"Needs to be a Spectacularly Beautifiul Building"

Copley Place owner unveils tower plan
By Scott Van Voorhis

Friday, March 21, 2008 - Updated 2d 13h ago

A luxury condo and retail tower almost as tall as the Prudential building would soar over Copley Square under plans unveiled yesterday by the upscale Copley Place Mall’s owner.

Retail giant Simon Properties proposed a major expansion of the mall’s Neiman Marcus store, as well as new shops and restaurants - all topped by 300 condos priced at $1 million and up.

“With all the services and amenities Copley Place offers, we thought residential was just a natural component,” said Carl Dieterle, executive vice president of development for Simon.

The project’s launch comes after months of planning and efforts to head off concerns raised by some neighborhood activists that the proposed 47-story tower might cast a long shadow across nearby Copley Square and other Back Bay landmarks.

While acknowledging the shadow issue, Simon executives contend the tower’s design will limit the project’s impact.

The high-rise will take shape on a four-story podium, with the tower itself thin and tapered to create the least amount of shadow possible on Copley Square and on the nearby Commonwealth Avenue mall, Dieterle said.

Citing research Simon commissioned, Dieterle conceded the tower will cast a shadow across some of Copley Square and the Commonwealth mall - but only between 11:30 a.m. and 1 p.m. in the winter and fall months. “It’s pencil like,” he said.

Still, the prospect of any additional shadows on Copley Square and the Commonwealth Avenue mall will have to thoroughly reviewed, said state Rep. Marty Walz (D-Back Bay).

And the design of the high-rise, given its proximity to the widely acclaimed Hancock tower, also needs to be carefully considered.

“It will be reflected in the facade of the Hancock Center and it has a very prominent position on the Back Bay skyline,” Walz said. “This needs to be a spectacularly beautiful building.”

More than just a new tower is planned, with a major retail expansion also in the works.

The project aims to add 54,000 square feet to the existing Neiman Marcus store, as well as an additional 60,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space. A four-season winter garden is also planned.

And despite concerns over a weakening economy, Simon’s Dieterle notes the project won’t open until 2012 - likely putting it in a recovering real estate market.

"Build Tall, Save the World"

Blogging Coverage on Boston.com
Build tall, save the world?
Email|Link|Comments (24) Posted by Binyamin Appelbaum March 21, 2008 11:19 AM

The Globe reports this morning on plans for the tallest residential building in Boston. This is certain to draw considerable opposition from the many people in Boston who do not like tall buildings, a disproportionate number of whom sometimes seem to live in the Back Bay.

The traditional battle lines are clear enough: The champions of economic development against the defenders of quality-of-life.

But there's another argument for more skyscrapers: We have a climate problem, and only one kind of development is truly 'smart' -- skyscrapers. Nothing is more efficient than density. Stacking homes like Legos saves energy, reduces emissions, cuts traffic.

"If we care about Boston, if we care about the environment, we should build up and build tall," Tom Keane wrote in the Globe Magazine in January. "A skyline is nothing to be ashamed of. Indeed, it may save us all."

Our history is clear: Boston is not a city of tall buildings. Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Las Vegas and Miami all have more buildings that rise at least 500 feet. By contrast, ours is a city of mid-rises, and of neighborhoods we suspect can't be improved.

What do you think our future should be?


24 COMMENTS SO FAR...

1. Yes I would agree taller is better and if Boston is to survive as world secondary citi and turn into per industrialized village in relative term by the end of this century.

We need to invest in infrastructure trains and subway with in and out 495 belt. Boston is not a green citi. Where is the Airtrain in Logan instead of taking the bus to the train station or to the rental car? Where is the subway that bring you from the terminal to City center and the subs. Most Cities in Europe have this basic things.

