NIMBY Boston

Back Bay losing Population

2011-04-01T11:07:00.004-04:00

Many NIMBYers express concern that too much development has occurred in the Back Bay, but here is another take. The space added provides less housing than can be accounted for in the reduction of units in the historic district. This is a concern for the future of Boston.

BC Expansion approved despite "no"

2009-05-07T04:36:00.001-04:00

BC's expansion plan gets OK despite neighbors' opposition
Zoning board allows it, 9-1
By Matt Byrne
Globe Correspondent / May 7, 2009
Commission voted last night to approve a controversial Boston College expansion plan after a marathon, 5 1/2-hour meeting.

More than 200 people packed the public hearing to argue the merits of BC's sweeping, $1 billion construction master plan, which was passed by a 9-to-1 vote.

Public discussion, at some points heated, lasted for more than four hours, with Zoning Commissioner chairman Robert Fondren gaveling the room back to order numerous times.

The college proposes to build new baseball and softball stadiums on open space that used to belong to the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston.

Also included is a proposal to house students in university-controlled dormitories.

Residents vehemently opposed the construction of the 1,000-seat baseball stadium, which they said would generate excessive noise, light, and generally disturb the neighborhood. Some also contended that the university would build the stadium first and delay construction of the dorms.

A group of Brighton neighbors, along with an environmental group, had raised concerns about the impact of the construction on aqueducts beneath the campus that carry the water supply for Boston and many surrounding communities.

In the brief business meeting that followed, the commission recommended that language be added to the master plan that requires the college to commence building a residential dormitory concurrently with construction of the playing fields on the Brighton campus.

Placing students in on-campus housing has long been a priority of Mayor Thomas M. Menino, whose office sent a representative to voice support for the proposal.

Members of Brighton Neighbors United, a group that focuses on preserving green space and limiting institutional expansion, came out in force and vocally opposed BC's plans, arguing that the university had steam-rolled its proposal through the process.

Also in attendance were Councilors at Large Sam Yoon and Michael Flaherty, who both came out to oppose the master plan, in addition to a handful of other elected officials.

"My opposition has something to do with the process," Yoon said, adding that he believed that the community-involvement procedure was flawed and ignored hundreds of stakeholders.

One resident, Jay Allen, whose house is close to the proposed ball field, said the size of the field "just didn't fit."

"Just because you can get the top button buttoned, it doesn't mean you should wear the pants," Allen said.

© Copyright 2009 Globe Newspaper Company.

Governor Patrick "Does the Right Thing!"

2009-01-16T06:24:00.003-05:00

Patrick wants state's share to spur private development
By Casey Ross
Globe Staff / January 16, 2009

Governor Deval Patrick is planning to use money from an expected federal stimulus package to jump-start private real estate development across the state, targeting improvements such as new roads and highway connections that the projects need to move forward.

The federal funds would help foot the bill for highway ramps, parking garages, or rail stations that are typically paid for by builders, who are already struggling for financing during the current downturn.

The Patrick administration said it would limit distribution of the money to projects that could begin within six months, in keeping with President-elect Barack Obama's insistence that any federal stimulus should produce im mediate results.

Massachusetts officials argue that directing the federal money to these private developments will have a multiplier effect -creating construction jobs on the front end and creating office, retail, and other jobs once the projects are finished.

"What we're asking ourselves is, 'Where can public investment create more long-term job growth and housing growth in Massachusetts?' " said Greg Bialecki, Patrick's undersecretary of business development. "We want to structure the plan so there are a lot of different opportunities for people to be put to work."

Patrick's administration has previously identified $4.7 billion in spending on projects - which range from upgrades to public buildings to renewable energy projects - it hopes to finance with the state's portion of an $825 billion stimulus package congressional Democrats officially introduced yesterday. Bialecki was unable to provide an estimate of how much the administration would direct to improvements at private developments, but said it would be a significant amount. Governor's aides also would not identify which projects would receive the help.

Among developments already angling for a slice are the $810 million Columbus Center complex in Boston and Westwood Station, a $1.5 billion retail and housing complex at the intersection of Interstate 95 and the Amtrak rail line.

"Like everyone else in the development community, we are exploring all options to move our project forward in this economy," said Pam McDermott, a spokeswoman for the team of McFarlane Partners and WinnCompanies, which is developing Columbus Center. "Columbus Center has its permits and is shovel-ready, and also meets the other federal criteria, including the creation of 2,700 construction jobs, and creates enormous public infrastructure."

Such funding, though, would be controversial, as some of the large developments are not universally popular in their communities. Opponents have said previous requests by Columbus Center's developers for public subsidies were inappropriate for what is largely an upscale development. The project includes a 35-story condominium tower, a hotel, and stores built over the Massachusetts Turnpike that would join the South End and Back Bay neighborhoods. It needs a $50 million deck built over the turnpike.
"Taxpayer subsidies for Columbus Center are wholly inappropriate, whether the source of the money is the city, the state, or the federal government," said state Representative Marty Walz, a Democrat from the Back Bay who vowed to fight any federal funding for the project.

The Westwood Station development, on a large site opposite the Route 128 train station, needs $86 million worth of road and utility upgrades. Its builder said it would create 3,700 construction jobs and as many as 9,000 when it is completed in five years or so.

"We think we can make a good case that this is a sound investment that will have collateral benefits by generating jobs" and bringing business to the surrounding area, said Jay Doherty, president of developer Cabot, Cabot & Forbes. He did not indicate how much money the project is seeking.

The neighboring town of Canton lost a lawsuit over traffic concerns last month, and it continues to squabble with Cabot on mitigation matters.

Meanwhile, Somerville officials are seeking stimulus money for some of the $56 million in improvements, such as to roads and sewers, for Assembly on the Mystic, a proposed 66-acre development with 1.75 million square feet of office space, 850,000 square feet of retail stores, and 2,100 residential units. The city said the project would create 8,000 construction jobs and 4,000 permanent jobs.

Other projects vying for federal funds are Northwest Park, a 300-acre development in Burlington, and the SouthField development at the former Naval Air Station South Weymouth.

Patrick administration officials have not indicated which projects they favor. Within the last few weeks, Patrick's office of Housing and Economic Development has established seven task forces to identify possible recipients.

Bialecki said that he and other officials are still getting input from developers and community groups, and that they will sort through the projects in the next few weeks. The goal is to have a detailed list of projects ready to proceed if and when Congress authorizes the stimulus package. Bialecki said the projects could be as varied as community theaters, rooftop solar panels, and new highway interchanges.

The stimulus bill introduced in the US House yesterday would give states $90 billion for upgrades to public roads, bridges, and other projects, $87 billion for Medicaid costs, and $79 billion for public schools.

One local member of Congress warned the Patrick administration to select only those projects that can generate economic growth immediately.

"If there are states that are not ready to use the money, then it will be sent to other states," said Congressman Michael Capuano, a Democrat from Somerville. "The number one thing is to create jobs as quickly as possible."

Casey Ross can be reached at cross@globe.com.

© Copyright 2009 Globe Newspaper Company.

Rejected by the Neighborhood

2008-12-05T05:05:00.001-05:00

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.”

Tempers Flared in Brighton

2008-12-05T05:00:00.000-05:00

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.

Proposals for Air Rights Parcels Due Today

2008-12-05T04:53:00.001-05:00

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.

Getting to YES at the Pru

2008-12-05T04:48:00.002-05:00

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.

Moving Forward at the Pru, Despite NIMBYs

2008-12-05T04:41:00.003-05:00

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.

Opposing 27% Affordable Housing!

2008-11-26T05:29:00.001-05:00

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.

NIMBY success

2008-11-14T05:49:00.000-05:00

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.”

"Opponents Dug in Their Heals"

2008-11-11T16:57:00.002-05:00

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.

Representative Marty Walz Strikes Again!

2008-11-11T06:16:00.002-05:00

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.

$2 Million for baseball

2008-11-11T04:29:00.004-05:00

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.

Calling out the NIMBY's

2008-11-06T03:57:00.001-05:00

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.

Benefits of Columbus Center Warrant More Public Support

2008-07-03T09:31:00.004-04:00

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.

"Protests Kill Plan"

2008-06-27T06:24:00.001-04:00

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.

Moving City Hall

2008-06-26T05:33:00.001-04:00

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.

Harvard Art

2008-06-26T05:29:00.001-04:00

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.”

BRA approves Suffolk, Simmons projects

2008-06-25T05:44:00.001-04:00

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.

Copley Tower!

2008-06-25T05:37:00.003-04:00

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

Boston University Angers Neighbors With Ebola, SARS Germ Lab

2008-06-18T06:44:00.000-04:00

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

Neighbors don’t want more homes

2008-06-18T06:41:00.001-04:00

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 Substation: Waiting for a Developer

2008-05-08T05:26:00.002-04:00

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.

Compromise on Height at the Dainty Dot

2008-05-08T05:21:00.002-04:00

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.

An Overview of development in Southie

2008-05-06T04:44:00.001-04:00

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.

Forest Hills Improvement Initiative

2008-05-06T04:34:00.001-04:00

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.

NIMBYism to the Nth Degree: Thankfully Overruled!

2008-04-17T04:16:00.002-04:00

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.

Park in the Garage!

2008-04-17T04:10:00.002-04:00

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

2008-04-17T03:55:00.001-04:00

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's Institutional Plann

2008-04-12T14:27:00.001-04:00

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.

Columbus Center Watch Part 2

2008-04-08T16:22:00.001-04:00

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.

The Columbus Center Watch

2008-04-08T11:01:00.002-04:00

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.

More from Allston re: Harvard

2008-04-04T06:10:00.001-04:00

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.”

Is "No More Than Four" Legal?

2008-04-04T06:04:00.001-04:00

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.

Mission Hill Concerned about Mrs. Jack's Will?

2008-04-02T05:24:00.002-04:00

Critics fear expansion will alter museum's style
Increase in visitors necessitates $60m plan, Gardner staff says
Email|Print|Single Page| Text size – + By Thomas C. Palmer Jr.
Globe Staff / April 2, 2008

The plan for a new Piano-designed complex that would be built behind the existing museum was approved unanimously by the Boston Redevelopment Authority's board yesterday. It would contain a performance hall, educational space, a new entrance lobby, museum shop, cafe and kitchen, greenhouse, and other space.

While the Boston Preservation Alliance and a number of groups based in the Fenway neighborhood endorse the expansion, another organization, Friends of Historic Mission Hill, is asking the Boston Landmarks Commission to head off some of the proposed changes, saying they would violate instructions Gardner included in her will to preserve the original museum, which was built in the 15th-century Venetian palazzo style.

"It's like one of the 10 special buildings in the whole city," said Alison Pultinas, who has led the Mission Hill effort. "The intention of the property was a walled palace, monastic on the outside and palatial on the inside. We're concerned about the scale of the project, the authenticity of the museum experience, and changes to how people experience the Palace."

The proposed $60 million project includes a 60,000-square-foot glass addition and renovation of the fourth floor of the Palace, as the original Gardner is called. The new build ing would be about 50 feet from the existing main structure and 62 feet high, about the same as the Palace, and would connect to the main building through the garden.

The project would "create a building that is special in its own right, while respecting the unique nature and historic integrity of the Palace," the museum said in documents filed with the city.

The expansion is needed to accommodate visitors, which have increased to 200,000 a year, and to relieve overcrowded conditions that museum director Anne Hawley described to the BRA board yesterday. "We have people working in basements and closets," she said. "It's a nightmare, frankly."

One of Boston's most beloved and quirkiest institutions, the Palace was built around 1901 as a residence and museum, and features a flowering courtyard at its center and a collection of 2,500 objects that includes the first Matisse painting acquired by a museum in the United States. Eighteen years ago last month, thieves broke into the museum and stole 13 works of art - including three Rembrandts, a Vermeer, and a Manet - a crime that remains unsolved.

To make way for the new building, the Gardner would demolish a carriage house, annex, and part of a perimeter wall. The project would require relocating one work of art - a sarcophagus - as well as moving the main entrance from The Fenway to Evans Way.

Pultinas believes the changes, including demolition of the carriage house, may violate Gardner's will about preserving the property and the collection inside.

"Her will referred to the buildings, carriage house, and Palace," she said.

The Mission Hill group petitioned the Landmarks Commission in February to designate the Gardner complex as a landmark, which would significantly restrict what alterations could be made without commission approval. The Gardner agreed to participate in the commission's review of the project. A meeting is scheduled for next week where the commission will vote whether to give conceptual approval.

But Gardner's will also stipulates that the museum be maintained for public enjoyment, and officials believe the expansion is critical to fulfilling that obligation. The museum has submitted the project to the state attorney general for review, and will seek a ruling from probate court on whether the addition violates Gardner's will.

"We think, in the context of the overall purpose of Mrs. Gardner's will to create a museum for the education and enjoyment of the public forever, this is a very reasonable step to take," said Stephen W. Kidder, a lawyer for the museum.

The Fenway Alliance, a group of more than 20 institutions, said in a letter of support that the expansion "will be an ideal complement to Isabella Stewart Gardner's palace" and "will enable the museum to better preserve one of Boston's most treasured cultural resources."

Another supporter, the Boston Preservation Alliance, wrote that while the carriage house is "an interesting building," it "has never been part of the visitor experience."

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

Four Proposals for 1501 Commonwealth Avenue

2008-04-02T04:59:00.001-04:00

Four developers make proposals for Commonwealth Avenue
Bullitan
Scott Wachtler 27.MAR.08

BRIGHTON — The city’s Department of Neighborhood Development hopes that the second time will be the charm for four new proposals to develop 1501 Commonwealth Ave. in Brighton.

Last year, the community rejected the four proposals shown on the basis that none of them were a good fit for the area.

John Feuerbach, a DND senior Development officer, unveiled the four new proposals last week to a sparsely attended community meeting held at the Jackson Mann Community Center.

Most of the audience was made up of developers ready to pitch their proposals, local politicians or their representatives and a handful of the regular cadre of Allston-Brighton community activists.

The meeting started a half hour late in hopes that more people would arrive.

"Sorry for the delay," Feuerbach said. "These are not the numbers of neighborhood representatives we were intending."

Feuerbach said the DND was committed to finding a developer that the community was comfortable with and if it took a couple of meetings to find that developer they were willing to hold more meetings.

The proposals came from the Allston Brighton CDC, B’nai B’rith Housing New England, the Brighton Partnership for Community Reinvestment and the New Atlantic Development Corp.

This was the second time The Allston Brighton CDC and B’nai B’rith Housing New England has made proposals for the development of the property.

All proposals accounted for mixed income units of either low-income, or market rate housing. The proposal from B’nai B’rith included units for middle income housing.

All units will be built to the United States Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design standards. All are rated in the Silver range of certification.

Each developer was given 15 minutes to pitch their proposal to and then given 10 minutes to answer questions from the audience.

The Allston-Brighton CDC drew upon their existing relationship with the Allston-Brighton Community. Their plan for the site is for a five-story building with four stories of housing and a one-story garage. Eight units are proposed for one bedroom, 23 units for two bedrooms and nine three bedrooms. Twenty-one units are set aside as affordable housing while 19 will be available at market rate.

Alex Selvig, a former candidate who ran last year for Allston Brighton’s City Council seat, commended the developers for including the most three bedroom units in their proposal.

"The three-bedroom units would help to bring families back to Allston-Brighton. I’m glad to see you’re committed to that," Selvig said.

Local activist Eva Webster was concerned that the plan didn’t include enough parking, but representatives from the Allston Brighton CDC said that the parking was standard for what the city asks.

B’nai B’rith Housing New England’s proposal relied heavily on their track record of developing mixed income housing and their highest ratio of parking spaces to bedrooms of all the proposals. They offer a five-story building with 39 one-bedroom units and 13 two-bedroom units. Twenty units would be set aside for low-income buyers, 15 for middle income buyers and 17 units would be offered at market rate. Representatives stressed that their proposal was the only one that included the middle income tier and that the building they proposed would draw on the architectural style of the buildings within the neighborhood.

Webster questioned the size of the bedrooms and questioned whether the apartments would be used for elderly housing — a complaint that was brought up at the last proposal meeting.

"These are small units," Webster said. "I get the feeling that you’re warehousing people and doing a disservice to the community by not being family friendly."

The proposed size of the one bedroom units are 700 square feet and the size of the two bedroom units are 850 square feet.

Harry Mattison, another local activist, worried that the units would be attractive to students. Representatives from B’nai B’rith said their experience with building similar housing at 33 Commonwealth in Newton hasn’t shown that to be the case.

Selvig questioned whether B’nai B’rith was truly committed to the community since the community tried to get the 33 Commonwealth Ave. building scaled down.

Representatives from B’nai B’rith said that they did listen to the community’s concerns about the building and did end up scaling the property down.

The next proposal came from the Brighton Partnership for Community Reinvestment. Their proposal centered on the beauty of the new building and even went so far as to name the property, Charing Cross, after a section of London.

"We wanted to do something nice to look out from, but also nice to look at," Merrill Diamond said.

Their proposal offered the highest percentage of market-rate units and offered the most parking. The six-story building would contain housing on four stories and two for a garage. They propose 49 two-bedroom units and eight one-bedroom units. Nineteen units would be set aside for affordable housing and 38 available for market rate housing.

The Brighton Partnership for Community Reinvestment proposal also included community benefits, such as money to clean the median in front of the building, money to upgrade the nearby park and an apprenticeship program during the construction. The proposal also includes a program that would set aside .33 percent of any sale to be used at the community’s discretion.

The New Atlantic Development Corp’s proposal focused on environmental sustainability and included the most ecologically friendly building. While most of the proposals included options for solar panels, New Atlantic’s, incorporated other sustainable options. Roof drains are designed to retain rainwater into collection tanks in order to water gardens and heat recovery ventilation systems that are efficient in minimizing energy use.

Four stories of the five-story building will be used for housing, while one story would be reserved for parking. They propose three, one-bedroom units, 39 two-bedroom units and eight three-bedroom units. Half of the units will be available as affordable housing while the other half will be sold at market rate. The proposal also includes the largest square footage per room of any of the other proposals.

Selvig said he was very impressed with the environmental sustainability of the proposal, while Webster said she felt the proposal was under-whelming for the area.

Another woman in the audience was worried whether the proposal’s new ideas would be a problem in the future when it comes to maintaining the property.

"There is no untried technology being put to use here," Peter Roth, president of New Atlantic Development Corp said. "The rainwater collection tanks would need to be drained in the winter and the solar panels would need to be cleaned from time to time."

After the meeting Selvig was positive about many of the proposals, but especially New Atlantic’s.

"I would love to live in a building like this," he said while looking over the buildings details. It would be great if we had more land sites available for development because it’s important that we find ways of bringing families back to the Allston Brighton area."

