Fort Point residents reject developers’ office plans
By Thomas Grillo
Boston Herald
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
The city’s chief planner and a pair of developers faced an angry crowd in Fort Point last night as a proposal to turn five vacant buildings into offices was rejected by the neighborhood.
In an emotionally charged session, a standing room only crowd criticized the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) and the Archon Group for abandoning a decade of planning to create a mixed-use district.
“You lied to us,” said artist Claudia Ravaschiere to the Archon representative. “You talked about doing residential, but you have not kept one promise to this community. To you it’s just real estate, but to us this is our home.”
During the tense meeting, Kairos Shen from the BRA floated a compromise that would allow four-dozen artists to keep their leases in the South Boston district until 2010. In return, Lincoln Property Co. can turn a pair of vacant warehouses at 316-322 Summer St. into office space and Archon could proceed with an office project at 49-63 Melcher St.
But residents, including many artists, said the proposal was a bad deal for the city.
“For the BRA to offer this deal to artists who are losing their space at the 11th hour is cynical and divisive,” said Steven Hollinger, a member of the Seaport Alliance for Neighborhood Design.
John Matteson, Archon’s regional director, defended his firm’s actions saying they acquired 17 commercial buildings where the average occupancy rate was about 25 percent. Following major renovations and leasing, the improved properties were later sold, he said.
Valerie Burns, a longtime Fort Point resident, said both projects are unchanged from previous community meetings. “The neighborhood was absolutely unified in opposing these projects and now you come back to us with the same project only with a commitment of a temporary relocation for a small number of artists,” she said. “This is a case of the BRA supporting the developer over the wishes of the neighborhood.”
Shen said he thought the plan that would save some artists workspace for two years and get a pair of projects moving was worthy of discussion. But he acknowledged the mistrust between the parties.
“I know our plan is flawed,” said Shen. “But I still think it’s a good plan.”
Friday, December 5, 2008
Tempers Flared in Brighton
Tempers flare as Boston College presents revisions to expansion plans in Brighton
By Matt Seidner, Correspondent
Allstton Brighton Tab
Thu Dec 04, 2008, 11:46 AM EST
Allston-Brighton - Update: A Boston College Task Force meeting previously scheduled for Dec. 9 has been cancelled. A new date has not yet been set.
Tempers flared at Wednesday night’s Boston College Task Force meeting as outraged residents denounced the college’s plans to build a new stadium complex and undergraduate dormitories close to their homes.
Most of the residents who attended were either members or supporters of Brighton Neighbors United, a group that fiercely opposes BC on its current housing and athletics plans. The handful of people who spoke out in support of the university quickly found themselves shouted down by the more vocal BNU members.
At the request of the Boston Redevelopment Authority, BC scaled back the details of its planned sports complex on the Brighton Campus. BC reduced proposals for a 1,500-seat baseball and 500-seat softball complex, to 1,000 and 300 seats respectively, in the version of the plan presented at the Wednesday, Dec. 3, meeting. The complex would host varsity practices from September to November from 3-7 p.m., and there would be at least 10 night games each for baseball and softball. Intramural teams would be able to use the fields from 3-9:30 every night but Saturday, when the park would close at 7.
One woman in the audience said the hours were too late for professionals and families who have to wake up early in the morning. Many more said that BC should remove the complex entirely. “The opposition is against the stadium, whether it is 1,000, whether it is 1,500,” said BNU member Maria Rodrigues.
BNU members passed out fliers showing that of the 600 letters written to the BRA during the June 2008 comment period on the plans, 90 percent were against building the stadiums.
Another hotly disputed issue of the night was BC’s plans for housing its undergraduate students. The university proposes a net increase of 940 beds, including 150 on the Brighton campus, and 560 beds in the recently acquired 2000 Commonwealth Ave. apartment building. The current plan would house 96 percent of students on-campus, and the BRA has requested the university study the impact of placing another 350 beds on either the Brighton or Chestnut Hill campus to reach 100 percent.
The vast majority of residents at the meeting demanded that the university house all undergraduate students on its main campus. The BNU analysis stated that 86 percent of letter-writers opposed building residences on former Archdiocese of Boston properties, and 82 percent were against using the 2000 Commonwealth Ave. building as a dorm. “We consider this an invasion into the residential area, and it was uncalled for,” task force member Terry Cohen said about the 2000 Commonwealth Ave. building.
Many attendees asked BC to replace the mods, campus residences built in the 1970s that were intended to be temporary, with a high-rise dorm instead of building smaller units in Brighton, a plan the institution appears to reject.
“The mods are as densely populated as we feel we can sustain,” said Jack Dunn, a university spokesman.
While schools such as Boston University and Northeastern choose to house students in high-rise buildings, BC prefers lower-density options that bring students closer to surrounding communities, according to BRA Chief Planner Kairos Shen. “I think the university wants to take a particular approach,” said Shen. In this case, the plan reflects the school’s reluctance to build large housing complexes. “I think they [BC] are trying to work with the city to find a compromise,” he said.
Shen added that, for the benefit of the neighborhood, he hopes to see headway soon. “The longer we argue on this, the longer that new dorms will not get built, and we’re prolonging the time before there will be relief in the neighborhood,” said Shen.
Still, many Brighton Neighbors United members show little intention of giving ground on this issue. “I feel really distressed that my lifestyle is being impinged upon because BC does not want a crowded campus,” said BNU member Lisa Lieberman.
The college maintained that it has already made many of the revisions the community requested. “We think that the plan that we have proposed is in the best interest of Boston College and the neighborhood of which we have been a part for 95 years, and we hope that we can reach a resolution so that we can proceed with the plan’s implementation,” Dunn said when asked if and when residents could expect to see more revisions.
For its part, the BNU isn’t budging. “This is 15, maybe 10 percent of the plan where we have to fight you; we don’t want to, but we have to,” said member Alex Selvig.
By Matt Seidner, Correspondent
Allstton Brighton Tab
Thu Dec 04, 2008, 11:46 AM EST
Allston-Brighton - Update: A Boston College Task Force meeting previously scheduled for Dec. 9 has been cancelled. A new date has not yet been set.
Tempers flared at Wednesday night’s Boston College Task Force meeting as outraged residents denounced the college’s plans to build a new stadium complex and undergraduate dormitories close to their homes.
Most of the residents who attended were either members or supporters of Brighton Neighbors United, a group that fiercely opposes BC on its current housing and athletics plans. The handful of people who spoke out in support of the university quickly found themselves shouted down by the more vocal BNU members.
At the request of the Boston Redevelopment Authority, BC scaled back the details of its planned sports complex on the Brighton Campus. BC reduced proposals for a 1,500-seat baseball and 500-seat softball complex, to 1,000 and 300 seats respectively, in the version of the plan presented at the Wednesday, Dec. 3, meeting. The complex would host varsity practices from September to November from 3-7 p.m., and there would be at least 10 night games each for baseball and softball. Intramural teams would be able to use the fields from 3-9:30 every night but Saturday, when the park would close at 7.
One woman in the audience said the hours were too late for professionals and families who have to wake up early in the morning. Many more said that BC should remove the complex entirely. “The opposition is against the stadium, whether it is 1,000, whether it is 1,500,” said BNU member Maria Rodrigues.
BNU members passed out fliers showing that of the 600 letters written to the BRA during the June 2008 comment period on the plans, 90 percent were against building the stadiums.
Another hotly disputed issue of the night was BC’s plans for housing its undergraduate students. The university proposes a net increase of 940 beds, including 150 on the Brighton campus, and 560 beds in the recently acquired 2000 Commonwealth Ave. apartment building. The current plan would house 96 percent of students on-campus, and the BRA has requested the university study the impact of placing another 350 beds on either the Brighton or Chestnut Hill campus to reach 100 percent.
The vast majority of residents at the meeting demanded that the university house all undergraduate students on its main campus. The BNU analysis stated that 86 percent of letter-writers opposed building residences on former Archdiocese of Boston properties, and 82 percent were against using the 2000 Commonwealth Ave. building as a dorm. “We consider this an invasion into the residential area, and it was uncalled for,” task force member Terry Cohen said about the 2000 Commonwealth Ave. building.
Many attendees asked BC to replace the mods, campus residences built in the 1970s that were intended to be temporary, with a high-rise dorm instead of building smaller units in Brighton, a plan the institution appears to reject.
“The mods are as densely populated as we feel we can sustain,” said Jack Dunn, a university spokesman.
While schools such as Boston University and Northeastern choose to house students in high-rise buildings, BC prefers lower-density options that bring students closer to surrounding communities, according to BRA Chief Planner Kairos Shen. “I think the university wants to take a particular approach,” said Shen. In this case, the plan reflects the school’s reluctance to build large housing complexes. “I think they [BC] are trying to work with the city to find a compromise,” he said.
Shen added that, for the benefit of the neighborhood, he hopes to see headway soon. “The longer we argue on this, the longer that new dorms will not get built, and we’re prolonging the time before there will be relief in the neighborhood,” said Shen.
Still, many Brighton Neighbors United members show little intention of giving ground on this issue. “I feel really distressed that my lifestyle is being impinged upon because BC does not want a crowded campus,” said BNU member Lisa Lieberman.
The college maintained that it has already made many of the revisions the community requested. “We think that the plan that we have proposed is in the best interest of Boston College and the neighborhood of which we have been a part for 95 years, and we hope that we can reach a resolution so that we can proceed with the plan’s implementation,” Dunn said when asked if and when residents could expect to see more revisions.
For its part, the BNU isn’t budging. “This is 15, maybe 10 percent of the plan where we have to fight you; we don’t want to, but we have to,” said member Alex Selvig.
Proposals for Air Rights Parcels Due Today
Heavy Hitters Poised To Push For Pike Parcels
By Paul McMorrow
Banker & Tradesman Staff Writer
The Massachusetts Turnpike Authority’s latest offering of developable air-rights space at the intersection of Boylston Street and Massachusetts Avenue in Boston has some familiar faces jockeying for position, Banker & Tradesman has learned.
At stake is 145,540 developable square feet, spread over four parcels spanning the Pike (Turnpike Parcels 12-15). Proposals are due Friday at noon.
Adam Weiner, of Weiner Ventures, confirmed Monday he will be bidding on the parcels, but declined further comment. The Chiofaro Co. also confirmed its intention to bid on Parcels 14 and 15. Trinity Financial said it is a “likely bidder,” and has been making the rounds of politicians and neighborhood groups, but declined to elaborate.
Weiner’s group may have an inside track on the Pike parcels, thanks to a land acquisition this past spring. In May, ADG Scotia LLC purchased an 11,187-square-foot parcel from the Archdiocese of Boston for $13.85 million. The parcel, a vacant lot formerly belonging to St. Cecilia parish, abuts Parcels 14 and 15 and is seen as a staging ground that might be used to leverage more significant development.
ADG Scotia is a joint venture between John Fish’s Suffolk Ventures and Weiner’s Weiner Ventures. Weiner’s father, Stephen, is the developer behind the Mandarin Oriental complex on Boylston Street, not far from the Turnpike parcels. ADG Scotia’s public filings with the Secretary of State’s office list Stephen Weiner as an officer.
The Weiner-Fish group has an incentive to be an active developer, rather than a group of investors looking to flip their parcel. A clause in the purchase agreement stipulates that if ADG Scotia sells the St. Cecilia parcel within five years of acquiring it, half of the resulting profit will revert back to the Archdiocese.
Chiofaro, the big-ticket developer behind International Place, acquired the Harbor Garage for $155 million last November. Sources said Chiofaro was preparing his bid in conjunction with Prudential Insurance, but those reports could not be confirmed.
Sarah Barnat, a project manager at Trinity Financial, developers of the $150 million Avenir mixed-use project in the Bulfinch Triangle, described her firm as another likely bidder, but gave no further comment.
Trinity has been briefing neighborhood politicians and residents on its plans for a mixed-use project over the Pike for the past month. A source with knowledge of the developer’s proposal described it as “modest” in height, which could play into Trinity’s hands.
Appropriate size is a hurdle any developer will have to clear, because it is difficult to squeeze profit out of an air rights development that may face serious massing constraints.
The BRA’s 1998 master plan for the area, commissioned in response to Millennium Partners failed 1 million-square-foot proposal for Parcel 12, envisions only one building topping 15 stories, with the rest topping out at 14 floors. Height would be set back, too, with street-front heights only reaching between 50 and 75 feet. The Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay has said it will be evaluating bids based on the parameters outlined in this plan.
State Rep. Marty Walz held up Millennium and Arthur Winn’s Columbus Center as cautionary examples any would-be Pike developers should avoid repeating. Both proposals were “grossly out of scale,” Walz said.
“Developers would be well advised to propose projects consistent with the neighborhood,” Walz warned. She also said state aid for the decking necessary to bridge the Turnpike may not be forthcoming, especially given the for-profit nature of any proposed development.
Other developers rumored to be considering bids include the Kensington Investment Co., and Clark Construction. Calls to those developers did not yield comments.
By Paul McMorrow
Banker & Tradesman Staff Writer
The Massachusetts Turnpike Authority’s latest offering of developable air-rights space at the intersection of Boylston Street and Massachusetts Avenue in Boston has some familiar faces jockeying for position, Banker & Tradesman has learned.
At stake is 145,540 developable square feet, spread over four parcels spanning the Pike (Turnpike Parcels 12-15). Proposals are due Friday at noon.
Adam Weiner, of Weiner Ventures, confirmed Monday he will be bidding on the parcels, but declined further comment. The Chiofaro Co. also confirmed its intention to bid on Parcels 14 and 15. Trinity Financial said it is a “likely bidder,” and has been making the rounds of politicians and neighborhood groups, but declined to elaborate.
Weiner’s group may have an inside track on the Pike parcels, thanks to a land acquisition this past spring. In May, ADG Scotia LLC purchased an 11,187-square-foot parcel from the Archdiocese of Boston for $13.85 million. The parcel, a vacant lot formerly belonging to St. Cecilia parish, abuts Parcels 14 and 15 and is seen as a staging ground that might be used to leverage more significant development.
ADG Scotia is a joint venture between John Fish’s Suffolk Ventures and Weiner’s Weiner Ventures. Weiner’s father, Stephen, is the developer behind the Mandarin Oriental complex on Boylston Street, not far from the Turnpike parcels. ADG Scotia’s public filings with the Secretary of State’s office list Stephen Weiner as an officer.
The Weiner-Fish group has an incentive to be an active developer, rather than a group of investors looking to flip their parcel. A clause in the purchase agreement stipulates that if ADG Scotia sells the St. Cecilia parcel within five years of acquiring it, half of the resulting profit will revert back to the Archdiocese.
Chiofaro, the big-ticket developer behind International Place, acquired the Harbor Garage for $155 million last November. Sources said Chiofaro was preparing his bid in conjunction with Prudential Insurance, but those reports could not be confirmed.
Sarah Barnat, a project manager at Trinity Financial, developers of the $150 million Avenir mixed-use project in the Bulfinch Triangle, described her firm as another likely bidder, but gave no further comment.
Trinity has been briefing neighborhood politicians and residents on its plans for a mixed-use project over the Pike for the past month. A source with knowledge of the developer’s proposal described it as “modest” in height, which could play into Trinity’s hands.
Appropriate size is a hurdle any developer will have to clear, because it is difficult to squeeze profit out of an air rights development that may face serious massing constraints.
The BRA’s 1998 master plan for the area, commissioned in response to Millennium Partners failed 1 million-square-foot proposal for Parcel 12, envisions only one building topping 15 stories, with the rest topping out at 14 floors. Height would be set back, too, with street-front heights only reaching between 50 and 75 feet. The Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay has said it will be evaluating bids based on the parameters outlined in this plan.
State Rep. Marty Walz held up Millennium and Arthur Winn’s Columbus Center as cautionary examples any would-be Pike developers should avoid repeating. Both proposals were “grossly out of scale,” Walz said.
“Developers would be well advised to propose projects consistent with the neighborhood,” Walz warned. She also said state aid for the decking necessary to bridge the Turnpike may not be forthcoming, especially given the for-profit nature of any proposed development.
Other developers rumored to be considering bids include the Kensington Investment Co., and Clark Construction. Calls to those developers did not yield comments.
Getting to YES at the Pru
2 towers will finish Prudential Center
By Casey Ross
Globe Staff / December 5, 2008
Boston officials yesterday approved the construction of two more towers at the Prudential Center, despite opposition from lawmakers and neighbors who object to the height of the buildings.
The properties, a 17-story office tower at 888 Boylston St. and the 27-story Exeter Residences, would be the final two buildings at the Prudential site, which was first developed in the mid-1960s. But these two projects, in particular, have drawn sharp criticism, with opponents arguing to the final moments before city approval came yesterday.
"I'm disappointed that the Boston Redevelopment Authority has approved excessively scaled buildings, particularly in light of the overwhelming community opposition," said state Representative Marty Walz, a Back Bay Democrat.
The Prudential Center's owner, Boston Properties, initially received approval for an 11-story building at 888 Boylston, a proposed height that complied with a city-approved master plan for the property. But this year the company sought to increase the height by almost 90 feet, saying it needed at least six more floors to make the project economically viable.
