Hey, there! Log in / Register

28-story apartment building wins approval near where the Fenway borders the turnpike

By adamg on Tue, 01/14/2025 - 1:09pm
Rendering of proposed new apartment building

Rendering of the view from the Muddy River by Utile.

The Zoning Board of Appeal today approved plans for a 28-story, 400-unit apartment building at 100-102 Ipswich St. at the Bowker Overpass in the Fenway.

Plans by developer Scape call for the site, also known as 2 Charlesgate West, call for 68 affordable units. All the units would be "compact," or smaller than normally required by city zoning, in an attempt to reduce their costs.

The building would have no parking. It would have indoor storage space for 200 bicycles - and would feature two Bluebikes stations.

The building would exceed city greenhouse-emissions goals because all of its systems would be electric and it would have a particularly energy-efficient exterior, architect Brett Bentson of Utile said, adding it was also designed to become a Fenway "gateway" similar to the Pierce building on Boylston Street.

Along with the apartments, Scape would put in a prominent outdoor stairway between Ipswich and Boylston streets, paired with a public elevator - and a set of public restrooms.

The developer says it will make a total of $3 million in payments for public improvement, including installation of the Bluebikes stations, $500,000 for sprucing up city parks and even $40,000 to light up the statue of Leif Erikson on Commonwealth Avenue, which commemorates the spirit of spending money on mistaken beliefs, in this case a theory that Vikings sailed up the Charles and settled in what is now Weston, promulgated by Harvard professor Eben Horsford, who had more than enough money to pay for the statue after inventing modern baking powder.

The project needed a variety of variances, including because of its size and lack of parking.

The Boston Planning Department approved the proposal in July.

In November, the City Council approved a change in regulations designed to protect the Emerald Necklace from encroachment by letting the tower go up even though it is closer than 70 feet to part of the Olmsted park - the little used section near the Bowker overpass.

The measure to exempt the building was proposed by City Councilor Sharon Durkan, who represents the Fenway and who has backed the project as a way to increase needed housing in the city - especially at a time when we're seeing a transfer of power in Washington to an administration openly hostile to the LGBTQ community.

2 Charlesgate West filings.

Neighborhoods: 
Fenway
Topics: 
Development
Free tagging: 
Ipswich Street
Charlesgate West
ZBA


Ad:


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

Comments

By Frelmont on Tue, 01/14/2025 - 2:49pm.

If you want to build a congested, gridlocked omelette you gotta break some skyline and historic character.

Why not four buildings at 7 stories? This is not a building, this is a foot in the door. Boston cannot grow much more without massive regional eminent domain implications and consequences.

By Pedant on Tue, 01/14/2025 - 3:31pm.

I didn't realize there were four adjacent developable plots for sale and owned by the same developer who proposed building this. No eminent domain needed when you can build tall. 400 housing units are good.

By Frelmont on Wed, 01/15/2025 - 3:18pm.

There isn’t. Don’t build up. Don’t kill the goose that laid the golden egg. At some point eminent domain will be needed to bulldoze houses and other private property to continue to have surface travel by motorway and road possible.

=/< 900sqft is unlivable for more than one person.
Build out in the open and make the commuter rail affordable for mere mortals.

The housing situation is causing by the exploitation of panicked, destructive and short-term thinking and populism that profiteers with no vested interest in the quid of Massachusetts to do their worst.

By Rob on Wed, 01/15/2025 - 3:51pm.

=/< 900sqft is unlivable for more than one person.

SMDH

My wife and I - our first apartment as a married couple was ~530 SF. 1 BR, 1 full bath, EIK, LR. Even had some closet space.
Our second place, when we sized-up to have a guest room/office/whatever... a dizzying 750 SF.
It can be done.

...and these weren't exceptions on the market (even 20-25 years ago). There are literally dozens (if not a couple of hundred) apartment buildings in Boston/Brookline built on the similar footprint, with hundreds of similar apartments.

By SwirlyGrrl on Wed, 01/15/2025 - 6:32pm.

Don't be ridiculous. Most of the world does not have giant spaces like many in the US do and those oversized units are major consumers of land, resources, energy to heat and cool, and sprawl.

I grew up with 3 other people in about 700 sqft.

My husband spent much of his childhood with 4 other people and about 800 sqft,

We went from 2 adults to a family of 4 in our first apartment - 850 sqft.

I raised my two kids in a 1300 sqft house. Even during the pandemic with 5 adults in the space and everyone working from home it was cozy but really wasn't a problem. Everyone had their own spaces.

We are looking for a smaller place in retirement - we don't need all the space we have. 900 sqft would be just fine. I will not spend my aging years living in 1/3 of a large house, struggling to pay to heat and maintain it, growing mold and mushrooms in a second floor that I can't make it up to anymore and hoarding brown furniture.

By lbb on Thu, 01/16/2025 - 11:00am.

Build out in the open and make the commuter rail affordable for mere mortals.

Hey, why not? It's not as if there are any people living west of 128!

By Pete X on Thu, 01/16/2025 - 11:04am.

Like Milton, you mean? Or Needham?

"The Open" is full of NIMBYS too.

By robo on Thu, 01/16/2025 - 12:31pm.

But don’t forget Weston (average household income of $365,202).

By Pete X on Thu, 01/16/2025 - 1:18pm.

the list of NIMBY towns "in the open" who hate their children is long.

Also I guess you can't get over the fact that I used math to point out your faulty logic on another issue? Sorry about that!