Yes we need more density as energy prices keep on rising the density and infrastructure for (public transportation) will help Boston to compete globally.
Posted by RB March 21, 08 12:11 PM

2. Too bad that they are building "luxury" high rise units. Just what this this city needs - - - - more unaffordable units for the very wealthy without parking --- creation of another windy downtown vortex (the wind of change?) ---- dark shaddows ----- worsening traffic. Will the buyers even occupy the units or will these be second homes for speculators or the very rich? I think that the only person who benefits here is the developer.
Posted by GB March 21, 08 12:23 PM

3. GB, who do you think pays for foodstamps and other handouts? Let me answer that for you - the wealthy through huge taxes. Why not build some more of these luxury properties and fill city tax coffers more?
And BTW, living in the city is not a right, it is a privilege. You can always move to Kentucky or Montana, if you don't like MA prices.
Now if architects and developers decide to invest in building these tall buildings within LEED certifications, I would go as far as give them tax credits. These leaky old buildings this whole area is full of are too energy inefficient.
Posted by AS March 21, 08 02:11 PM

4. Density is the key to a vital city. Building reasonable skyscrapers with ground floor retail improves the lives on everyone by creating jobs, reducing commuting time and making streets safer and more enjoyable. One needs only to look at NYC or Chicago to see this. No one here is proposing that we build 50 story towers all over Beacon Hill or the North End. But in areas like Back Bay and the Financial District have the capacity to absorb these additional units of housing and office space (due to public transit and proximity to open space, business districts and nightlife). Let's wipe the dust off of Boston and start building up - unless we want to start filling in the Harbor to create more "neighborhoods."
Posted by Dan March 21, 08 02:43 PM

5. Several year ago the Boston Globe said that 40% of the people in Boston were in projects or on Section 8. We should be decreasing the number of projects and Section 8 not increasing.
Posted by paul11 March 21, 08 03:24 PM

6. Why not have bigger buildings? Just because you cannot afford a condo in one either get a better job or move somewhere less expensive. Boston needs to keep increasing its global presence or get crushed by the other cities around the country that are continuing to increase their size (hence dollars from taxes, etc... which directly benefit not only those residents in the buildings but everyone else around them) and attracting tourists and business. As a resident of the refurbished Charlestown, I have no patience for section 8 and projects as they are definately the cancer of any part of the city in which they are located. It's been estimated 75% of crime in Charlestown is directly attributed to residents of projects or their affiliations. I for one am all for higher priced luxury condos in big buildings downtown - I cannot afford one either, but I'd rather have rich people as neighbors instead of criminals.
Posted by Kevin Flattery March 21, 08 03:35 PM

7. Boston definitely needs to rise above the "mid-rises" but first there has to be an effort to educate the citizenry on the benefits of skyscrapers because it seems that the majority don't get it. People are far more worried about a shadow crossing an open space for an hour or two during certain seasons than they are the very real prospect of berms or dikes on our extensive waterfront to protect us from rising oceans. Of all cities Boston should be building tall. We have very limited land resources but huge historical resources. These historical resources are being leveled one by one as a direct consequence of building only mid-rises because we need more of them.
Posted by Mike March 21, 08 03:48 PM

8. GB, I hate to break it to you but these are the economics of building in Boston. If the developer were to ditch the "luxury" condos and build more "affordable" condos he would lose millions. It just doesn't make business sense. Plus this tower will be connected to a high end mall and Neiman Marcus. "Affordable" condos connected to a Neiman Marcus, that makes even less sense. . .
Posted by Page March 21, 08 03:56 PM

9. Boston needs to get rid of the input of neightborhood associations in the approval process in specific areas of the city that should promote density and building tall - I can think of financial district and the back bay spine to start. These areas have no place for neighborhood activists opposing any development due to their nearsighted perception of increased shadows or traffic. Building tall is the only way to sustain a city for the long term.
Posted by John March 21, 08 04:13 PM

10. I second these comments- this type of development should be welcomed in the Back Bay and should not be tied to some inapproproate demand for 'affordable' housing attatched. But you have to question the logic of not creating additional parking for 300 high end residential units- do the developers plan to usurp part of the existing Copley Garage? The evironmental benefits of a pedestrian oriented location are only beneficial if there actually is a place to park that vehicle you're not using....
Posted by gern March 21, 08 05:44 PM

11. Pedestrian oriented people who live in cities do not need cars, so why would you need 300 parking spaces for 300 units? I have more than enough money to own my own car, maybe two. But I live and work in Boston, so why would I want to waste money on some pollution contraption that only brings stress into my life when I can get anywhere with my bike or on the train.
People of Boston, get out of your cars and stay out if you really want to have more "space" in this city.
Posted by Michael Penza March 21, 08 06:09 PM

12. I have a question for anyone with a theory. If skyscrapers with luxury condos in them go up, and tons of them, will that eventually take pressure off, say, one or two floor condo conversions in Medford or Somerville, and make those more affordable for more middle class people?
Posted by UncleJulie March 21, 08 06:31 PM

