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
Voting closed 89

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

up
Voting closed 54

… a good thing.

up
Voting closed 37

Must be nice to not worry about housing.

up
Voting closed 15

LOL

up
Voting closed 12

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

up
Voting closed 32

Please define "overdevelopment".

up
Voting closed 14

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

up
Voting closed 73

There is a big difference between the shade that trees cast ad the shadows of tall buildings. The latter are denser, and often accompanied by winds that make it uncomfortable to enjoy the parks they border. Yes we need more housing,but not at the expense of the green spaces that will make the housing livable.

up
Voting closed 17

^this

up
Voting closed 13

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
Voting closed 65

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?

up
Voting closed 22

… you do not have a green thumb.

up
Voting closed 17

Will be deprived of its sunlight by this tower.

Seriously, look at the location. The actual green part of the park is south of this site. The only part of the "park" that will be put in shade is already cement and blacktop.

up
Voting closed 28

Then maybe the regulations need to be rewritten so that they only apply if the shade hits the Necklace, rather than to any property within X feet of the Necklace in any direction.

up
Voting closed 12

Here’s an op-ed from the Globe in which two very popular politicians argue against adding housing which would create a shadow in a public park: Maybe Councilor Durkan thinks she can follow in their footsteps? $40,000 worth of lighting on the Comm Ave Mall just for facilitating a building in Fenway, is surely the type of pork that helps her constituents appreciate the councilor’s consummate political skill. If only spot zoning and special variances hadn’t so recently been discouraged.

up
Voting closed 9

We don’t “need” a 28 story building to solve the housing crisis. The nicest cities in the world, which are far denser than Boston, have much lower building heights. We shouldn’t be talking about this until the whole city is filled with 5 story apartment blocks.

Of course that wouldn’t make as much profit for this particular real estate developer. That’s what this project is really about, not solving the housing crisis.

up
Voting closed 16

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

up
Voting closed 38

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
Voting closed 78

… could be reclaimed from on street parking alone.
Mobile shelters, secure bike parking, food pantries and hygiene facilities for the unhoused would be a great choice for those parking spaces.
Green roof campgrounds and community gardens open to all on the tops of the exclusive luxury buildings.
The golf course is wasted on golfers and environmentally toxic chemicals. Same with Storrow. Drivers and more toxins.

up
Voting closed 21

Storrow Drive's got to go.

What a waste of prime park and housing space. You can take the Pike in.

It's also time to start planning a more robust transit line than the Green Lines west

up
Voting closed 25

Storrow is filled in land that was formerly the Charles River. It is not buildable. That granite wall alongside was the former sea wall. That includes all of that land including the Esplanade and Shell.

up
Voting closed 12

All of Back Bay is filled land that used to be the Charles, so I don't know what your point is.

up
Voting closed 15

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
Voting closed 65

Boston is creating more seats in commercial/research real estate than jobs — Bostons emphasis on non-residential real estate has exacerbated the housing crunch.

Boston collects commercial real estate tax and exports the residential requirements (schools, police, parks) to suburban communities.

Many suburbs are more populous than ever, whereas Boston is what 100,000 below its 1950 population?

up
Voting closed 11

With one in three office buildings vacant in downtown Boston, and with the hottest summers on record, why build another heat island? Why not use precious resources to convert existing vacant buildings to housing? Why not protect our precious oxygen generating, cooling oasis of our Greenway? And who is going to monitor and maintain the public toilets?

up
Voting closed 13

Boston and Cambridge would be doing their part except they are also permitting so much office/lab space that the amount of new housing is dwarfed by the amount of new demand they are creating. For example, if Boston allows offices with a cumulative 5,000 new employees and permits housing for only 2,000 new residents, it’s making the overall housing problem worse. The suburbs should definitely be creating more housing but Boston and Cambridge need to factor in the effect of the enormous amount of new office space they approve every year on the housing crisis (and for all of us that don’t have enough money to own property in Boston area, it is a crisis. For those that already do, it’s a bonanza they want to keep adding to.

up
Voting closed 14

I just wouldn’t weaponize what Milton has done as an excuse for Boston to continue its Hayley NIMBY tradition of “everything new is bad and scary. So don’t build.”

up
Voting closed 13

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
Voting closed 43

Is a word I learned earlier today.

up
Voting closed 29

“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
Voting closed 53

Is that, like, signs?

up
Voting closed 38

… or an on-site guru.

up
Voting closed 22

Peeing-eye dogs.

up
Voting closed 21

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
Voting closed 59

Needed more than a "like" click

up
Voting closed 23

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.

up
Voting closed 34

And see for yourself.

up
Voting closed 44

When were you in Boston Common last time?

up
Voting closed 16

And I was on the Common, not “in” it.

up
Voting closed 29

So you just look away from tents and drug use?

up
Voting closed 20

I’ve never seen tents. I’ve certainly been assaulted by cigarette, cigar and pot smoke on the Common but I’ve also just told people to stop it with no retaliation and some cooperation. I’ve also seen rangers put a stop to the offensive behavior which is more than I can say for Boston police elsewhere in the non park areas of the city.
Mostly what I see on the Common is people and animals enjoying themselves in a rare inner city spot of nature. Plus some beautiful and one also horrendous artworks.
I’ve spent time on the Common since I was a baby. I’ll always love it through its ups and downs.

up
Voting closed 25

Go to Boston Common and take pictures of these alleged tents and post the pics here.

I went through there on Thursday and didn't see a single tent. So ... put up pics or shut up.

up
Voting closed 26

Can't physically go since in Moscow now, but a comrade found this: https://311.boston.gov/tickets?filter%5Bsearch%5D=common+tent

up
Voting closed 11

since in Moscow

Thanks for confirming it, comrade.

up
Voting closed 7

… and tent dwellers in Red Square.

up
Voting closed 8

You’ll be comforted to know that the March for Jesus is coming to Boston Common this weekend to sanctify it and everyone on it.

up
Voting closed 8

I’m sorry to say…it doesn’t exist anymore. Just wait until the Revs build their 25-30k stadium in Everett. It’ll be a Boston you don’t even recognize.

up
Voting closed 12

You mean Everett I don't even recognize? A stadium on a private land cleaning up it in the process as opposed to on a public parkland?

up
Voting closed 11

we can start building in and/or looming over the Emerald Necklace. After that, we can finish Marty's plan to build out Long Island, and someday the rest of the Harbor Islands.

up
Voting closed 11

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!

up
Voting closed 18

This is reminiscent of what happened to Billionaires Row in Manhattan. NYC Central Park had firm height restrictions for the exclusive buildings along the parks' southern edge. That kept the park sunny. Then 15 years ago a developer managed to buy off enough government officials to get an exception for his skyscraper. That broke the dam so now everything is in that row is getting rebuilt taller.

up
Voting closed 15

“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.”

The long established parkland ordinance is a protection, it is a problem only for a developer who builds transient housing and politicians who haven’t done well creating housing for families and long term residents.

These politicians encouraged zoning variances for science labs on other Fenway neighborhood sites zoned for 60% housing.

The public Zoom meeting with the Planning Department (BPDA) was unusual in its UNANIMOUS opposition by residents who pleaded for housing of more reasonable height.

The Emerald Necklace is NOT just any park. It’s one of Frederick Law Olmsted’s most important commissions!

up
Voting closed 16