- The Bulletin Newspapers

"Unfriendly to Business" = "Vacancies on the Rise"

2008-04-02T04:51:00.002-04:00

Where have all the stores gone?
West Roxbury Bullitan
Scott Wachtler 27.MAR.08

Centre Street vacancies on the rise

According to West Roxbury Main Streets, from the Holy Name Rotary on Centre Street to the Spring Street intersection with VFW Parkway, there are almost 20 retail vacancies inside West Roxbury’s business district.

Two more high profile closings happened after that list was compiled — Imagine That and Vintage restaurant.

In order to try to stem this spate of store closings, Kelly Tynan, executive director of West Roxbury Main Streets, held a public meeting last week to address the issue and get feedback from the community.

"The purpose of this meeting is not to look at the past, but to look at the future," Tynan said. "Right now we have numerous vacancies in the business district and we want to get your feedback on what we want to see West Roxbury look like in the coming years."

Tynan said that the economic slow down has hit West Roxbury and it will only get worse.

"We need to work on a plan before it gets worse and it will get worse," she said.

Tynan plans to work with local landlords in order to make them aware of the community's needs.

Main Streets is currently working on setting up meetings between landlords and community groups.

Despite Tynan’s desire to look for solutions for future prosperity, some in attendance felt West Roxbury’s reputation as being unfriendly to new business was one of the factors contributing to the vacancies.

A man who identified himself as a developer said that it is very difficult to do anything in West Roxbury.

"The impression out there is that we are not friendly to new businesses," he said. "Anybody who wants to invest their capital and come to our community should be allowed to open and be allowed to succeed and fail on their own merits."

He compared West Roxbury’s economic strength to Needham, but said that West Roxbury has fewer services. Others in the audience agreed.

"I can’t buy a set of sheets without going two towns over," one woman said.

Some placed blame on "entrenched groups" in the community that resist new business, especially when there are liquor licenses at stake.

"I don’t feel as though the West Roxbury Neighborhood Council reflects what I want to see in the neighborhood," a woman in the audience said.

Neighborhood Council Board member, Stephen Smith and Tynan encouraged everyone to be part of the neighborhood council by coming to meetings to show support for the businesses that the community wants to see, or serving on the Main Streets board.

Andy Dean, a member of Main Street’s Board of Directors, asked Smith what some of the council’s considerations are when evaluating new businesses.

"Parking, parking, parking," Smith said. "Something that meets the needs of the neighborhood. [We ask:] is it different than what we already have? We don’t want to see something that just duplicates what we already have."

Nick Anastasopulos, also a member of the Board of Directors, said that parking needs were overstated.

"I understand the parking issue, but I think it’s all relative to what your experience is," Anastasopulos said. "Parking may be congested on Centre Street, but if you compare what we have with an Inman Square where there are tons of cars on the streets, that’s a crunch."

Smith said that parking isn’t the only consideration, but it is a problem and there should be a balance.

In an interview after the meeting, both Tynan and Smith agreed that the neighborhood council is set up to be a reflection of the community.

"People should get involved," Tynan said. "People aren’t always familiar with the process and people need to be vocal about what they want."

As a result of the meeting, Tynan said that some people in the audience joined the Main Streets board.

Smith felt it was unfair to say that the neighborhood council wasn’t a reflection of the community.

"Our meetings are open to the public and they are the fourth Tuesday of every month and people just need to come out and show support if they feel strongly about something," Smith said.

Other comments from neighbors attending the meeting included the need for a boutique store to buy gifts, a family restaurant that you could bring a child to, bookstores and even a small knitting shop.

"There’s nothing to do after eating at a restaurant here," one woman commented. "We need more arts and crafts or arts center.

Tynan said according to a recent retail survey, it was found that residents wanted more ice cream stores. There will soon be three stores selling ice cream in West Roxbury. A Champs Ice Cream will be moving into 1723 Centre Street, replacing the L’Esssence Art Gallery that was closed due to last year’s fire. In addition, Real Deal will start selling Emack & Bolio’s ice cream in the near future.

Tynan called the meeting a step in the right direction and productive. She said West Roxbury Main Streets supports the community process and is working on changing the perception that West Roxbury is unfriendly to business.

"We’re here to help businesses though the community process," she said. "We need people to be vocal about how we’re a welcoming community. We need to get that perception out there and let businesses know."

- The Bulletin Newspapers

Charlesview: Residents want more Space

2008-04-02T04:36:00.000-04:00

Wanted: more space for Charlesview
By Susan Haverson, Correspondent
Wed Mar 26, 2008, 02:45 PM EDT
Allston-Brighton TAB

Allston-Brighton - “Density and height are excessive for the Brighton Mills and Telford site” proposed for the new Charlesview housing complex, said A-B City Councilor Mark Ciommo. Although residents were reviewing a proposal to expand Charlesview from a 213-unit housing complex on 4.5 acres at 51 Stadium Way to a 400-unit mixed-income development on 6.9 acres at the new location, Ciommo pointed out that the current location is actually about 6.5 acres, when the parking lot and public ways are taken into account.

The net increase in acreage is approximately .4, rather than approximately 2.4, while the unit count would nearly double. Residents were already upset about the project’s density before this came to light.

Edward Kotomori, a neighbor, figured that Harvard University, which offered the new site being considered for Charlesview in exchange for the complex’s current site, would want the additional space at the old site. He wondered if the city, which owns that additional space, could give it to Harvard in return for more presently Harvard-owned land for Charlesview.

Another neighbor was concerned that people who could afford to buy housing units in the new complex would have more than one car apiece, and that there would not be enough parking spaces. “The neighborhood is too small,” he said, and “the street’s too small.”

“We’re bringing more people into the project, and adding no public transportation,” said resident David McNair, who is considering moving out of the area. He noted that the proposed site would not have access to one of the four bus routes, the 66, that services the current Charlesview location.

Willie Jones, project developer and Community Builders’ senior vice president, and Felicia Jacques, its director of development for the northeast region, said they need to move ahead with the project. “We have a clock we are now operating under,” that leads to occupancy within a few years, said Jones.

Jacques explained that time-limited legislation gave the Department of Housing and Urban Development the authority to transfer a Section 8 contract to a new location, which Charlesview needs to maintain the affordability of its units. HUD approved Charlesview’s proposal to maintain its current property, which has structural problems, while developing the new site in a certain time frame, so the present occupants can move to their new homes. Jacques said the tenants need good, safe housing, so Charlesview has to stick to the schedule that was approved.

“Our time frame is forever,” said Allston resident Karen Smith. “We’ll be living with it for a long, long time.”

Feedback wanted
The Project Notification Form is available on the Boston Redevelopment Authority’s Web site and at the neighborhood libraries. Comments can be sent to Jay Rourke, senior project manager, at the BRA, 1 City Hall Square, Boston, MA 02201 or e-mailed to Jay.Rourke.BRA@cityofboston.gov. He can also be reached at 617-918-4317. The comment period for the project ends on March 31.

The BRA’s scope, a document prepared in response to the proposal that will reflect the comments received about it, will be issued on April 25.

Harvard's Institutional Plan: Residents want more time

2008-04-02T04:33:00.001-04:00

Residents want more time to comment on Harvard
By Elana Zak, Correspondent
Thu Mar 27, 2008, 11:37 AM EDT
Allston-Brighton - TAB

Allston-Brighton - The Boston Redevelopment Authority reassured Allston residents this week that their input is wanted regarding Harvard University; they will not be rushed in making decisions, said Gerald Autler, senior project manager and planner for the BRA.

“We do want your scoping,” Autler said at the Harvard-Allston community task force meeting Wednesday, March 26. “I don’t want to be in the position again of rushing to the community benefits process.”

The meeting marked the first time this year that the task force discussed Harvard’s Institutional Master Plan. The master plan is a detailed framework that shows how Harvard plans to expand in Allston over the next 50 years. The plan features no substantial changes from what was filed last year, but the task force, which had focused its discussions for the past months primarily on Harvard’s Science complex, is now beginning detailed discussion of the full plan.

Scoping is a process whereby residents and task force members send in their recommendations and a formal document listing these suggestions will be sent to Harvard. The idea is that Harvard will implement some of these changes into their master plan so that residents are happy with the changes being done in their neighborhood.

“What’s important is that Harvard gets the campus they want,” said Bruce Houghton, a task force member. “The campus is not for the benefit of the neighborhood.”

Some were not thrilled with the master plan presentation. Jake Carman, an Allston resident, expressed concern over how retail areas in the neighborhood would be developed. He also mentioned that he felt Harvard and the BRA were not listening to the residents.

“I don’t want to see Barry’s Corner turned into Harvard Square because there’s nothing there for me,” he said. “This is supposed to be a partnership. They should be listening to us.”

Task force member Brent Whelan expressed concern over the fact that he felt rushed to make recommendations after Autler said he wanted comments to be sent in by next month. Autler, however, said numerous times during the meeting that the scoping was the beginning of the process and there was no rush. Both BRA and Harvard officials stressed that the master plan is a work in progress and subject to change.

Another topic at the meeting was the formation of Citizens Advisory Committee. The CAC, which was suggested by the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act office, would be composed of the existing Harvard-Allston Task Force as well as four other members appointed by the Ian Bowles, the secretary of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. The committee would help Bowles assess Harvard’s submissions to MEPA.

“We’re looking at the bigger picture’s environmental impacts,” said Briony Angus, MEPA’s representative at the meeting. “We’re looking at traffic to storm water to air quality.”

Task force members seemed a little overwhelmed by the knowledge that they would be participating in yet another committee. While Angus could not say what the exact time commitment would be, she reassured the task force that they still had a lot of time before a CAC meeting would take place.

“My questions is, really, are you serious? We all have day jobs,” said Whelan, summing up many of the task force members’ feelings.

Feedback wanted
Comments on Harvard’s Institutional Master plan are due by April 25. Comments can be sent to Gerald Autler at Gerald.autler.bra@cityofboston.gov, or mailed to 1 City Hall Square, Boston, MA 02201.

Don't Improve Traffic Signals on Beacon Hill?

2008-04-02T04:29:00.001-04:00

Beacon Hill Times
Neighborhood leaders reject city’s argument for new traffic signals on Charles St. by Karen Cord Taylor

City transportation officials have a plan to install new traffic equipment at four Charles Street intersections, saying the intersections will be safer, the lights will be easier to repair and the change will bring the neighborhood into compliance with federal regulations.

But neighborhood leaders say the metal boxes that would control the equipment are too large, too ugly, and inappropriate for the oldest historic district in the commonwealth.

They also question the need for new signals, since they say they’ve never seen evidence that there is a safety or maintenance problem with the traffic lights along Charles Street.

“In the absence of data that show this is a safety issue or that the [current] lights are deficient, our committee will oppose this proposal,” said Steve Young of Chestnut Street, the chair of the traffic and parking committee for the Beacon Hill Civic Association, at last week’s hearing before the Beacon Hill Architectural Commission.

The city’s proposal involves replacing the traffic lights at the intersections of Chestnut, Mount Vernon, Pinckney and Revere streets with larger and brighter lenses run by computerized equipment that connects to city hall where transportation department officials can monitor traffic and control the timing of the lights, said John DeBenedictis, the Boston Transportation Department’s director of engineering.
The city would have to dig trenches across three streets at each intersection and another trench to the box at each intersection. The work would begin about a month after the city receives the go-ahead from the commission, if they are successful in obtaining that permission.

The new signals would replace outdated red and yellow combination walk signals with the new international standard that includes a countdown so pedestrians know how much time they have left in which to cross. At this point Boston has only 10 traffic signals remaining out of 800 that employ the red and yellow pedestrian signal, said Jim Gillooly, BTD’s deputy commissioner.

Charles Street’s traffic signals, which date from 1931 and 1952, according to city reports, are prone to breaking down, said DeBenedictis, and parts are increasingly hard to find. In addition, he said, the city must conform to federal standards that the old signals can’t meet.

Beacon Hill leaders don’t have problems with the larger traffic heads with bigger and brighter lenses nor with the concept of replacing the old electro-mechanical systems with newer computerized equipment.

It’s the system’s control boxes—42 inches tall, by 28 inches wide by 15 inches deep sitting on a 4-inch concrete base, according to DeBenedictis—that the civic association objects to, and the large boxes presented a problem for the commissioners as well at last week’s hearing.

“If you plant one of these on Charles Street, it’s going to come as a big surprise to everyone,” said Commissioner Ken Taylor. “These are crude artifacts.”
He also said something like this would never be allowed in a city like Paris, where leaders protected the city’s look as an important part of attracting tourists. “We can do better than this,” he said.

The chair of the Beacon Hill Architectural Commission was unimpressed with the city’s argument that maintaining the old traffic signal system in a way different from the rest of the city was a hardship. “The city accommodates the historic district in other ways,” said Joel Pierce of Garden Street. “For example, they maintain gas lights here that don’t exist in other neighborhoods.”

Steve Young disputed that the new traffic signals would contribute to safety. He said the new signals could have the opposite effect on Charles Street.

“Someone at city hall who wants to run a few more cars down Charles Street could make it less safe for pedestrians,” he said. “The potential for decreasing safety is significant. Retooling the electro-mechanical systems or replacing them with stop signs may well produce safer intersections.”

Moreover, he said, the large size of the boxes, which would be located on sidewalks, could create a hazard for the elderly or handicapped people.
Peter Thomson, who lives on Bellingham Place, said this proposal was no different from one that included large control boxes that was rejected by the architecture commission and the civic association in the late 1980s. Gillooly said there was a difference, in that this proposal has technology that wasn’t available 20 years ago.
Neighborhood leaders wondered why the boxes were so large. “In all other phases of modern society everything is growing smaller, but it traffic it seems that everything is getting bigger,” said Young.

“There is an awful lot of cable in there,” Gillooly explained. “Reducing the box in size isn’t as easy as you might think.”

The matter has yet to be concluded. The commissioners asked BTD officials to create a cardboard mockup of the boxes that could be taken around to each proposed location at each intersection so they could see how much of an intrusion the boxes would actually make.

Even if the city can show that the current lights cause problems of safety or maintenance, neighborhood leaders urged the city to go back to the drawing board. “In a historic district, there are different criteria,” said Thomson. “This plan shouldn’t get off the ground.”

Limits Proposed for Boston Common

2008-04-02T04:26:00.002-04:00

Beacon Hill Times
Common problems: too many people, too many events by Stephen Quigley

A move is underway to ban large events on Boston Common. Large scale events that draw tens of thousands of people are ruining the Common’s lawns and walkways, according to city officials and Henry Lee, president of Friends of the Boston Public Garden, an advocate for the Common.

Last year, more than 1000 events were held on the Common, whose fragile infrastructure is being torn asunder.

“Our goal is to make this the greatest park in America and to identify the challenges and opportunities of doing that,” Councilor Michael Ross said in opening the first public hearing on Boston Common that was held Wednesday night at Suffolk University Law School.

This hearing was more exploratory in nature as Ross, joined by Boston City Councilors Sal LaMattina and William Linehan heard from a variety of city officials as well as civic leaders about their ideas and concerns about the future for Boston Common.

The Common and Public Garden, which comprise more than 40 acres in total are Boston’s great prizes in the heart of the city.

The area receives a tremendous amount of foot traffic on a daily basis as three major MBTA stops, Park Street and Boylston Street Station and the new Silver Line bus stop have direct access in the area as well as commuters who use the Boston Common Garage. In addition to these users, there are also many college students from Suffolk University and Emerson College who regard the Common as their front yard. And there are also dog owners from Beacon Hill and Back Bay who consider the Common a wonderful place to walk their pets.

Officials from the Boston Parks Department outlined how the Common gets extensive use on a daily basis. This use has had an adverse effect in many areas like the Parade Grounds near Charles and Beacon Streets that have been closed off for repairs to the grass.

In some cases, pedestrians in cutting across corners from the paved paths have destroyed the grass and created dirt paths. The department plans to add more fences and then turf or brick areas in order to repair and to maintain the integrity of the park.

Boston Parks Commissioner Antonia Pollak told the Councilors about the planned changes involving a head house at Park Street for elevator access. She noted that the MBTA is under court order to bring the station into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Pollak also said that there is an opportunity to have the MBTA step up with an added commitment to help maintain the Common.
“Boston Common should no longer play host to large scale events,” she said.
Area 1 Police Captain Bernie O’Rourke told the councilors that crime in the Boston Common is down through the efforts of added policing from the safe street teams, but that crime in the general area including Downtown Crossing is up.

He acknowledged that as the police intensify their efforts in the Common, the crime moves to a different area. He also noted that in the last two weeks there were 21 arrests for people selling drugs. He said that most area assaults are drinking related. He also said reinstituting the 11:30 pm. to 6 a.m. curfew on the Common has also helped in reduction of direct crime in the Common.

Ironically, O’Rourke also noted that the Common is safer when there are events taking place.

Homelessness continues to be a problem in the Common, but due to the curfew this problem has moved more into the North End and Downtown Crossing area. Park rangers also are patrolling the area but their main objective is to be more visible than an active crime deterrent.

The number of mounted rangers has decreased from 25 in 2000 to about 12 this year. The area that they patrol goes as far as Copley Square.

James Green from the Mayor’s Office on Homelessness said that efforts are being made to find permanent housing for some of the homeless especially in this area. He noted that in the annual census that was conducted in December, the number of homeless in Boston went down from 306 in 2006 to 184 in 2007. He also noted that his agency is working closely with other agencies like the Pine Street Inn and Shattuck Hospital.
Henry Lee from the Friends of the Public Garden said, “the Common is all things to all people.” There were, he added, more than 1,000 events in the Common last year and that in the last 25 years the use has overwhelmed the maintenance.

Lee noted that the ground is harder than a concrete floor because it has been compacted by so much by foot traffic and that it is impossible for rainwater to seep through to the roots of the trees. He also said that everyone from developers to abutters should be doing more to help.

Tom Kershaw who owns the Hampshire House and helps run the Frog Pond told of how that part of Common is used both in winter as the skating rink and in summer as the wading pool might be a perfect place for a restaurant. He noted that without a liquor license a venture like Tavern on the Green that is located in Central Park in New York City would have a difficult time in being financially viable.

“This is our front door,” Peggy Ings from Emerson told the councilors about Emerson’s involvement in bringing resources to help the Common. She mentioned that the College runs and maintains a café on Tremont Street. However, the café runs at a $35,000 deficit, but she said that this is cost Emerson is willing to bear when you consider what was happening at this corner of Boylston and Tremont Streets before. Emerson is also planning to install a wrought iron period fence down Tremont Street that will cost more than $250,000.

“This is a wonderful start, and Suffolk understands that it has a responsibility to the Common,” John Nucci, said Suffolk University Vice president.

One resident mentioned that he hoped that the Common or surrounding streets would be more bicycle friendly. Another longtime resident echoed public officials when he noted that large events are damaging the Common.