The $192 million project will include 422,000 square feet of offices and retail space on the lower floors. It also calls for upgrades to the Boylston Street plaza, which will be expanded by 1,000 square feet and adorned with new plantings, lighting, and seating. Construction is expected to begin in the spring.
Exeter Residences will contain 188 apartments, including three affordable units in the building and another 49 to be spread among three other residential buildings at the Prudential Center. The $129 million project is being managed by Avalon Bay Communities Inc., which co-owns the development with Boston Properties. The developers earlier this year had reduced the size of that building by three floors. Work on the complex is also scheduled to begin in the spring.
Supporters of the two developments argued that they will fill gaps in the neighborhood's streetscape and create 1,600 construction jobs and 3,000 permanent positions.
"We're in a recession, and we have a developer here who wants to move forward and put my members to work," said Michael Durant, business manager for Iron Workers, Local 7, of South Boston. He said the union has 400 jobless members as a result of the construction slowdown.
Casey Ross can be reached at cross@globe.com.
By Casey Ross
Globe Staff / December 5, 2008
Boston officials yesterday approved the construction of two more towers at the Prudential Center, despite opposition from lawmakers and neighbors who object to the height of the buildings.
The properties, a 17-story office tower at 888 Boylston St. and the 27-story Exeter Residences, would be the final two buildings at the Prudential site, which was first developed in the mid-1960s. But these two projects, in particular, have drawn sharp criticism, with opponents arguing to the final moments before city approval came yesterday.
"I'm disappointed that the Boston Redevelopment Authority has approved excessively scaled buildings, particularly in light of the overwhelming community opposition," said state Representative Marty Walz, a Back Bay Democrat.
The Prudential Center's owner, Boston Properties, initially received approval for an 11-story building at 888 Boylston, a proposed height that complied with a city-approved master plan for the property. But this year the company sought to increase the height by almost 90 feet, saying it needed at least six more floors to make the project economically viable.
The $192 million project will include 422,000 square feet of offices and retail space on the lower floors. It also calls for upgrades to the Boylston Street plaza, which will be expanded by 1,000 square feet and adorned with new plantings, lighting, and seating. Construction is expected to begin in the spring.
Exeter Residences will contain 188 apartments, including three affordable units in the building and another 49 to be spread among three other residential buildings at the Prudential Center. The $129 million project is being managed by Avalon Bay Communities Inc., which co-owns the development with Boston Properties. The developers earlier this year had reduced the size of that building by three floors. Work on the complex is also scheduled to begin in the spring.
Supporters of the two developments argued that they will fill gaps in the neighborhood's streetscape and create 1,600 construction jobs and 3,000 permanent positions.
"We're in a recession, and we have a developer here who wants to move forward and put my members to work," said Michael Durant, business manager for Iron Workers, Local 7, of South Boston. He said the union has 400 jobless members as a result of the construction slowdown.
Casey Ross can be reached at cross@globe.com.
Moving Forward at the Pru, Despite NIMBYs
Prudential towers win city approval
Boston Herald
By Thomas Grillo
Friday, December 5, 2008
The Boston Redevelopment Authority yesterday approved two controversial Prudential Center towers.
In a unanimous vote, the BRA OK’d a 17-story office building at 888 Boylston St. and a 27-story apartment tower on Exeter Street.
The votes came after nearly four hours of testimony, as proponents including Mayor Thomas M. Menino, who was represented by a spokesperson, union officials, residents and business representatives said the buildings would create jobs and bring needed affordable housing to the Back Bay.
“The process worked,” said Michael A. Cantalupa, senior vice president of Boston Properties, the developer of the $192 million office building at the Pru. “We have a good development. We will start construction when we find a tenant.”
The Exeter Residences, to be built by Avalon Bay Communities, will include 188 units. Of that number, 52 affordable apartments will be located in Avalon’s four buildings at the Pru including six units at the new tower.
Yesterday’s vote in a packed hearing room at City Hall was the culmination of more than 17 months of contentious meetings. The Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay and state Rep. Martha M. Walz asked the BRA board to reject the proposals, saying they believed both buildings would be too tall.
“These buildings do not fit the scale of the Prudential Center,” said Ann Gleason of the neighborhood association. “They are out of character.”
But the BRA board rejected the claims. The 888 Boylston St. project, to be built between the new Mandarin Oriental Hotel and the John B. Hynes Veterans Memorial Convention Center, has been in the works for years.
Boston Herald
By Thomas Grillo
Friday, December 5, 2008
The Boston Redevelopment Authority yesterday approved two controversial Prudential Center towers.
In a unanimous vote, the BRA OK’d a 17-story office building at 888 Boylston St. and a 27-story apartment tower on Exeter Street.
The votes came after nearly four hours of testimony, as proponents including Mayor Thomas M. Menino, who was represented by a spokesperson, union officials, residents and business representatives said the buildings would create jobs and bring needed affordable housing to the Back Bay.
“The process worked,” said Michael A. Cantalupa, senior vice president of Boston Properties, the developer of the $192 million office building at the Pru. “We have a good development. We will start construction when we find a tenant.”
The Exeter Residences, to be built by Avalon Bay Communities, will include 188 units. Of that number, 52 affordable apartments will be located in Avalon’s four buildings at the Pru including six units at the new tower.
Yesterday’s vote in a packed hearing room at City Hall was the culmination of more than 17 months of contentious meetings. The Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay and state Rep. Martha M. Walz asked the BRA board to reject the proposals, saying they believed both buildings would be too tall.
“These buildings do not fit the scale of the Prudential Center,” said Ann Gleason of the neighborhood association. “They are out of character.”
But the BRA board rejected the claims. The 888 Boylston St. project, to be built between the new Mandarin Oriental Hotel and the John B. Hynes Veterans Memorial Convention Center, has been in the works for years.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Opposing 27% Affordable Housing!
PruPAC divided over projects on Boylston, exeter by Dan Salerno
Back Bay Sun
At a full meeting last week, members of the Prudential Public Advisory Committee (PruPAC) were split nearly down the middle in non-binding votes on whether to oppose new development projects on Exeter and Boylston streets.
The votes indicate committee members are far from in agreement on whether the new towers-one residential, one office and retail complex will ultimately benefit or detract from the community, and the results send an unclear message to the Boston Redevelopment Authority, who will ultimately decide the fate of the projects.
PruPAC voted twice, once on the proposed residential tower known as the Exeter Residences, and once on the modern glass and steel office and retail complex proposed for 888 Boylston Street. The vote on 888 Boylston tipped narrowly towards approval, with 13 members approving and 10 opposed. The vote on the Exeter Residences was a dead-even push, with 11 yays, 11 nays, and 2 abstentions.
In response to the vote, Mayor Tom Menino has asked developers Boston Properties to rethink the design of the Exeter Residences to address residents’ concerns.
“The developer has to go back and see how they can win majority approval for the residences,” Menino told the Boston Herald. “The developer has made concessions on height and affordable housing, but they have to figure out a way to get majority community support for the apartments.”
The projects were also roundly criticized at an open public meeting earlier this fall.
Eliot Laffer, who represents the Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay (NABB) at PruPAC meetings, said the group opposed both projects in their current form for several reasons. Specifically, Laffer said NABB objects to the height of the 888 Boylston building proposed, which, at 235 feet, exceeds the 155 feet allowed by zoning.
Laffer said it was also worth considering that the residents of the neighborhood have been dealing with almost non-stop construction for years.
“The people that live around there have been dealing with continuing construction for a very long time, and a little pause might not be a bad thing to evaluate what might be the total impact of the Mandarin in terms of traffic and other considerations,” said Laffer.
For the Exeter Residences, NABB and most of the dissenters disapproved of the effective loss of "sky," the open space that gives residents of nearby buildings their impressive city views. The new building could result in the loss of some of those views, which are a major part of what owners believed they were buying when they originally purchased their condos.
However, Meg Mainzer-Cohen of the Back Bay Association (BBA) has strongly supported both projects, citing the economic benefit-$1.2 million in projected tax revenue and 600 jobs – and the need for both office space and affordable housing.
"There is very little affordable housing in the neighborhood, and the Exeter Residences would have 27 percent affordable units, which is significant," said Mainzer-Cohen. "I also think that the building design is vastly improved and would be a benefit to the streetscape of Exeter Street."
Meanwhile, 888 Boylston would provide for much-needed office space. "We continue to have a pretty strong demand for office space, especially at the Prudential Center," she said. "There are tenants that want to relocate, and there isn't enough space." She added she thought the design of the new building fits in well with the surrounding architecture, and that lowering the height of either building would reduce the economic benefit.
However, opposition to the project included not just residents, but also influential elected officials. State representatives Marty Walz and Byron Rushing and City Councilor Mike Ross voted against both projects, citing the concerns of their constituents. Councilor Bill Linehan voted in favor of 888 Boylston Street and against the Exeter Residences.
The final decision now rests with the BRA, which will vote on the matter at its public meeting on December 4. PruPAC advises the BRA but has no actual authority to approve or halt the project. Given the divided nature of last week's vote, it is also unclear what message the body will ultimately send to the BRA. Besides the divided note, calls from the mayor to address concerns with the Exeter Residences - one or both of the buildings - could be in jeopardy in their current proposal.
The project could start construction as early as June if the necessary approvals are obtained. The 888 Boylston building has been rumored to be courting Bloomingdale’s for residence in its proposed lower retail section, and would also be fronted by an expansive new pedestrian plaza with elaborate plantings and fountains.
The Prudential Public Advisory Committee, composed of local residents, business owners, and officials, has been working with the developers on the project for over a year.
Back Bay Sun
At a full meeting last week, members of the Prudential Public Advisory Committee (PruPAC) were split nearly down the middle in non-binding votes on whether to oppose new development projects on Exeter and Boylston streets.
The votes indicate committee members are far from in agreement on whether the new towers-one residential, one office and retail complex will ultimately benefit or detract from the community, and the results send an unclear message to the Boston Redevelopment Authority, who will ultimately decide the fate of the projects.
PruPAC voted twice, once on the proposed residential tower known as the Exeter Residences, and once on the modern glass and steel office and retail complex proposed for 888 Boylston Street. The vote on 888 Boylston tipped narrowly towards approval, with 13 members approving and 10 opposed. The vote on the Exeter Residences was a dead-even push, with 11 yays, 11 nays, and 2 abstentions.
In response to the vote, Mayor Tom Menino has asked developers Boston Properties to rethink the design of the Exeter Residences to address residents’ concerns.
“The developer has to go back and see how they can win majority approval for the residences,” Menino told the Boston Herald. “The developer has made concessions on height and affordable housing, but they have to figure out a way to get majority community support for the apartments.”
The projects were also roundly criticized at an open public meeting earlier this fall.
Eliot Laffer, who represents the Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay (NABB) at PruPAC meetings, said the group opposed both projects in their current form for several reasons. Specifically, Laffer said NABB objects to the height of the 888 Boylston building proposed, which, at 235 feet, exceeds the 155 feet allowed by zoning.
Laffer said it was also worth considering that the residents of the neighborhood have been dealing with almost non-stop construction for years.
“The people that live around there have been dealing with continuing construction for a very long time, and a little pause might not be a bad thing to evaluate what might be the total impact of the Mandarin in terms of traffic and other considerations,” said Laffer.
For the Exeter Residences, NABB and most of the dissenters disapproved of the effective loss of "sky," the open space that gives residents of nearby buildings their impressive city views. The new building could result in the loss of some of those views, which are a major part of what owners believed they were buying when they originally purchased their condos.
However, Meg Mainzer-Cohen of the Back Bay Association (BBA) has strongly supported both projects, citing the economic benefit-$1.2 million in projected tax revenue and 600 jobs – and the need for both office space and affordable housing.
"There is very little affordable housing in the neighborhood, and the Exeter Residences would have 27 percent affordable units, which is significant," said Mainzer-Cohen. "I also think that the building design is vastly improved and would be a benefit to the streetscape of Exeter Street."
Meanwhile, 888 Boylston would provide for much-needed office space. "We continue to have a pretty strong demand for office space, especially at the Prudential Center," she said. "There are tenants that want to relocate, and there isn't enough space." She added she thought the design of the new building fits in well with the surrounding architecture, and that lowering the height of either building would reduce the economic benefit.
However, opposition to the project included not just residents, but also influential elected officials. State representatives Marty Walz and Byron Rushing and City Councilor Mike Ross voted against both projects, citing the concerns of their constituents. Councilor Bill Linehan voted in favor of 888 Boylston Street and against the Exeter Residences.
The final decision now rests with the BRA, which will vote on the matter at its public meeting on December 4. PruPAC advises the BRA but has no actual authority to approve or halt the project. Given the divided nature of last week's vote, it is also unclear what message the body will ultimately send to the BRA. Besides the divided note, calls from the mayor to address concerns with the Exeter Residences - one or both of the buildings - could be in jeopardy in their current proposal.
The project could start construction as early as June if the necessary approvals are obtained. The 888 Boylston building has been rumored to be courting Bloomingdale’s for residence in its proposed lower retail section, and would also be fronted by an expansive new pedestrian plaza with elaborate plantings and fountains.
The Prudential Public Advisory Committee, composed of local residents, business owners, and officials, has been working with the developers on the project for over a year.
Friday, November 14, 2008
NIMBY success
Thomas Menino: Redo plan on Back Bay tower
By Thomas Grillo
Thursday, November 13, 2008 - Updated 1d 6h ago
Mayor Thomas M. Menino gave a thumbs-up for an office tower at the Prudential Center, but he wants the developer to revise plans for a nearby housing high-rise.
Menino’s comments came in response to a close vote Monday night by the Prudential Project Advisory Committee (PruPAC) on a proposal by Boston Properties for a 17-story office building at 888 Boylston St. and Avalon Bay’s plans for a 27-story apartment tower on Exeter Street.
PruPac - a 24-member panel made up of representatives from community groups and commercial interests - favored the office space by three votes, but tied on plans for an apartment complex.
“The developer has to go back and see how they can win majority approval for the residences,” Menino said. “The developer has made concessions on height and affordable housing, but they have to figure out a way to get majority community support for the apartments.”
By Thomas Grillo
Thursday, November 13, 2008 - Updated 1d 6h ago
Mayor Thomas M. Menino gave a thumbs-up for an office tower at the Prudential Center, but he wants the developer to revise plans for a nearby housing high-rise.
Menino’s comments came in response to a close vote Monday night by the Prudential Project Advisory Committee (PruPAC) on a proposal by Boston Properties for a 17-story office building at 888 Boylston St. and Avalon Bay’s plans for a 27-story apartment tower on Exeter Street.
PruPac - a 24-member panel made up of representatives from community groups and commercial interests - favored the office space by three votes, but tied on plans for an apartment complex.
“The developer has to go back and see how they can win majority approval for the residences,” Menino said. “The developer has made concessions on height and affordable housing, but they have to figure out a way to get majority community support for the apartments.”
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
"Opponents Dug in Their Heals"
Proposed Pru projects divide advisory panel
By Thomas Grillo | Tuesday, November 11, 2008 | http://www.bostonherald.com |
For the first time in its 20-year history, a panel overseeing Prudential Center expansion can’t reach consensus on future development.
In a high stakes vote last night, the Prudential Project Advisory Committee (PruPAC), barely mustered majority support for a proposal by Boston Properties for a 17-story office tower proposed for 888 Boylston St. Proponents won by three votes.
In a separate ballot, members were evenly split on Avalon Bay’s plans for a 27-story residential high-rise on Exeter Street. The 24-member panel comprised of representatives from community groups and commercial interests, advises City Hall on commercial real estate projects at the Pru.
“For two decades, PruPac votes on projects around the Prudential Center have reached almost unanimous support,” said Betsy Johnson, PruPac’s chairwoman. “But the opponents dug in their heels very early on the height issue and refused to consider any zoning changes.”
Michael A. Cantalupa, senior vice president of Boston Properties, and Michael Roberts, vice president of development at Avalon, declined to comment following the meeting.
Originally, Boston Properties proposed a 19-story tower while Avalon Bay filed plans for a 30-story apartment building. But Mayor Thomas M. Menino asked the developers to compromise following protests from the Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay that the buildings were out of character in the historic district.
The Boston Redevelopment Authority will consider the project at a public hearing on Dec. 4.
By Thomas Grillo | Tuesday, November 11, 2008 | http://www.bostonherald.com |
For the first time in its 20-year history, a panel overseeing Prudential Center expansion can’t reach consensus on future development.
In a high stakes vote last night, the Prudential Project Advisory Committee (PruPAC), barely mustered majority support for a proposal by Boston Properties for a 17-story office tower proposed for 888 Boylston St. Proponents won by three votes.
In a separate ballot, members were evenly split on Avalon Bay’s plans for a 27-story residential high-rise on Exeter Street. The 24-member panel comprised of representatives from community groups and commercial interests, advises City Hall on commercial real estate projects at the Pru.
“For two decades, PruPac votes on projects around the Prudential Center have reached almost unanimous support,” said Betsy Johnson, PruPac’s chairwoman. “But the opponents dug in their heels very early on the height issue and refused to consider any zoning changes.”