By lbb on Fri, 01/17/2025 - 10:04am.

"The Open" is full of NIMBYS too.

No it's not. Clearly it's empty of any people. Frelmont said so.

By anon on Tue, 01/14/2025 - 3:23pm.

Not really near Storrow. It's a quarter mile away, where the Fenway meets the Pike.

By FlyingToaster on Tue, 01/14/2025 - 3:34pm.

Ipswich is on the other side of the Pike. It's a road behind Fenway Park, from Boylston to Boylston, and never comes near Storrow.

And the rendering above conveniently obsures the Charlesgate West/Boylston ramp in front of the building as viewed from across the Muddy River.

Yay additional housing.

By adamg on Tue, 01/14/2025 - 4:41pm.

I was thinking of its location near the pot of spaghetti that is the Bowker overpass complex, which funnels traffic to/from Storrow, so it's sort of near Storrow, but, yes, residents on one side will have a nice view of all the brake lights at rush hour on the turnpike.

By Will on Tue, 01/14/2025 - 5:59pm.

Anyone living above say the fourth floor can sit and gaze out at the distant skies. To see the traffic you'd have to stand at the window. Only someone who wants to share the misery of people stuck in traffic, or perhaps needs to see it so they can gloat, will have these lights in their view.

Lower floors will need black out shades that pull up from the bottom.

All balanced against a seriously great location.

By CopleyScott17 on Wed, 01/15/2025 - 5:20am.

n/t

By CopleyScott17 on Tue, 01/14/2025 - 4:08pm.

I'm not looking forward to the construction, but I think it'll be a fine addition to the neighborhood.

Regarding your final paragraph: no doubt the incoming administration in Washington will be less favorable to LGBT concerns, but did I miss some inclusionary aspect to the new project, like the Pryde in Hyde Park?

By ScottB on Tue, 01/14/2025 - 4:54pm.

So apparently not completely hostile to the LGBTQ community if they've got money. Perhaps more hostile to certain things wanted by a subset of the community.

By CopleyScott17 on Wed, 01/15/2025 - 5:18am.

There's always been a far right contingent in the community, but I'd like to think the vast majority still leans leftward.

By Sock_Puppet on Wed, 01/15/2025 - 8:41am.

The right time to Thiel?

By adamg on Tue, 01/14/2025 - 4:59pm.

But at the meeting where the ordinance got changed, Durkan talked about Boston's welcoming role, welcoming to all people and if it wants to keep being welcoming with the new haters coming into power in Washington, it needs to put up more housing for refugees from hater states.

"Boston stands as a beacon to the rest of the country, as a city where we protect human rights, including reproductive rights and the rights of LGBTQIA people, to ensure public safety and provide quality education," and Boston needs to provide even more housing for people who share those values, she said, adding, "however, these values that are core to Boston, that we're all proud to uphold, come at too steep a cost and currently exclude many who would like to live here." The new building would be a small step in "welcoming those who wish to live here," she said.

By CopleyScott17 on Wed, 01/15/2025 - 5:12am.

Is Ayana Pressley's seat up for grabs?

By _Sean on Tue, 01/14/2025 - 5:05pm.

Regarding your final paragraph: no doubt the incoming administration in Washington will be less favorable to LGBT concerns, but did I miss some inclusionary aspect to the new project, like the Pryde in Hyde Park?

There is nothing included in this eyesore of a building for LGBT groups. Durkan was literally just talking out of her ass as she presumably said something like "ignore the height or that this building will negatively impact Victory Gardens, or that the developer's own study concluded Ipswich Street will get 40mph winds for much of the year because of this too-tall building....ummm, this helps housing and uhhh....given the incoming administration, LGBT people will be coming to Boston....so we need more housing!"

By Sock_Puppet on Tue, 01/14/2025 - 8:14pm.

She wanted the development. She threw in irrelevant verbiage about lgbtqiaetc so that if someone disagreed with her she could call them names.

By CopleyScott17 on Wed, 01/15/2025 - 5:08am.

The City Council seems to get more out of touch and craven by the day

By Anon on Tue, 01/14/2025 - 5:21pm.

Hopefully this is paired with removing the bowker overpass. The overpass is much more of a blight (and a wall cutting off the river from the neighborhood) than this building.

By _Sean on Tue, 01/14/2025 - 6:36pm.

Unfortunately this project has nothing to do with Bowker Overpass. And while it is an eyesore, it's actually the Mass Pike that cuts off the path of the Muddy River going into the Charles River--not the Overpass.

They are apparently (once again) replacing the Bowker Overpass though, even though many of us remember it was only a decade ago when there was a major, years-long renovation project on the bridge. So, unfortunately, it'll be years of insane traffic coming to the Fenway neighborhood very soon...

By Local nobody on Tue, 01/14/2025 - 6:18pm.

I have been following this development for over a decade. I remember reading long ago something about how this address would be ineligible for a Fenway parking permit. (It was either this address or another property in Fenway).

Does anybody know anything about properties (this or otherwise) that are ineligible for parking permits?

I know there was a property, the Ropewalk, in Charlestown which had this limitation and people didn't know before they moved in, and tried to break their leases due to that detail being omitted.

Are there any other developments where you are ineligible to get the parking permit with that address?

By FenwayRyan on Tue, 01/14/2025 - 9:19pm.

Scape agreed to this for 1252-1270 Boylston and I believe they did the same for 2 Charlesgate West. That is, they were at least making statements along those lines during the public meetings.