13. A new tower at the Copley Place location is fantastic news!
It's too bad though that the tower will not be at least 200 meters high. That said 170 meters is better than nothing:)
Boston needs more skyscrapers. And speaking of skyscrapers...is Trans National going to start building the 1000 foot tower or what? Break ground already! Downtown needs this new aesthetic.
I am not happy with the fact that Houston, Dallas, Las Vegas, Miami and Atlanta have more buildings that rise at least 150 meters especially Atlanta. Just as I expect our sports teams to beat the teams from these and other cities, I expect Boston to be more relevant and vital than these other cities in other areas as well. Our skyline as long as its economically viable and reasonably well designed and located is high on my list of those other areas. Skyline order in the U.S.A should be eventually at the least as follows- 1.New York, 2.Chicago, 3.Houston, 4.Los Angeles, 5.Philadelphia, 6.Boston.
We are the sixth largest consolidated metro area (CMA) in the U.S. Let our skyline reflect that fact.
Long live Boston!
Posted by George March 21, 08 06:36 PM

14. We need to develop Boston for the future. People want to live near public transportation and enjoy the city. Height makes sense especially when surrounded by low historic neighborhoods that are protected. The folks in Back Bay don't have a clue about what is best for the city, and they don't care either.
Posted by Maryanne March 21, 08 08:27 PM

15. Counterpoint: Sorry folks but you have not convinced me. Call me cynical but........
1. You want skyscrapers to look at for the "aesthetic" appeal. Sorry, but cities need more than to be viewed from a distance. Great for pictures but not much else. This is not an intercity competition. If you really like tall buildings, you can move to NYC or Shanghai.
2. The developers are probably not building parking because the ultra wealthy who buy these units will probably not need it. However, I find it hard to believe that they will be riding the T. Most will probably not even be occupying their units.
3. There are buyers of condo developments in NYC who resent living in largely unfilled buildings (ie Plaza) that have purchased, but unoccupied, units.
4. Our region has the Chestnut Hill Mall and the development in Natick. Do you really think that the suburban crowd will come into the city to shop when they already have the same thing in a move convenient location? (They certainly will not be able to park downtown and they, too, will probably not ride the T to shop at Neiman Marcus). These stores will add nothing but a few service sector jobs for people who will have to commute from outside downtown.
5. As in the past, Boston lacks any cohesive development plan. The city that brought us the Rose Kennedy Greenway (a glorified traffic island) and Govt Center (a stone wasteland) will now bring us highrise heaven?
6. KF #6 - the people who live downtown in these units will not be your neighbors. They will not care about you and their presence will do nothing to enhance your local community. In fact, their presence will provide you with even less incentive to travel to a downtown that becomes more congested with businesses that do not provide you with anything that you really want or need or can afford.
7. This approach will create a city that looks like many others... A city with same chain stores, restaurants, hotels, lack of character,........... Sorry, but I prefer the unique character that is at risk of being lost by these types of projects. If I wanted to live in New York or Chicago, then I would move there. How many NYs and Chicagos do we need?
8. No one is even considering the environmental impact (water useage, sewage, etc.....) that comes with increased so called desireable "density". To say nothing of the sociological impact of alot of disconnected downtown dwellers. The topic of building shaddows and wind - tall buildings can create undesireable unanticipated local effects. We are really talking about the liveability, not just efficiency, of the architecture and the space subserved by it. (Alcatraz is a really very efficient space!)
The only people who will truly benefit are the developers (it would not surprise me if they have tax or other monetary incentives to build), the realtors (who must be salivating over the prospect of selling the units), the speculators who will buy preconstruction and flip the units as many times as possible before they are actually built, the unions, and the politicians.
Posted by GB March 21, 08 09:14 PM

16. In environmental terms, tall buildings and density are definitely the way to go. However, do these principles sacrifice aesthetics, history, comfort, and / or connection to the natural world? This is a debate that I'm sure will be key in Boston for years to come.
Posted by EnvirObama March 21, 08 11:20 PM