Michael A. Cantalupa, senior vice president of Boston Properties, and Michael Roberts, vice president of development at Avalon, declined to comment following the meeting.
Originally, Boston Properties proposed a 19-story tower while Avalon Bay filed plans for a 30-story apartment building. But Mayor Thomas M. Menino asked the developers to compromise following protests from the Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay that the buildings were out of character in the historic district.
The Boston Redevelopment Authority will consider the project at a public hearing on Dec. 4.
Representative Marty Walz Strikes Again!
The Boston Globe
Advisor panel divided on Back Bay towers
November 11, 2008
BOSTON
The Prudential Project Advisory Committee came to no consensus after voting yesterday on proposals to build a 242-foot building at 888 Boylston St. and a 27-story tower on Exeter Street. Many opponents object to the towers' special designation, granted by the Boston Redevelopment Authority, to exceed the neighborhood's 155-foot zoning code. Mayor Thomas M. Menino and the BRA will ultimately decide the project's fate. A public hearing on the proposals will be held Dec. 4 at City Hall. "This is unprecedented . . . we've always been able to come up with a consensus," said state Representative Marty Walz, a Democrat from the Back Bay and an advisory panel member who voted against the proposals. Representatives from both development teams declined to comment on the vote.
Editor Note: There were more votes in FAVOR of 888 Boylston Street (in spite of the spin by State Representative Marty Walz), and a tie vote for Exeter Residences.
Advisor panel divided on Back Bay towers
November 11, 2008
BOSTON
The Prudential Project Advisory Committee came to no consensus after voting yesterday on proposals to build a 242-foot building at 888 Boylston St. and a 27-story tower on Exeter Street. Many opponents object to the towers' special designation, granted by the Boston Redevelopment Authority, to exceed the neighborhood's 155-foot zoning code. Mayor Thomas M. Menino and the BRA will ultimately decide the project's fate. A public hearing on the proposals will be held Dec. 4 at City Hall. "This is unprecedented . . . we've always been able to come up with a consensus," said state Representative Marty Walz, a Democrat from the Back Bay and an advisory panel member who voted against the proposals. Representatives from both development teams declined to comment on the vote.
Editor Note: There were more votes in FAVOR of 888 Boylston Street (in spite of the spin by State Representative Marty Walz), and a tie vote for Exeter Residences.
$2 Million for baseball
Fenway: Let’s not play ball
College wants to trade park fix-up for field time
By Thomas Grillo
Monday, November 10, 2008 - Updated 9h ago
Emmanuel College will provide $2 million to refurbish Roberto Clemente Field in the Fenway, but residents say the arrangement is a raw deal for the neighborhood.
The Menino administration is set to approve a plan that allows the college to restore the 6-acre park at Kilmarnock Street and Park Drive if the Catholic liberal arts school is guaranteed access for its students.
The city argues that the matching grant from Emmanuel and the Yawkey Foundation is good for Boston Latin and Fenway high schools, which need athletic fields. But some neighbors are opposed.
“We object to the privatization of a public ball field,” said William Richardson, president of the Fenway Civic Association. “If this is about playing fields for high schools, let’s figure out how to pay for the improvements. But the idea that Emmanuel donates cash and gets huge chunks of time is wrong.”
Residents say they would be prohibited from the park on weeknights - prime time for working people.
City Councilor Michael Ross said he was skeptical about the plan, but now supports it. “The park will still be available to the neighborhood and provide athletic opportunities for several high schools,” he said.
Sarah Welsh, an Emmanuel spokeswoman, said the project has widespread support in the community. “There’s been a 14-month public process and only two people are opposed,‘ she said.
College wants to trade park fix-up for field time
By Thomas Grillo
Monday, November 10, 2008 - Updated 9h ago
Emmanuel College will provide $2 million to refurbish Roberto Clemente Field in the Fenway, but residents say the arrangement is a raw deal for the neighborhood.
The Menino administration is set to approve a plan that allows the college to restore the 6-acre park at Kilmarnock Street and Park Drive if the Catholic liberal arts school is guaranteed access for its students.
The city argues that the matching grant from Emmanuel and the Yawkey Foundation is good for Boston Latin and Fenway high schools, which need athletic fields. But some neighbors are opposed.
“We object to the privatization of a public ball field,” said William Richardson, president of the Fenway Civic Association. “If this is about playing fields for high schools, let’s figure out how to pay for the improvements. But the idea that Emmanuel donates cash and gets huge chunks of time is wrong.”
Residents say they would be prohibited from the park on weeknights - prime time for working people.
City Councilor Michael Ross said he was skeptical about the plan, but now supports it. “The park will still be available to the neighborhood and provide athletic opportunities for several high schools,” he said.
Sarah Welsh, an Emmanuel spokeswoman, said the project has widespread support in the community. “There’s been a 14-month public process and only two people are opposed,‘ she said.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Calling out the NIMBY's
Common goals for the common good in Boston
By Meg Mainzer-Cohen
October 25, 2008
AT A TIME when the economy has ground to a halt, Boston Mayor Thomas Menino is right to encourage the Boston Redevelopment Authority to expedite projects that are in the pipeline. The city may also want to reflect on the contentious public process that businesses must go through in order to build in Boston.
When it comes to development, the business community is often the underdog to anti-development zealots. The benefits of creating jobs, tax revenue, and new development get hidden in the shadow of invalid claims about environmental impacts and zoning.
Consider the Back Bay. Much of the Back Bay and South End is historically protected or is now parkland. Minimal new development will ever happen. Between them is an area called the "high spine," identified in the 1960s as a place for density connecting Back Bay with downtown. This makes perfect sense in the Back Bay where people want to live, work, stay at a hotel, shop, eat in a restaurant, or attend a convention at the Hynes. These activities are a catalyst for economic growth that supports the city and state. During boom times and bust, the economy of the Back Bay remains strong, which should be leveraged as a highly viable way to add to the tax coffers and create jobs.
With concern about the environment, the Back Bay is an ideal area to build density near public transportation. Menino created "green building" amendments to the Boston zoning code that encourages smart growth and environmentally friendly development. Back Bay benefits from having the commuter rail, MBTA Green and Orange lines, and soon the Silver Line. With a mix of housing, and office and retail space, people who live here don't need cars.
Zoning in Back Bay was written 20 years ago, before the concepts of smart growth, and should be rewritten to allow building for the future, incorporating smart growth in areas that are not historically protected.
Yet there has been opposition. The Neighborhood Association of Back Bay has opposed every building proposal as well as efforts to improve transportation for citizens. It opposed the MBTA adding articulated buses, and sued to stop handicapped-accessible stations. It said "no" to Columbus Center, 888 Boylston Street, the Exeter Residences, the Mandarin Oriental, 350 Boylston Street, and the Back Bay Restaurant Group's plan for TGIF's. The group wanted traffic signals on Storrow Drive, restricting traffic by 40 percent.
At a recent public meeting held as part of the Article 80 review process to inform the community about updated plans for 888 Boylston Street and the Exeter Street residences, presenters were cut off by the NIMBY crowd who wanted to comment on why the projects shouldn't happen.
Activists used buzzwords like "zoning," "shadow," and "wind." The public didn't learn that the "wind" improved in more areas than it worsened, "shadows" were not considered impactful because they were minimal during December, and "zoning" was created to allow changes in a planned development area, where the development is located. Instead, the meeting debased into a NIMBY-fest as one activist questioned the legal authority of the Boston Redevelopment Authority and advocated its dismantling.
The city must advocate for common goals for the common good, considering how to build Boston for the future. We must add housing and office space in areas that can support it, translating into the creation of jobs, housing, and increased taxes. We must advocate for transportation projects that ensure people can get where they need to go.
When it comes to creating jobs and homes, and increasing tax revenue, NIMBYers just say no. We must raise our voices in support of common goals for the common good.
Meg Mainzer-Cohen is president of the Back Bay Association.
© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.
By Meg Mainzer-Cohen
October 25, 2008
AT A TIME when the economy has ground to a halt, Boston Mayor Thomas Menino is right to encourage the Boston Redevelopment Authority to expedite projects that are in the pipeline. The city may also want to reflect on the contentious public process that businesses must go through in order to build in Boston.
When it comes to development, the business community is often the underdog to anti-development zealots. The benefits of creating jobs, tax revenue, and new development get hidden in the shadow of invalid claims about environmental impacts and zoning.
Consider the Back Bay. Much of the Back Bay and South End is historically protected or is now parkland. Minimal new development will ever happen. Between them is an area called the "high spine," identified in the 1960s as a place for density connecting Back Bay with downtown. This makes perfect sense in the Back Bay where people want to live, work, stay at a hotel, shop, eat in a restaurant, or attend a convention at the Hynes. These activities are a catalyst for economic growth that supports the city and state. During boom times and bust, the economy of the Back Bay remains strong, which should be leveraged as a highly viable way to add to the tax coffers and create jobs.
With concern about the environment, the Back Bay is an ideal area to build density near public transportation. Menino created "green building" amendments to the Boston zoning code that encourages smart growth and environmentally friendly development. Back Bay benefits from having the commuter rail, MBTA Green and Orange lines, and soon the Silver Line. With a mix of housing, and office and retail space, people who live here don't need cars.
Zoning in Back Bay was written 20 years ago, before the concepts of smart growth, and should be rewritten to allow building for the future, incorporating smart growth in areas that are not historically protected.
Yet there has been opposition. The Neighborhood Association of Back Bay has opposed every building proposal as well as efforts to improve transportation for citizens. It opposed the MBTA adding articulated buses, and sued to stop handicapped-accessible stations. It said "no" to Columbus Center, 888 Boylston Street, the Exeter Residences, the Mandarin Oriental, 350 Boylston Street, and the Back Bay Restaurant Group's plan for TGIF's. The group wanted traffic signals on Storrow Drive, restricting traffic by 40 percent.
At a recent public meeting held as part of the Article 80 review process to inform the community about updated plans for 888 Boylston Street and the Exeter Street residences, presenters were cut off by the NIMBY crowd who wanted to comment on why the projects shouldn't happen.
Activists used buzzwords like "zoning," "shadow," and "wind." The public didn't learn that the "wind" improved in more areas than it worsened, "shadows" were not considered impactful because they were minimal during December, and "zoning" was created to allow changes in a planned development area, where the development is located. Instead, the meeting debased into a NIMBY-fest as one activist questioned the legal authority of the Boston Redevelopment Authority and advocated its dismantling.
The city must advocate for common goals for the common good, considering how to build Boston for the future. We must add housing and office space in areas that can support it, translating into the creation of jobs, housing, and increased taxes. We must advocate for transportation projects that ensure people can get where they need to go.
When it comes to creating jobs and homes, and increasing tax revenue, NIMBYers just say no. We must raise our voices in support of common goals for the common good.
Meg Mainzer-Cohen is president of the Back Bay Association.
© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Benefits of Columbus Center Warrant More Public Support
Home / Business
Columbus Center asks for boost of $40m
Says public funds could spur project
Email|Print|Single Page| Text size – + By Casey Ross
Globe Staff / July 3, 2008
The owners of the massive Columbus Center project over the Massachusetts Turnpike have gone back to city and state officials to request as much as $40 million in public funding to try to resurrect one of Boston's most ambitious developments.
A spokesman for WinnDevelopment and its partners confirmed the Columbus team has held a series of meetings to push for additional taxpayer assistance, despite lingering controversy over public funds that have already been awarded. Officials briefed on the talks said the ownership has discussed the idea of creating a special development zone that would give developers tax relief to pay for a deck over the turnpike and other upgrades.
Columbus Center is intended to be a $800 million hotel, residential, and retail complex that would straddle the turnpike and reunite two neighborhoods now divided by the highway. It would occupy four blocks between Clarendon and Tremont streets where the South End borders Back Bay.
Construction of the long-planned project was halted abruptly in March after develop ers were unable to secure construction financing and about $35 million in state assistance. They now face an uphill battle to keep the project alive as capital markets have tightened and costs for fuel and building materials have soared. They have already sought to delay construction up to 18 months.
Alan Eisner, a spokesman for the developers, said executives have been negotiating for months to try to revive Columbus Center, which went through 11 years of permitting and neighborhood opposition. Projects costs have nearly tripled. He confirmed that officials met last week with state Senator Dianne Wilkerson, a Roxbury Democrat, to discuss ways to generate fresh public assistance.
"We've been meeting with various state and city officials to try to see what support is out there that can jumpstart the project once market conditions improve," said Eisner. "Anything and everything is on the table."
Eisner would not discuss specific proposals, but officials briefed on the talks, who were not authorized to comment on them publicly, said Columbus Center's owners have asked the city and state to consider designating the project a special development zone.
The arrangement, known as a District Improvement Financing agreement, allows developers to get an abatement on a portion of their future property tax bill now to pay for infrastructure upgrades.
Wilkerson did not return phone calls seeking comment. She has been a key supporter of Columbus Center on Beacon Hill, where a number of foes, including House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi and Representative Martha Walz, a Back Bay Democrat, have fiercely opposed public funding for the project under the belief that the state should not be footing the bill for a private development.
WinnDevelopment is Columbus Center's managing partner in an ownership group that includes the California Public Employees Retirement System and MacFarlane Urban Realty Co. LLC, which invests in large urban projects nationwide. In 2007, construction financing fell through, delaying the project and raising questions about its viability. As a result, the state withdrew $20 million in potential job-creation grants, and the project never received $15 million in loans from MassHousing.
The prospect of a new tax relief plan drew contrasting reactions from the community.
"This is a great project to knit the city back together and it is critical to get some assistance for it," said David I. Begelfer, chief executive of the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties of Massachusetts, a business advocacy group that supports development incentives. "It does not have to be dead. If the developers can get a couple of years of breathing room, I wouldn't be surprised to see it back on the front burner."
But Walz said the project's survival should not be the public's responsibility. "This is another instance of the developer seeking relief from its financing problems with taxpayer money," she said. "It's not appropriate for taxpayers to be financing this project, and we've made that point to the developer time and again."
Overall, the public assistance being sought by the Columbus team is a small portion of the project's overall cost, but developers have made clear that the money is a crucial in tough economic times. Eisner said the project would produce public benefits, including four new parks, improvements to air quality in the MBTA's Back Bay Station, and better groundwater management in nearby neighborhoods that have struggled with flooding.
The City of Boston provided initial support for the project, including a package of tax deferrals, but officials said the city would be reluctant to grant further taxpayer assistance.
"We [will not] consider district improvement financing for this project," said Susan Elsbree, a spokeswoman for the Boston Redevelopment Authority, the city's planning arm. "The city has already given [tax incentives] valued at $14 million over the life of the project."
The developers are also trying to renegotiate a lease with the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority to allow for a construction delay of up to 18 months; the authority owns the space above the highway where the complex will be built. Mac Daniel, a turnpike spokesman, said the talks continue as it works with the developers to clean up the area surrounding the inactive construction zone.
Casey Ross can be reached at cross@globe.com.
© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.
Columbus Center asks for boost of $40m
Says public funds could spur project
Email|Print|Single Page| Text size – + By Casey Ross
Globe Staff / July 3, 2008
The owners of the massive Columbus Center project over the Massachusetts Turnpike have gone back to city and state officials to request as much as $40 million in public funding to try to resurrect one of Boston's most ambitious developments.
A spokesman for WinnDevelopment and its partners confirmed the Columbus team has held a series of meetings to push for additional taxpayer assistance, despite lingering controversy over public funds that have already been awarded. Officials briefed on the talks said the ownership has discussed the idea of creating a special development zone that would give developers tax relief to pay for a deck over the turnpike and other upgrades.
Columbus Center is intended to be a $800 million hotel, residential, and retail complex that would straddle the turnpike and reunite two neighborhoods now divided by the highway. It would occupy four blocks between Clarendon and Tremont streets where the South End borders Back Bay.
Construction of the long-planned project was halted abruptly in March after develop ers were unable to secure construction financing and about $35 million in state assistance. They now face an uphill battle to keep the project alive as capital markets have tightened and costs for fuel and building materials have soared. They have already sought to delay construction up to 18 months.
Alan Eisner, a spokesman for the developers, said executives have been negotiating for months to try to revive Columbus Center, which went through 11 years of permitting and neighborhood opposition. Projects costs have nearly tripled. He confirmed that officials met last week with state Senator Dianne Wilkerson, a Roxbury Democrat, to discuss ways to generate fresh public assistance.
"We've been meeting with various state and city officials to try to see what support is out there that can jumpstart the project once market conditions improve," said Eisner. "Anything and everything is on the table."
Eisner would not discuss specific proposals, but officials briefed on the talks, who were not authorized to comment on them publicly, said Columbus Center's owners have asked the city and state to consider designating the project a special development zone.
The arrangement, known as a District Improvement Financing agreement, allows developers to get an abatement on a portion of their future property tax bill now to pay for infrastructure upgrades.
Wilkerson did not return phone calls seeking comment. She has been a key supporter of Columbus Center on Beacon Hill, where a number of foes, including House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi and Representative Martha Walz, a Back Bay Democrat, have fiercely opposed public funding for the project under the belief that the state should not be footing the bill for a private development.
