first time a tall Boston building has run into park issues. In 2017, the city and the developers of the Winthrop Square tower had to get a change to a state law barring shadows on the Common to allow construction of that project.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon Durkan's complete proposal173.85 KB


Ad:


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

Comments

"Shadows are bad!" is a NIMBY trope. You know what is nice? Shade. Shade is nice in the summer. But god forbid a building in the city cast a shadow, good heavens, no, we can not have that.

(This is especially true since half of the "emerald necklace" is now a highway, especially here. Proposal: if 10% of a shadow is cast across a roadway it should not count as a park.)

up
38

100%. Fear of shade is a nimby excuse to prevent change.

up
21

… a good thing.

up
17

at all. Some development has had to take place, and it has, but overdevelopment is very harmful.

Tall buildings cast more than just plant killing shade.
If you want more shade, plant trees.

up
38

Trees need sunlight. That is how trees get their calories. Arguing that shadows are a NIMBY trope contradict the science. Shadows reduce the amount of energy that trees receive.

If you were disallowed from consuming a healthy amount of calories what will happen? Disease, loss of muscle mass, breaking down the systems that keep mind and body going.

Trees are living creatures. They do not walk or talk but they are very much alive. Small and large natural areas are interdepent. Trees are the usually the largest members of any local natural area. Fancy word being ecosystem. Weaken trees and the immediate ecosystem is weakened.

Given the fact that natural environments, i.e., not built environments, are necessary for mental and physical health doesn't it make sense that we should do everything possible to support natural environments instead of weakening them?

up
13

If this is the old TNT building, anything on the necklace will get morning and midday sun. Shade would only happen mid to late afternoon. Assuming this is not precedent setting.

Surely there are others that remember a tower proposal on this site perhaps a decade or two ago, or am I wrong?

Following that logic, build affordable housing ln the park. Housing is more important than parkland.

up
17

Housing is more important than golfing.

Let's rip up Storrow Drive, build some housing and expand the Esplanade back to its former glory!

Housing is more important than traffic.

up
40

Boston, in fact, IS building housing. Which cannot be said of nearly the rest of the state.

The focus needs to be back on the MBTA Commuter law and the rest of MA.

Boston (proper) has a population equal to about 10% of MA's total population, but is permitting nearly 20% of the new housing in Massachusetts for 2024. Punching nearly 2x above its weight.
And little Newton has about 1.5% of the population of MA but is contributing to nearly 5% of MA's new housing in 2024. Punching over 4x above its weight.
Cambridge also having a particularly bonkers year punching almost 6x above its weight.

Meanwhile, Milton has zoned a grand total of 7 units for 2024. That's 0.08% of the state's planned housing stock, for a direct neighbor of Boston with 0.3% of the state's population. That means it's punching at 0.20x of its weight. Literally doing as little as they can possibly get away with.

For anyone who doesn't believe it, read the data and weep: state level , city level

Boston in fact is keeping pace, and then some. It's the nimby commuter suburbs that continue to exacerbate the housing crises by refusing to zone more housing, and foisting it all on Boston. Yes we all need to contribute. But Boston damn sure doesn't need to compromise its own "historic character" when faced with such blatant hypocrisy from so many of its neighbors.

up
27

A. Is everyone for sale?
B. This is one example of how we break Boston.
C. If your email says “urgent” it’s a phishing scam.
D. I don’t deny there is a housing shortage, but don’t believe any bait and switch, or Trojan Horse of “affordable units.” If there weren’t a housing crisis would we allow developers to run roughshod over the Emerald Necklace, or any other priceless virtue in the city and state?
E. We can do better. Put affordable units here without extorting us.
F. And the Bowker Overpass. Who wants the new massive one where the old one is just fine? The chicane is fine by me. I don’t need to haul my old ass on my bike over a bridge no matter how many switchbacks you install. Let me bike the river circuit at grade level. As for daylighting the Muddy… it’s kinda petered out at that point, is that reason enough to supersize the Bowker?

up
24

Is a word I learned earlier today.

“To gain BPDA approval, Scape agreed, in addition to the new outdoor stairway and elevator, to "provide an accessible public bathroom for park visitors that will be open year-round and feature wayfinding" that would point people to those restrooms,”

Haha! Sure he does. This would be closed the first week due to “security reasons”, if even actually built. Some reason would come up to scrap this from the project after approval.

up
30

Is that, like, signs?

up
12

… or an on-site guru.

Let's get some environmental protections from all the vehicular traffic around the Emerald Necklace.

If conservation is genuinely the concern here regarding large buildings and shadows, then those in opposition should also want protections from pollution and noise.

Cut down the lanes, expand the sidewalks and plant a ton more trees!

up
32

Needed more than a "like" click

up
11

Is there anything left protecting? The largest park made a parking lot for a private soccer team, trees dying everywhere, and to say nothing of Boston Common.

And see for yourself.

up
12

When were you in Boston Common last time?

I'm pretty sure the link to the location in the story is down the street from where they are planning this. https://maps.app.goo.gl/aQDuzjAMmNkwYxPY7

BTW, go ahead and build it!