17. I'm so tired of people whining about tall buildings. Folks, it's very simple. In order for a city to thrive, it needs to grow. If it doesn't grow, it will eventually fade into a depressing oblivion. In order for most cities to grow, you need to build up. Especially in Boston where the land space is at a minimum. It doesn't matter if it's luxury condos or office space or hotels, as long as there is demand, there needs to be vertical growth. If you enjoy city living, you should appreciate such development. Boston has long been too conservative with urban development and it's nice to finally see new buildings pooping up, creating a beautiful urban landscape and bringing more people and businesses into the city (that's growth, folks). And if you want to feel like you live in the city, but want it to feel like the burbs - move to the burbs and put a nice Boston skyline picture in your living room. Or move to Buffalo...
Posted by Matt R. March 22, 08 01:02 AM

18. Kevin wrote: "Just because you cannot afford a condo in one either get a better job or move somewhere less expensive... As a resident of the refurbished Charlestown, I have no patience for section 8 and projects as they are definately the cancer of any part of the city in which they are located. "
Using the same logic, if you don't like the projects in Charlestown, why did you move there? Why not move somewhere like Idaho, where you see more of the mountains and no projects?
Posted by Kyle March 22, 08 01:06 AM

19. Yep- just keep on building all those luxury units. EVERYTHING is luxury- who can afford this stuff? Who is buying it? Who is going to pay $500,000 for 500 sq ft of space in some giant tower?
I love the design because Boston' skyline is clearly one of the worst in the country... but where in God's name are all of us normal people making under $100,000 a year supposed to live?
Apparently not Boston... well I guess one of my undergrad professors said it best: "Pittsburgh and similar will see lots of new folks come in the coming years- they will be the ones who get kicked out of Boston and San Fran as prices become too expensive.. Employers better start paying more- so we can actually buy these places!
Posted by Towers=$$$ March 22, 08 08:16 AM

20. Boston needs more high quality tall buildings. It will help to attract and retain people with good incomes. They can then walk to their jobs and other daily activities. As the cost of energy continues to go up, there will be a resurgence of cities with a higher core population density and a mass transit infrastructure. How often does anyone in Houston walk to the market or dinner?
Posted by Marco March 22, 08 09:15 AM

21. John #9 you say "Boston needs to get rid of the input of neighborhood associations in the approval process." So John, just imagine if - in the interests of sustaining growth in your neighborhood, or saving the environment or whatever - they decided to build a skyscraper across the street from where YOU live.
Or maybe in the interests of more affordable housing, they decided to build a big, fat Section 8 low income housing project on land adjacent to YOUR back yard.
Something tells me that if you and your neighbors didn't already have a neighborhood association capable of fighting these types of plans, that you would form one REAL quick, and that YOU would never miss a meeting or a hearing or a chance to scream bloody murder about the threat of these projects to YOUR quality of life.
Like so many other people who love to bash folks who try and protect their own neighborhoods, it's clear John that you are happy to support growth, and sustainability, and evironmental sensitivity, etc. etc. all long as it doesn't happen in your own backyard.
So who's being near-sighted here, John?
Posted by Mike March 22, 08 10:52 AM

22. This is exactly what Boston should be doing! Build housing in the City where people can walk to work; walk to shop, go to the library, go to church; all without driving! Right near public transportation. The few yet vocal NIMBYers in Back Bay should move to the gated community they are striving for.
Posted by Elaine P. March 22, 08 01:48 PM

23. This is right on. Tom Keane is right; and so is Mayor Menino to support this.
Posted by B.A. March 22, 08 02:01 PM

24. Boston Globe: Someone needs to connect the dots: they don't want people to use the Boston Common, don't want people to drive on Storrow Drive, don't want tall buidlings, don't want housing, don't want office space, don't want more people on the MBTA, don't want parking spaces in garages but also don't want people to use the metered spaces either; don't want liquor licenses, don't want concerts. All said, this is not good for Boston.
Posted by Daniel March 22, 08 02:14 PM

Building the City's Tallest Residential Tower

The Boston Globe
Home / Business
Lofty aspirations at Copley Place
47-story tower would be the tallest residential building in Boston
By Thomas C. Palmer Jr.
Globe Staff / March 21, 2008

The owner of Copley Place is proposing to build the city's tallest residential building, a 47-floor tower that would go above an expanded Neiman Marcus at the Back Bay shopping mecca.

Simon Property Group Inc. plans to expand the luxury retailer by about 50 percent, with expensive full-service residences above and the addition of an enclosed winter garden on the open plaza at Dartmouth and Stuart streets.