WinnDevelopment is Columbus Center's managing partner in an ownership group that includes the California Public Employees Retirement System and MacFarlane Urban Realty Co. LLC, which invests in large urban projects nationwide. In 2007, construction financing fell through, delaying the project and raising questions about its viability. As a result, the state withdrew $20 million in potential job-creation grants, and the project never received $15 million in loans from MassHousing.
The prospect of a new tax relief plan drew contrasting reactions from the community.
"This is a great project to knit the city back together and it is critical to get some assistance for it," said David I. Begelfer, chief executive of the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties of Massachusetts, a business advocacy group that supports development incentives. "It does not have to be dead. If the developers can get a couple of years of breathing room, I wouldn't be surprised to see it back on the front burner."
But Walz said the project's survival should not be the public's responsibility. "This is another instance of the developer seeking relief from its financing problems with taxpayer money," she said. "It's not appropriate for taxpayers to be financing this project, and we've made that point to the developer time and again."
Overall, the public assistance being sought by the Columbus team is a small portion of the project's overall cost, but developers have made clear that the money is a crucial in tough economic times. Eisner said the project would produce public benefits, including four new parks, improvements to air quality in the MBTA's Back Bay Station, and better groundwater management in nearby neighborhoods that have struggled with flooding.
The City of Boston provided initial support for the project, including a package of tax deferrals, but officials said the city would be reluctant to grant further taxpayer assistance.
"We [will not] consider district improvement financing for this project," said Susan Elsbree, a spokeswoman for the Boston Redevelopment Authority, the city's planning arm. "The city has already given [tax incentives] valued at $14 million over the life of the project."
The developers are also trying to renegotiate a lease with the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority to allow for a construction delay of up to 18 months; the authority owns the space above the highway where the complex will be built. Mac Daniel, a turnpike spokesman, said the talks continue as it works with the developers to clean up the area surrounding the inactive construction zone.
Casey Ross can be reached at cross@globe.com.
© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.
Friday, June 27, 2008
"Protests Kill Plan"
Towering opposition
Protests kill plan for a glass-walled garden at Hancock
By Casey Ross
Boston Globe
Globe Staff / June 27, 2008
The Hancock Tower's owners dropped plans to build a glass-enclosed public square outside the Clarendon Street doors after neighbors and the famed building's architect protested that the addition would mar the tower's slender design and the views of neighboring Trinity Church.
Architect Henry Cobb doesn't like what has happened inside the Hancock Tower but is glad the exterior won't be changing.
WORRIED ABOUT HIS MASTERPIECE
Architect Henry Cobb, who designed the 60-floor Hancock in the 1960s, strongly objected to Broadway Partners Fund Manager LLC's plan for a 12,000-square-foot glass "winter garden" on the plaza at the base of the building.
Back Bay residents were also marshaling opposition, arguing the changes would have ruined the tower's architectural integrity.
Parties involved in negotiations over the plaza said Cobb, who is known to be particular about the iconic Hancock, was immediately concerned that an addition would block views of Trinity Church across the street.
The addition would have fundamentally changed the forbidding, half-acre plaza, long known for umbrella-buckling wind gusts that torment passers-by.
Now, Broadway Partners and Elkus | Manfredi Architects are instead proposing to add only landscaping and glass benches. A pair of restaurants would still be opened underground, on the concourse level, but they would be entered through the tower's lobby, not through a winter garden.
"That's certainly what I had been urging. They have been very respectful of my views," Cobb said yesterday about the end of the plan for a new structure.
Alan G. Rubenstein, director of asset management for Broadway Partners, said the plaza will remain open and views of Trinity Church unobstructed. "The constituent groups with whom we spoke led us to the realization that less would be more," he said.
Broadway Partners also faced opposition from politicians and a powerful residents' group.
"There was tremendous concern about changing the face of the building," said state Representative Marty Walz, a Cambridge Democrat whose district includes the Back Bay. "It's world famous for a reason, and there was a consistent feeling that the new structure would not be a good addition."
The initial plan, announced in January, included an enclosed seating area with a small bar for drinks or coffee. Under the new concept, that lounge would be in the Hancock's lobby, where patrons could congregate before heading down to the concourse.
Rubenstein said new portals on the north and south sides of the lobby will help patrons get to the restaurants.
Broadway may file its revised design with the Boston Redevelopment Authority as early as next week, with construction of the restaurants to be completed in about 12 months. Rubenstein said Broadway Partners has not begun speaking with potential tenants but suggested at least one occupant would be a "white tablecloth" restaurant in the mold of the nearby Davio's or Grill 23.
While there was considerable opposition to a glass-walled structure, some of the business neighbors supported the idea as a way to enliven the barren plaza, which has never realized its potential as a public gathering place.
"I thought the new structure would help with the [windy] conditions," said Meg Mainzer-Cohen, president of the Back Bay Association, which represents business and property owners. "I still think adding the restaurants is a great way to open the Hancock to Bostonians. Right now, unless you have a business meeting, most people don't go there."
The public's connection to the monolithic skyscraper diminished after its observatory was shuttered amid terrorism concerns following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Broadway Partners' initial plan was designed to make the plaza a destination for residents and visitors. Cobb and others argued that the way to enhance the space is to preserve sight lines with the sandstone and granite facade of Trinity Church, designed by Henry Hobson Richardson.
Broadway Partners sought to accommodate those concerns with the all-glass structure, but Cobb fretted that even that would block outdoor views and interfere with the tranquility of the plaza. The glass design was inspired by spaces such as the atrium at the IBM Building and the Apple store at the General Motors Building, both in New York.
Cobb has long been concerned about changes to the Hancock, a masterpiece whose concept he finished over two harried weeks in the fall of 1967.
In a 2006 retrospective on the building's opening, he told the Globe that the building's interior had been wrecked: "The last time I was in it, I turned on my heel and walked out. . . . I'm happy that the external statement of the building is so completely independent of what happens inside it."
Casey Ross can be reached at cross@globe.com.
Protests kill plan for a glass-walled garden at Hancock
By Casey Ross
Boston Globe
Globe Staff / June 27, 2008
The Hancock Tower's owners dropped plans to build a glass-enclosed public square outside the Clarendon Street doors after neighbors and the famed building's architect protested that the addition would mar the tower's slender design and the views of neighboring Trinity Church.
Architect Henry Cobb doesn't like what has happened inside the Hancock Tower but is glad the exterior won't be changing.
WORRIED ABOUT HIS MASTERPIECE
Architect Henry Cobb, who designed the 60-floor Hancock in the 1960s, strongly objected to Broadway Partners Fund Manager LLC's plan for a 12,000-square-foot glass "winter garden" on the plaza at the base of the building.
Back Bay residents were also marshaling opposition, arguing the changes would have ruined the tower's architectural integrity.
Parties involved in negotiations over the plaza said Cobb, who is known to be particular about the iconic Hancock, was immediately concerned that an addition would block views of Trinity Church across the street.
The addition would have fundamentally changed the forbidding, half-acre plaza, long known for umbrella-buckling wind gusts that torment passers-by.
Now, Broadway Partners and Elkus | Manfredi Architects are instead proposing to add only landscaping and glass benches. A pair of restaurants would still be opened underground, on the concourse level, but they would be entered through the tower's lobby, not through a winter garden.
"That's certainly what I had been urging. They have been very respectful of my views," Cobb said yesterday about the end of the plan for a new structure.
Alan G. Rubenstein, director of asset management for Broadway Partners, said the plaza will remain open and views of Trinity Church unobstructed. "The constituent groups with whom we spoke led us to the realization that less would be more," he said.
Broadway Partners also faced opposition from politicians and a powerful residents' group.
"There was tremendous concern about changing the face of the building," said state Representative Marty Walz, a Cambridge Democrat whose district includes the Back Bay. "It's world famous for a reason, and there was a consistent feeling that the new structure would not be a good addition."
The initial plan, announced in January, included an enclosed seating area with a small bar for drinks or coffee. Under the new concept, that lounge would be in the Hancock's lobby, where patrons could congregate before heading down to the concourse.
Rubenstein said new portals on the north and south sides of the lobby will help patrons get to the restaurants.
Broadway may file its revised design with the Boston Redevelopment Authority as early as next week, with construction of the restaurants to be completed in about 12 months. Rubenstein said Broadway Partners has not begun speaking with potential tenants but suggested at least one occupant would be a "white tablecloth" restaurant in the mold of the nearby Davio's or Grill 23.
While there was considerable opposition to a glass-walled structure, some of the business neighbors supported the idea as a way to enliven the barren plaza, which has never realized its potential as a public gathering place.
"I thought the new structure would help with the [windy] conditions," said Meg Mainzer-Cohen, president of the Back Bay Association, which represents business and property owners. "I still think adding the restaurants is a great way to open the Hancock to Bostonians. Right now, unless you have a business meeting, most people don't go there."
The public's connection to the monolithic skyscraper diminished after its observatory was shuttered amid terrorism concerns following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Broadway Partners' initial plan was designed to make the plaza a destination for residents and visitors. Cobb and others argued that the way to enhance the space is to preserve sight lines with the sandstone and granite facade of Trinity Church, designed by Henry Hobson Richardson.
Broadway Partners sought to accommodate those concerns with the all-glass structure, but Cobb fretted that even that would block outdoor views and interfere with the tranquility of the plaza. The glass design was inspired by spaces such as the atrium at the IBM Building and the Apple store at the General Motors Building, both in New York.
Cobb has long been concerned about changes to the Hancock, a masterpiece whose concept he finished over two harried weeks in the fall of 1967.
In a 2006 retrospective on the building's opening, he told the Globe that the building's interior had been wrecked: "The last time I was in it, I turned on my heel and walked out. . . . I'm happy that the external statement of the building is so completely independent of what happens inside it."
Casey Ross can be reached at cross@globe.com.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Moving City Hall
Tommy’s Taj Mahal demands debates
By Boston Herald Editorial Staff
Thursday, June 26, 2008 - Added 13h ago
Dealing with City Hall these days is a little like dealing with the old Kremlin - and that has nothing to do with the Cold War “brutalist” style architecture of the building.
No, it’s the mindset - a mindset that comes with a mayor who by next month will have served 15 years in the job and shows no sign of wanting to relinquish it. But next year is an election year and so a potential rival to Mayor Tom Menino has emerged from the ranks of the City Council to ask some annoying questions about an already approved capital budget.
The Council has rather limited powers but one of them is to hold hearings and ask questions and Councilor Mike Flaherty is making the most of that.
At issue is an $850,000 item for a feasibility study involving city-owned land on South Boston’s Drydock 4, part of the Marine Industrial Park. The $850,000 is only the first installment in a three-year appropriation of more than $2 million involving that same site.
It is a possible site for a future waterfront city hall Menino seems to want as his legacy. And while the current city hall building has few fans, the possibility of relocating to the waterfront seems to have only one truly ardent supporter - and that would be Tom Menino.
Now at some point the Boston Redevelopment Authority likely can and should determine what level of development that site can support. That is a legitimate expenditure of public dollars. In fact, such a study may show that the site is prohibitively expensive for a major public building.
The real problem here is that except for this week’s Council hearing all of this is being carried out without public debate or discussion. The taxpayers of this city deserve at least that much before Tommy’s Taj Mahal on the harbor takes on a life of its own.
By Boston Herald Editorial Staff
Thursday, June 26, 2008 - Added 13h ago
Dealing with City Hall these days is a little like dealing with the old Kremlin - and that has nothing to do with the Cold War “brutalist” style architecture of the building.
No, it’s the mindset - a mindset that comes with a mayor who by next month will have served 15 years in the job and shows no sign of wanting to relinquish it. But next year is an election year and so a potential rival to Mayor Tom Menino has emerged from the ranks of the City Council to ask some annoying questions about an already approved capital budget.
The Council has rather limited powers but one of them is to hold hearings and ask questions and Councilor Mike Flaherty is making the most of that.
At issue is an $850,000 item for a feasibility study involving city-owned land on South Boston’s Drydock 4, part of the Marine Industrial Park. The $850,000 is only the first installment in a three-year appropriation of more than $2 million involving that same site.
It is a possible site for a future waterfront city hall Menino seems to want as his legacy. And while the current city hall building has few fans, the possibility of relocating to the waterfront seems to have only one truly ardent supporter - and that would be Tom Menino.
Now at some point the Boston Redevelopment Authority likely can and should determine what level of development that site can support. That is a legitimate expenditure of public dollars. In fact, such a study may show that the site is prohibitively expensive for a major public building.
The real problem here is that except for this week’s Council hearing all of this is being carried out without public debate or discussion. The taxpayers of this city deserve at least that much before Tommy’s Taj Mahal on the harbor takes on a life of its own.
Harvard Art
Harvard art is on the move
By Francis Ma
GateHouse News Service
Posted Jun 25, 2008 @ 02:00 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boston — When the doors of the Fogg Museum in Cambridge close to the public on June 30, they won’t open again until 2013.
But the five-year sabbatical is for a good cause — the Harvard museum will undergo structural renovations that are 50 years overdue. Among the highest priorities: the air-conditioning and plumbing, in addition to an electrical system that pre-dates the FDR administration.
The plan also includes a bigger and longer-range goal — to add a complementary arts complex across the Charles River in Allston.
But right now the priority is the Fogg.
“Our climate control problem is a source of deep embarrassment and shame for us,” says Museum Director Thomas Lentz. “All of the systems in the building have to be updated.”
How bad is it? The electric and plumbing systems haven’t been overhauled since the museum was built in 1927.
In order to rectify this, the Harvard art collection from all three museums — the Fogg, the Bush-Reisinger and the Sackler — will be consolidated after the museum closes on June 30.
Most of it will end up in storage while a “representative overview” called “Re-View” will be on display when the Sackler reopens on Sept. 13. (The Sackler will also be closed this summer for the reorganization.) Harvard hope that all three museums will reopen at full capacity in 2013.
The proposal for the Allston location is to have a building of contemporary art (though not solely about contemporary art) that will have a dual relationship with Harvard University and the local community. It’s scheduled to break ground some time next year.
The Allston location would give Harvard the opportunity to embrace more contemporary art, a medium that has never had a home at the Fogg.
“We will never have the space that we need here,” says Lentz. “Allston will be a place where we can do things we never could.”
The idea of extending Harvard University into Allston was first hatched in 2003. Along the way, Allston residents have questioned whether or not it was going forward and whether having Harvard in Allston would be a good idea.
“I think some people assumed that the delay of the museum meant that Allston was off the table,” adds Harvard’s Director of Communications Daron Manoogian. “That has never been the case.”
Priorities simply changed. Instead of focusing on the new art museum in Allston, the university decided to turn its attention to the much-needed renovations of the Fogg. This change in thinking came mostly from Harvard’s new president, Drew G. Faust, who was appointed in February 2007.
“With Faust, it feels like the arts are a real priority,” says Manoogian. “She recognizes the possibility for a Harvard-Allston community. I think, in the past, the Allston community felt overwhelmed, especially with having to approve two buildings (a science complex and the art museum) at once.”
To help alleviate past confusion, President Faust set up a Task Force for the Arts in November of last year with the job of determining how the arts at Harvard can be implemented into other areas of study, as well as to consider what type of physical building would be needed in the future.
But for some Allston residents, it’s hard to forget the confusion of past meetings and business plans and some say there still isn’t enough communication between the community and the university.
Harry Mattison, Allston resident since 1994 and part of the Harvard-Allston Task Force, has been involved with this issue from the start.
“Some people don’t feel like Harvard and Allston are in this together,” says Mattison. “We’re also concerned about what it would be like to have Harvard as a neighbor.”
The Task Force meets regularly at the Honan-Allston Branch Library with representatives from Harvard University and the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA).This fall they will be discussing the Master Plan for Allston, which includes the proposed art museum.
So far, the meetings have addressed general concerns.
At a recent meeting, Mattison passionately voiced his concern that the neighborhood would be changing and asked whether or not Harvard knew what the new neighborhood would look like.
“Does Harvard know who will be moving into Allston? And what their needs will be?” asked Mattison.
It’s a valid question that wasn’t answered with any specifics.
Kathy Spiegelman, chief planner for the Harvard University Allston Initiative, regularly attends these meetings (which are staffed by the BRA), and she takes these concerns seriously.
“I think the challenge of this project has been how to make the edges soft,” says Spiegelman. “We want the structures to be inviting to the members of the local community.”
And now that President Faust has pushed the renovation of the Fogg as a priority, it allows Spiegelman and the Allston community to figure out exactly what the new art complex could, and should, provide.
Meanwhile, the Fogg braces for a big transition. Helen Molesworth, head of the department of modern and contemporary art, says the feeling within the walls is a sad one, and that no one wants to see the museum close.
“Most people who work in museums want to share that love of art with other people,” says Molesworth. “None of us want to pack up and close our doors. But we have a broken thing and we need to fix it.”
By Francis Ma
GateHouse News Service
Posted Jun 25, 2008 @ 02:00 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boston — When the doors of the Fogg Museum in Cambridge close to the public on June 30, they won’t open again until 2013.
But the five-year sabbatical is for a good cause — the Harvard museum will undergo structural renovations that are 50 years overdue. Among the highest priorities: the air-conditioning and plumbing, in addition to an electrical system that pre-dates the FDR administration.