Rev. Kathy McAdams from Ecclesia Ministries told the Councilors, “we need to look at all the needs of all Bostonians and that poverty and homelessness are not a crime but needs to be addressed by government.”

Colin Zick from the Beacon Hill Civic Association told of how he became involved in the Common with two boys playing baseball.

“When I saw the homeless problem and drug activity, I got involved.”
He mentioned that the Boston Common Management Plan that was written more than 10 years ago foresaw and addressed many of today’s issues.

“Enforcing the rules and regulations in place will go a long way in improving the Common,” he said.

The Councilors asked for input and found out that the Common is much more than a playground or park. For more than 400 years, the Common has been used for not only recreational uses but as a public space for all Bostonians.
The date for the next meeting has not been scheduled.

"Needs to be a Spectacularly Beautifiul Building"

2008-03-23T12:18:00.002-04:00

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"

2008-03-23T12:09:00.003-04:00

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

2008-03-23T12:00:00.005-04:00

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

2008-03-19T04:15:00.002-04:00

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

2008-03-14T06:14:00.001-04:00

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!

2008-03-13T06:36:00.002-04:00

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...

2008-03-05T05:19:00.003-05:00

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.

"Excessive Height?" Replacing 7 stories with 7 stories

2008-02-26T10:40:00.004-05:00

Banker & Tradesman
Centremark Proposes Hub Office Plan
By Thomas Grillo
Reporter

It could become even harder to find parking in Boston’s Back Bay.

Centremark Properties has proposed razing the 6-story garage at 4-6 Newbury St. and replacing it with a 49,000-square-foot, 7-story, terra cotta-and-glass structure with indoor parking. If approved, the building would offer retail on the first three floors and offices on the upper levels. The developer needs city approval to exceed zoning height limits of 65 feet.

“Our intention is to upgrade the building and we’ve tried not to make the building’s height overbearing,” said Richard J. Bertman, principal of CBT Architects in Boston.

But many residents at last week’s public hearing on the project disagreed. State Rep. Martha M. Walz acknowledged that no one would miss the nondescript garage if it were demolished, but she noted that the building’s lack of appeal does not justify making its replacement taller.

“I cannot support the excessive height at this location and I hope you are all here because you agree,” she said to applause.

The garage is located on the first block of Newbury Street opposite the TAJ Boston, formerly the Ritz-Carlton Hotel, and is surrounded by upscale shops. The 41,650-square-foot brick building was constructed in 1980 to provide parking for the Carlton House at 2 Commonwealth Avenue and the Ritz. The garage was sold last summer to Newbury Garage Assoc., a Centremark subsidiary, for $15.9 million.

If the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) gives the project a thumbs-up, the mix of uses would include 28,200 square feet of office, 20,800 square feet of retail and 16 parking spaces. Today, the garage is a monolithic structure with tinted windows. The two garage doors opening onto the Newbury Street would be removed if the project were approved.

But few residents expressed support for the plan at the two-hour session at the Boston Public Library. Jacquelin Yessian, chairwoman of the Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay (NABB), opposed any change in the height limit for the historic district.

Steven Sayers, a Marlborough Street resident, expressed concern that the project would set a precedent for replacing other buildings with taller ones.

Susan Prindle, a NABB member, said the developer is asking to increase the height by about a third. “This is totally out of whack,” she said. “With mechanicals, the height would be almost 100 feet. The proposal is a lot larger than it should be.”

Still, not everyone was opposed to the project. David Gibbons, TAJ’s general manager, spoke in favor. “We would rather see a new world-class building than a rehab of the ugliest building in the Back Bay,” he said.

‘It Makes Sense’

William Motley, managing director at Jones Lang LaSalle, said the office conversion idea for the garage has been talked about for 15 years. While investors believed the location is ideal, the vacancy rate only recently dwindled to the single digits, making the project viable.

“In a market with a 3.6 percent vacant rate, it will probably lease fairly well,” he said. “There’s only one other office building in the pipeline, and they’re having their own issues. It makes sense to examine alternatives.”

Boston Properties has proposed a $115 million high-rise at 888 Boylston St. But the controversial plan has pitted NABB against the developer. The well-organized group has rallied other neighborhoods to voice their opposition during meetings of the Prudential Project Advisory Committee (PruPAC), a 41-member panel founded to advise City Hall on development at the Pru.

The project, to be built between the Mandarin Oriental Hotel and the John B. Hynes Veterans Memorial Convention, has been in the works for years. In 2002, the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) approved the office building at 11 stories. But the 287,000-square-foot high-rise never broke ground. Today, the developer is seeking city approval for a 19-story structure.

Earlier this month, Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino told Banker & Tradesman that he would like to see the two sides settle their differences and reach a compromise. But so far Boston Properties has not offered to lower the height and NABB has refused to support a taller building.

Yessian, NABB’s chairwoman, has declined to comment on Menino’s offer for a compromise. But in an op-ed column in The Boston Courant last year, she wrote that while the 11-story building called for in the master plan would be an asset to the Pru, “we strongly oppose any building that would exceed this height.”

Meg Mainzer-Cohen, president of the Back Bay Association and a strong supporter of the building at 19 stories, said she is disappointed that some members of PruPAC have refused to consider a compromise.

“The point of PruPAC is to work together to reach consensus,” she said.

In a recent letter to the BRA, Mainzer-Cohen wrote, “The building proposed at 888 Boylston St. at 19 stories is a better building for the neighborhood and will create another signature building in Back Bay. The building’s architecture will add a modern glass facade to the streetscape and add first-class office space to Back Bay, which is in demand.”

BC Weighs in Regarding Dorms

2008-02-26T05:26:00.003-05:00

BCHeights.com
Mayor has second thoughts on dorms
Published in the Monday, February 25, 2008
Edition of By Heights Editorial Board
The Issue: BC asked to rethink its plan to build on Brighton

What we think: As is, plan puts student formation first

Students want to live on campus; administrators want students to live on campus; Allston-Brighton neighbors also want students to live on campus - as long as that campus does not extend into their living space. At least, this is the complaint being weighed by Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino and the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA), the group that must review and approve all building projects in the city. On Wednesday, the BRA suggested that Boston College reconsider its plan to build residence halls on Brighton Campus.

The mayor and the BRA suggest that BC move the proposed residence halls onto the existing Main Campus so student living areas will be more centralized and farther from disgruntled neighbors. Such a drastic revision in the Master Plan would compromise the carefully balanced design that both the University administration and Sasaki Associates have tirelessly worked to cultivate for many months. The priority placed on student formation and maintenance of a suburban campus would be jeopardized if BC were to construct high-rise buildings as the neighbors suggest.

We urge our Allston-Brighton neighbors to reevaluate their position regarding residence halls on Brighton Campus. Although there would be over 500 undergraduate students moving into the neighborhood, it would be far more centralized and contained than the current situation in which approximately 50 percent of the junior class floods the area, living next door to families in virtually unregulated apartments and homes. With more residence halls come more students, but with them also come resident directors, resident assistants, and peer ministers, all acting under the Office of Residential Life. In the end, these institutional controls will serve to limit the headaches for neighbors by placing students in living environments where they are held accountable for their daytime and nighttime activities.

We also encourage the BRA and Menino to reconsider their suggestion to redraw BC's plans. BC is one of the finest institutions of higher learning in this country, and its effort to increase housing for students sets an example for other Boston universities. By forcing the BC administration to horse-trade on this issue, the city is damaging an expansion plan that will only bring more prestige to the school and the surrounding area. While it is encouraging to see that the BRA is listening to the suggestions of individual residents, it is unfortunate that BC's housing solution is being mistaken for a problem.

Redrawing plans at this stage of development would hinder the forward progress of this campus expansion and potentially present many unwanted problems during the actual construction process. We want what is best for our school, and we believe that the Master Plan has adequately taken the suggestions and complaints of all parties into consideration. City officials must also realize that the vision of administrators is all-inclusive, and the University should not be forced to sacrifice the quality of this plan.

Moving Charlesview

2008-02-26T05:14:00.000-05:00

Charlesview presents housing proposal
By Susan Haverson, Correspondent
Thu Feb 21, 2008, 12:36 PM EST
Allston-Brighton Tab

Allston-Brighton - The developer who will relocate the Charlesview housing complex from its current location to land that includes part of the Brighton Mills shopping center has filed a proposal for the project with the Boston Redevelopment Authority. Both the BRA, as well as an independent neighbors group that is calling for change to the plan, are asking residents to chime in with their opinions.

The proposal filed on Feb. 11, with Community Builders Inc., the developer, provides for 400 residences, including 282 rentals and 118 units available for purchase, and 454 parking spaces, including underground ones. Approximately 75 spaces are available for on-street parking within the site.

The present Charlesview development, at 51 Stadium Way, has 213 housing units and 185 off-street parking spaces. As part of a land swap with Harvard University, the current 4.5-acre Charlesview site will be exchanged for about 6.9 acres at Brighton Mills and in the Telford Street and Soldiers Field Road area, plus the cost of constructing 213 apartments in the new location, to replace the housing lost in the old location.

The existing and proposed developments offer mostly one- and two-bedroom housing units.

The plan includes 42 townhouses, with terraces and roof decks, in the southern part of the site. Proposed buildings increase in height toward the north, reaching six stories along Western Avenue.

The proposed tree-lined development has three play areas, including an outdoor basketball court, pathways that go through the site and are open to the neighborhood, and one floor of multiple-use community space.

The Allston-Brighton North Neighbors Forum distributed fliers calling for changes to the proposal in order to reduce the project’s population density and building height, and to increase the amount of economic diversity among residents. They also requested an increase in the amount of housing available for purchase rather than rental, given the low rate of homeownership in North Brighton and North Allston. More units with at least a few bedrooms, in order to accommodate families, more public open space and more first-floor retail space were also suggested.

What do you think of the plans?
· The Allston-Brighton North Neighbors Forum invites residents to a March 4 meeting at 6:30 p.m. at the Gardner School, 30 Athol St., to offer their opinions.

· The Boston Redevelopment Authority will hold public meetings on March 10 and 24 at 6 p.m. in the second-floor cafeteria at New Balance. The PNF is available on the BRA’s Web site and at the neighborhood libraries. Comments can be sent to Jay Rourke at the BRA, 1 City Hall Square, Boston, MA 02201, or e-mailed to Jay.Rourke.BRA@cityofboston.gov. The comment period for the project ends on March 31.

That Stinks

2008-02-26T05:07:00.001-05:00

Odor control facility raises new questions on Columbia Point
February 21, 2008
By Gintautas Dumcius
Reporter Correspondent
Dorchester Reporter

A 2.1-mile sewer overflow tunnel being built under William J. Day Boulevard may be hitting a speed bump, as a key Columbia Point landowner is raising a stink over a planned odor control facility nearby.

The Corcoran Jennison Companies, owner of the Bayside Exposition Center, is planning on hitting local neighborhood civic associations with its concerns on the single-story brick structure, known as an odor control facility, set to be built behind the State Police barracks.

The odor control facility, due to be built this summer and fully working by 2010, is at one end of the tunnel the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority is building, with a pumping station at the other at Conley Terminal in South Boston.

Corcoran Jennison officials say the facility can be designed to keep a lower profile, be more environmentally friendly and operate better during peak periods. The company is also asking for state Department of Environmental Protection oversight.

The requests have left MWRA staffers nonplussed, with the quasi-public agency coming out swinging at Tuesday night's meeting of the McCormack Civic Association (MCA).

"This isn't the eleventh hour to bring this up. This is five seconds to midnight," said Jeff McLaughlin, the MWRA's community relations coordinator. "It's a bit surprising to the MWRA that people have this concern."

Corcoran Jennison officials also say they only specifically learned of the odor facility last year, a claim MWRA staffers dispute. Staffers brought with them a collection of press clips on the tunnel project and a timeline of meetings on the project with a number of neighborhood groups and Corcoran Jennison.

"We've been meeting with people all along on this project," McLaughlin said.

They also disagree on whether the facility will generate an odor. Corcoran Jennison said the odor could waft up and throughout the area, while MWRA staffers say there will be no odor at all.

Corcoran Jennison representatives were not able to make the MCA meeting on Tuesday, but their director of community relations, Catherine O'Neill, told the Reporter, "It's a great deal of concern to us. We think it can work better."

The tunnel project, started about two months ago, is now about 20 percent complete. A $10 million boring machine from Japan has recently been installed in a location under Farragut Road. The project is meant to reduce beach closings after heavy rains, which often cause sewage and storm water to get dumped into the harbor and beaches some twenty times a year. The state Department of Conservation and Recreation has had to close beaches eight times every swimming season due to the pollution from the sewage and storm water.

With the tunnel in place, sewage, instead of getting sent into the bay, will be collected and pumped out to Deer Island for treatment.

Heavy electric fans housed in the odor control facility, with 8-foot blades, will draw the air out of the tunnel. The air will then be purified with carbon filters.

If Tuesday night's MCA meeting is any indication, Corcoran Jennison may have an uphill battle on their hands. Members of the civic association had few questions about the project, including whether the fans will be too loud. McLaughlin said he has not heard any neighborhood complaints about a similar facility already in use near Union Park in the South End.

Local politicians have also come out in favor of the tunnel project, pointing to its potential to clean up beaches from Castle Island to Dorchester Bay.

MWRA staffers also acknowledged that an "emission control" facility may be a better name, instead of "odor control," and say the project has gotten the necessary permits, and does not need the DEP oversight that the agency agreed to submit to back in 1999.

MWRA staffers say they're open to design changes and adjustments, but add that the project has never changed, while Corcoran Jennison, responding to the the loss of gate shows at Bayside, have plans to demolish and replace it with a new neighborhood of housing and retail buildings.

"We're doing what we can to appease them," McLaughlin said.

A Plan to Move Suffolk? Not Suffolk's Plan!

2008-02-26T05:02:00.002-05:00

Beacon Hill Times
Plan to move Suffolk off Hill gains little traction by Dan Salerno

Veteran developer John Ryan is trying to revive a twenty year old plan to move Suffolk University completely out of Beacon Hill and relocate it downtown, a move which he believes would be equally beneficial for the neighborhood and the university.

“Once they see how much money it would save them, they would be crazy not to,” said Ryan of his plan.

His proposal, first drawn up in 1988, calls for Suffolk University to take over the Hurley-Lindemann building in the Government Center area. Currently owned and used by the state for administrative offices, Ryan said that the state offices could be moved to Reedville.

However, no Suffolk University officials seemed interested in the plan, and no representatives from the state returned calls seeking comment.

The proposal is not one that the university plans to consider, indicated John Nucci, Suffolk’s Vice President of Community Relations, who said that the University has no plans to alter or abandon expansion projects already in progress, including 20 Somerset Street on Beacon Hill and the Modern Theater complex downtown.

Ryan also sent his plan to the Beacon Hill Civic Association, but the BHCA does not plan to take up the proposal.

According to Ryan, when the plan was first proposed in 1988, it fell through because there was no appropriate location to move the state’s administrative offices. He says his idea of using a site in Reedville for this purpose solves that problem. However, no one from the state expressed interest in the proposal, and calls from the Times turned up no intention to consider Ryan’s plan.

Suffolk’s plan for 20 Somerset Street is to house the New England School of Art and Design, currently located in the Back Bay. In recent weeks, residents and members of the BHCA have expressed some trepidation about the proposal. Suffolk has responded by offering a pledge of future non-expansion in Beacon Hill. Suffolk filed its Institution Master Plan Notification Form in January and is currently waiting on a scoping determination from the Boston Redevelopment Authority that will take into account public comment on the project.

Find Alternatives

2008-02-22T16:52:00.001-05:00

Boston Globe
City urges BC to seek other dorm options
Email|Print| Text size – + February 21, 2008 01:35 PM
By Peter Schworm, Globe staff

City officials are urging Boston College to find alternatives to its controversial plan to build dormitories on the former Archdiocese of Boston property, which many Brighton neighbors sharply oppose.

In a report released late Wednesday, the Boston Redevelopment Authority, which reviews and must approve college expansion plans, called on BC to study ways to restrict undergraduate housing to its main Chestnut Hill campus.

The recommendation is a "very clear signal that we have heard the message from the neighbors about the concerns they have, and we are insisting Boston College look at alternatives before we make any decisions," said authority spokesman Jessica Shumaker. "We feel at a minimum BC needs to address why they can’t meet their housing goals on their current campus, and expect a good faith effort from BC to show us other options."

Neighbors who live near Boston College have raised a range of objections to the college's expansion proposal in public meetings this winter, but are most resistant to BC's plan to house 500 undergraduates in dorms on 65 acres it acquired from the Archdiocese, the first dorms slated for the Brighton side of Commonwealth Avenue. Some neighbors also oppose plans to build dorms on Shea Field, which they say would mar the view of the nearby Chestnut Hill Reservoir.

Boston College spokesman Jack Dunn said today that the report is a standard part of the review process and the college would work to address the city's concerns. But he said the Chestnut Hill campus is already "exceedingly dense" and cannot handle 500 additional undergraduates. Building dorms on the Brighton property, he said, is the only way the college can add student housing.

Dunn said neighbors' complaints about the location of student housing, in light of long-standing demands to house more students on campus, amounted to "a question of NIMBYism."

"Everyone wants to see college students live on campus, unless they happen to live close to campus," Dunn said.

Dunn said the city's demand that BC find alternative expansion plans ran counter to Mayor Thomas M. Menino's push for colleges to build more dormitories in response to neighborhood complaints

"We were following the mayor's lead," Dunn said. "We feel confident this plan is in the best interest of the college and the community."

The Redevelopment Authority also urged the college to relocate the proposed site of a recreation center to potentially allow housing there. It also recommended nonresidential alternatives to the Shea field site.

The full development of the former archdiocese property, which the college calls the Brighton campus, would increase the traditional 120-acre campus by more than 50 percent. The Brighton campus would also include an athletic field house, a softball field, and a 500-space parking facility.

Alex Selvig, a Lake Street resident who lives near the Brighton campus, said he was pleased by the BRA review, which he described as rigorous and thorough.

"It's very encouraging and renews a lot of people's faith in the BRA process," he said. "Everything we were concerned about, those questions are being asked."

"Sees No Reason to Compromise"

2008-02-11T14:20:00.000-05:00

Banker & Tradesman
Tower Opponents Refuse to Back Down
By Thomas Grillo
Reporter

A week after Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino called for a compromise over a proposed office tower at the Prudential Center, one neighborhood group says it won’t bend.

Boston Properties’ controversial plan for a $115 million high-rise at 888 Boylston St. has pitted the Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay against the developer. NABB has organized its opposition among members of the Prudential Project Advisory Committee (PruPAC). The 41-member panel was founded to advise City Hall on development projects at the Pru.