Designed by Howard Elkus of Elkus Manfredi Architects of Boston, the tower would be 569 feet tall, with 43 floors of residences on top of three floors of retail and restaurant space, and one of mechanical equipment.

The project would complete Copley Place, an urban shopping gallery built in the 1980s over the Massachusetts Turnpike roadway and ramps, and on a former railroad yard. The Residences at Copley Place, as they are tentatively named, would be directly across the street from the MBTA's Back Bay Station.

"I'm very happy to see Neiman Marcus investing in the area, and it makes sense to add housing to Copley Place," said Meg Mainzer-Cohen, president of the Back Bay Association, a group of 300 businesses. "It's a tall, slender building that will work in this location."

A resident of the neighborhood, however, reacted differently.

Jackie Yessian, chairwoman of the Neighborhood Association of Back Bay, a residents' group of about 2,000 members, said she had not seen Simon's plan so she couldn't comment in detail. But, she said, "We understand it may be a major development project that could have significant impact on the neighborhood."

Both Mainzer-Cohen and Yessian said they looked forward to the public approval process. Carl Dieterle, executive vice president of development for Simon, said he hoped to win the needed permits by year-end, break ground in the fall of 2009, and open 2 1/2 years later.

The new Copley Place tower would be taller than the nearby Westin Copley Place hotel, which is 36 stories.

The residential portion will have luxury condominiums with 24-hour concierge service, a health facility, a spa, and a residents' library, Simon said. It will have housekeeping services, and room and food service will be available from some of the restaurants in the complex. The project is forecast to create 250 permanent jobs.

Currently, the tallest residential building in the city, according to emporis.com, is Millennium Place Tower 1 near Chinatown, at 38 floors and 475 feet. It is followed by the two Harbor Towers buildings, at 40 floors and 400 feet. One Devonshire Place is 42 floors and 396 feet tall.

Elsewhere in Back Bay, the relatively low-rise Mandarin Oriental Hotel and Residences are nearing completion at the Prudential Center. But Prudential Center owner Boston Properties Inc. has proposed both an office building, at 19 floors, and residential tower, at 30, to complete the Pru complex, also built over Turnpike air space.Simon Property Group had signaled its intentions previously and yesterday filed a letter with the Boston Redevelopment Authority proposing to build 300 new condos.

While many aspects of the project must be vetted with the community and approved by the city, a building at Stuart and Dartmouth streets was contemplated as part of the master plan for Copley Place when it was first built.

Dieterle said the company has no cost estimate for the project yet. He acknowledged the proposed height might be controversial, but said Simon had originally considered 50 floors.

"We were able not only to expand Neiman with retail but also to add a residential component, which was part of the goal back in the '80s," he said.

The 300 parking spaces that will go with the residences will come from existing spaces at the two garages Simon owns in the complex.

"It really was 'smart growth' - the transportation hub is right there," Dieterle said. "The residential component is a lifestyle that's become very desirable in Boston as well as other major cities."

The projects includes the addition of 54,000 square feet to the Neiman Marcus store, followed by a complete renovation of the existing 115,000-square-foot store - which will not close during construction. An additional 60,000 square feet will include smaller-scale retail shops and restaurant space, with a lighted entrance and "public winter garden" at the Stuart Street plaza.

"The expansion of Neiman Marcus and the specialty shops will ensure the City of Boston's retail preeminence within the entire metropolitan region," Simon said in a press release.

Architect Howard Elkus said Neiman Marcus has long wanted to expand and establish one of a half-dozen "flagship" stores in Boston, which this project will do.

"What that will do for the Back Bay and Boston in terms of strengthening and enhancing the retail landscape is immeasurable," Elkus said yesterday.

Indianapolis-based Simon Property Group, which acquired Copley Place about five years ago, bills itself as the largest public US real estate company, with regional malls, outlet centers, lifestyle centers, and international properties. Altogether, it controls 257 million square feet of real estate.

Thomas C. Palmer Jr. can be reached at tpalmer@globe.com.

Charlestown: Condo vs. Apartment

Mezzo developer responds to parking and traffic concerns by Dan Murphy
Charlestown Bridge

Following the decision last fall to market Mezzo Design Lofts as apartments instead of condominiums, some residents are concerned about the potential impact that the residential development and its on-site parking garage will have on Sullivan Square.
“Traffic and parking in an already congested area were [my constituents’] main concerns from day one,” said Charlestown Neighborhood Council Precinct 7 representative Mike Charbonnier.