The plan also includes a bigger and longer-range goal — to add a complementary arts complex across the Charles River in Allston.
But right now the priority is the Fogg.
“Our climate control problem is a source of deep embarrassment and shame for us,” says Museum Director Thomas Lentz. “All of the systems in the building have to be updated.”
How bad is it? The electric and plumbing systems haven’t been overhauled since the museum was built in 1927.
In order to rectify this, the Harvard art collection from all three museums — the Fogg, the Bush-Reisinger and the Sackler — will be consolidated after the museum closes on June 30.
Most of it will end up in storage while a “representative overview” called “Re-View” will be on display when the Sackler reopens on Sept. 13. (The Sackler will also be closed this summer for the reorganization.) Harvard hope that all three museums will reopen at full capacity in 2013.
The proposal for the Allston location is to have a building of contemporary art (though not solely about contemporary art) that will have a dual relationship with Harvard University and the local community. It’s scheduled to break ground some time next year.
The Allston location would give Harvard the opportunity to embrace more contemporary art, a medium that has never had a home at the Fogg.
“We will never have the space that we need here,” says Lentz. “Allston will be a place where we can do things we never could.”
The idea of extending Harvard University into Allston was first hatched in 2003. Along the way, Allston residents have questioned whether or not it was going forward and whether having Harvard in Allston would be a good idea.
“I think some people assumed that the delay of the museum meant that Allston was off the table,” adds Harvard’s Director of Communications Daron Manoogian. “That has never been the case.”
Priorities simply changed. Instead of focusing on the new art museum in Allston, the university decided to turn its attention to the much-needed renovations of the Fogg. This change in thinking came mostly from Harvard’s new president, Drew G. Faust, who was appointed in February 2007.
“With Faust, it feels like the arts are a real priority,” says Manoogian. “She recognizes the possibility for a Harvard-Allston community. I think, in the past, the Allston community felt overwhelmed, especially with having to approve two buildings (a science complex and the art museum) at once.”
To help alleviate past confusion, President Faust set up a Task Force for the Arts in November of last year with the job of determining how the arts at Harvard can be implemented into other areas of study, as well as to consider what type of physical building would be needed in the future.
But for some Allston residents, it’s hard to forget the confusion of past meetings and business plans and some say there still isn’t enough communication between the community and the university.
Harry Mattison, Allston resident since 1994 and part of the Harvard-Allston Task Force, has been involved with this issue from the start.
“Some people don’t feel like Harvard and Allston are in this together,” says Mattison. “We’re also concerned about what it would be like to have Harvard as a neighbor.”
The Task Force meets regularly at the Honan-Allston Branch Library with representatives from Harvard University and the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA).This fall they will be discussing the Master Plan for Allston, which includes the proposed art museum.
So far, the meetings have addressed general concerns.
At a recent meeting, Mattison passionately voiced his concern that the neighborhood would be changing and asked whether or not Harvard knew what the new neighborhood would look like.
“Does Harvard know who will be moving into Allston? And what their needs will be?” asked Mattison.
It’s a valid question that wasn’t answered with any specifics.
Kathy Spiegelman, chief planner for the Harvard University Allston Initiative, regularly attends these meetings (which are staffed by the BRA), and she takes these concerns seriously.
“I think the challenge of this project has been how to make the edges soft,” says Spiegelman. “We want the structures to be inviting to the members of the local community.”
And now that President Faust has pushed the renovation of the Fogg as a priority, it allows Spiegelman and the Allston community to figure out exactly what the new art complex could, and should, provide.
Meanwhile, the Fogg braces for a big transition. Helen Molesworth, head of the department of modern and contemporary art, says the feeling within the walls is a sad one, and that no one wants to see the museum close.
“Most people who work in museums want to share that love of art with other people,” says Molesworth. “None of us want to pack up and close our doors. But we have a broken thing and we need to fix it.”
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
BRA approves Suffolk, Simmons projects
Boston Business Journal
The Boston Redevelopment Authority Tuesday approved a 10-year master plan proposed by Suffolk University to build a 10-story residence hall over a redeveloped Modern Theater in downtown Boston.
Boston-based Suffolk plans to spend $100 million on that project and a new arts school and academic building at 20 Somerset St.
Simultaneously, the BRA approved Simmons College’s plan to expand its dining hall at 300 The Fenway. The college plans to add 5.898 square feet to its existing dining hall and will spend $6 million on the project.
The Boston Redevelopment Authority Tuesday approved a 10-year master plan proposed by Suffolk University to build a 10-story residence hall over a redeveloped Modern Theater in downtown Boston.
Boston-based Suffolk plans to spend $100 million on that project and a new arts school and academic building at 20 Somerset St.
Simultaneously, the BRA approved Simmons College’s plan to expand its dining hall at 300 The Fenway. The college plans to add 5.898 square feet to its existing dining hall and will spend $6 million on the project.
Copley Tower!
Copley Place seeks city of Boston’s OK for 47-story tower
Boston Herald
By Scott Van Voorhis
Tuesday, June 24, 2008 - Updated 19h ago
Copley Place owner Simon Property Group Inc. is moving ahead with plans to remake the Back Bay skyline with a 47-story condo tower that will also expand the upscale mall’s footprint.
The mall owner, in a proposal filed yesterday with City Hall, details plans for nearly 800,000 square feet of new residential and Retail space at the corner of Dartmouth and Stuart streets.
Along with 280 high-rise condos, Simon is also banking on a significant expansion of Copley Place.
The proposal calls for adding 54,000 square feet to the existing 115,000-square-foot Neiman Marcus store, which would be renovated as well. Another 60,000 square feet of retail would be added beyond that, including space for a restaurant and a winter garden.
The condo tower will include a health club, luxury day spa, library and concierge service.
“The project will enhance the urban fabric of the neighborhood and be a striking addition to the city’s skyline,” said Carl Dieterle, executive vice president for urban development at Simon, in a statement.
But state Rep. Marty Walz (D-Back Bay) said there are still significant concerns about the shadows the new tower will cast across nearby Copley Square and the Commonwealth Mall.
“A building of that height will cast significant shadows on those two green spaces,” Walz said.
Rick Stockwood, a spokesman for the project, said the tower has been specifically designed to minimize the impact of any shadows it will cast. The impact itself, which he described as limited, is laid out in a report included in the project plans submitted yesterday to the Boston Redevelopment Authority.
The shadows that cross Copley Square, for example, are confined to the late fall and winter months, Stockwood said.
sbvanvoorhis@bostonherald.com
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Boston University Angers Neighbors With Ebola, SARS Germ Lab
Boston University Angers Neighbors With Ebola, SARS Germ Lab
Bloomberg
By Brian K. Sullivan
June 5 (Bloomberg) -- At the corner of Albany and East Dedham, tradesmen are putting the final touches on a $198 million glass and steel building for Boston University. The neighbors are upset about what the school plans to keep inside.
Organisms that cause Ebola, SARS, and plague are among microbes that scientists may stockpile at a biosafety lab rated level 4, the most secure category used by the U.S. National Institutes of Health. The building in the university's medical center has provoked court challenges from South End and Roxbury residents, who say airborne germs may escape the lab and cause illness or death.
Boston University says the lab will be safe, yield lifesaving research, and help the school, city and region by adding jobs and an estimated $72 million a year in research contracts. Critics say the area's poor won't benefit. The school is likely to prevail because of the lab's potential benefits to society, said Arthur Caplan, an ethicist who follows health- policy clashes.
``It could easily bring in grants in the tens of millions of dollars,'' Caplan, 58, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, said in a June 2 telephone interview. ``It is not fair to say that it is money versus ethics, but that at the end of the day the benefits overwhelm the concerns about the risk.''
The U.S. has six such labs, none in Massachusetts. Long overshadowed by Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in nearby Cambridge, Boston University, known as BU, aims to leapfrog past those schools as places where infectious germs and vaccines can be studied.
`Densest Population'
Neighborhood foes often emerge to oppose buildings where biological technology is involved. In December, New York City approved a plan for Columbia University to expand into a Harlem neighborhood. The endorsement came after opponents of the $6 billion expansion questioned whether a level-3 biolab that is part of the project would expose residents to typhoid fever.
``This is the densest population around such a lab in the country,'' said Eloise Lawrence, 34, staff attorney for the Conservation Law Foundation in Boston. ``This is also one of the hardest and difficult to navigate cities in the country. How would one get out in an emergency?''
Until the last few years, nobody had to worry about the prospect of a biohazard lab in Boston. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and the anthrax scare that followed, the U.S. decided it needed more level-4 labs to study exotic diseases that could be turned into terror weapons, said Gigi Kwik Gronvall, senior associate at the government's Center for Biosecurity, a Baltimore facility run by the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, in a telephone interview June 2.
Delayed by Lawsuits
In 2003, the Bethesda, Maryland-based National Institutes of Health chose the BU Medical Center and the University of Texas as the sites of two new level-4 labs. The University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston is expected to open a new level-4 biosafety facility in November, school spokeswoman Marsha Canright said May 14 in a telephone interview. Texas already operates a smaller level-4 lab in Galveston.
BU's lab, originally scheduled to open this year, is being delayed until at least next year by two lawsuits backed by residents of Boston's South End and Roxbury neighborhoods.
The South End had a population of about 28,160 and a poverty rate of 23.9 percent, according to a 2000 Boston Redevelopment Authority report. The Roxbury section had a population of 55,663 and poverty of 27.1 percent.
`Last Breath'
``We will fight this lab to our last breath,'' Roxbury resident Klare Allen, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuits, said at a public hearing at the Massachusetts State House in Boston on May 16.
To meet the demands of judges in the court cases, the NIH in March appointed a 16-member panel headed by Adel Mahmoud, a professor of molecular biology at Princeton University in New Jersey. The panel said in a May 16 statement that the lab's approval process needs more transparency. It also said a risk assessment report should include details of the infectious agents being studied that may pose a health threat, and gauge the possibility of terrorist action against the lab.
The group plans to provide NIH Director Elias Zerhouni with a work plan on June 6. The panel will decide how the health effects should be studied, seek public comment, and issue a final report by July 2009. State and federal courts are awaiting that assessment before deciding on the lawsuits, according to the NIH.
$1.7 Billion
A BU estimate about four years ago showed the lab could bring in about $72 million a year, said BU Medical Center spokeswoman Ellen Berlin in a telephone interview on June 2. The lab will employ 660 people, including 150 Ph.D.-level researchers, Berlin said on May 13.
The neighborhoods will benefit because workers will go into the community to eat, have their dry cleaning done and shop, Berlin said.
The Brookline-based Massachusetts Association of Nonprofit Schools and Colleges, with 90 members including Wellesley College, predicted the lab could yield $1.7 billion in federal research and spending during the next 20 years, according to a May 14 letter.
``I think this is very important to the city, for the jobs it will create to the research that will be done there,'' Boston Mayor Thomas Menino said in an interview May 22.
The court cases are Allen et. al. v. NIH, et. al. 1:06-CV- 10877-PBS, Federal District Court Boston and 10 residents of Boston v. the Boston Redevelopment Authority SJC-09960, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
To contact the reporter on this story: Brian K. Sullivan in Boston at bsullivan10@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: June 5, 2008 00:01 EDT
Bloomberg
By Brian K. Sullivan
June 5 (Bloomberg) -- At the corner of Albany and East Dedham, tradesmen are putting the final touches on a $198 million glass and steel building for Boston University. The neighbors are upset about what the school plans to keep inside.
Organisms that cause Ebola, SARS, and plague are among microbes that scientists may stockpile at a biosafety lab rated level 4, the most secure category used by the U.S. National Institutes of Health. The building in the university's medical center has provoked court challenges from South End and Roxbury residents, who say airborne germs may escape the lab and cause illness or death.
Boston University says the lab will be safe, yield lifesaving research, and help the school, city and region by adding jobs and an estimated $72 million a year in research contracts. Critics say the area's poor won't benefit. The school is likely to prevail because of the lab's potential benefits to society, said Arthur Caplan, an ethicist who follows health- policy clashes.
``It could easily bring in grants in the tens of millions of dollars,'' Caplan, 58, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, said in a June 2 telephone interview. ``It is not fair to say that it is money versus ethics, but that at the end of the day the benefits overwhelm the concerns about the risk.''
The U.S. has six such labs, none in Massachusetts. Long overshadowed by Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in nearby Cambridge, Boston University, known as BU, aims to leapfrog past those schools as places where infectious germs and vaccines can be studied.
`Densest Population'
Neighborhood foes often emerge to oppose buildings where biological technology is involved. In December, New York City approved a plan for Columbia University to expand into a Harlem neighborhood. The endorsement came after opponents of the $6 billion expansion questioned whether a level-3 biolab that is part of the project would expose residents to typhoid fever.
``This is the densest population around such a lab in the country,'' said Eloise Lawrence, 34, staff attorney for the Conservation Law Foundation in Boston. ``This is also one of the hardest and difficult to navigate cities in the country. How would one get out in an emergency?''
Until the last few years, nobody had to worry about the prospect of a biohazard lab in Boston. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and the anthrax scare that followed, the U.S. decided it needed more level-4 labs to study exotic diseases that could be turned into terror weapons, said Gigi Kwik Gronvall, senior associate at the government's Center for Biosecurity, a Baltimore facility run by the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, in a telephone interview June 2.
Delayed by Lawsuits
In 2003, the Bethesda, Maryland-based National Institutes of Health chose the BU Medical Center and the University of Texas as the sites of two new level-4 labs. The University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston is expected to open a new level-4 biosafety facility in November, school spokeswoman Marsha Canright said May 14 in a telephone interview. Texas already operates a smaller level-4 lab in Galveston.
BU's lab, originally scheduled to open this year, is being delayed until at least next year by two lawsuits backed by residents of Boston's South End and Roxbury neighborhoods.
The South End had a population of about 28,160 and a poverty rate of 23.9 percent, according to a 2000 Boston Redevelopment Authority report. The Roxbury section had a population of 55,663 and poverty of 27.1 percent.
`Last Breath'
``We will fight this lab to our last breath,'' Roxbury resident Klare Allen, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuits, said at a public hearing at the Massachusetts State House in Boston on May 16.
To meet the demands of judges in the court cases, the NIH in March appointed a 16-member panel headed by Adel Mahmoud, a professor of molecular biology at Princeton University in New Jersey. The panel said in a May 16 statement that the lab's approval process needs more transparency. It also said a risk assessment report should include details of the infectious agents being studied that may pose a health threat, and gauge the possibility of terrorist action against the lab.
The group plans to provide NIH Director Elias Zerhouni with a work plan on June 6. The panel will decide how the health effects should be studied, seek public comment, and issue a final report by July 2009. State and federal courts are awaiting that assessment before deciding on the lawsuits, according to the NIH.
$1.7 Billion
A BU estimate about four years ago showed the lab could bring in about $72 million a year, said BU Medical Center spokeswoman Ellen Berlin in a telephone interview on June 2. The lab will employ 660 people, including 150 Ph.D.-level researchers, Berlin said on May 13.
The neighborhoods will benefit because workers will go into the community to eat, have their dry cleaning done and shop, Berlin said.
The Brookline-based Massachusetts Association of Nonprofit Schools and Colleges, with 90 members including Wellesley College, predicted the lab could yield $1.7 billion in federal research and spending during the next 20 years, according to a May 14 letter.
``I think this is very important to the city, for the jobs it will create to the research that will be done there,'' Boston Mayor Thomas Menino said in an interview May 22.
The court cases are Allen et. al. v. NIH, et. al. 1:06-CV- 10877-PBS, Federal District Court Boston and 10 residents of Boston v. the Boston Redevelopment Authority SJC-09960, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
To contact the reporter on this story: Brian K. Sullivan in Boston at bsullivan10@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: June 5, 2008 00:01 EDT
Neighbors don’t want more homes
By Jessica Smith
Roslindale Transcript
Wed May 28, 2008, 12:15 PM EDT
West Roxbury -
A debate about residential development in West Roxbury turned theoretical last week when residents requested that the Boston Redevelopment Authority place a moratorium on building.
According to many who live on and around Ruskin Street, located between Corey and Weld streets, proposed construction that will add two homes to their neighborhood should be halted. The homes that developer Gary Martell wants to build on both sides of 11 Ruskin Road are being proposed to the city as of right. In other words, no variances or special approval is required to build the structures.
However, because the houses would be built in an overlay district, the BRA must approve the plans to ensure they do not disrupt the character of the neighborhood. On Thursday, residents met with the city and the BRA to discuss their concerns, many of which might be hard to address.
At issue is the size of the proposed structures and how they might impact the community. As one resident stated, the abutters “did not envision McMansions.”
“If we could stop this project, we would,” said Jay Walsh of the mayor’s department of neighborhood services.
For Kerry Brennan, who described himself as a new homeowner on the street and “the most recent person to fall in love with the feel of that street,” the issue was bigger than the block in question.
“What is the attitude about scale and density in the neighborhood? What can be done about the overdevelopment of West Roxbury?” asked Brennan. According to Walsh, development is always something that causes worry.
“We have a concern about development in general. We don’t have the legal authority to say no to this project,” said Walsh.