The project, to be built between the Mandarin Oriental Hotel and the John B. Hynes Veterans Memorial Convention, has been in the works for years. In 2002, the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) approved the office building at 11 stories. But the 287,000-square-foot high-rise never broke ground. Today, the developer is seeking approval for a 19-story skyscraper.

Elliott Laffer, PruPAC’s vice chairman and NABB’s representative on the committee, said he sees no reason to compromise. “Eleven stories are what’s in the guidelines and 11 stories are what Boston Properties said they would build six years ago,” he said. “I haven’t seen any reason to change it.”

Jacquelin Yessian, NABB’s chairwoman, declined to comment on Menino’s offer for a truce. But in an op-ed column in The Boston Courant last year, she wrote that while the 11-story building called for in the master plan would be an asset to the Pru, “we strongly oppose any building that would exceed this height.”

While Yessian has rejected requests for interviews, she has galvanized the support of other neighborhoods to fight any additional height for the tower. She has coordinated private meetings to convince neighborhood associations represented on PruPAC to join NABB in their opposition.

But Steven Wolf, a PruPAC member representing the Fenway Community Development Corp., a nonprofit affordable housing developer, defended those gatherings, noting that PruPAC business was not transacted at the two sessions.

“It’s hard for me to believe that the developers are not sitting down and talking privately about this project,” he said. “These sessions were intended as educational to build better connections between neighborhoods. I guess I can understand how this would be perceived as something nefarious, but nothing has gone on that anyone can object to.”

‘It’s Not Helpful’

NABB’s efforts appear to be working. Kathleen Emrich, a PruPAC member who represents the Ellis Neighborhood Association, said while the Boylston Street building will not directly impact her South End neighborhood, she is supporting NABB’s opposition to an additional 9 stories.

“We have to stick together,” she said. “This doesn’t directly affect our neighborhood, but we want to be supportive of the Back Bay where it will have the most impacts. There could come a time when a building does impact us and we would seek the support of other neighborhoods.”

Nancy Restuccia, a PruPAC member who represents the St. Botolph Neighborhood Association, said while she is not opposed to 19 stories, she too wants to be supportive of NABB’s position.

Still, Meg Mainzer-Cohen, president of the Back Bay Association and a PruPAC member, said the recent meetings organized by NABB that excluded nonresidential members are contrary to the group’s mission.

“The point of PruPAC is to work together to reach consensus,” she said. “It’s not helpful to have NABB organize resident groups to try to get everyone to walk in lockstep. How would the residential groups respond if the business community did that?”

Wolf explained that neighborhood resistance to Boston Properties for increased height to 888 Boylston St. comes from concerns about the Mandarin Hotel. The 14-story, mixed-use development is scheduled to open this summer next to Lord & Taylor on lower Boylston Street.

“People feel they got burned last time around,” Wolf said. “Lots of people are saying the Mandarin ended up being too big in relation to the street. It was technically approved at 150 feet, but mechanicals on the roof can add another 20 feet. I don’t know if anyone actually checked the height to see if they are in compliance.”

Jessica Shumaker, a BRA spokeswoman, noted that the Mandarin was approved by the city following a “lengthy public review process and support from PruPAC.”

Michael A. Cantalupa, senior vice president of Boston Properties, said he would not comment on Menino’s suggestion until he had a chance to speak with the mayor. But in public meetings last fall, he said a lower height would not work given rising construction costs.

Walter Salvi, the PruPAC representative of NSTAR, an electric and gas utility company based at the Prudential Center, said a compromise on height makes sense. “NABB has a very specific point of view on keeping the height at 11 stories and I respect their opinion,” he said. “But if alliances are being formed among neighborhood on PruPAC, it takes ‘not in my backyard’ to a new level. That said, from a political standpoint, the mayor is seeking a compromise so everyone walks away a winner.”

Anthony Gordon, the PruPAC member who represents the Boylston Street Association, a group of merchants along the retail district, said while he supports 19 stories, a compromise is likely.

“A tall tower is good for business and won’t have any detrimental effects on the neighborhood because the building is set back,” he said. “If Boston Properties hadn’t taken over the Pru, it would still be in chaos and we would not have the revitalized mall. The Pru is in good hands and I believe they’re capable of finishing off the center in front of Boylston Street.”

Dainty Dot = "Too Tall"

2008-02-07T05:05:00.000-05:00

Boston Globe
Home / Business
Design panel approves plan for Dainty Dot site
Commissioners still harbor reservations
By Thomas C. Palmer Jr.
Globe Staff / February 7, 2008

The Boston Civic Design Commission this week reluctantly approved a developer's controversial proposal for a 27-story residential tower over the old Dainty Dot building on the edge of Chinatown.

At the urging of the city's new director of planning, Kairos Shen, the five commissioners present at a meeting Tuesday night gave "conditional approval" to the condo project at Essex Street and the Surface Artery. Shen had argued the project needed the commission's approval before it could move forward in the permitting process and further improvements could be made.

No further vote by the commission is required, but changes made by the developer, Ori Ron, in collaboration with Boston Redevelopment Authority planners, will be shown to the commission. Now, building plans call for about 180 units and some ground-floor retail space at the former Dainty Dot hosiery company site.

Many in the Chinatown and Leather District neighborhoods support the project, while some neighbors and other critics say it is too tall for the relatively low-rise Chinatown community and would impose too much on the adjacent Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway park. They also worry the new building would set a precedent for more towers in the area.

While voting as Shen recommended, some commissioners expressed reservations about aspects of the project, including its height, as well as the predicament they said the BRA put them in by pushing for their approval at this incomplete stage of development.

Appointed by the mayor, the 11 professionals on the commission assess the design quality of new developments and whether they fit well into existing neighborhoods. With the Dainty Dot proposal, the BRA was asking the commission - over strong objections from some neighbors - to approve a building that is three times the height allowed under the current 100-foot zoning.

"The present proposal is a series of compromises with a lot of pressures," said commission member Andrea Leers. "It should be a better project."

Critics say the Dainty Dot process epitomizes the problem with the approval process in Boston, where zoning regulations have built-in flexibility and where the BRA has discretion to determine height on a proposal-by-proposal basis.

"It's a sham," said Lawrence Rosenblum, a Leather District resident and critic of the project. "The BCDC has abdicated its responsibility to be a design reviewer for the city."

"The project . . . was basically recommended by the BRA," he said. With its vote, the commission "put it back in the hands of the very people who approved it in the first place, completely contrary to zoning."

On Jan. 8, following an emotional discussion of the project, the commission postponed its vote for a month. Member David Hacin said on Tuesday he remains concerned about the building's height, floors of above-ground parking, and the manner in which the 119-year-old building's facades would be incorporated into the base of a modern glass tower.

"For me, there are a couple of strikes against the project," he said, adding: "This is a very difficult position we're in."

Shen said the BRA would seek to eliminate some of the above-ground parking and reduce the proposed 150 parking spaces.

But Shen made no suggestion that the proposed glass tower would be reduced in height - the primary objection of opponents.

He defended the building's height, calling the site a "transitional" location between the Financial District, with its taller buildings, and Chinatown, where buildings are more modest in scale. Currently, the building is proposed to be 299 feet high, plus one level of rooftop mechanical equipment. It would be located across Essex Street from 37-floor State Street Financial Center, which is about 500 feet high.

Shen, Ron, and many in the Chinatown community argue that the project's advantages far outweigh its drawbacks. Those advantages include 47 affordable housing units on a nearby Chinatown site that Ron, of Hudson Group North America LLC, is subsidizing.

"We have been viewing those two projects in combination," Shen said. Some design commission members observed that that approach forced members to consider issues like economic feasibility and size - which are outside their normal design considerations.

Based on community comments, Ron has already reduced the building's footprint and height by two floors, removed most of the traffic from busy Essex Street, and added about 2,000 square feet to the adjacent Greenway park.

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

Nor Shall NABB Compromise

2008-02-06T16:40:00.000-05:00

Banker & Tradesman
Menino Calls for Tower Compromise
By Thomas Grillo
Reporter

Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino wants the two sides debating over a proposed 19-story office tower for the city’s Prudential Center to settle their differences.

“If something could be worked out – a compromise – I’d like to see if there are opportunities to make it happen,” the mayor told Banker & Tradesman after listening to neighbors’ concerns.

But even if the high-rise is downsized, the plan may fall short of winning residents’ support.

At issue is Boston Properties’ proposal for a 439,000-square-foot building at 888 Boylston St., between the Mandarin Oriental Hotel and the John B. Hynes Veterans Memorial Convention Center. During packed public hearings last fall, many Back Bay residents said the 19-story, glass-and-steel office tower is too tall, while others expressed fears of the impact on the historic neighborhood.

The Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) approved the Boylston Street office building in 2002 at 11 stories. But the 287,000-square-foot high-rise was never built. Today, the developer is seeking city approval to add 8 stories to the design.
But the Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay (NABB) has rejected any increase in height. Jacquelin Yessian, NABB’s chairwoman, declined to comment on Menino’s offer for a compromise. But in an op-ed column in The Boston Courant last year, she wrote that while the 11-story building called for in the master plan would be an asset to the Pru, “we strongly oppose any building that would exceed this height.”

NABB has galvanized the support of other neighborhoods to oppose any added height. The group has coordinated private meetings to convince neighborhood associations represented on the Prudential Project Advisory Committee (PruPAC) to join them in opposition. The 41-member panel was established by former Mayor Raymond Flynn in the 1980s to advise City Hall on development projects at the Pru.

Elliott Laffer, PruPAC’s vice chairman and NABB’s representative on the committee, acknowledged that the neighborhood groups have met and excluded corporate representatives such as the Back Bay Association. “If the meetings are for community organizations, why would we invite any other entities?” he said.

NABB’s efforts have paid off. Kathleen Emrich, a PruPAC member who represents the Ellis Neighborhood Association, said while the Boylston Street building will not directly impact her South End neighborhood, she is supporting NABB’s position.
“We have to stick together,” she said. “This doesn’t directly affect our neighborhood, but we want to be supportive of the Back Bay where it will have the most impacts. There could come a time when a building does impact us and we would seek the support of other neighborhoods.”

Meg Mainzer-Cohen, president of the Back Bay Association and a PruPAC member, said meetings that exclude nonresidential members is contrary to the group’s mission.
“The point of PruPAC is to work together to reach consensus,” she said. “It’s not helpful to have NABB organize resident groups to try to get everyone to walk in lock step. How would the residential groups respond if the business community did that?”
On a compromise solution on the height, Mainzer-Cohen said she would be willing to consider it.

“I believe a 19-story tower would be a great addition to the Back Bay,” she said. “But PruPAC’s goal is to seek what’s in the best interest of not just the neighborhood, but Boston’s economy, too.”

Michael A. Cantalupa of Boston Properties could not be reached for comment.

More on Boston College

2008-02-05T05:31:00.000-05:00

Neighbors fight college for open space
By Susan Haverson, Correspondent
Thu Jan 31, 2008, 11:39 AM EST
Brighton -

Brighton - Will Boston College take away their open space and recreational opportunities, college neighbors worried just days before the deadline for residents to send comments to the city regarding Boston College’s proposed 10-year institutional master plan. A group of neighbors voiced its concerns this week to fellow community members on the Boston College community task force.

Resident Michael Pahre told the group that Allston-Brighton has just 4.8 acres of open space for every thousand people, which is less than the city average. The seminary land contains 58 percent of the neighborhood’s unprotected, private open space, he said.

Neighbors worried that land protected as part of a 10-year plan would lose its protection once those years passed.

When Charlie Vasiliades said that zoning is a problem, and buffers should have conservation restrictions on them to make sure they really are preserved, his fellow neighbors responded with applause. Other residents suggested similar restrictions for the playing fields and the seminary’s green space. Resident Sandy Furman agreed that open space needs to be protected by “legal restrictions with teeth.”

Neighbor Leland Webster said, “The reservoir is the last great piece of public open space in our area.” He hoped it could be preserved in its entirety. If that were impossible, he hoped the buildings in the area would be for academic use.

Eva Webster, like other neighbors, wanted adequate buffer zones and setbacks. “We can’t count on an institutional campus to be a public park,” she said.

Wilma Wetterstrom of Oak Square said, “Open space does a lot.” It lowers the temperature in the summer and supports wildlife, she explained. On the other hand, she said, artificial turf doesn’t support life except that of the bacteria that gets on it via users’ sweat and drool.

Along with artificial turf on the playing field, a fenced-in athletic area was objected to. Shelby Marshall, a resident, requested having enough open space around the fenced-in area to let community members walk around.

Heijung Kim, a resident and member of Allston-Brighton Green Space Advocates, said, “The BC community seems to want to close itself off from the rest of the communities around it.”

Resident Ann LaRosee urged neighbors to write to the mayor. “One person is in charge of the city of Boston,” she said. She exhorted people to tie up the mayor’s telephone for hours. Otherwise, she warned, no progress would be made.

While the Boston College Task Force will send the BRA a written summary of input received at the January community meetings, people are encouraged to send their own letters to the BRA. No special forms are required.

Two Buildings Planned for Charlestown

2008-02-01T05:14:00.000-05:00

Charlestown Patriot Bridge
January 31, 2009
by Dan Murphy

A pair of high-rise buildings planned for Rutherford Avenue has raised many questions regarding future development in the neighborhood and how the project has changed since it was first proposed 20 years ago.

At a Charlestown Neighborhood Council Development Committee meeting last Thursday, CNC representatives and a small number of concerned residents and abutters discussed Bridgeview Lofts, a $70 million residential development planned for the area north of the Bunker Hill Community College Athletic fields.

The project would consist of two buildings — one 20 stories and 250 feet in height, the other 14 stories and 181 feet tall. The development’s 180 one- and two-bedroom loft-style units, described as affordably priced and with little finish work (e.g. granite countertops), could be marketed as rentals or condos, depending on the market. A three-level garage would also provide 280 on-site parking spaces at grade and in two underground levels, and retail space would likely be available on the first level. The project could be completed in three years, with proper funding in place, according to the developers.

The developers are Byron Gilchrest, president of Gilchrest Associates, Inc. of Boston, and Jack Millerick, executive director of the Life Focus Center, Inc. (The Life Focus Center is a City Square-based non-profit that assists the mentally handicapped and provides other social services). Jack French, president of Monument Square’s Neshamkin French Architects, Inc., is designing the project.

Development Committee co-chair Judy Brennan questioned the new designation of the site as a for-profit residential complex, since the Boston Redevelopment Authority granted development rights of the parcel to the Life Focus Center in 1988 for the sum of $1. Under this agreement, the parcel was designated for a new Life Focus Center facility.

Millerick said the Life Focus Center originally hoped to build a new facility at the site, but a sluggish economy made this plan unfeasible at the time. The latest and third proposal that now comes before the CNC is “literally an extension” of the original plan, he said.

Earnings from the development would be used to establish an endowment for the Life Focus Center, which Millerick said was essential to the non-profit’s survival in light of recent cutbacks. The Child Focus Center, a daycare service operated by the Life Focus Center, also plan to expand from its current home at the Community College to Bridgeview Lofts, Millerick said.

In addition, Millerick said the developers would be required to renegotiate the terms of its deal with the BRA and would likely pay more for the parcel rights, given the different nature of the new proposal.

The project’s partnership between a non-profit and a private developer still presented a quandary for some: As Dave Whelan of the CNC said, “You might want to vote for the non-profit, but not for the development.”

Brennan described the height of Bridgeview Lofts as “the other elephant in the room,” pointing out that one of the buildings, at 250 feet, would surpass the 221-foot Bunker Hill Monument as the tallest building in Charlestown.

French countered that the site of the development would be located outside the center of town.

This came of little consolation to the abutting homeowners in attendance, 17 of whom signed a petition against the project. While the name “Bridgeview Lofts” implies that each unit would offer a view of the Leonard P. Zakim Bunker Hill Memorial Bridge and downtown Boston, residents of Essex and Lyndeboro streets fear they will find themselves living in its shadow.

“At the end of my day, I sit down and watch the sun set,” Essex Street resident Patricia Kelly said. “Please don’t take that away from me.”

Others wondered what kind of precedent the height of Bridgeview Lofts would set for future development along Rutherford Avenue and in Sullivan Square.

“Height is a major issue for a lot of people today,” CNC Chairman Tom Cunha said to the developers. “You have an opportunity to decide what gets built on the rest of Sullivan Square

Some suggested future development should be postponed until the implementation of the city’s Rutherford Avenue Corridor Study, which aims to facilitate traffic flow in the area by reconfiguring the roadway.

“Let’s slow development down until the traffic situation on Rutherford Avenue can be addressed,” said Precinct 7 CNC representative Mike Charbonnier during a phone interview after the meeting, “That’s what I’ve been hearing from my constituents for over a year.”

Gilchrest said the project wasn’t being planned in conjunction with the traffic study or other development planned for the neighborhood.

“If you wait for something to get done, nothing gets done,” Gilchrest said. “We could be out here six years from now waiting for the planning to be done.”
For the time being, Bill Lamb, chairman of the Charlestown Preservation Society Design Review Committee, urged the Neighborhood Council to put a moratorium on Bridgeview Lofts until the completion of the traffic study, which he said would “set guidelines for the area to insure coherent, attractive, safe and economically feasible construction.”

Lamb said, “If Bridgeview is approved, we’re putting action before thinking.”
The Neighborhood Council voted six to three in favor of a motion from Cunha stating that the developers would take part in ongoing meetings and revise its proposal based on input from the community and the CNC. The motion also requests that BRA representatives participate in future meetings.

A second motion, put forward by Bill Galvin of the CNC, called for a moratorium on all future development in the vicinity of Rutherford Avenue and Sullivan Square for one year or until the time that the traffic study is completed. Six voted in favor of this motion, while three abstained.

Concerns about Artificial Turf et,al at Boston College

2008-01-31T05:56:00.000-05:00

Task Force Convenes Neighborhood task force addresses Master Plan in final meeting
The Heights
Published in the Thursday, January 31, 2008 Edition of By Patrick Fouhy Organizational Project Manager

The Allston-Brighton Boston College Task Force met Tuesday night for the fourth and final time before the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) issues its scoping questions to BC. The discussion on open and academic space evoked a far more moderate response than past topics have.

In addition to preserving the open space on Middle Campus and Brighton Campus, BC looks to add green space to Lower Campus, creating a series of "linked quadrangles and pedestrian walkways."

Brighton resident Charles Vasiliades raised concerns over the future preservation of the open space on the former Archdiocese property, requesting that the orchard and wooded area along Lake Street be zoned as conservation land.

"We can't count on an institutional campus to be a public park," said Brighton resident Eva Webster, echoing Vasiliades's request.

"I'm very pleased that the orchard and woods along Lake Street are being preserved … but we have to do more to protect it," said Wilma Wetterstrom, another Brighton resident.