The $54 million, 146-unit complex 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 187 parking spaces in its on-site four-story garage.

According to a March 3 letter from Cathartes senior project manager Mark Barer to CNC Chairman Tom Cunha. Mezzo Design Lofts was forced to switch to apartments in November 2007 in the face of “a dismal condo market.”

Rob Simmons, an assistant project manager for Cathartes, said prior to bringing the proposal to market the units as apartments to the Boston Redevelopment Authority, Cathartes contacted City Councilor Sal LaMattina. On LaMattina’s advice, Simmons said abutters were notified of the project change last fall.

While Barer said Cathartes couldn’t mandate that tenants park in the garage rather than on the street, he said he believed most tenants would choose to pay the additional $175 monthly parking fee for the security and weather protection that the garage provides. So far, Barer said roughly half of the approximately 15 tenants living at Mezzo have chosen to park at the garage.

“We’re trying to keep cars off the streets and be good neighbors,” Barer said, adding that property manager has encouraged tenants to use the garage.
Cunha said that residents feared that the garage would be open to the public. “They’re worried that the garage will essentially be a parking lot, and the neighborhood doesn’t want that,” he said.

Meanwhile, Ted Carman, a consultant to Cathartes, said with monthly rental prices ranging from $1,695 for studios to $3,200 for three-bedrooms, the price of on-site parking shouldn’t be an issue for most Mezzo residents.

“The tenants who can afford the rent here can afford the parking as well,” Carman said. “And it’s far more convenient than parking on the street.”

Boston Herald: Rental crackdown a study in stupidity

Rental crackdown a study in stupidity
By Boston Herald editorial staff
Friday, March 14, 2008


The Boston Zoning Commission believes it has come up with an astonishingly simple fix to one of the city’s most vexing problems - the specialty of so many public officials these days.

Backed by a coalition of supporters, including City Councilor Michael Ross and Mayor Tom Menino, the Zoning Commission has decreed that no more than four undergraduate students will be allowed to share a single dwelling in this city.

They would have us believe that once they evict that fifth student, suddenly there won’t be any more loud parties - and the families who have left student-centered neighborhoods will begin pouring back in.

We’re not buying it.

For starters, it’s not just undergrads who throw keggers - graduate students and young workers have been known to party till the wee hours, too.

Then there is the utter disregard for the presence of so many students in Boston - a major force behind this city’s economy - by so many city officials who really ought to know better.

Of course, none of that is a comfort to the parent who has to soothe a baby back to sleep because of the chaos next door. Understanding that, let’s examine the practical impact of this new ordinance. Namely, where will the displaced students go?

Not back to the housing office in search of a pricey (and often times, scarce) dorm room. Remember, the reason many of them are doubling and tripling up in a bedroom off campus is to save expenses.

No, the students will instead break up into smaller groups - and gobble up more off-campus apartments. Instead of two apartments with five students each, they’ll take up three apartments of, say, four, three and three. And that helps families seeking affordable apartments how, exactly?

Finally, there is the irony of neighbors who use one side of their mouths to demand a crackdown on rowdy renters - while using the other to wage war against colleges and universities that want to build new dorms.

Nope, not a simple problem. No simple solution, either.

Four=No More!

Boston Globe
Students face caps in city housing
Occupancy limit targets off-campus crowding, rowdiness
Northeastern University student Jon Phoenix spoke on the off-campus occupancy limit yesterday, as a large crowd thronged the Zoning Commission hearing.

GEORGE RIZER/GLOBE STAFF)
Globe Staff / March 13, 2008

The Boston Zoning Commission set a limit of four yesterday on the number of college students who can live together off campus, a far-reaching decision that could spur a citywide crackdown on crowded student housing.

Some students and property owners condemned the sweeping measure, arguing that it further burdens already cash-strapped students and may force many into more expensive college dormitories.

But proponents - an unusual coalition of neighborhood groups, college officials, and city leaders - said the new occupancy limit will reduce the number of rowdy late-night parties on otherwise quiet residential streets.

Because the measure will make it harder for students to live off campus, it will slow their influx into residential neighborhoods, chiefly Mission Hill, Brighton, and the Fenway, they said. Students who crowd into high-rent apartments, they contend, have driven up housing costs and displaced many working- and middle-class families.