George Philippides, whose home abuts 11 Ruskin, said that part of the problem is the text of the zoning code and the rules governing the overlay district.
“It has subjective wording. We need to get at how people feel about the character of the neighborhood they live in,” said Philippides, who with his neighbors, asked representatives of the city to halt all building.
Another resident appealed to state Rep. Mike Rush, who was in attendance and expressed an interest in working with other politicians, although his jurisdiction does not directly cover construction in the city of Boston.
“It’s pretty obvious there’s a problem. People’s lives are going to be disrupted,” said Rush, who was joined by At-Large City Councilor John Connolly.
“I’m with you on the massive frustration. That’s my wife’s favorite street. These streets are special. This does disturb the essence of the neighborhood,” said Connolly, who had disappointing information to add. “The BRA can’t put a moratorium on building. If the BRA blocked as of right development, they would get sued.”
Connolly further described the two-week comment period that started on Tuesday, May 27, as a chance for residents to allay their concerns about the project.
“We can comment on the inappropriateness to our neighborhood,” said Gwynne Morgan.
Jessica Smith can be reached at jsmith@cnc.com
Roslindale Transcript
Wed May 28, 2008, 12:15 PM EDT
West Roxbury -
A debate about residential development in West Roxbury turned theoretical last week when residents requested that the Boston Redevelopment Authority place a moratorium on building.
According to many who live on and around Ruskin Street, located between Corey and Weld streets, proposed construction that will add two homes to their neighborhood should be halted. The homes that developer Gary Martell wants to build on both sides of 11 Ruskin Road are being proposed to the city as of right. In other words, no variances or special approval is required to build the structures.
However, because the houses would be built in an overlay district, the BRA must approve the plans to ensure they do not disrupt the character of the neighborhood. On Thursday, residents met with the city and the BRA to discuss their concerns, many of which might be hard to address.
At issue is the size of the proposed structures and how they might impact the community. As one resident stated, the abutters “did not envision McMansions.”
“If we could stop this project, we would,” said Jay Walsh of the mayor’s department of neighborhood services.
For Kerry Brennan, who described himself as a new homeowner on the street and “the most recent person to fall in love with the feel of that street,” the issue was bigger than the block in question.
“What is the attitude about scale and density in the neighborhood? What can be done about the overdevelopment of West Roxbury?” asked Brennan. According to Walsh, development is always something that causes worry.
“We have a concern about development in general. We don’t have the legal authority to say no to this project,” said Walsh.
George Philippides, whose home abuts 11 Ruskin, said that part of the problem is the text of the zoning code and the rules governing the overlay district.
“It has subjective wording. We need to get at how people feel about the character of the neighborhood they live in,” said Philippides, who with his neighbors, asked representatives of the city to halt all building.
Another resident appealed to state Rep. Mike Rush, who was in attendance and expressed an interest in working with other politicians, although his jurisdiction does not directly cover construction in the city of Boston.
“It’s pretty obvious there’s a problem. People’s lives are going to be disrupted,” said Rush, who was joined by At-Large City Councilor John Connolly.
“I’m with you on the massive frustration. That’s my wife’s favorite street. These streets are special. This does disturb the essence of the neighborhood,” said Connolly, who had disappointing information to add. “The BRA can’t put a moratorium on building. If the BRA blocked as of right development, they would get sued.”
Connolly further described the two-week comment period that started on Tuesday, May 27, as a chance for residents to allay their concerns about the project.
“We can comment on the inappropriateness to our neighborhood,” said Gwynne Morgan.
Jessica Smith can be reached at jsmith@cnc.com
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Roslindale Substation: Waiting for a Developer
Roslindale Transcript
May 7, 2008
By Jessica Smith
Roslindale - The Roslindale Substation has been vacant since before many current residents were born, but now the Boston Redevelopment Authority is ready to change that. They just have to find a tenant.
Meeting with a roomful of those familiar with the blighted building at 4228 Washington St., the city agency responsible for overseeing the process presented its draft Request for Proposals, or RFP.
The RFP, created by the BRA, has already been shared with numerous neighborhood groups. It will serve as a guide for prospective developers as they bid for the right to develop the property. In other words, it represents the standards that the BRA has set for development.
Marie Mecurio, a senior planner for the BRA who works on Roslindale, emphasized to residents that the building is not slated to be torn down.
“Our goal is to preserve the building. This is not a demolition,” said Mecurio, who added that a preferred use of the more than 6,000-square-foot structure would be active or commercial retail space on the ground floor.
While the floor is a single story, the BRA’s Fran Collins added that a second floor could be added within the building, but that nothing would be done that would increase the height of the structure.
According to Mecurio, the BRA would like to see whatever goes in the building to increase foot traffic in Roslindale, generate long-term jobs and contribute to Roslindale’s growth.
She also said that the BRA would support a green building, and mentioned the possibility of the renovated structure including housing for various income levels.
The existing windows, some of which are boarded up, will be restored. This, according to the BRA, means that the mural painted on the building will be removed.
In addition to waiting for a developer, the building is also waiting to hear if it will be added to the National Register of Historic Places. Should that occur, the BRA is prepared to incorporate any restrictions that would come with the honor.
Jessica Smith can be reached at jsmith@cnc.com.
May 7, 2008
By Jessica Smith
Roslindale - The Roslindale Substation has been vacant since before many current residents were born, but now the Boston Redevelopment Authority is ready to change that. They just have to find a tenant.
Meeting with a roomful of those familiar with the blighted building at 4228 Washington St., the city agency responsible for overseeing the process presented its draft Request for Proposals, or RFP.
The RFP, created by the BRA, has already been shared with numerous neighborhood groups. It will serve as a guide for prospective developers as they bid for the right to develop the property. In other words, it represents the standards that the BRA has set for development.
Marie Mecurio, a senior planner for the BRA who works on Roslindale, emphasized to residents that the building is not slated to be torn down.
“Our goal is to preserve the building. This is not a demolition,” said Mecurio, who added that a preferred use of the more than 6,000-square-foot structure would be active or commercial retail space on the ground floor.
While the floor is a single story, the BRA’s Fran Collins added that a second floor could be added within the building, but that nothing would be done that would increase the height of the structure.
According to Mecurio, the BRA would like to see whatever goes in the building to increase foot traffic in Roslindale, generate long-term jobs and contribute to Roslindale’s growth.
She also said that the BRA would support a green building, and mentioned the possibility of the renovated structure including housing for various income levels.
The existing windows, some of which are boarded up, will be restored. This, according to the BRA, means that the mural painted on the building will be removed.
In addition to waiting for a developer, the building is also waiting to hear if it will be added to the National Register of Historic Places. Should that occur, the BRA is prepared to incorporate any restrictions that would come with the honor.
Jessica Smith can be reached at jsmith@cnc.com.
Compromise on Height at the Dainty Dot
The Boston Globe
May 7, 20008
By Thomas Palmer
A compromise reached between City Hall and developers of a planned 299-foot-tall residential tower in Chinatown will reduce the height by 34 feet, but means elimination of the revered Dainty Dot building on the site.
more stories like thisThe planned glass tower near Essex Street and Surface Artery, proposed by developer Ori Ron, has split the Chinatown and neighboring Leather District communities.
Some residents object to having a building that tall in a neighborhood outside the Financial District and in close proximity to a new park on the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway. Others wanted all or part of the remaining portions of the 119-year-old Dainty Dot structure preserved.
And some, including influential Chinatown organizations, vigorously supported Ron's proposed building because it would bring life to the community and provide much-needed housing - including funding for 48 units of affordable residences to be built elsewhere in Chinatown.
The compromise, described last night to the Boston Design Review Commission, includes reducing the building's height to 265 feet, or about 4 1/2 floors, paring the number of residential condominiums from 180 to 147, and adding a new park on Oxford Street. But it also includes demolishing the Dainty Dot, once headquarters of a hosiery company and formerly known as the Auchmuty Building.
A portion of the ornate building was lopped off in the 1950s, when the elevated Central Artery was constructed, but Ron had originally planned to save all or most of the remaining structure.
David Seeley, a leading critic of the new building's proposed height and defender of the old Dainty Dot building, acknowledged that the height reduction is "a significant drop."
But, he said of the loss of the old building, "I think it's tragic. It's a beautiful building and by all rights would be a landmark if it hadn't already been previously damaged."
A spokesman for Ron said Mayor Thomas M. Menino helped to broker the compromise.
"We're happy," said Boston Redevelopment Authority director John Palmieri. "There may be a few critics, but overall we've improved the design program considerably and satisfied some of the more significant neighborhood issues."
Palmieri said parking floors will not be as prominent in the tower, and the number of spaces was reduced from 156 to 95.
Ron maintained he could not afford to pay the cost of saving the facade and also reduce the number of units in the building. "Our design team agrees," said Palmieri. "It was a 'facade-ectomy' anyway, an awkward looking development program."
Thomas C. Palmer Jr. can be reached at tpalmer@globe.com.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
An Overview of development in Southie
South Boston Times
Boomin' Times on the Waterfront
The rapidly developing South Boston Waterfront has had a busy twelve months. Projects, both planned and actually underway, will require billions of dollars to complete, will generate tens of thousands of new jobs, and will see a decade-long buildout.
by Rick Winterson
It is no news that developments along the South Boston Waterfront are proceeding rapidly. From the Conley Terminal to Fort Point, the underlying value of a location on the peninsula that makes up South Boston has become obvious. The nation’s hometown has morphed into the nation’s boomtown.
Twelve months ago, developer John Drew presented his revised plans for a project called Waterside Place”. Located on an eight-acre plot near the intersection of D and Summer Streets, it will comprise a 300-room hotel, 200 hundred residences, 2,300 parking spaces, and 640,000 square feet of retail space.
In September, ground was finally broken on the long-awaited Fan Pier project, which is being developed by Joseph Fallon. The $3 billion buildout will take up to ten years. In addition to its being a huge mixed-use development, Fan Pier’s unique marina has attracted the Volvo Regatta. Fan Pier sits between the Moakley Courthouse and the Institute of Contemporary Art, for which Fallon donated the land.
The Boston Convention and Exhibition Center has surpassed even its boosters’ best expectations, and was named the “Convention Center of the Year” in 2007. This is partly due to its communications capabilities and partly due to its sheer size. Recently, the Massachusetts Convention Authority announced a feasibility study to expand the Convention Center, which is already New England’s largest single building.
Exelon’s L Street Power Plant, which borders the Reserve Channel, retired the second of its two generating units in November. Cleanup and dismantling of the entire plant is expected to begin this year, after a series of community hearings. Long-term plans for the site have not been announced.
In January, MassPort announced that it wished to acquire the Coastal site, a 30-acre site on East First Street owned by the Coastal subsidiary of El Paso Corporation. Because of oil seepage over the years, there has been a significant controversy over the site’s cleanup. If the deal goes through, MassPort intends to expand the Conley Terminal along the Reserve Channel using the Coastal property.
Late in January, Mayor Menino released plans for the Jimmy’s Harborside property that were assembled by the B.R.A. The property will hold an office building and up to four restaurants; the Harbor Walk and access roads will be extended along the Waterfront. The $30 million project is slated for completion in 2009.
The Renaissance Boston Waterfront Hotel became the Waterfront’s newest hospitality location, when it completed its “soft opening” in January. It has 450 elegantly appointed rooms, all with state-of-the-art electronics technology.
Late last year, Gale International completed its plans for what it calls “Seaport Square”. This will be built on the McCourt Properties. These plans are being presented to South Boston at this time, via a series of open community meetings. Seaport Square is a true mega-project – a city-within-a-city amounting to 6.5 million square feet. The project will mean an expenditure of many billions of dollars; it is reputed to be the largest mixed-use development ever undertaken in the Northeast.
The job impact from all of these developments will be enormous: as many as 15,000 construction jobs, followed by 30,000 (or more) permanent positions. All of these projects, when they are completed, will essentially use up the areas available for mixed developments along the South Boston Waterfront..
Another article would be needed to cover industrial and commercial developments on the eastern reaches of the South Boston peninsula, within the Marine Industrial Complex. The Fort Point area is also under development, especially since the sale of the Boston Wharf building complex. South Boston’s Barbara Lynch is perhaps the most well-known person to move there, where she is creating a versatile foodservice establishment.
As a final note, the U.S. Post Office Annex plans to move to South Boston from its current site on the South Station side of Fort Point Channel. That will have significant neighborhood ripples, also.
Stay tuned! All in all, that’s a big bunch of bricks and mortar.
Boomin' Times on the Waterfront
The rapidly developing South Boston Waterfront has had a busy twelve months. Projects, both planned and actually underway, will require billions of dollars to complete, will generate tens of thousands of new jobs, and will see a decade-long buildout.
by Rick Winterson
It is no news that developments along the South Boston Waterfront are proceeding rapidly. From the Conley Terminal to Fort Point, the underlying value of a location on the peninsula that makes up South Boston has become obvious. The nation’s hometown has morphed into the nation’s boomtown.
Twelve months ago, developer John Drew presented his revised plans for a project called Waterside Place”. Located on an eight-acre plot near the intersection of D and Summer Streets, it will comprise a 300-room hotel, 200 hundred residences, 2,300 parking spaces, and 640,000 square feet of retail space.
In September, ground was finally broken on the long-awaited Fan Pier project, which is being developed by Joseph Fallon. The $3 billion buildout will take up to ten years. In addition to its being a huge mixed-use development, Fan Pier’s unique marina has attracted the Volvo Regatta. Fan Pier sits between the Moakley Courthouse and the Institute of Contemporary Art, for which Fallon donated the land.
The Boston Convention and Exhibition Center has surpassed even its boosters’ best expectations, and was named the “Convention Center of the Year” in 2007. This is partly due to its communications capabilities and partly due to its sheer size. Recently, the Massachusetts Convention Authority announced a feasibility study to expand the Convention Center, which is already New England’s largest single building.
Exelon’s L Street Power Plant, which borders the Reserve Channel, retired the second of its two generating units in November. Cleanup and dismantling of the entire plant is expected to begin this year, after a series of community hearings. Long-term plans for the site have not been announced.
In January, MassPort announced that it wished to acquire the Coastal site, a 30-acre site on East First Street owned by the Coastal subsidiary of El Paso Corporation. Because of oil seepage over the years, there has been a significant controversy over the site’s cleanup. If the deal goes through, MassPort intends to expand the Conley Terminal along the Reserve Channel using the Coastal property.
Late in January, Mayor Menino released plans for the Jimmy’s Harborside property that were assembled by the B.R.A. The property will hold an office building and up to four restaurants; the Harbor Walk and access roads will be extended along the Waterfront. The $30 million project is slated for completion in 2009.
The Renaissance Boston Waterfront Hotel became the Waterfront’s newest hospitality location, when it completed its “soft opening” in January. It has 450 elegantly appointed rooms, all with state-of-the-art electronics technology.
Late last year, Gale International completed its plans for what it calls “Seaport Square”. This will be built on the McCourt Properties. These plans are being presented to South Boston at this time, via a series of open community meetings. Seaport Square is a true mega-project – a city-within-a-city amounting to 6.5 million square feet. The project will mean an expenditure of many billions of dollars; it is reputed to be the largest mixed-use development ever undertaken in the Northeast.
The job impact from all of these developments will be enormous: as many as 15,000 construction jobs, followed by 30,000 (or more) permanent positions. All of these projects, when they are completed, will essentially use up the areas available for mixed developments along the South Boston Waterfront..
Another article would be needed to cover industrial and commercial developments on the eastern reaches of the South Boston peninsula, within the Marine Industrial Complex. The Fort Point area is also under development, especially since the sale of the Boston Wharf building complex. South Boston’s Barbara Lynch is perhaps the most well-known person to move there, where she is creating a versatile foodservice establishment.
As a final note, the U.S. Post Office Annex plans to move to South Boston from its current site on the South Station side of Fort Point Channel. That will have significant neighborhood ripples, also.
Stay tuned! All in all, that’s a big bunch of bricks and mortar.
Forest Hills Improvement Initiative
Forest Hills process takes final steps
By DAVID TABER May 2, 2008
Jamaica Plain Gazette
A working timeline has been devised for the final steps of a year-and-a-half-long community planning process that will end with the MBTA opening bidding on over 6 acres of land around Forest Hills Station.
Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council (JPNC) member and JPNC Housing and Development Committee Co-Chair Francesca Fordiani announced the timeline at the April 29 meeting of the JPNC.
On May 2, according to the timeline, a public comment period will begin for the draft Invitation to Bid (ITB) for the parcels, along with Use and Design Guidelines that have been developed in a lengthy Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA)-led community process known as the Forest Hills Improvement Initiative (FHII).
The public comment period will be open for four weeks.
On May 22, the MBTA will host a community information meeting to review the content and meaning of the ITB.
The MBTA plans to issue the ITB on June 27.
The BRA also held an FHII meeting to review a draft of the Transportation and Streetscape Improvement plan for the Forest Hills area that has been developed through the process on April 30.
There will be an FHII wrap-up meeting on June 26.
Close to 400 residential units and 64,000 square feet of retail space could potentially be developed on the parcels if the Use and Design Guidelines are followed.