Residents were also concerned with the use of artificial turf on the proposed Brighton fields, including the new baseball stadium.

"We really don't want to see that much artificial turf on the playing fields," said Shelby Marshall. "The athletic fields are going to be fenced in, but we want large enough buffers around the field so we can still walk there."

Wetterstrom agreed with Marshall, citing the environmental benefits of natural open space as opposed to turf surfaces.

"All artificial turf supports is bacteria and viruses shed by kids playing on them," Wetterstrom said.

"Taking what is now playing fields and turning half of that space into artificial turf and fenced-in areas is not maintaining green space," Sandy Furman said.

No comments were aired on the benefits and necessity of artificial turf on the proposed field.

"We plan to work with the athletics department and our consultants [on having turf] and when the city issues a scope, they will most likely ask us about it," said Jeanne Levesque, the director of governmental relations for BC. "We'll be looking at the benefits of artificial turf. We know that there is a need for it as far as scheduling."Setbacks were the final point of contention. While the University plans to use natural barriers along Lake Street to provide a setback for residence halls, neighbors were uneasy with the fact that there were no barriers planned between the neighborhood and proposed fields.

Former city council candidate Alex Selvig went so far as to argue that there "should be no uses that require buffer" on the Brighton Campus.

The University also seeks to renovate Carney Hall, construct three new buildings around the Dustbowl, and build a new Integrated Sciences Center between McGuinn and Cushing Halls.

While little objection was raised to the renovations on Middle Campus, an area outside the purview of the taskforce as it lies in Newton, Leland Webster requested that the school consider building academic facilities on Shea Field rather than the proposed residence halls. The concern for many neighbors remains the potential use of the Reservoir as a cut-through between Cleveland Circle and the proposed Shea Field residence halls. Collectively, though, neighbors seemed to accept the vast majority of BC's plans for academic space.

On Feb. 5, the public comment period for the Institutional Master Plan Notification Form will end and the letter from the Allston-Brighton BC Task Force will be submitted to the BRA. The document aims to voice the major concerns of the community to the BRA. Residents will have the opportunity to send individual letters to the BRA by this date as well.

The BRA officially has 20 days to give BC its scoping questions, but Levesque said it will likely provide them within 10 days of the close of the public comment period.

The scoping questions will ask the University to examine and conduct studies on certain aspects of the plan in a more detailed manner. BC will have an unlimited period of time to respond to the scoping questions and return a letter to the BRA containing the University's response and information found from any studies conducted.

"We're going to take the time to create a good response to the scope," Levesque said. "But clearly we're trying to respond in a timely fashion, we don't want this to go on for months and months," Levesque said.

After the scoping questions are answered, the University will file the Institutional Master Plan with the BRA, which will be followed by a 60-day public comment period after the University notifies the community, Levesque said.

$ Twenty Four Million

2008-01-30T05:53:00.000-05:00

Harvard Crimson
Harvard, Residents Approach Accord

University and Allston days away from agreement; $24 million in benefits at outset

Published On Wednesday, January 30, 2008 12:13 AM

By BRITTANY M LLEWELLYN

Crimson Staff Writer

After months of negotiations over dollar amounts and community programs, Boston and Harvard officials say they are days away from signing an agreement that will allow construction of the University’s Allston science complex to commence.

The agreement—a legally binding document that outlines the benefits the University must provide to the neighborhood over the next decade—is the last obstacle in the way of Harvard breaking ground on what will be its 350-acre campus in Allston.

The decision to grant the University approval to construct the 589,000 square-foot complex comes after over nine months of community meetings that have resulted in an increase of proposed benefits from $21 million to $23.9 million. Harvard officials have also established a $500,000 fund to be used for education and health projects for the neighborhood.

“We think that this robust set of benefits related to the science complex will help us advance our partnership with the neighborhood,” said Harvard’s Director for Community Relations in Boston Kevin A. McCluskey ’76. “We look forward to working with the city to develop a master plan for the neighborhood and the many good things that can come from that.”

The science complex, which will house Harvard’s Stem Cell Institute, will consist of four buildings connected by glass sky bridges. The complex will utilize environmentally friendly techniques to keep greenhouse gas emissions at least 50 percent below the national standard.

In addition to the education and health programs, funds have also been earmarked for workforce and employee development, a housing trust fund, and the creation of two neighborhood parks.

The University has already repaired sidewalks along Western Avenue.

Ray Mellone, who chairs the Harvard Allston Task Force—a mayor-appointed group of Allston residents—said he was optimistic about what Havard’s expansion would mean for his neighborhood.

Mellone said that Harvard’s financial and educational prowess would improve the community and allow it “to grow and become more rooted.”

But despite the University’s promises, some residents continue to feel that the programs and funds will not be enough to substantially improve the neighborhood.

Harry Mattison, who is also a member of the task force, said that he had “tremendous doubts” that the benefits will directly impact the community.

In the past, Mattison, along with others in his community, asked the University to establish and fund a kindergarten through eighth grade school and community center instead of making physical improvements to the neighborhood.

“The city should be able to repair its own sidewalks instead of having to ask for the money from Harvard,” he said.

He added that “trees and sidewalks are nice” but that the University should focus on bringing businesses to Allston to fill vacant properties that Harvard has acquired over the years.

“Harvard has a moral obligation to purchase property without sapping so much life out of the community,” he said.

In the past, University officials have maintained that they are committed to working with Allston residents, as Harvard expands into the community for at least the next 50 years.

Completion of the science complex is scheduled for 2012.

—Staff writer Brittany M. Llewellyn can be reached at bllewell@fas.harvard.edu.

But There isn't a College in Southie

2008-01-29T05:49:00.000-05:00

"Southie's Fear: Allston"
Condo glut seen creating new ‘college town’
By Christine McConville
Boston Herald
Tuesday, January 29, 2008 - Updated 5h ago

There’s also growing concern that developers may use the current housing downturn to renege on promises they made to the community in exchange for the right to build condos. Promises include new park benches, street lights, meeting space and money for community groups, and lower-cost housing units.

“The condominiums aren’t selling like they used to, and we are all concerned about what will happen,” said state Sen. Jack Hart, a South Boston Democrat.

“What happens if we’ve got a couple thousand units that can’t be sold or rented and they’re made into Section 8?” Hart asked, referring to the government’s subsidized housing program.

South Boston has undergone a remarkable transformation in recent years, as scores of two-family homes, gas stations and even churches have been converted into upscale condominiums and townhouses.

Some of the most eye-popping changes have taken place on the lower end of West Broadway, near the Broadway MBTA station, as one multistory development after another has popped up.

The Boston Redevelopment Authority reports that 1,270 new condominium units have been created in South Boston in the past five years. And the BRA says 61 percent of the neighborhood’s residents have lived there for less than five years.

But as the demand for housing has softened, locals say the projects went up too fast.

And now that the market has turned, many of the units are empty.

“There’s a plethora of one and two (bedroom units) out there, not moving,” Boston City Councilor Michael Flaherty said.

But prices remain high.

In the Macallen Building, which overlooks the highway and the MBTA rail yard, an 800-square-foot studio is selling for $519,900.

“Who are they building these things for?” asked Joyce Gifford Powers, a longtime South Boston resident who predicts that many of the units on West Broadway will sit empty for a long, long time.

The market has already impacted some projects. Not long after the BRA approved plans to build 139 condominiums at 50 West Broadway, home of the former Cardinal Cushing High School, the developers went back to the BRA, seeking permission to build apartments, instead of condos.

To the dismay of South Boston state Rep. Brian Wallace, the BRA approved the change.

“I’ll never support that because we’ll become Allston-Brighton,” Wallace said, adding that he fears other condo developers will also switch to apartments, and his constituents will become transient students from area colleges, instead of homeowners.
“We’ll become a college town,” he said.

Flaherty, however, sees a glimmer of a silver lining in the downturn.

He’s hoping to convince certain developers to abandon their plans for swanky, spacious lofts, and build family-friendly, three-bedroom units instead.

“This could be an opportunity to keep families in the city,” he said.

But Flaherty says he won’t renegotiate the promises that developers made to the community during the building boom.

“All of those things that were on the table when things were good, the park fountains and the benches, we are very firm that these promises need to be honored,” he said.

Of course, not everyone is worried about the aftermath of the building boom.

Kairos Shen, the BRA’s director of planning, said that in a city neighborhood, especially one so close to public transportation, there is no such thing as overdevelopment.

“We need population for the city to work,” he said.

And John Keith, a real estate broker who lived at 9 West Broadway between 2003 and 2006, said he’s watched the area improve.

“When I moved in, the place was pretty empty,” he said. “A lot of amazing things happened and the neighborhood got a lot better.”

Tim Pappas, chief executive of Pappas Enterprise, the firm that developed two of the largest buildings on lower Broadway, pointed out that more housing generally means lower prices.

“Let guys like me go out there and overbuild,” he said. “It’s the only thing that will bring prices down.”

New Plans by Suffolk University

2008-01-28T14:00:00.000-05:00

Suffolk Presents Its Proposals For Academic, Dorm Projects
Banker & Tradesman
By Thomas Grillo
Reporter

Suffolk University presented plans Thursday night for a 100,000-square-foot building on Boston’s Beacon Hill and a 12-story dormitory in Downtown Crossing.

The Suffolk Task Force heard details about the school’s expansion as it seeks approval to house a greater share of its undergraduate students and increase its academic space. The 18-member, multi-neighborhood panel was created to advise Mayor Thomas M. Menino on the university’s proposed growth.

The presentations come one year after the Beacon Hill neighborhood and Menino rejected a proposed 22-story dormitory at the former Metropolitan District Commission headquarters at 20 Somerset St. As an alternative, Alex Krieger, a principal at Chan Krieger Sieniewicz, a Cambridge-based architectural firm, provided details for academic space at the Beacon Hill location.

Under the proposal, an 8-story, glass-and-concrete tower would replace the former MDC facility. It would be the new home for Suffolk’s New England School of Art and Design. Suffolk intends to move its art school from cramped quarters in the Back Bay to Beacon Hill.

The tower would offer about 60,000 square feet of classroom, arts and staff space overlooking the Garden of Peace, a tiny memorial park commemorating homicide victims adjacent to the plaza at 100 Cambridge St. Krieger noted that the new building’s height will not be taller than the existing facility.

The two-hour session featured a testy exchange between Krieger and Robert Whitney, a task force member and Beacon Hill resident. Whitney raised questions about how Suffolk arrived at the new facility’s square footage.

“This is different from what was set forth in the draft plan,” he said. “My understanding was that half the building would be allocated for the arts school. How much of the total space is for the art school and how much of the classroom space is not for the arts school? I’m just trying to figure out what the numbers are.”

A frustrated Krieger replied, “Excuse me, why don’t you take out a pencil? No single academic program offers classrooms 24/7. It’s foolish to assign all classrooms to one use.”

Krieger then specified how much space was to be used for administration, classrooms, fine arts and graphs, and journalism. “Maybe we were not clear enough to describe the difference between net and gross square footage,” he said.

But Whitney insisted that in earlier discussions, officials said the arts school would get about half the space.

‘Beautiful’ Façade

Adrian Lebuffe, an architect at CBT Architects, presented the latest plans for redevelopment of the former Modern Theatre on lower Washington Street in the downtown.

If approved, the dilapidated movie house would be restored and a 12-story tower would be built at the rear to accommodate 180 dorm beds. The project would include restoration of the historic façade of the Modern Theatre. Ground-floor uses would a two-story theater and art gallery/display area. Upper-floor uses would offer residences for undergraduate students.

“We will take the Modern’s beautiful vaudeville façade and make that the entrance just for the theater,” he said. “We are working with a number of groups to design the theater to make it work for as many interested parties as possible.”

Earlier this month, Suffolk opened dorms at a failed condominium residence at 10 West St. around the corner from the Modern. The residence hall, which will accommodate 274 undergraduates in suites and apartments, also will feature an upscale coffee shop and a restaurant on the street level.

The new building is expected to be an important component of Suffolk’s student housing program and help support Menino’s goal of encouraging institutions to house more of their students. The 10 West St. facility will be the school’s third residence hall.

Suffolk began housing students in 1996 with the opening of the 150 Tremont St. residence hall, near 10 West St. With that addition, the onetime commuter school can now house more than 1,000 students – nearly 25 percent of its undergraduates.

Under an agreement with the city to build 10 West St., the school has agreed not to seek any more housing for its students in Downtown Crossing. While many residents have insisted that students be moved from the community into dormitories, fights often erupt when schools make plans for dorms in the neighborhoods.

Jane Forristall, a task force member from the West End, said she found it difficult to ask questions because several Suffolk expansion sites are not for sale, including the Charles F. Hurley Building in Government Center.

One of the ideas that have been floated by Suffolk officials for the school’s growth is the possibility of purchasing the sprawling Hurley campus at Cambridge and Staniford streets. Critics have called the 340,000-square-foot concrete facility, which is not for sale, Boston’s ugliest office building. If razed, the space would be big enough to create a new campus for Suffolk.

“Some of these locations are very close to the West End, but I don’t even know what to ask since discussion of this property is not on the table,” she said.

Boston Globe on BC Expansion

2008-01-28T05:52:00.000-05:00

Boston Globe
Home / News / Local
Threats taint BC dorm debate
(Joanne Rathe/Globe Staff)
By Andreae Downs
Globe Correspondent / January 27, 2008
The emotional debate over Boston College's plan to expand to former archdiocese land in Brighton has been muddied by anonymous online threats posted in the last two weeks against neighborhood activists.

Thomas Keady, BC's vice president for government relations, denounced the threats, which he said made his job - getting the expansion plans approved - more difficult.

"We are willing as an institution to cooperate with the Boston Police Department, and the BC police and administration are investigating," he told neighbors at an Allston Brighton Task Force hearing on Tuesday. "I never thought I would be coming here to discuss death threats."

The threats and other offensive comments have been taken down from the Web. One blog that allegedly registered anti-Semitic and sexist comments against one neighbor has been closed to the public. And a blog of neighbors who oppose BC's expansion has been closed to nonmembers because of the number of hateful postings it received.

A few posts calling anyone who opposes BC's plans "whiners" and worse remain at the Allston Brighton TAB site. University officials stressed that the blogs are not affiliated with the school, and that if the offending comments can be traced to BC students, officials will take disciplinary action.

Since Boston College submitted its Institutional Master Plan in early December, the Boston Redevelopment Authority and the Allston Brighton Community Task Force, an advisory body of BC neighbors, have collected public reactions.

Neighbors at the hearing last week registered unanimous opposition to BC's proposal to house 500 undergraduates in two dorms on the former St. John's Seminary land, which BC is calling its "Brighton campus."

Neighbors want the university to house more or all of the estimated 1,200 students who live off-campus. But they also oppose dorms for 490 on Shea Field, which they argued is too close to the Chestnut Hill Reservoir, and many oppose a 420-bed dorm at More Hall on Commonwealth Avenue, at St. Thomas More Road. BC's plans call for dorms no higher than five stories, meaning that more land would be needed.

"This is moving open space from the Brighton campus to the Chestnut Hill site," said neighbor Charlie Vasiliades. "We've accepted enough changes at St. John's. Why not make the Chestnut Hill dorms six to nine stories instead?"

Most at the meeting suggested more students be housed at the one other site for which BC has proposed additional dorms - where 24 temporary structures, called modulars, sit in the center of the Chestnut Hill campus. Another idea was to retain the 790-bed Edmonds Hall, which BC wants to replace with a recreation complex.

BC officials said the plan does not include additional student housing, but instead for half the modulars to be replaced with two dorms housing the current number of students and the other half to be replaced with a university center to be built in 20 years. The Chestnut Hill campus houses 6,000 undergraduates, according to BC spokesman Jack Dunn. He said neighbors in recent years have lodged no complaints about students who live on campus, but have asked that no additional housing be placed on the campus.

"People living near the Brighton campus are now saying they don't like the idea of students living" on the Brighton campus, he said.

Neighbors cautiously welcomed a plan for housing graduate students at the far east point of the Brighton campus - on the other side of Foster Street - and two BC proposals that are not yet part of the master plan: to help staff purchase homes in Allston and Brighton with some kind of mortgage assistance, and to prohibit off-campus students from living in one- and two-family homes (which some said should also extend to three-families).

Last week's discussion followed a Jan. 8 session on BC's proposed athletic facilities, including a fully lighted, 1,500-seat baseball stadium and 100,000-square-foot field house. Neighbors raised questions about the effect of night games, traffic, and lights on houses, and possible chemical runoff from artificial turf planned for many of the fields.

The following week, the topics were traffic, transit, and parking. BC discussed possible changes to the intersection of Commonwealth Avenue, St. Thomas More Road, and Lake Street, where there are chaotic turning patterns and pedestrians crossing busy roads to get to the BC MBTA stop. The university discussed plans to move that stop to a center platform farther east on Commonwealth, which it would allow the city and MBTA to widen by giving up 11 feet on either side of the street.

Neighbors asked the university for more detailed studies of each proposed change, and noted that the task force needs a traffic specialist to analyze data.

"It's premature to comment about what we think is good or not," said Frank Tramontozzi, a Brighton resident who is also chief engineer at MassHighway. "We have no information from traffic studies about existing conditions, how traffic would look in the future without development, and how traffic would look with development. BC should provide the task force with the tools it needs."

Others questioned whether BC had planned enough parking. The plan calls for 500 more spots in a garage on the new campus, but neighbors said an expanding workforce may bring even more workers to the campus. On the other hand, Fred Salvucci, a Brighton resident and transit specialist at MIT, noted that "parking lots are fertility drugs for cars."

The final task force hearing in this round, on open space and academic uses, begins at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday at Brighton Marine Health Center at 77 Warren St.

The BRA will compile comments and questions submitted before the public comment period ends Feb. 5, and give BC a summary. The university will file a response, setting off another round of public comment.

© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.

Getting to YES at Harvard

2008-01-26T06:44:00.001-05:00

Allston Brighton TAB
Harvard science complex gets green light
By Mitra Taj/Correspondent
Thu Jan 24, 2008, 01:55 PM EST
Allston, Mass. -

Allston, Mass. - After months of negotiating a benefits package for the community of Allston-Brighton, the city of Boston has given Harvard University the green light to begin building a $1-billion science complex in north Allston.

The Boston Redevelopment Authority, charged with vetting large-scale developments in the city, will sign the cooperation agreement with Harvard this week or early next week, said Mike Glavin, BRA deputy director for institutional development.

“Two weeks ago, we said we were prepared to move forward and the task force said it was disappointed,” said Glavin at Wednesday night’s Harvard-Allston Task Force meeting. “Last week we had a candid, open conversation with Harvard and now we’re moving forward seeing that Harvard has addressed the concerns raised.”