"You look at these neighborhoods that were all families, and now you can count them on one hand," said state Representative Jeffrey Sanchez, who represents Mission Hill. Students from nearby Northeastern University have "essentially eradicated the family housing" in neighborhoods near the school, he said at a morning hearing at City Hall that drew more than 150 people.

The zoning change, passed unanimously by the City Council in December and backed strongly by Mayor Thomas M. Menino, has broad ramifications for the estimated 13,000 college students who live off campus in Boston, for the overall rental housing market, and for relations between colleges and their neighbors.

The Zoning Commission's unanimous approval was the final step for the measure, which needs the mayor's signature and could take effect within days, barring legal challenges. Enforcement of the law would be driven by neighborhood complaints, city officials said.

"As with other zoning violations, the Inspectional Services Department will develop an enforcement strategy to respond to any property owners reported or found to be in violation of the code," Dorothy Joyce, the mayor's press secretary, said in a written statement. "We will work with local colleges and universities to educate students and property owners about the new zoning. As [with] all zoning, we expect all property owners to adhere to the letter of the law."

Officials have not determined the specifics of enforcement, including possible fines.

Councilor Michael Ross, who sponsored the regulation, said that other municipalities - including Newark, Del., Bloomsburg, Penn., and Bowling Green, Ohio - had adopted similar zoning restrictions targeting college students and that courts have upheld the restrictions.

He estimated that at least 5,000 housing units would be affected in Boston.

Residents from across the city told the commission that homes with large groups of students were frequently disruptive, hosting raucous parties deep into the night"We were convinced the student population gets much harder to handle when it gets larger than four people," said commission chairman Robert Fondren. "I don't think anyone thinks it's malicious, but sometimes it gets out of control. It's clearly a problem, and I think this is worth a try."

Opponents, many of them property owners and college students, said the occupancy limit violates their property rights and, by focusing just on students and not other large groups of renters, unfairly singles out specific people.

"This is a back-door form of rent control," said Stephen Greenbaum, a Boston lawyer specializing in real estate and land use, who spoke against the proposal at yesterday's hearing. "You can't simply single out a particular group and say they can't live together. This will not only not stand up to a legal test, but is also patently unfair."

Some property owners denounced the plan as unenforceable and said it would backfire by deepening a housing shortage that would drive up rents.

They urged the city to focus on enforcing other occupancy codes and on cracking down on absentee landlords, rather than restricting their property rights and ability to turn a profit.

"If you reduce my five-bedroom to four, I'll just raise the rent to what I would have gotten," said Greg Hummel, a Brighton property owner. "And if students can't afford it, do you think the Starbucks crowd will pay any less?"

The measure changes how the zoning code defines a family, to prevent five or more unrelated, full-time students from living together. Larger groups can live together, as long as they are not students.

The new law is designed to discourage landlords from turning single- and two-family dwellings into high-rent, multibedroom apartments for large numbers of students, Ross and other supporters said.

"You can't let profit dominate the public debate," he said.

The new law returns the city's policy on off-campus student housing to the provision in effect in 2003, when a Boston court overturned a similar restriction.

At yesterday's hearing, Boston police Captain William Evans said he had seen how large groups of students living together often hurt residents' quality of life.

"We dread September and October in the Fenway and Allston-Brighton area," he said. "It's a tremendous drain on our resources. Nothing bothers me more than hearing people are fed up and fleeing the city."

Several college officials said the move would help combat the growing problem of students in groups as large as 12 living in housing poorly maintained by absentee landlords.

"It's a disgrace, and it's very dangerous," said Sandra Pascal, associate vice president of community affairs at Wentworth Institute of Technology.

Jeffrey Doggett - director of government relations and community affairs at Northeastern University, which is building a 1,200-student dormitory at Ruggles and Tremont streets - said the proliferation of students living together in large numbers on residential streets has reached a tipping point.

"We think it's critical this happen now," he said. "We've waited too long for this, and it's in the best interests of both the neighborhood and the students."

Property owners said they believed that colleges supported the plan in order to steer students toward their dormitories.

Students said that the restriction infringed on their rights and that they needed many roommates to afford to live in an expensive city.

(A sampling of colleges in Boston - including Boston, Northeastern, and Suffolk universities, Boston and Emerson colleges, and Wentworth Institute of Technology - found room and board typically costs at least $10,000 this academic year. In Boston, four-bedroom apartments can be found for under $3,000 a month.)