Fordiani said she is concerned about the affordability component of the guidelines. Originally they called for 15 to 75 percent of the new residential units to be designated affordable, with a goal of 50 percent. Later, in part due to lobbying by the Housing and Development Committee, the range of 15 to 75 percent was removed from the recommendation.
Since then, it has been reinserted, Fordiani said.
“If the community feels there need to be strong affordability goals, the BRA needs to hear it from the community and not just us,” Fordiani said, “The BRA needs to hear from the community or else I need to be proven wrong.”
Vacancy
JPNC member Yawu Miller has moved out of JP, leaving a vacancy in Area C (Pondside/Jamaica Hills/Forest Hills). It was announced that anyone interested in the seat should present themselves at the JPNC’s May 27 meeting.
By DAVID TABER May 2, 2008
Jamaica Plain Gazette
A working timeline has been devised for the final steps of a year-and-a-half-long community planning process that will end with the MBTA opening bidding on over 6 acres of land around Forest Hills Station.
Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council (JPNC) member and JPNC Housing and Development Committee Co-Chair Francesca Fordiani announced the timeline at the April 29 meeting of the JPNC.
On May 2, according to the timeline, a public comment period will begin for the draft Invitation to Bid (ITB) for the parcels, along with Use and Design Guidelines that have been developed in a lengthy Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA)-led community process known as the Forest Hills Improvement Initiative (FHII).
The public comment period will be open for four weeks.
On May 22, the MBTA will host a community information meeting to review the content and meaning of the ITB.
The MBTA plans to issue the ITB on June 27.
The BRA also held an FHII meeting to review a draft of the Transportation and Streetscape Improvement plan for the Forest Hills area that has been developed through the process on April 30.
There will be an FHII wrap-up meeting on June 26.
Close to 400 residential units and 64,000 square feet of retail space could potentially be developed on the parcels if the Use and Design Guidelines are followed.
Fordiani said she is concerned about the affordability component of the guidelines. Originally they called for 15 to 75 percent of the new residential units to be designated affordable, with a goal of 50 percent. Later, in part due to lobbying by the Housing and Development Committee, the range of 15 to 75 percent was removed from the recommendation.
Since then, it has been reinserted, Fordiani said.
“If the community feels there need to be strong affordability goals, the BRA needs to hear it from the community and not just us,” Fordiani said, “The BRA needs to hear from the community or else I need to be proven wrong.”
Vacancy
JPNC member Yawu Miller has moved out of JP, leaving a vacancy in Area C (Pondside/Jamaica Hills/Forest Hills). It was announced that anyone interested in the seat should present themselves at the JPNC’s May 27 meeting.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
NIMBYism to the Nth Degree: Thankfully Overruled!
Back Bay Sun
Viewpoint: Big deal on Newbury Street by Sue Prindle
You may not have heard about the proposal for the former Ritz Garage on the Arlington-Berkeley block of Newbury Street. It may not seem like such a big deal, really—just a demolition of a notably unattractive building, to be replaced by an office building only ten feet taller than what is there now. Compared to the 500’ towers that are being proposed in other parts of town, that’s not much.
But it is a big deal. And this is why.
In 1980, Newbury Street was rezoned to a height of 65’. (Before that, the height limit had been 90’, which is why you will see some taller buildings.) The reason the zoning height was reduced there and in the residential district was to provide sunlight and scale and openness to the sidewalks and the surrounding buildings—all the components that make up a pleasant living—and walking and sitting and shopping--environment. Sidewalk cafes sprang up like mushrooms. Pedestrian traffic on a sunny Saturday afternoon...well, you’ve seen it. Real estate prices on the street have gone through the roof.
Now comes Newbury Garage Associates, who feel that their new building should be 20’ higher than the legal 65 foot height. (20/65 = almost a third higher, if my math is correct.) There is no hardship that would justify such a huge variance—they just want it. The garage building they own, though architecturally undistinguished, is not in disrepair. In fact, it is still open and functioning.
Unfortunately, the BRA, our city’s planning agency, would like to see it approved.
This would be the first significant height variance allowed in the Back Bay Historic District in over 25 years. If it is granted, you can count on it setting off a chain reaction that will be hard to stop. Because developers always wants more space. More space equals more money. And if you don’t live here, the loss of sunlight and air and scale, the skyrocketing prices caused by speculation, and the disruption caused by constant construction don’t really bother you.
But for many of us who do live here, it does matter. It matters a lot.
Viewpoint: Big deal on Newbury Street by Sue Prindle
You may not have heard about the proposal for the former Ritz Garage on the Arlington-Berkeley block of Newbury Street. It may not seem like such a big deal, really—just a demolition of a notably unattractive building, to be replaced by an office building only ten feet taller than what is there now. Compared to the 500’ towers that are being proposed in other parts of town, that’s not much.
But it is a big deal. And this is why.
In 1980, Newbury Street was rezoned to a height of 65’. (Before that, the height limit had been 90’, which is why you will see some taller buildings.) The reason the zoning height was reduced there and in the residential district was to provide sunlight and scale and openness to the sidewalks and the surrounding buildings—all the components that make up a pleasant living—and walking and sitting and shopping--environment. Sidewalk cafes sprang up like mushrooms. Pedestrian traffic on a sunny Saturday afternoon...well, you’ve seen it. Real estate prices on the street have gone through the roof.
Now comes Newbury Garage Associates, who feel that their new building should be 20’ higher than the legal 65 foot height. (20/65 = almost a third higher, if my math is correct.) There is no hardship that would justify such a huge variance—they just want it. The garage building they own, though architecturally undistinguished, is not in disrepair. In fact, it is still open and functioning.
Unfortunately, the BRA, our city’s planning agency, would like to see it approved.
This would be the first significant height variance allowed in the Back Bay Historic District in over 25 years. If it is granted, you can count on it setting off a chain reaction that will be hard to stop. Because developers always wants more space. More space equals more money. And if you don’t live here, the loss of sunlight and air and scale, the skyrocketing prices caused by speculation, and the disruption caused by constant construction don’t really bother you.
But for many of us who do live here, it does matter. It matters a lot.
Park in the Garage!
Charlestown Bridge
Representatives for Mezzo Design Lofts appeared before the Charlestown Neighborhood Council last week to outline steps they are taking to ensure that tenants use the development’s on-site garage.
The $54 million, 146-unit complex on Caldwell Street was developed by Boston-based Cathartes Private Investments in partnership with the Canyon Johnson Urban Fund, a private equity fund co-founded by former NBA legend Earvin “Magic” Johnson that provides financial backing for residential and commercial projects in urban areas. The development also includes an on-site garage with 187 parking spaces. Mezzo Design Lofts was forced to switch to rental apartments in November 2007 in the face of “a dismal condo market,” according to Cathartes senior project manager Mark Barer
Cathatrtes attorney Louis Miller said tenants from approximately 75 percent of the 44 units that have been rented so far have opted to use the garage.
Per the lease agreement, Miller also said tenants with cars are required to park in the garage. “Anyone who lives in [the development] and doesn’t park in the garage can be evicted,” he added.
Miller said abutters should notify the management office if Mezzo tenants are parking on the street.
In addition, Miller said the developer was in negotiations with Boston Transportation Department officials to prohibit the city from issuing resident parking stickers to Mezzo tenants, thereby ensuring that they must park in the garage.
Miler said free parking in the garage would also be provided to all visitors to the development.
CNC representative Mike Charbonnier was pleased that Cathartes representatives were on hand at the meeting to address community concerns.
“The most important thing is that they came before the community, which is what they should have done in the first place,” Charbonnier said during a phone interview Monday. “Residents of Brighton and Parker streets were interested to learn why the usage of parking and the building in general had changed. All developers should adhere to the community process and respect abutters and residents of Charlestown.”
Residents Criticize Allston Master Plan
Residents Criticize Allston Master Plan
Harvard Allston Task Force calls for more details from the University
Published On Thursday, April 17, 2008 12:05 AM
By NAN NI
Crimson Staff Writer
Harvard Crimson
Members of the Harvard Allston Task Force criticized the University’s master plan for expansion into the Boston neighborhood over the next 50 years for being too vague at a meeting last night.
The task force, which is comprised of mayor-appointed residents, distributed a letter that enumerated their objections and described the proposed plan as “a vague draft that fails to address community quality of life issues.”
The letter also called for improvements that include public transportation, constructive impact mitigation, and more open spaces.
“The master plan really doesn’t tell us a lot about what Harvard plans to do with Barry’s Corner or anything else,” Task Force chairman Ray Mellone said, referring to the intersection of North Harvard Street and Western Avenue, which Harvard plans to revitalize. “Nor does it tell us how they will ensure that the campus is not an isolated concept but part of the wider community.”
The city of Boston requires large institutions to submit an institutional master plan, a long-term proposal for extensive developments. Residents then have time to comment on the proposal before the institution is given approval for individual projects. The deadline for community comment is April 25.
Senior Project Manager for the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) Gerald Autler said that residents bear part of the responsibility for ensuring that development proceeds according to their wishes.
“The more they know about what you want, the more in which they can know the parameters in which they can propose alternatives,” said Autler, whose agency is charged with overseeing development projects.
But several task force members said they felt that Harvard had ignored their suggestions in the past.
“At the end of the day, the real question is if any of this is going to do any good and if the BRA is going to go to bat for us,” Task Force member Brent Whelan said. “Are you guys interested in Harvard becoming a more responsible partner, or are we just going to deal with them the way they are?”
Autler said that the BRA would make sure that their needs were considered.
“We have regulatory power over them,” he said. “They’re not going to be able to do anything until we approve their plan.”
The University is expected to submit its final proposal—which will be accompanied by a community benefits package—in September.
No representatives from Harvard were present at yesterday’s meeting.
—Staff writer Nan Ni can be reached at nni@fas.harvard.edu
Harvard Allston Task Force calls for more details from the University
Published On Thursday, April 17, 2008 12:05 AM
By NAN NI
Crimson Staff Writer
Harvard Crimson
Members of the Harvard Allston Task Force criticized the University’s master plan for expansion into the Boston neighborhood over the next 50 years for being too vague at a meeting last night.
The task force, which is comprised of mayor-appointed residents, distributed a letter that enumerated their objections and described the proposed plan as “a vague draft that fails to address community quality of life issues.”
The letter also called for improvements that include public transportation, constructive impact mitigation, and more open spaces.
“The master plan really doesn’t tell us a lot about what Harvard plans to do with Barry’s Corner or anything else,” Task Force chairman Ray Mellone said, referring to the intersection of North Harvard Street and Western Avenue, which Harvard plans to revitalize. “Nor does it tell us how they will ensure that the campus is not an isolated concept but part of the wider community.”
The city of Boston requires large institutions to submit an institutional master plan, a long-term proposal for extensive developments. Residents then have time to comment on the proposal before the institution is given approval for individual projects. The deadline for community comment is April 25.
Senior Project Manager for the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) Gerald Autler said that residents bear part of the responsibility for ensuring that development proceeds according to their wishes.
“The more they know about what you want, the more in which they can know the parameters in which they can propose alternatives,” said Autler, whose agency is charged with overseeing development projects.
But several task force members said they felt that Harvard had ignored their suggestions in the past.
“At the end of the day, the real question is if any of this is going to do any good and if the BRA is going to go to bat for us,” Task Force member Brent Whelan said. “Are you guys interested in Harvard becoming a more responsible partner, or are we just going to deal with them the way they are?”
Autler said that the BRA would make sure that their needs were considered.
“We have regulatory power over them,” he said. “They’re not going to be able to do anything until we approve their plan.”
The University is expected to submit its final proposal—which will be accompanied by a community benefits package—in September.
No representatives from Harvard were present at yesterday’s meeting.
—Staff writer Nan Ni can be reached at nni@fas.harvard.edu
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Harvard's Institutional Plann
Allston community planning workshop draws 50
By Keith Howard, Correspondent
Thu Apr 10, 2008, 11:23 AM EDT
Allston-Brighton -
Allston-Brighton - As the Harvard machine keeps growing, Allston-Brighton residents are gearing up for another tug-of-war to keep foot traffic on their streets and university students off their front doorsteps.
The Boston Redevelopment Association had the first of two workshops to hear feedback about Harvard’s Institutional Master Plan and the North Allston-Brighton Community-Wide Plan, which will build upon the guidelines set up by the 2005 North Allston Strategic Framework for Planning.
During the April 9 meeting at the Honan-Allston Library, the BRA gave a PowerPoint presentation outlining possible methods of expansion before an audience of more than 50 people. Afterwards, residents split into four different groups to brainstorm ideas on economic development, land use and new development, transportation and urban design.
“It was a meant to be a meeting to start a process that will help us as an entire neighborhood,” said Michael F. Glavin, deputy director for institutional development. “It’s pretty critical that we hear from the community about its priorities and needs.”
According to Glavin, the benefits set up by the recently signed cooperation agreement associated with Harvard’s science center are a good example of the critical advice the BRA is looking for within the community. “A lot of their input on the types of benefits that they thought were important are in this,” he said.
The Harvard Allston Task Force developed a cooperation agreement for a benefits package through a compromise with the city of Boston and Harvard University, which will be building a $1 billion science complex in north Allston.
Some of the benefits include $23.9 million to be distributed over 10 years; a partnership fund to distribute $500,000 in grants over five years to neighborhood programs; and another $500,000 for needs that will be assed in the future.
While Kairos Shen, the BRA’s director of planning, agreed that the issues raised in the cooperation agreement were important, he insisted that the North Allston Community-Wide Plan is an entirely new opportunity to do something truly unique.
“These [cooperation agreement] are very specific contributions that will be committed to when they sign,” he said. “In a sense the scope of that is much more narrow than [what] we are invested in today. We’re providing the larger context to provide for the future planning for this area.”
Neighborhood residents said this process should make a point to provide the type of services the community really needs, instead of setting up another chain of bookstores or coffee shops.
By Keith Howard, Correspondent
Thu Apr 10, 2008, 11:23 AM EDT
Allston-Brighton -
Allston-Brighton - As the Harvard machine keeps growing, Allston-Brighton residents are gearing up for another tug-of-war to keep foot traffic on their streets and university students off their front doorsteps.
The Boston Redevelopment Association had the first of two workshops to hear feedback about Harvard’s Institutional Master Plan and the North Allston-Brighton Community-Wide Plan, which will build upon the guidelines set up by the 2005 North Allston Strategic Framework for Planning.
During the April 9 meeting at the Honan-Allston Library, the BRA gave a PowerPoint presentation outlining possible methods of expansion before an audience of more than 50 people. Afterwards, residents split into four different groups to brainstorm ideas on economic development, land use and new development, transportation and urban design.
“It was a meant to be a meeting to start a process that will help us as an entire neighborhood,” said Michael F. Glavin, deputy director for institutional development. “It’s pretty critical that we hear from the community about its priorities and needs.”
According to Glavin, the benefits set up by the recently signed cooperation agreement associated with Harvard’s science center are a good example of the critical advice the BRA is looking for within the community. “A lot of their input on the types of benefits that they thought were important are in this,” he said.
The Harvard Allston Task Force developed a cooperation agreement for a benefits package through a compromise with the city of Boston and Harvard University, which will be building a $1 billion science complex in north Allston.
Some of the benefits include $23.9 million to be distributed over 10 years; a partnership fund to distribute $500,000 in grants over five years to neighborhood programs; and another $500,000 for needs that will be assed in the future.
While Kairos Shen, the BRA’s director of planning, agreed that the issues raised in the cooperation agreement were important, he insisted that the North Allston Community-Wide Plan is an entirely new opportunity to do something truly unique.
“These [cooperation agreement] are very specific contributions that will be committed to when they sign,” he said. “In a sense the scope of that is much more narrow than [what] we are invested in today. We’re providing the larger context to provide for the future planning for this area.”
Neighborhood residents said this process should make a point to provide the type of services the community really needs, instead of setting up another chain of bookstores or coffee shops.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Columbus Center Watch Part 2
Banker & Tradesman
MassHousing Withdraws Funding For Columbus Center
By Thomas Grillo
Reporter
Another state agency has abandoned Columbus Center.
MassHousing, the state’s affordable housing bank, has withdrawn $20.6 million in loan commitments for the controversial project that was to be built above the Massachusetts Turnpike in Boston’s South End.
The loans, pledged in 2006, would have been used to leverage 44 affordable condominiums in the mixed-use project near the turnpike entrance by Columbus and Arlington streets. But the loans were never issued.
MassHousing’s determination comes on the heels of the Patrick administration’s withdrawal of a $10 million Massachusetts Opportunity Relocation and Expansion Jobs Capital (MORE) grant for Columbus Center. The Boston Globe reported today that the state decided against funding the project after months of delays.
“At this point, based on the state withdrawing its MORE grant, we will not be able to proceed with our loan commitment,” said Thomas Farmer, a MassHousing spokesman.
Construction was expected to begin in 2005 for the $800 million air-rights project that would be built “in the air” on a deck over the highway and railroad tracks near the Back Bay MBTA station. When completed, the proposal would have included a 35-story glass tower and four 11-story buildings housing 451 condos, a 180-room hotel and a parking garage.
Funding problems have plagued the massive development as construction costs soared.