Talks that began in April between Harvard and the task force fell apart earlier this month amid complaints from residents that the proposed $21 million benefits package from Harvard wouldn’t translate into meaningful benefits for the community.

Changes to community benefits package

Harvard has since increased the package, to be distributed over ten years, to $23.9 million. Other changes to the cooperation agreement include a partnership fund to dole out $500,000 in grants over five years to neighborhood programs; expanding the education needs survey to include assessment of the community’s transportation, public health, and housing needs; a stated commitment to support a public-private partnership that will result in a “transformative project” in Allston-Brighton; and collaboration with the BRA to do something with the area west of Barry’s Corner.

Harvard has been preparing the area on Western Avenue in north Allston for construction and will probably begin building the 589,000-square-foot complex in February, said Kathy Spiegelman, Harvard’s chief planner of the initiative. The center is slated to open in 2012.

“This marks the end of the process of building consensus in the community,” said Spiegelman, “and the beginning of a process that will allow us to start an important campus project. It’s exciting.”

Neighbor’s worries

But not everyone saw a happy ending or hopeful beginning in the cooperation agreement. Task force members Brent Whelan and Harry Mattison pushed to set a deadline for finishing the needs assessment survey and asked Harvard to bump the partnership fund up from $500,000 to $2 million.

“There are a lot of things in the neighborhood that are literally or figuratively crumbling,” said Mattison. “This is our last chance to make a request that Harvard strongly support our community.”

Spiegelman rejected increasing the partnership fund but accepted task force member John Bruno’s suggestion to evaluate the distribution every year to ensure funding is meeting the community’s needs.

Task force member Michael Hanlon said he doubts Allston-Brighton residents will ever see the funds. “If 90 percent of the funds never reach here—what’s the point?”

BRA press secretary Jessica Shumaker said that of the $23.9 million, only $3.8 million allocated for the city’s housing fund won’t go directly to Allston-Brighton. She said it’s important to remember that this is the first of many benefits packages the community can expect as Harvard expands into Allston-Brighton.

Task force member Cathy Campbell, chairing the meeting in lieu of task force chairman Ray Mellone, said Harvard’s revised statement of support of a “transformative project” is worth more than a dollar figure.

“What’s important in the cooperation agreement is a permanent commitment from Harvard to something that has the ability to change the face of the neighborhood,” said Campbell. “We have that commitment from Harvard now and I hope it costs them millions and millions and millions and millions and millions and millions over the years!”

The Allston-Brighton task force will meet Feb. 13 to discuss proposals for the community benefits package. BRA planner Gerald Autler said he expects the task force to draft a community benefits proposal in May.

Task force member Millie Hollum McLaughlin said despite lingering disagreements, it’s important to recognize how far the task force and Harvard have come. “The community seems more together on this now,” she said. “I think there’s real compromise happening.”

breakout box
Community benefits breakdown
After nine months of talks about a community benefits package, the Boston Redevelopment Authority says it's ready to sign a cooperation agreement with Harvard University, paving the way for construction of the Harvard Allston Science Complex. How does the $24.9 million break down for Allston-Brighton?

· $11.5 million for parks, streets, sidewalks, and landscaping includes support for the creation of two new parks, upgrades to Portsmouth Park, 12 blocks of sidewalk, 150 street trees, and improvements to Barry's Corner.

· $4.7 million for education includes support for an education portal that will offer free tutoring for neighborhood kids, distribution of $500,000 in grant money over five years for neighborhood projects, and a community needs survey to guide future development.

· $3.9 million for employment and workforce development includes support for the Allston Brighton Resource Center to teach skills building and a new classroom for adult students at the education portal.

· $3.8 million for the city's housing trust fund

Housing for Charlestown In Spite of Neighborhood Council Opposition

2008-01-23T05:55:00.000-05:00

Charlestown Bridge
The Boston Redevelopment Authority approved a residential development proposed for the current home of the Knights of Columbus Hall at 75 West School St., Mayor Thomas M. Menino announced last week.

“I’m happy to see that this project is moving forward – the addition of 99 new units of housing is great for Charlestown and the project is an attractive re-use of this site,” Menino said. “The successful use of the development review process helped shape this project and ultimately make it a better one for the neighborhood.”
The seven-story, Federal-style brick building has an estimated cost of $30 million and will contain 99 residential units, 13 of which will be designated as affordable housing. Construction is expected to begin in mid-2008 and be completed by the end of 2009.

The development team of Boston attorney Bruce Daniel and Jack French, president and principal of Monument Square-based Neshamkin French Architects, Inc., are also planning several modifications to the site, including a new tot lot in the rear of the building, a public park at the front of the building on the corner of West School Street and Old Rutherford Avenue and a path along the Phipps Burial Ground that will provide improved public access to the site.

The original proposal included 111 units and had a maximum height of nine stories, but the developers agreed to reduce the overall scope of the project after meeting with representatives of the Charlestown Preservation Society Design Review Committee in early September.

“The project was enhanced and improved by the community process,” French said.
Despite the smaller scale of the revised proposal, the project still drew criticism from some Charlestown Neighborhood Council members at a Sept. 24 meeting co-sponsored by the CNC Development Committee and the BRA. Among the concerns they cited were parking provisions and height restrictions, since the project would exceed the 35-foot limit now in place for the neighborhood.

Still, French believes the development will be a welcome addition to the neighborhood that would recall the days of “old” Charlestown.
“I hope the project acts to extend the look and feel of Main Street on the New Rutherford Avenue edge,” he said. “The goal is to restore the look and feel of historic Charlestown to this Urban Renewal parcel.”
Like French, Daniel was also encouraged by the latest step in the approval process.
“It’s a significant step because the BRA is the planning agency for the city,” he said.

Daniel added the city’s Board of Appeals would review the project at a hearing in early March, marking the final step in the city’s approval process. The project will also be the subject of ongoing design review by the BRA until that time, he said.
Meanwhile, the Knights of Columbus plans to relocate to a new facility at 545 Medford St.

We Don't Want Students Renting Either!

2008-01-22T11:35:00.000-05:00

The Daily Free Press
City Council aims at student housing with apt. occupancy limit
Jeannie Nuss
Issue date: 1/22/08 Section: News
Media Credit: Kellie Borrero

New rules proposed by City Councilor Mike Ross could limit the number of non-family occupants in apartments in Boston.

The search for affordable urban housing may become more difficult if a recent Boston City Council bill to limit the number of people living together in a rental property passes.

If the legislation is approved and then affects the Boston Zoning Commission, landlords would not be permitted to house more than four non-related occupants in an apartment.

City Councilor Mike Ross (Back Bay, Fenway) said the over-crowding of apartments is turning into a serious student-housing issue in neighborhoods such as Brighton, where students comprise a large part of the population.

"Students have been victimized by landlords," he said. "They're paying exorbitant amounts of money to live like sardines."

Ross said an informal search on Craigslist turned up more than 3,000 examples of apartments for four or more occupants.

He said the City Council bill targets students because they are the ones typically living in high-occupancy apartments.

"If you have seven or eight or nine people living with each other, you'd be hard-pressed to find that if it wasn't students," he said.

If Mayor Thomas Menino signs the proposed bill, neighborhoods with large student populations such as Brighton and Fenway may get a demographic makeover, Ross said. He said the bill will reduce the value of property, making it easier for non-students to rent apartments.

"It's to give a fighting chance to a professional or a non-student or a family in a neighborhood," he said. "That's what these neighborhoods like Brighton and Mission Hill were intended for.

"In a couple of years, you're going to want to stay here and you're not going to want to live with four roommates for the rest of your life . . . neighborhoods like Fenway and Mission Hill will not be available," Ross continued.

"I think students will always move off campus," he said. "The ultimate tool is that universities have to provide more on-campus housing."

Ross said he thinks the legislation would not affect the number of students moving off campus because of on-campus housing shortages, Ross said.

However, housing organizations and students said the bill would make off-campus housing more difficult to find.

Grand Central Apartment Rentals President Ishay Grinberg said the bill would not impact the on-campus housing demand and the proposed legislation would only make the student-housing search even more strenuous.

"I don't think we need legislation on top of [occupancy laws]," he said.

The proposed legislation would make the rental market more competitive and possibly raise off-campus housing prices -- especially in student-populated areas such as Allston, he said.

"It's a numbers game," Grinberg said. "[Allston-area] landlords are probably going to capitalize on that."

Boston University College of Arts and Sciences freshman Elizabeth Krasick said she is worried about the obstacles the proposed law would add to the already difficult Boston apartment search.

"Limiting the number of people you're allowed to live with is just cropping boundaries . . . I don't think it's really fair," Krasick said. "It's really difficult to try to find somewhere close and reasonable near BU. It definitely makes me consider on-campus housing, which I don't want."

Patience and Persistence Pays Off

2008-01-19T05:59:00.000-05:00

The Boston Globe
Winds of change for One Kenmore
After 10 years, latest plan emphasizes office space
By Thomas C. Palmer Jr.
Globe Staff / January 17, 2008

After more than a decade of planning and major changes in size, use, and even location, the developer of the One Kenmore project near Fenway Park yesterday again filed plans with the city - this time reducing the number of residential units and adding a substantial amount of office space.

John Rosenthal, whose previous plans for a mixed-use development over the Turnpike between Kenmore Square and the ballpark emphasized residential use, with more than 600 condos or apartments, is bowing to the current market winds that are strong for commercial development but weak for housing.

He told the city he now wants to build almost 340,000 square feet of office space plus 100,000 square feet of retail shops and restaurants - and only 282 residences. The housing is currently designed as rental apartments, but some of that could be converted to condominiums if the market rebounds, Rosenthal said.

The expected project cost is about $450 million.

Rosenthal's development has been in the works almost as long as the drawn-out Columbus Center, an other Turnpike air-rights project, which received its designation for four parcels above the highway east of Clarendon Street 11 years ago - but just started construction late last year.

One Kenmore evolved from an idea of a hotel and entertainment complex 10 years ago, to a $300 million complex with 29- and 23-story residential towers in 2003, to a more modest proposal that in recent iterations has been well-received by the community and embraced by the powerful Red Sox organization.

The Red Sox are a minority partner in One Kenmore. The New York Times Co., owner of the Globe, owns 17 percent of the company that owns the team.

In 2005, One Kenmore was relocated, from east of the Brookline Avenue bridge over the Turnpike to just west of it. With the Red Sox as partners, it will now be located along Beacon Street over the MBTA's Yawkey Commuter Rail station, on land and air space previously designated for team owners' use. "It is literally above and surrounding a regional commuter rail station," Rosenthal said yesterday, "reusing ugly surface parking lots." He said $12.5 million has been OK'd by the state for station improvements, work that could be done simultaneously by his contractor, Bovis/Lend Lease LMB Inc.

Rosenthal said his latest configuration represents a "dramatic site plan change," with the tower that is closest to low-rise Audubon Circle area reduced to seven floors. He also now intends to build towers of 22 and 10 floors. Months ago, Rosenthal had proposed towers of 20 and 17 floors; before that, his 2003 proposal for the location closer to Kenmore Square was for towers of 29 and 23 floors and five smaller buildings.

The One Kenmore plans, which must undergo Boston Redevelopment Authority scrutiny over the next year or so prior to construction, call for less total square footage than in previous proposals. In the current plan, One Kenmore would have almost 1.3 million square feet - but more than 500,000 of that would be for parking. The plan includes two garages, with a total of 1,360 parking spaces. About 660 of those would be for use by One Kenmore residents, tenants, and visitors. A public garage with about 700 spaces would serve the surrounding community, including workers in the nearby Longwood Medical Area.

Rosenthal said medical community workers and local business patrons would use the public spaces during the day; at night, Sox fans and residents would use them. One Kenmore is slated for 3 1/2 acres, about half of it over the Turnpike and half on land near Maitland Street.

10 Less Stories = Still Opposed

2008-01-19T05:49:00.000-05:00

Northeastern News
GrandMarc size not factor for local residents
Rachel Zarrell and Derek Hawkins

A Texas developer agreed to cut 10 floors from its plans for GrandMarc at St. Botolph Street, a private residence hall proposed to the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) last spring. The original plan called for a 34-story building.

In April, Phoenix Property Co. submitted a project notification form to the BRA citing plans to build the tower near the Northeastern campus, next to the YMCA, complete with 1,140 beds, an Internet café, fully furnished facilities and a 16-space parking garage. The building would house students and faculty from local universities, on four- and nine-month leases.

Local businesses and labor unions generally welcomed the project, but a public evaluation period, which ended mid-summer, showed residents and civic groups to be overwhelmingly opposed.

In response, officials at Phoenix Property Co. announced last week they were considering a redesign to reduce the GrandMarc plans by 10 stories.

Several community leaders, however, have called the redesign insufficient and accuse the company with overlooking their concerns.

Barbara Simons, president of Symphony United Neighbors, has been a vocal opponent of the tower and said she has no plans to reach a compromise.

"Size does matter, [but] it's not the only thing that matters," she said. "We just think this is the wrong building in the wrong place. We don't want it in our backyard."Bill Richardson, president of the Fenway Civic Association and a member of the Impact Advisory Group, which is reviewing the project, said the developer's focus on height is misguided.

"There are bigger issues than just height of the building," Richardson said. "If that's all they're focusing on, they're missing the boat as to what our opposition is."Phoenix Property Co. has built similar private residence halls near college campuses in Minneapolis, Minn.; Riverside, Calif.; Fort Worth, Texas; and Charlotte, N.C.GrandMarc at St. Botolph Street is the developer's biggest project to date.

Local business owners have expressed support for the building, saying it would ease tension on the local housing market and create jobs when unemployment is on the rise nationally.Some students have also said they were open to living in a private off-campus residence hall, citing extra amenities, affordability and the absence of resident assistants among their reasons.

Sophomore Darren Murphy, a mechanical engineering major, said the building would be more convenient than living off-campus, but was unsure if the size was necessary.

"Do we need 24 floors? I don't know. But overall, it's more practical," he said. "I would live there if it was affordable."Jason Runnels, executive vice president of Phoenix Property Co., did not provide rent estimates for GrandMarc rooms, but said prices would be "competitive" with the local real-estate market.

Meanwhile, local organizations have expressed concern that the project breaks newly compromised zoning laws.

Carl Nagy-Koechlin, executive director of the Fenway Community Development Organization, said he was willing to come to an agreement with the developers - yet feels insulted by what is perceived as a meager new proposal.

Nagy-Koechlin said the new proposition fails to meet the renovated zoning requirements. "Everyone in the city compromised to come to a consensus for a set of zoning guides that we felt that we could all live with," he said. "And even this compromise proposal is two and a half times the height. I think all of us feel like we've wasted our time and the vision we came up with.

"Other residents expressed concern that the structure, even at 24 stories, will conflict with the predominantly five- and six-story skyline.

Peter Wiederspahn, acting head of the School of Architecture, said the face of the community could be altered by the presence of the building, as could foot traffic on the narrow sidewalks on Huntington Avenue."A dormitory of this density might have crossed the threshold," Wiederspahn said.

"It will create a significant concentration of students that may very well affect the character of the neighborhood."Runnels said Phoenix Property Co. intends to submit a proposal with the revised plans to the BRA by mid-March. He added that representatives from the company will meet with Northeastern officials to discuss the project.Jeffrey Doggett, director of government relations and community affairs, said company officials came to Northeastern last summer. Northeastern, he said, has yet to take a formal stance on the GrandMarc project."

We're all waiting to hear, as all the neighbors are waiting to hear, on what changes were made to the proposal," he said.

Good News for Beantown: Post Big Dig Development

2008-01-19T05:42:00.000-05:00

Wall Street Journal
'Big Dig' Done, Office Developments Rise
By MAURA WEBBER SADOVIJanuary 16, 2008;
With rents rising and the "Big Dig" finally completed after 16 years, Boston is seeing a surge of office development.

Average metrowide annual office completions are expected to jump to 3.3 million square feet in 2009 and 2010 from two million this year, according to Property & Portfolio Research Inc., a Boston-based real-estate research firm. Even more remarkable, several of the new projects are "speculative," meaning that developers have no tenant in hand. The city hasn't had any such projects started since rents cratered after the tech bust of 2001.

Speculative construction is a sign of market confidence. But it could create problems if the national recession that many are predicting boosts vacancies and decreases rents.
The Boston Convention and Exhibition Center anchors a redevelopment of the city's waterfront.
For now, Boston office developers are emboldened by demand from technology and professional service companies that have helped push rents up at a double-digit-percentage pace. Many are banking on a surge in accounting firms and other tenants looking to lease large spaces in 2009 and 2010 and beyond, according to Lauren C. Picariello, research manager for Jones Lang LaSalle in Boston.

Average Boston-area rents rose 10.6% to about $28 per square foot in the third quarter from a year earlier, PPR says. The city, which anchors a region that is home to about 4.9 million people, has seen its annual pace of job growth rise to 1% in November from a year earlier, compared with an average annual decline of 0.2% from 2002 to 2006, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Moody's Economy.com.

"The timing is right," says Joseph F. Fallon, chief executive and president of the Fallon Co., a Boston-based developer that also built the Westin Boston Waterfront Hotel. Fallon is building a spec 500,000-square-foot office building that is part of a larger mixed-use development called Fan Pier on the South Boston waterfront. Over in the financial district, Dallas-based Lincoln Property Co. is building the 12-story 220,000-square-foot Two Financial Center without any preleasing. Lincoln plans to complete it in 2009.

Moreover, a number of neighborhoods are benefiting from the $15 billion Big Dig roadway project that unsnarled many city streets and added a series of parks where an elevated highway once stood.

The Big Dig has helped open South Boston's once-industrial waterfront to development by making it easier to reach and more appealing. The 2003 opening of the I-90 connector tunnel, part of the Big Dig, improved the area's access to both downtown and Logan International Airport. That was followed by the 2004 opening of the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center in the waterfront area.

Such public investments followed pioneering office-building development in the 1990s. Together, they've turned the area into a recognized up-and-coming address, Mr. Fallon says. An estimated two million square feet of space is under construction in the area now. An additional 18 million square feet -- a mix of office, residential, retail and hotel -- is planned in the next 20 years, according to Kairos Shen, director of planning for the Boston Redevelopment Authority.
Indeed, South Boston's waterfront might even one day count the city's biggest boss among its tenants. In about four years, Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino says he would like to see city hall moved from its current 1960s-era landmark building to a waterfront parcel already owned by the city. The move would be part of his push to bring city services to neighborhoods and to ensure a vibrant mix of civic and commercial uses on the emerging waterfront. "I don't just want tall buildings there," says Mr. Menino.