"If you took out the phrase college student and insert [an ethnic group], it would be a clear civil rights violation," said Jon Phoenix, a Northeastern University freshman. "There shouldn't be anything wrong with five friends wanting to live together."

Some students, such as Allison Pyburn, a recent Suffolk graduate who just signed a lease to live with four Simmons undergraduates in the Fenway, said the new law would make it harder for students to make ends meet.

"It's almost impossible to afford to live here already," she said.

Globe correspondent Jillian Jorgensen contributed to this report.

Too dense, too high, too many rentals, not enough family housing...

Home / News / Local Update: Charlesview | Allston/ Brighton

Project fails to impress
By Andreae Downs
Globe Correspondent / March 2, 2008

Too dense, too high, too many rentals, not enough family housing. Not to mention boring retail areas and not enough open space.

The neighborhood's issues with the plans for a new Charlesview Apartments development at Brighton Mills sound very similar to complaints about the initial plans developers presented last year.

Perhaps that has to do with the similarity of the current proposal, which was filed with the Boston Redevelopment Authority Feb. 5.

"What's striking is that it's basically unchanged from what they proposed last year," said David McNair, a neighbor who said he has attended every meeting on the proposal.

Felicia Jacques, a spokeswoman for the developer, Community Builders Inc., said the nonprofit is constrained by the 6.9-acre size of the site, obtained from Harvard University in a swap for the development's current 4.5-acre locale, and by the project's finances.

"Harvard has offered what Harvard has offered," she said. The developer hopes to start building in six months.

She added that the current proposal does respond to some of the earlier concerns voiced by residents. A health center has been replaced with shops; circulation patterns have been improved and parking spaces added; open space has been increased to just over half of the site, and front doors now face neighbors' front doors.

All that's well and good, say neighbors, but still . . .

"The main issue is that the project could be so much better in just about every aspect," said Harry Mattison, a resident and community blogger. "It could be the best thing that ever happened to a neighborhood. Harvard has the expertise and the land, but I see no indication of a desire to seize this opportunity."

Harvard spokesman Kevin McCluskey said the project is out of Harvard's hands. The school, he said, "worked very cooperatively . . . to reach an agreement to ensure that the aging Charlesview Apartments will be replaced by modern units."

Activists aren't buying that.

"Harvard has moral and ethical complicity in this," said Tim McHale, who lives on nearby Holton Street . "I want them to come back to the table for more land. You just can't shoehorn this in and expect us to be happy."

Although the new site is somewhat larger than the old, the number of apartments has almost doubled, from 213 in the current development to 400 in the proposed one.

"It's essentially much higher density, much closer to the neighborhood," said Paul Berkeley, president of the Allston Civic Association. "The height of the buildings and density are twice as much as what zoning allows."

But Jacques said the developer is merely responding to the neighborhood. "We understand that there's a demand for more affordable housing in the neighborhood," she said.

Residents also object to the developers' grouping of all the federally subsidized rental units on the south side of Western Avenue and all the homeownership and market-rate condos on the north side, nearer the Charles River.

"With this project, we will have 500 low-income units just along Everett Street," said McNair, who has lived on nearby Bagnal Street for the last decade. "There will be two separate areas, low-income and Harvard."

Jacques said the project's financing and subsidies make it difficult to mix affordable and market-rate units.

Mattison also cited the lack of room for families in the proposal. New apartments include 44 new units with one bedroom, 126 with two, 17 with three, and none with four. "It's 10 small, not family-friendly units to every one big enough for a family," he said. "it really needs to be flipped around."

Another resident request is for more homeownership, since Allston, at 21 percent, has one of the lowest owner-occupancy rates in the city.

"Why add a single new rental unit to the neighborhood?" Mattison asked.

Some 118 of the new units are for sale, not rental, noted Jacques.

Neighbors stressed that they support relocating the current tenants of Charlesview into better apartments in the community. They also welcome the development of the now mostly vacant shopping center.

"It's a good idea to move Charlesview," said Ray Mellone, who chairs the Harvard Allston Task Force. "I'm just not sure this is the best way to handle it."

The BRA will hold two meetings, on March 10 and 24, for public comment on the proposal. The comment period ends March 31, according to BRA spokeswoman Jessica Shumaker.