A state official said WinnDevelopment’s managing partner, Roger Cassin, has failed to demonstrate that his company had the financing to make the project a reality. “It began to look like a house of cards,” said the official, who did not have authorization to speak for the state. “Every funder has gotten cold feet and wants out.”
Cassin said he was unaware MassHousing had pulled its funding. He told Banker & Tradesman that he plans a meeting with public and private funders to the get the project back on track.
MassHousing Withdraws Funding For Columbus Center
By Thomas Grillo
Reporter
Another state agency has abandoned Columbus Center.
MassHousing, the state’s affordable housing bank, has withdrawn $20.6 million in loan commitments for the controversial project that was to be built above the Massachusetts Turnpike in Boston’s South End.
The loans, pledged in 2006, would have been used to leverage 44 affordable condominiums in the mixed-use project near the turnpike entrance by Columbus and Arlington streets. But the loans were never issued.
MassHousing’s determination comes on the heels of the Patrick administration’s withdrawal of a $10 million Massachusetts Opportunity Relocation and Expansion Jobs Capital (MORE) grant for Columbus Center. The Boston Globe reported today that the state decided against funding the project after months of delays.
“At this point, based on the state withdrawing its MORE grant, we will not be able to proceed with our loan commitment,” said Thomas Farmer, a MassHousing spokesman.
Construction was expected to begin in 2005 for the $800 million air-rights project that would be built “in the air” on a deck over the highway and railroad tracks near the Back Bay MBTA station. When completed, the proposal would have included a 35-story glass tower and four 11-story buildings housing 451 condos, a 180-room hotel and a parking garage.
Funding problems have plagued the massive development as construction costs soared.
A state official said WinnDevelopment’s managing partner, Roger Cassin, has failed to demonstrate that his company had the financing to make the project a reality. “It began to look like a house of cards,” said the official, who did not have authorization to speak for the state. “Every funder has gotten cold feet and wants out.”
Cassin said he was unaware MassHousing had pulled its funding. He told Banker & Tradesman that he plans a meeting with public and private funders to the get the project back on track.
The Columbus Center Watch
State pulls $10m slated for Columbus Center
Boston Globe
By Thomas C. Palmer Jr.
Globe Staff / April 8, 2008
In what may be the death knell for the problem-plagued Columbus Center project over the Massachusetts Turnpike, the state said yesterday it is withdrawing a $10 million grant the developers were counting on.
Though state funds are a relatively small portion of the overall financing, the developers contended that the $10 million - and a second $10 million grant they applied for - were crucial to making the project financially feasible.
Columbus Center developers received preliminary approval from state officials for the first $10 million, known as a MORE grant, last year, but the state did not act on the second request. MORE stands for Massachusetts Opportunity Relocation and Expansion Jobs Capital.
"The administration is redirecting those funds to other projects that will result in more immediate job growth and economic development," Kofi Jones, spokeswoman for the Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development, said yesterday. "The developer can apply for funding in the future, but no commitments are being made," she added.
Construction on the $800 million hotel, residential condominiums, and retail project between the Back Bay and South End, which struggled through 11 years of permitting and vigorous opposition, has been on hold since last month.
The developers had not yet received any of the grant money, plus another $15 million loan from MassHousing, and asked Turnpike officials for permission to suspend work for up to 18 months, pending either approval of the funds or an improvement in the economic climate.
The request for the construction delay "triggered our decision" to withdraw the funds, Jones said.
But it remained in dispute yesterday which came first - the request to delay construction or the state's decision not to provide the $20 million.
"We needed to know how and when the funds that were previously committed to the project would kick in," said Alan Eisner, a spokesman for the developers, a team including the local firm WinnDevelopment and the California Public Employees' Retirement System and its investment advisers.
The project's estimated cost has zoomed from $350 million to $800 million since planning began in 1997.
Gregory P. Bialecki, state-permitting ombudsman, who was involved in negotiations, said the grant money was redirected in part because the developer could not guarantee it would start on the Columbus Center buildings soon after it finishes the deck over the roadway that will serve as the foundation.
"We asked them to demonstrate to us within the last 60 days it was really true that if the MORE money came through, everything else was all set," Bialecki said. "At a meeting, I was not persuaded."
In any case, the decision not to award the $10 million may spell the end for Columbus Center. That prospect - like the project itself - drew contrasting reactions yesterday."This is a shame," said David I. Begelfer, chief executive of the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties. "You have one of the better urban projects I've ever seen."
"Most any other city or state would be tripping over themselves to make this happen," he said. "To take the money away at the end is unconscionable."
However, state Representative Marty Walz, a Boston Democrat, was relieved Columbus Center would not receive public subsidies. "I'm delighted," she said. "I thought this was an inappropriate use of taxpayer money. If this developer can't or won't go forward, the process should start all over again."
Another critic of the state funding for the project, House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, said in a statement: "The Columbus Center project appears to be facing extreme financial difficulties . . . high-priced, luxury condominium projects of this kind should not benefit from state subsidies."
Massachusetts Turnpike Authority executive director Alan LeBovidge yesterday said the agency had recently reached a lease agreement with the developers to build the project on air rights over the Turnpike. But, before that lease could be finalized by Governor Deval Patrick, he heard back from the developers. "We got notified that they were stopping because of the MORE grants not being available," he said.
LeBovidge said the authority told the developers it was willing to negotiate a delay in construction of up to 18 months. But he also said he is concerned about what the developers will do in the interim, with an idle work site holding a substantial amount of equipment and materials.
"They've got to do something with all the things dug up, partial walls ripped down," LeBovidge said. "I don't want to leave it there for 18 months."
After a construction loan fell through last year, the developers decided to start work anyway, funding the construction on the deck with their own money, and even going so far as to give the Turnpike Authority a $270 million guarantee that it would be completed. Eisner said WinnDevelopment has already spent about $40 million on the project and the California pension fund has spent about $70 million.
Columbus Center was one of 23 projects that received preliminary approval for a total of $87.9 million dollars in job-creation grants. "This is the only one where the preliminary award has been redirected," Jones said.
Thomas C. Palmer Jr. can be reached at tpalmer@globe.com.
© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.
Friday, April 4, 2008
More from Allston re: Harvard
Residents doubt Harvard community benefits plans
By Elana Zak, Correspondent
Thu Apr 03, 2008, 10:35 AM EDT
Allston-Brighton TAB
Allston-Brighton - Residents expressed skepticism of the Boston Redevelopment Authority and Harvard University coming through on community benefits, such as community housing, this week at an additional Harvard-Allston community task force meeting to further discuss the Institutional Master Plan.
“What has happened to the community benefits?” said Allston resident Tom Lally at the task force’s meeting Wednesday, April 2. “How can we trust the BRA and Harvard for the new institutional master plan? We trusted you in November and December … I don’t want us to keep pushing that [community benefits] off.”
Community benefits could include things such as more restaurants, retail stores and community housing for the neighborhood. Lally said that he is still waiting for the benefits from Harvard’s new Science Complex. A presentation on community benefits was put on hold for next week due to time running out at last week’s task force meeting.
The extra meeting was planned so that the task force and others would be able to discuss and comment on the IMP. The BRA plans to collect residents’ questions and comments by April 25 in order to start creating its Scoping Determination, a document that tells Harvard what concerns it has to address in its final master plan, in May. Yet the residents’ and task force members’ underlying frustration continually came out at the meeting.
“Look at what Harvard has brought to the community so far,” said task force member Bruce Houghton. “They’ve devastated everything. … I don’t have trust.”
Task force Chairman Ray Mellone and Gerald Autler, senior project manager and planner for the BRA, both tried to keep the meeting on target. At the start of the meeting, Mellone stated the purpose of the additional meeting was to “figure out the critical issues.”
“We expect Harvard to be a full partner on a huge range of issues,” Autler said in reaction to residents’ dissatisfaction with the university. “I understand people’s frustration with Harvard. I didn’t want to spend this meeting talking about that.”
Worries about building height
Another concern brought up was the potential height of future Harvard buildings. Michael Hanlon, a task force member, said he did not want Western Avenue to become filled with incredibly tall buildings, creating a canyon effect.
“What’s important tonight is to tell us your thoughts about height. That’s a valuable comment,” said Michael Glavin of the BRA. “Those are things we need to ask Harvard to answer.”
By Elana Zak, Correspondent
Thu Apr 03, 2008, 10:35 AM EDT
Allston-Brighton TAB
Allston-Brighton - Residents expressed skepticism of the Boston Redevelopment Authority and Harvard University coming through on community benefits, such as community housing, this week at an additional Harvard-Allston community task force meeting to further discuss the Institutional Master Plan.
“What has happened to the community benefits?” said Allston resident Tom Lally at the task force’s meeting Wednesday, April 2. “How can we trust the BRA and Harvard for the new institutional master plan? We trusted you in November and December … I don’t want us to keep pushing that [community benefits] off.”
Community benefits could include things such as more restaurants, retail stores and community housing for the neighborhood. Lally said that he is still waiting for the benefits from Harvard’s new Science Complex. A presentation on community benefits was put on hold for next week due to time running out at last week’s task force meeting.
The extra meeting was planned so that the task force and others would be able to discuss and comment on the IMP. The BRA plans to collect residents’ questions and comments by April 25 in order to start creating its Scoping Determination, a document that tells Harvard what concerns it has to address in its final master plan, in May. Yet the residents’ and task force members’ underlying frustration continually came out at the meeting.
“Look at what Harvard has brought to the community so far,” said task force member Bruce Houghton. “They’ve devastated everything. … I don’t have trust.”
Task force Chairman Ray Mellone and Gerald Autler, senior project manager and planner for the BRA, both tried to keep the meeting on target. At the start of the meeting, Mellone stated the purpose of the additional meeting was to “figure out the critical issues.”
“We expect Harvard to be a full partner on a huge range of issues,” Autler said in reaction to residents’ dissatisfaction with the university. “I understand people’s frustration with Harvard. I didn’t want to spend this meeting talking about that.”
Worries about building height
Another concern brought up was the potential height of future Harvard buildings. Michael Hanlon, a task force member, said he did not want Western Avenue to become filled with incredibly tall buildings, creating a canyon effect.
“What’s important tonight is to tell us your thoughts about height. That’s a valuable comment,” said Michael Glavin of the BRA. “Those are things we need to ask Harvard to answer.”
Is "No More Than Four" Legal?
Undergrad housing law to face court challenge
By David Golann, Correspondent
Wed Apr 02, 2008, 03:55 PM EDT
Allston-Brighton TAB
Allston-Brighton - A new restriction limiting the number of college students who can rent housing together in Boston may soon be challenged in court.
In late 2007, the Boston City Council unanimously passed an amendment to the zoning code in order to prevent groups of five or more undergraduates from living in a single rental unit. The measure, intended to stem escalating home values and prevent rowdy “animal houses,” recently received final approval from the Boston Redevelopment Authority and the Boston Zoning Commission.
Opponents of the new law now have a 30-day window in which to mount a legal challenge. Attorney Stephen Greenbaum is spearheading the main effort to prevent the law’s immediate enforcement and eventually invalidate it.
“We will be raising every single legal ground which we think is viable,” said Greenbaum. “We will seek a declaration from the court that the amendment is null and void.”
Greenbaum believes the new law violates several basic constitutional liberties, such as the rights to freedom of association and equal protection under the law. He also claims that the ordinance could not be enforced without violating students’ right to privacy.
“The city would have to ascertain students’ personal academic status in order to determine the legality of their living arrangements,” said Greenbaum. “Students are under no obligation to disclose that information.”
Many opponents of the amendment claim that it violates several specific Boston laws, including one banning rent control.
“Councilor Ross has repeatedly said that his intent is to reduce rents and reduce the value of buildings containing these units,” said Greenbaum. “So there is clearly a stated intent to create an illicit form of rent control.”
The TAB was not able to speak with parties involved in the case, and their names will not be revealed until their case is filed in court. Greenbaum did state that they constituted a “broad cross-section of people who will be affected by this change,” including student tenants, landlords and other stakeholders.
According to Skip Schloming of the Small Property Owners Association, many tenants and landlords are afraid to come forward and participate in the case. He said that Realtors and tenants participating in the lawsuit risk the loss of their livelihoods and housing if their activities are revealed to be illegal.
“No one wants to come out because everyone is afraid of being targeted,” said Schloming. “They want to use a landlord on the verge of retiring so if he gets targeted, that’s just his retirement.”
The future of this legal effort is uncertain, since most challenges to similar student housing-related laws have failed. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld occupancy restrictions on unrelated college students starting with the well-known 1974 case Belle Terre vs. Boraas. Several legal scholars agreed that this ruling is the largest obstacle to Greenbaum’s legal challenge.
“The case has been criticized, but it is still good law,” said Suffolk University Law Professor Renee Landers. “They have had opportunities to reconsider it, but they have not.”
“I feel that we are on solid legal footing,” said City Councilor Michael Ross, referring to the Belle Terre ruling. “I think that this is standard zoning, and similar zoning is in place across the country.”
“There is precedent for regulating the number of unrelated undergraduate students living together,” agreed City Councilor Mark Ciommo. “Cities like Philadelphia, Milwaukee, San Francisco, Salt Lake City and Boulder [Colorado] all have similar laws.”
Boston’s unique set of local laws leave the future of this particular case uncertain, however. One local real estate professional and lawyer, who prefers to remain anonymous, believed this law will be invalidated because it targets students more explicitly than the occupancy restrictions on the books in other college towns.
“It’s true that college students are not afforded the protections based on race and gender, but they are protected. Other similar housing laws that have been upheld do not specifically mention college students, but this one does,” said the lawyer. “I do not think the law will be upheld.”
The details of the case will become clearer when it is filed in either Suffolk Superior Court or the Massachusetts Land Court. The case will most likely be filed by a deadline in mid-April.
By David Golann, Correspondent
Wed Apr 02, 2008, 03:55 PM EDT
Allston-Brighton TAB
Allston-Brighton - A new restriction limiting the number of college students who can rent housing together in Boston may soon be challenged in court.
In late 2007, the Boston City Council unanimously passed an amendment to the zoning code in order to prevent groups of five or more undergraduates from living in a single rental unit. The measure, intended to stem escalating home values and prevent rowdy “animal houses,” recently received final approval from the Boston Redevelopment Authority and the Boston Zoning Commission.
Opponents of the new law now have a 30-day window in which to mount a legal challenge. Attorney Stephen Greenbaum is spearheading the main effort to prevent the law’s immediate enforcement and eventually invalidate it.
“We will be raising every single legal ground which we think is viable,” said Greenbaum. “We will seek a declaration from the court that the amendment is null and void.”
Greenbaum believes the new law violates several basic constitutional liberties, such as the rights to freedom of association and equal protection under the law. He also claims that the ordinance could not be enforced without violating students’ right to privacy.
“The city would have to ascertain students’ personal academic status in order to determine the legality of their living arrangements,” said Greenbaum. “Students are under no obligation to disclose that information.”
Many opponents of the amendment claim that it violates several specific Boston laws, including one banning rent control.
“Councilor Ross has repeatedly said that his intent is to reduce rents and reduce the value of buildings containing these units,” said Greenbaum. “So there is clearly a stated intent to create an illicit form of rent control.”
The TAB was not able to speak with parties involved in the case, and their names will not be revealed until their case is filed in court. Greenbaum did state that they constituted a “broad cross-section of people who will be affected by this change,” including student tenants, landlords and other stakeholders.
According to Skip Schloming of the Small Property Owners Association, many tenants and landlords are afraid to come forward and participate in the case. He said that Realtors and tenants participating in the lawsuit risk the loss of their livelihoods and housing if their activities are revealed to be illegal.
“No one wants to come out because everyone is afraid of being targeted,” said Schloming. “They want to use a landlord on the verge of retiring so if he gets targeted, that’s just his retirement.”
The future of this legal effort is uncertain, since most challenges to similar student housing-related laws have failed. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld occupancy restrictions on unrelated college students starting with the well-known 1974 case Belle Terre vs. Boraas. Several legal scholars agreed that this ruling is the largest obstacle to Greenbaum’s legal challenge.
“The case has been criticized, but it is still good law,” said Suffolk University Law Professor Renee Landers. “They have had opportunities to reconsider it, but they have not.”
“I feel that we are on solid legal footing,” said City Councilor Michael Ross, referring to the Belle Terre ruling. “I think that this is standard zoning, and similar zoning is in place across the country.”
“There is precedent for regulating the number of unrelated undergraduate students living together,” agreed City Councilor Mark Ciommo. “Cities like Philadelphia, Milwaukee, San Francisco, Salt Lake City and Boulder [Colorado] all have similar laws.”
Boston’s unique set of local laws leave the future of this particular case uncertain, however. One local real estate professional and lawyer, who prefers to remain anonymous, believed this law will be invalidated because it targets students more explicitly than the occupancy restrictions on the books in other college towns.
“It’s true that college students are not afforded the protections based on race and gender, but they are protected. Other similar housing laws that have been upheld do not specifically mention college students, but this one does,” said the lawyer. “I do not think the law will be upheld.”
The details of the case will become clearer when it is filed in either Suffolk Superior Court or the Massachusetts Land Court. The case will most likely be filed by a deadline in mid-April.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)