A Success Story in Roslindale

2008-01-19T05:35:00.000-05:00

West Roxbury Transcript
Arboretum plan is approved
By Jessica M. Smith

Roslindale - Following four years of community meetings and negotiations, the Boston Zoning Commission finally heard and approved Harvard University’s proposal for the Arnold Arboretum.

The plan, as presented by Harvard and the Boston Redevelopment Authority last Wednesday, involves a 14.5-acre parcel of the Arboretum called Weld Hill.
With the consent of the vast majority of the community, Harvard announced that it intends to build a 45,000-sqaure-foot horticultural research facility devoted to studying the biology of trees.

In exchange for allowing the building to be constructed, abutters requested that the remainder of the land remain untouched indefinitely. Instead, Harvard agreed to leave the land alone until 2882, the same year its lease on the Arboretum expires. The university’s intent will be recorded as a deed restriction, meaning that limitations will be placed on the land such as building additional structures or parking facilities.

The university appeared before the Zoning Commission because it was seeking to change the area’s zoning, which currently only allows for single-family residential structures. Unlike the community process that many described as contentious, those testifying during the hour-long hearing were all in support of the project.

In the 45,000 square feet proposed, Director Robert Cook said that about half the space will be devoted to research laboratories, growing facilities and office space.

According to Kevin McCluskey, a senior director of community relations for Harvard, the research performed in Roslindale is “very, very important scientific research that’s central to the mission of the Arboretum.”

“To the public, it is unseen and perhaps underappreciated,” said McCluskey.
Some of the research involves figuring out how to save trees in cities where foliage is declining.
The remainder will be for the technology that sustains the building, including a geothermal well system.

With the approval of the commission and the signature of the mayor, ground could be broken as early as this spring.

“I almost don’t know where to begin. I feel very good in supporting this process,” said Boston City Councilor Rob Consalvo.

As Roslindale’s representative on the council, Consalvo described the fate of the Arboretum as the number-one issue facing his constituents.

“This is not a case of ‘Not in my backyard.’ [Residents] said build it, but give us the protections we need. I’ve never seen a group work so tirelessly,” said Consalvo, who told the commission that the Institutional Master Plan before them had resolved “99.9 percent of the issues.”
State Rep. Jeffrey Sanchez, who represents the 15th Suffolk District, agreed.

“It’s a product of the will of the community,” said Sanchez.

According to the two politicians present, the desirable proposal would not have been possible without direct input from Mayor Thomas M. Menino, numerous city officials and Roslindale residents who care dearly about their neighborhood.

For Julie O’Brien, a Mendum Street resident who has led community meetings about the Arboretum, the proposal wasn’t ideal, but it was one she would support.

“[The land] should have remained open, but this does preserve, for the most part, the things that the community wanted,” said O’Brien, adding that she still felt a certain ambivalence toward the proposal.

“I just hope the construction process works out as well as both sides anticipate,” said O’Brien, who was joined by Roslindale resident Walter Michalik.

Michalik, who sat on the Arboretum task force, told the commission that the project was one he had come to accept.

Don't Change More Road Either

2008-01-19T05:28:00.000-05:00

Boston College neighbors: keep More Road as is
By Richard Cherecwich/Staff Writer
Thu Jan 17, 2008, 02:11 PM EST

Brighton - Neighbors are opposed to Boston College’s plan to reroute St. Thomas More Road to the east, saying it would limit the ability to commute from Brookline.
However, many supported a plan to keep the existing More Road while creating a new offshoot adjacent to Evergreen Cemetery.

“Basically, the current More Road should stay in place to allow people who drive on Beacon Street to go to Washington Street. That’s how my husband commutes,” said Eva Webster.
More Road currently accommodates north- and south-bound traffic from Beacon Street and crosses Commonwealth Avenue onto Lake Street, a one-way road running north to Washington Street. BC’s 10-year institutional master plan proposes moving More Road to the eastern edge of the campus and closing the connection to Lake Street. The realigned road would cross Comm. Ave. into the new main entrance of BC’s Brighton campus.

Planners want the Commonwealth Avenue entrance to be the primary access point for the campus. As it currently exists, access to the campus is only available via a right turn in/right turn out from the outbound side of Commonwealth Avenue. The new plan would also feature a break in the center median on Commonwealth Avenue, allowing cars to cross the MBTA Green Line tracks.

The notification form filed with the Boston Redevelopment Authority said the school will examine alternatives to this plan, including only opening the median to cross the train tracks or keeping the existing More Road open. At a Task Force meeting on Wednesday night, the community supported the alternatives.

Resident Charlie Vasiliades said he had no problem with the other options, but didn’t want to close the existing More Road segment.

“I’m dead set against it,” he said.

Planners from VHB Inc., the transportation consultants for BC’s master plan, said extensive traffic studies will look at all the options, and more information will come after the BRA request more information in its scoping determination.

“At this point in time, we’re not saying we have it all worked out and we have all the answers. We don’t,” said David Black, senior project manager for VHB.

Moving the BC MBTA station
The 10-year plan also includes the MBTA’s proposed plan to move the Boston College station from its current location north of Commonwealth Avenue to a platform in the center of the road as part of the T’s overall initiative to make stations more handicapped accessible. The existing station cannot be updated, according to BC.

To create the center platform, BC will contribute 11 feet of land on both sides of Commonwealth Avenue to maintain two lanes of traffic in each direction and existing parking. The college has also committed to paying some of the cost. Passengers would exit and enter the train on the same platform, and the trolleys would use a switch to change directions from inbound to outbound.

One former T official said the idea would never fly.

“The crossing trains back and forth wouldn’t work at all,” said Bill Donovan, a former operations coordinator for construction for the MBTA and a Rogers Park Avenue resident. “The BC line is now the slowest in the system. I just can’t see it happening.”

MBTA officials have not appeared before the community to discuss the plans.

“I don’t think any of this has been thought out, and I wouldn’t even talk about MBTA stations there until the MBTA comes with a plan,” Donovan said.

20 Somerset Street Building

2008-01-19T05:16:00.000-05:00

Back Bay Sun
January 16, 2008
Suffolk files IMPNF; responds to BHCA concerns with offer by Dan Salerno

Suffolk University filed its institutional master plan notification form with the city on Friday, despite the objections voiced by the Beacon Hill Civic Association over a lack of detailed information about plans for the 20 Somerset Street building. The filing, however, came with a pledge from university Vice President John Nucci to discuss a non-expansion zone in Beacon Hill.

“While any potential impacts [from 20 Somerset] have been addressed with the Task Force over the last several months, we agree that with the approval of 20 Somerset Street, discussion and negotiation of a non expansion zone is appropriate for the Upper Beacon Hill area,” said Nucci.

“Specific details and boundaries should be the product of review by stakeholders with the aim of reaching a mutually beneficial agreement.” A non-expansion zone could be an important carrot to offer to the neighborhood in light of recent resistance voiced by community groups to Suffolk’s plans. Members of the BHCA objected to the inclusion of the 20 Somerset Street project in the IMPNF because of a lack of details about the potential impact on the neighborhood.

Suffolk plans to use address to house its New England School of Art and Design, currently located on Arlington Street in the Back Bay. “There has been very limited discussion on the impact of a new school at 20 Somerset Street on the neighborhood, and the BHCA position is that the description of the potential impact [in the IMPNF] is inadequate,” said Rob Whitney, the BHCA liaison to the Suffolk Task Force, at a meeting in December. “The neighborhood is already saturated with academic uses.”

Nucci stressed that although the project is included in the IMPNF filed on Friday, a separate project plan has not been submitted, and the IMPNF includes only the intended use for the sight, not details of the project, which will be decided in concert with the community. Nucci said that he has expanded the public comment period for an additional 30 days, and that he welcomes the opportunity to work with the community. “We want to be sure that people fully understand that this is a very benign use with limited impacts and we want to be sure they have an opportunity to comment on it,” said Nucci.

In a written statement to the press, Suffolk outlined a number of design principles for the project meant to reduce the potential impact on the community. The principles include a pledge that the height of the new building will not exceed the height of the current structure, that the building use will be solely academic and will not contain any residential, athletic, or student center facilities, and that there will be no increase in shadow impacts on the Garden of Peace, 10 Bowdoin Street or Beacon Hill.

"She Opposes Everything"

2008-01-16T16:21:00.000-05:00

State Representative Opposes Claims She Opposes Everything
By Thomas GrilloReporter
State Rep. Martha M. Walz is in her second term representing Boston’s Back Bay, West End, Beacon Hill and Cambridgeport neighborhoods.

Attend any community meeting in Boston’s downtown neighborhoods and you’ll find state Rep. Martha M. Walz somewhere in the room. In her second term in the Massachusetts House of Representatives, Walz is the neighborhood’s voice when it comes to development. She has questioned the height of 888 Boylston St., Boston Properties’ office building proposal; fought Suffolk University’s plan to turn a vacant Beacon Hill building into student housing; and spoken out against public financing for the Columbus Center project in Boston.

While she gets high praise from neighborhood activists, members of Mayor Thomas M. Menino’s administration privately say that she’s against everything. Walz represents Back Bay, Beacon Hill, the West End and Cambridgeport. She also works as an attorney at Littler Mendelson, where she advises clients on employee law.

Walz graduated from Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, New York University School of Law and Colgate University.

Q: Some at City Hall say that you oppose any development in Boston. Can you name any projects that you favored at the height the developer’s requested?

A: I did not oppose the height of the Beal Co. project at 131 Clarendon St. [The 9-story building with 350 housing units is under construction.] It all comes down to whether or not a developer has a plan that makes sense for the site and the community. If they do, then height is not a problem. But if the proposal is too tall, I’ll work to get it reduced. It’s disingenuous for anyone to suggest I oppose everything.

Q: You are among the loudest voices in opposition to Columbus Center [the $800 million project that would be built on a deck over the Massachusetts Turnpike in the South End. It would feature a 35-story glass tower and four 11-story buildings that will house 451 condominiums, a hotel and 917 parking spaces.]

A: That’s not true. My comments in the last few years about Columbus Center have related exclusively to the question of public financing. Once the Boston Redevelopment Authority approved the project, I haven’t said a word in opposition to the project itself. I object to the taxpayers subsidizing the profits of a developer.

Q: But why wouldn’t a developer take advantage of public financing?

A: Because the developer [Roger Cassin] got increased height and density in exchange for a promise not to accept public subsidies. [Cassin denies a promise was made.]

Q: But it still doesn’t sound like you supported the 1.3 million-square-foot proposal. You were a member of the Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay and they opposed it, correct?

A: Yes. NABB opposed it. I did not support approval because I thought more changes should have been made. The design could have been improved and the height on parcel 16 should have been further reduced, and there’s too much on-site parking. I want something built there; the question is what kind of development. I have asked the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority to move forward with a Request for Proposals for the air rights parcel at Massachusetts Avenue and Boylston Street. I also support John Rosenthal’s air rights project in Kenmore Square.

Q: You opposed Suffolk University dorms for 20 Somerset St. on Beacon Hill.

A: I opposed the dorm. But I was not against the school putting an academic building there. It suits developers and those who work with them to paint people in the community as always opposing things, when the facts prove that assertion to be wrong.

Q: You are against Boston Properties’ effort to increase the height of their proposed building at 888 Boylston St. from 11 to 19 stories. A: I favor the approved building at 11 stories.

Q: What about the AvalonBay Communities’ plan for a 30-story residential tower on Exeter Street?

A: I don’t have a point of view on that one. It’s easy for people to paint elected officials and community activists as opponents of everything. But the facts are quite different than the stereotypes that they try to create to suit their own agendas.

Q: The Prudential Center has tall buildings. This is a city. If skyscrapers can’t be built there, then where?

A: There are plenty of locations that are appropriate for tall buildings. No one is arguing that we shouldn’t have height. I have not objected to anything downtown. That’s where they belong.

Even 9 p.m. is Too Late for Roslindale!

2008-01-14T06:10:00.000-05:00

Roslindale Transcript
Open for dinner or only for lunch?
By David Ertischek
Wed Jan 09, 2008, 11:53 AM EST
Roslindale -

Roslindale - What was once known as Roslindale’s Old Muffin House is now involved in a dispute with neighbors about what time the current restaurant would be open.
The owners of the La Lechonera Café want to be open until 9 p.m., and some residents want the little corner restaurant to close at 2 p.m.

Ted Vega and Efrain Ortiz bought the little eatery on the corner of Cummins and American Legion highways in May 2006 and opened one day after Thanksgiving in 2007.

Vega proudly spoke about repairing the restaurant, which he said was rundown with broken windows and falling apart because the building had been vacant for several years.

But while no one seems to be against the café being open, many residents, including the Canterbury Manning Neighborhood Association, are against the café being open until 9 p.m. and would like to see it close at 2 p.m., similar to what the Muffin House used to do.

“First of all, it poses a parking issue,” said Paula Butler, who lives three doors down from the eatery on Cummins Highway. “They’re parking in front of my house … The man deserves to make a living, but first the hours are way too long for our neighborhood situation.”
A snowstorm stopped the café’s owners from being able to meet with the neighborhood association late last month. The owners and association had met previous to the scheduled meeting, in which the association recommended the restaurant be closed at 2 p.m.
Butler said that she feels as though the café did things behind the neighbors’ backs by opening for dinner without a proper license.

But Dan Pokaski, chairman of the licensing board for Boston, said that is a common mistake among restaurant owners. The café currently has a license to operate from 6 a.m. to 2 p.m.
“It happens from time to time. People forget to get common victualler’s licenses. They get the ISD, the fire and the health permit and forget they need a permit to sell food. We don’t want to put them out of business; we want to make sure they comply with the law.”

But the Canterbury association urged the owners to be open only until 2 p.m., which their license was granted for. For a while, the eatery was open until 9 p.m., and they advertise that they are open for dinner. But as of this past Monday, there was a sign on entrance that said they would be closing at 2 p.m.

“Mainly our problem is the same problem we’ve been having since 2006,” said Vega. “It’s that the neighborhood association is not being reasonable with us.”

The main issue is the available parking at the site, which Vega said is more than ample. The restaurant seats 18 people with six tables, and there are 13 parking spots that Vega said is deeded to the restaurant. Some residents contend that the parking is not deeded to the restaurant, but Vega has provided paperwork to the state proving that they do own the lot.
Vega is waiting for springtime so he can draw in better parking lines so the parking lot is more defined. Pokaski himself said he would be going to the location to see the parking situation.
Pokaski said he expects the licensing board to rule today (Thursday, Jan. 10), after the Transcript goes to print, on whether the restaurant may be open until 9 p.m.

But Vega said that most neighbors have received him well. He said that as soon as he put up his signage, residents came over to welcome him to the neighborhood and, of course, get some food.
“This neighborhood is not against us. People came right away. Whites, blacks, Spanish, everybody,” said Vega.

He added that most of his customers come after 6 p.m. for traditional Spanish dinners or Cuban sub sandwiches.

To prove that he has the support of the neighborhood, Vega and Ortiz have been circulating a petition to be open from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m., seven days a week.

Vega said he thought there were some ulterior motives for neighbors being against the eatery.
“It’s creating a lot of friction right now, especially for the Spanish community. Why us? Our interpretation is that it is racism,” he said.

Vega added other points that make him a good neighbor such as the fact that while even it is a liability against him, he allows parents to park their cars in his lot while they wait for the children to be dropped off by school buses. He also patrols the property twice a day picking up every bit of trash he can find.

City Councilor Rob Consalvo said that he would “wait to hear what residents have to say.”
He added that if the restaurant were to take off, there could be a major traffic problem considering the site is already a busy road.

“These are issues that have to be addressed and make the community feel at ease. Everyone has their day in court,” said Consalvo.

Wants Harvard to "Dazzle" Community

2008-01-14T06:00:00.000-05:00

Allston Brighton Tab
Neighbors ‘completely dissatisfied’ with Harvard benefits plan
By Richard Cherecwich, Staff Writer
Thu Jan 10, 2008, 11:31 AM EST

Allston, Mass. - The Harvard-Allston Task Force is “completely dissatisfied” with the $21 million community benefits package proposed by Harvard, and will meet separately with both the Boston Redevelopment Authority and the university to discuss possible last-minute changes.

The package is part of a cooperation agreement that must be signed by both the city and Harvard before the school begins work on a $1 billion science complex on Western Avenue. The agreement will be signed in the next two weeks, BRA officials said.

The task force met in an executive session on Monday, Jan. 7, to discuss the package.

“Until Monday night, we didn’t know we were completely dissatisfied with this because we hadn’t talked about it,” Chairman Ray Mellone said at a task force meeting on Wednesday.
The meetings with the BRA and school are tentatively scheduled for the week of Jan. 14. Although they will be executive sessions with discussion between the task force, they will be open to the public, Mellone said.

Mellone acknowledged that the agreement would likely be signed whether or not the task force agrees on the benefits package, but both the BRA and Harvard agreed to meet to discuss possible changes.

“Let’s see if we can do anything to improve the way the package is put together,” Mellone said. “I don’t know if that’s going to be futile or not.”

The package includes $9.3 million for construction of new parks and improvements to sidewalks and streets in Allston, and $4.2 million for education projects, including an education portal offering math and science tutoring to Allston-Brighton children.

“This list that you have does represent what we believe to be a full program of benefits and we plan to move forward with Harvard. We have not moved forward yet,” said Michael Glavin, the BRA’s deputy director for institutional development.

Allston residents have sought larger-scale benefits from the project, including a university-sponsored community school. The BRA supports projects such as this, but they can’t be agreed to within the timeline for the science project, said BRA planner Gerald Autler.

The $21 million is only related to the 589,000-square-foot science complex, and more benefits will come as the school continues to expand into Allston in the next 50 years.

As the task force and community begin discussions for benefits associated with that long-term plan, Mellone wanted to make sure what he felt were past mistakes were not repeated. Other task force members agreed they were disappointed.

“I think what we wanted was to be able to dazzle our community,” said task force member Millie McGlaughlin. “Now we’re at a point where people don’t feel they did a good enough job for the community, and that’s difficult to hear, as a member of the community.”

Harvard officials said a benefits matrix drafted by the community influenced the package, and they want to build a partnership to continue into the future.

“We did not create and get to this place in the benefits agreement by calculating dollars associated with a building and an investment,” said Kathy Spiegelman, chief planner for Harvard’s Allston Development Group. “The expectation of 10 years past and 10 years forward is the university will continue to make investments in what the task force and community think are community benefits.”

Dorms for UMass Boston?

2008-01-14T05:50:00.000-05:00

Dorchester Reporter
UMass defends dorms at Columbia-Savin Hill
January10, 2008
By Gintautas DumciusReporter Correspondent

In sharp exchanges with some local neighborhood activists, UMass Boston officials defended their plans to build dorms to house some 1,000 on-campus beds in the next ten years as part of the school's overhaul.

"We are a commuter school. We are going to continue to be a commuter school," Ellen O'Connor, the campus's vice chancellor for administration and finance, said to roughly 40 people assembled at Columbia-Savin Hill Civic Association's Monday night meeting at the Little House.
The plan for on-campus housing, which will ultimately result in 2,000 beds by the end of the university's 25-year master plan, is coupled with hopes to build three new academic buildings and two 1,000-car parking garages, open up the campus by bringing down the plaza and relocate the university's utilities.

The civic association, which once had a UMass Committee to handle its opposition to dorms, did not take a vote after the brief presentation, saying they needed time to mull it over.
"I commend them for coming out," said Deirdre Habershaw, head of the association, who has voiced opposition to dorms in the past. "But I think I still have the same feelings as before."
Don Walsh, a member of the association, peppered O'Connor with questions, noting that little had changed since the university's first attempt at building dorms nearly four years ago.
Former Chancellor Michael Collins restarted the conversation during his tenure, with aides attempting reach out to community leaders and salve over the wounds inflicted by the previous administration. The current chancellor, Keith Motley, is also pushing for dorms.

Walsh pressed O'Connor, who acknowledged the UMass Board of Trustees had seen the plan, but had not signed off on any specific construction.

She stressed the current master plan is a "living document," subject to change.
"We have looked at what's been done in the past and we know this is a difficult topic," she said of dorms. "I don't have a construction plan on anything here."

O'Connor also said that while the school doesn't have much power in controlling who gets a shot at the construction jobs, having Dorchester residents work is "a reasonable thing for us to support."

Others had concerns over increased traffic. UMass officials hope to revamp the roadways, shifting the current "racetrack" structure deeper inland and creating roads going through the campus.

"Your plan perseveres over our well-being," said Roger Ramie, who also pointed to other development projects on Columbia Point. "That's going to add to [the traffic], too," he said.
O'Connor said the university is working with two agencies, the state's Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) and the city's Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA), to ensure traffic doesn't increase. O'Connor said 52 percent of students come by public transportation.

While Mayor Thomas Menino has voiced support for dorms and the overall plan, other local politicians have been more cautious. Some note dorms remain far down the road, with old buildings coming down and new buildings going up a higher priority for the campus.

"I'm going to wait and see what happens," said state Rep. Martin Walsh. "Dorms is a question for another day."

Rep. Walsh also voiced support for one of the new UMass administration officials, Arthur Bernard. Bernard joined UMass Boston as its vice chancellor for government relations and public affairs in November after six months as general counsel to the UMass Building Authority. Bernard is also former chief of staff to Senate President Robert Travaglini, and knows the district and area.

"He does understand all that stuff," Walsh said.

More on Dorms - 2

2008-01-08T16:33:00.000-05:00

Developers of Student Housing Hope Less Ends Up Being More
By Thomas GrilloReporter

In response to strong opposition, the Phoenix Property Co. and Lincoln Property Co. will file revised plans for GrandMarc, a private, $170 million residence hall for students. Banker & Tradesman first reported the story Wednesday on its Web site, www.bankerandtradesman.com. The Texas-based developers proposed a pair of towers, totaling 34 stories and 12 stories, to be built near the YMCA on Huntington Avenue. The complex would have featured 1,140 beds as well as a café, recreation room and lounge on the ground floor.

But neighbors said the multiplex was too big and that the concentration of more than a 1,000 additional students would overwhelm the close-knit neighborhood. Residents said the skyscraper would rise above the Fenway and be out of scale with the neighborhood’s 5- and 6-story walkup apartment buildings. In addition, neighbors worried that GrandMarc, coupled with Northeastern University’s plans to build more than 2,000 dorms nearby, would concentrate too many students in one section of the city.

“We heard the [Boston Redevelopment Authority] and the neighborhood’s concerns, and devised a plan that is significantly less than what we proposed,” said Jason P. Runnels, Phoenix’s executive vice president. “We were happy to build more than 1,000 beds in that location to meet the demand, but the community and BRA said it was way too much.”

In a series of public hearings last spring, the developers faced questions about the number of dorm rooms, security, parking and traffic. In a letter to the developers from the BRA, questions also were raised about how alcohol use and underage drinking would be controlled, whether the dorm would provide police details on weekends, what consequences would result for students who misbehaved and how the building would handle disposal of party-related trash. The developer’s history of selling its properties after a few years also was flagged as a concern.
In response, Runnels said he would reduce the size of the tallest tower to about 24 stories and increase the other building to about 15 stories. He also has hired a security company and promised to resolve questions about how to keep the students and the area safe. While Runnels acknowledged that his company keeps its buildings for seven years before selling them, a development partner, Behringer Harvard Real Estate Investment Trust, typically keeps properties for the long term.

“We can’t promise that the building will never be sold, but we can say that it will be institutionally owned and professional managed like all the other institutional assets in Boston,” Runnels said.

‘Too Many Students’
Jane Hartmann, a member of the Impact Advisory Group, an eight-member panel appointed by Mayor Thomas M. Menino to advise the city on the development, said she has not heard from the developer about the revised plans.

“Aside from the building’s height, many of the concerns centered around governance and security,” she said. “We didn’t like the idea that this is a firm that wants to build something and sell it in five years. The neighborhood has spent two years negotiating with Northeastern University and we already offered to support student housing on two sites. Neighbors are concerned that this new project would put too many students in a small section of the Fenway,”
If approved, GrandMarc would offer a first-of-a-kind private student housing, complete with resident assistants. While colleges and universities typically operate dorms, the project would be novel in Boston, where the for-profit company would lease the one- to four-bedroom units directly to students.

The developers have entered into an agreement to purchase an acre of land from the YMCA, along with the Y building’s Hastings Wing, for an undisclosed price. Under the terms of the deal, the Y would keep about 25,000 square feet of land and maintain the branch. The developers have agreed to incorporate the portion of the Hastings Wing that faces Huntington Avenue into the design. Plans also include a renovated front portion of the building. Phoenix would raze the rear portion of Hastings.

Phoenix has built nearly 8,000 dorm beds on a several campuses nationwide, including the University of Virginia and Johnson & Wales University in Charlotte, N.C.

William Richardson, president of the Fenway Civic Association, said the neighborhood made it clear to the developers last year that the project was too big considering the fact that the firm lacked a track record in Boston.

“There has never been a private dorm developed in the Boston area, as far as I know, and so we told them we couldn’t be comfortable with any kind of a project on this scale as a first project,” he said. “From a residents’ perspective, we are worried about a critical mass of students in East Fenway. We told the developers: ‘If you want to start discussion, you need to talk about a project of about half the size.’ ”

Runnels told Banker &Tradesman that his company is planning a presentation for the city and the neighborhood that would address the request for a smaller building, as well as explain how management and security will be handled.

In a prepared statement, BRA spokeswoman Jessica Shumaker said, “We’re happy to hear that the developers are responding to our concerns and the concerns from the community. Ultimately, the public review process results in a better project, and we look forward to reviewing their new submission with the community soon.”

On Campus Housing vs. Off Campus Housing

2008-01-08T04:59:00.000-05:00

Academic sprawl
Boston Globe
January 7, 2008
LIKE OLD dance partners, Boston planners and university officials pride themselves on anticipating each other's next move. And right now the city's higher-education scene is whirling with 2,901 dormitory beds under construction and roughly 2,000 more under review or proposed. Residents of neighborhoods where colleges are expanding are understandably dizzy from all of the activity.

An influx of institutional master plans will soon land on the desks of city planners at the Boston Redevelopment Authority. The documents, which colleges are required to file, project development goals from five to 20 years into the future. With city approval for a new science complex in hand, Harvard University is expected to file its long-range plan in the fall for a campus expansion in Allston that could exceed 5 million square feet. Suffolk University, which hungers for dorm space, is expected to deliver its plan this month. BRA officials, who are examining the latest Boston College master plan, are also anticipating an offering from Berklee College of Music.

It's unlikely that these and other colleges will reach deep consensus with neighbors who are wary of disruption from construction, traffic, and student behavior. But at the least, colleges will need to reach a state of detente with neighbors if they hope to see building and occupancy permits from the city.

The city's 36 institutions of higher education are indisputable leaders of the local economy. In 2004, Boston's colleges added $5.4 billion to the state's economy, according to the BRA. Higher ed in Boston directly employs 44,000 people. But that kind of clout can also breed a sense of entitlement.

Whether they mean to be or not, colleges are the most powerful development force in Boston. As Harvard, for instance, pushes forward with its science center in Allston, neighbors worry about Barry's Corner, an area whose fate is almost entirely in the university's hands. For city officials, the greatest challenge is to find the right balance when the needs of universities conflict with those of their neighbors.

Wrangling over dorms
Colleges could fill tomes with their volunteer and community service efforts. But the quality of town-gown relations usually depends upon student behavior.

Loud, late-night parties do not make for good student ambassadors. And families often resent even the best behaved students, because their presence often drives up housing costs, especially in modest neighborhoods such as Allston and Mission Hill. The Boston City Council recently passed a zoning change that would cap at four the number of students who could live in a single apartment.

The Menino administration has pushed consistently for colleges to house their students in residence halls on campus. The policy is succeeding. According to the BRA, about 46,000 undergraduates at private colleges live in Boston, of whom more than 70 percent call a dorm room home. (The agency does not compile data on public colleges, which do not fall under its planning authority.) But while the policy of getting students out of the neighborhoods is sound and clear, the implementation is inconsistent from college to college and neighborhood to neighborhood. "It's an art, not a science," says BRA planner Linda Kowalcky, who specializes in town-gown relations.

Boston College is a case in point. As part of an ambitious 10-year, $1.6 billion master plan, BC is proposing to house 500 students on land formerly owned by the Archdiocese of Boston north of Commonwealth Avenue.

But while BC leads the city in its success at housing undergraduates, its expansion plans are tricky in a way that 1,000 dorm beds proposed for the University of Massachusetts at Boston are not. Located on a peninsula, UMass-Boston is largely isolated from residential areas. But the proposed BC dorms are meeting with stiff resistance from neighbors in the Lake Street area, who want to see the student housing built on the main campus - further from their own homes.

Last week, opponents of the BC plan appeared to pick up an ally in Mayor Menino, who also said he wants to see the new dorms "all on one location" south of Commonwealth Avenue. BC is eager to build new academic centers, an arts district, recreation center, and other keys to a great future. But it must also build political support.

No rules apply
In general, more dorms are the right answer for Boston. College officials are skilled at using resident advisers, alcohol policies, and campus police to control student behavior. But no hard and fast rules for dorm construction apply. Neighbors of Berklee College of Music in the Back Bay, for example, recently resisted a high-rise dormitory proposal at the corner of Massachusetts Avenue and Boylston Street. But they seem more open to a subsequent plan for two smaller Berklee buildings on a nearby parcel. At BC, however, neighbors would prefer taller dorms, provided they remain set back on the traditional campus. The path of least resistance would seem to be the one that houses students, whenever possible, on the existing campus.

But some universities, like Suffolk, don't have traditional campuses. In 2006, Suffolk officials found themselves at war with the neighborhood when they purchased a building on the edge of Beacon Hill to build a high-rise dorm. The Menino administration initially blessed the project. But it walked away as neighborhood opposition escalated. Happy endings, however, are still possible. Suffolk is now housing students in less thickly settled sections of Downtown Crossing, bringing new energy to the area.

Mayor Menino, meanwhile, is using the colleges' desire to expand as his leverage to increase their civic commitments. He wants colleges to create major initiatives in public education, sports, and job training - initiatives far broader than the limited community programs that universities now offer. "I'm out of the pilot program business," Menino says.

Since Boston has long been a center of higher education, neighborhood residents need to have realistic expectations. But universities in turn need to recognize that their planning decisions don't just affect their students - and that, to neighbors, accommodation means more than a comfortable dorm room.

© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.

Going green=tall buildings!

2008-01-08T04:41:00.000-05:00

Boston Globe Sunday Magazine
Tall Order
Boston Globe

Tom Keane
January 6, 2008

PERSPECTIVE

If Boston is serious about going green, it needs to join other major cities and embrace the skyscraper.

Sixteen Boston buildings rise 500 feet or more above the city. These are our skyscrapers - a respectable number, but we haven't been keeping pace. All but three were built in the 1980s or earlier. The tallest, the John Hancock, no longer impresses; it now ranks just 46th in the country. Meanwhile, the destruction of the World Trade Center notwithstanding, other cities race ahead. San Francisco has 14 skyscrapers either approved or in planning. New York has 39, Chicago has 30, and Toronto (Toronto!) 19.

Boston is looking to build - maybe - two. That's right: two.

Carol Willis, executive director of the Skyscraper Museum in (where else?) New York, theorizes that skyscrapers are potentially about three things: sex, power, and money. I think this a profound observation until it occurs to me that pretty much everything is about sex, power, and money. Still, stay with her formulation and one can begin to understand why we lag. A lot of us New Englanders are embarrassed about sex, don't like to brag about power, and cringe at ostentatious displays of wealth. Add to that our never-ending love affair with five-story 19th-century town houses and brownstones and a near pathological fear about the "Manhattanization" of Boston (all a consequence, argues Northeastern architecture dean George Thrush, of the way we have made a fetish of our Colonial origins), and one can begin to understand why Boston is so averse to making its skyline bigger and taller. I know. It sounds as if I have some sort of edifice complex myself. Boston's beauty is its small scale, its human-sized buildings. Real cities don't have to have skyscrapers, do they?

Yes, they do. It's not that I don't like those cute town houses - I live in one. But density is what cities are all about, skyscrapers are the ultimate form of density, and - here's the kicker - they are flat-out the greenest way to build. If we care about Boston, if we care about the environment, we should build up and build tall. A skyline is nothing to be ashamed of. Indeed, it may save us all.

Smirking analogies aside, skyscrapers aren't really about sex or power, says the museum's Willis. What they are about is money. The first skyscrapers were built because they were an extraordinarily efficient way to add square footage to a parcel of land. When land is expensive, it is far cheaper to build upward. The taller you go (at least until you hit 80 stories), the less the cost per square foot.

Yet today, the most compelling argument for skyscrapers is ecological. Newer skyscrapers are being designed in ways that dramatically minimize their impact on the environment, allowing them to achieve the highest rank possible ("platinum") under the LEED Green Building rating system. Water and heat are recycled. Solar panels reduce the need for outside energy. The entire life cycle of the building is managed, from construction to obsolescence, with some of the original materials getting reused to build other structures. This is all possible because of the building's size, which makes it economically feasible to do things that in a smaller structure would be far too costly.

But even if a skyscraper isn't LEED certified, it is the way the building is used that makes it so profoundly green. When people are packed together, the services needed to support those people are easier and cheaper to provide. Less travel is required. Everything can be provided in bulk. That's why, as David Owen argued in a seminal New Yorker piece in 2004, Manhattan on a per-capita basis may well be the most energy-efficient place in the country. The reason largely boils down to the fact that it is also the densest.

Building tall is building smart. Yet here in Boston, we're unmoved. Catcalls greeted Mayor Tom Menino's push to build a 1,000-foot tower at 115 Winthrop Square. Scorned for its hubris, it was mockingly dubbed "Tommy's Tower," making for an amusing but wrongheaded cheap shot. The very thing that makes cities vital - the proximity of everyone and everything - is what skyscrapers do best. In a world where environmental issues loom ever larger, "the heart of the question is how we build sustainably," says Diane Georgopulos, president-elect of the Boston Society of Architects. Skyscrapers are the answer.

Plus, they do look cool.

Tom Keane, a Boston-based freelance writer, contributes regularly to the Globe Magazine. E-mail him at tomkeane@tomkeane.com.
©

Complaints About 9-stories Too?

2008-01-04T13:36:00.000-05:00

Banker & Tradesman
BRA Gets Chance to Consider Druker’s Plan for Shreve SiteBy Thomas GrilloReporter

As Back Bay residents battle construction of a pair of towers at the Prudential Center, a developer has filed plans to replace a former jewelry store overlooking the Boston Public Garden with a 9-story building.

Ronald Druker, president of The Druker Co., hopes to build a 221,230-square-foot building at Boylston and Arlington streets. If approved, it would include eight floors of Class A offices, 15,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space, a 6,000-square-foot health spa and below-grade parking. Banker & Tradesman was the first to report the proposal last fall.
According to a filing with the Boston Redevelopment Authority, the city planning agency that must approve the mixed-use development, Druker would raze the former Shreve Crump & Low building at 330 Boylston St. and three other structures – his company owns all four – to make way for the new block.

“The project will improve retail vitality and provide first-class office space in a highly visible and accessible location,” states the document filed with the BRA. “The area will be enhanced by the urban design and architectural character provided by a new signature building designed by world-class architects who are sensitive to its architectural neighbors, including the Arlington Street Church and the Public Garden.”

In addition, the project summary said the building’s proposed design will “capitalize” on the unique site. “A corner location provides a unique opportunity … With diagonal views and frontage on the Public Garden is a singular opportunity that the design addresses by placing a unique, rounded glazed bay, which emphasizes and reinforces the importance of this prime location,” the document states.

The ground level will feature a granite facade with wooden storefronts and a lobby entry. Sidewalk improvements along Boylston Street will be consistent with the city’s standards for the neighborhood, the document said. The new development is expected to generate $1.8 million in annual property taxes and $1.1 million in linkage funds to the city.

The BRA has established an Impact Advisory Group to review the proposal. The 13-member panel appointed by officials will consider mitigation impacts caused by the development. A public meeting on the plan is scheduled for Thursday, Jan. 17, at 6 p.m. at the Boston Public Library.

Mark Slater, an IAG member, said he was not impressed by the rendering of the proposed building. “It looks like a rectangular brick building and I have no idea whether the project has
merit or not,” he said. Slater, a former president of the Bay Village Neighborhood Association, said he also is concerned about the construction of another large building on Boylston Street.
“We are worried that the BRA is effectively allowing the larger boulevards in Boston to be turned into concrete canyons,” he said. “I worry that’s what the Druker building will do to lower Boylston Street. I am not opposed to new construction and I realize that some will have to be tall. But the scale and intimacy in Boston are being thrown out the window for the sake of real estate taxes.”

Jessica Shumaker, a BRA spokeswoman, declined to answer Slater’s charges. Instead she said, “We look forward to meeting with the community and hearing their thoughts and concerns on the project.”

‘A Real Plus’
John Shope, another IAG member, noted that the former jewelry store is vacant and he favors active retail on the ground floor at the site.

“This will be a prominent building in a prominent location,” he said. “I like the idea of having an attractive building with lots of people coming and going, and lots of retail. It could be a real plus for the city.”

Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino said he likes what he’s seen so far, but like any project it will require community review.

“It has a ways to go before the BRA approves it, but it certainly looks like something that will meet the muster of the neighborhoods,” Menino said.

Druker’s Boston-based real estate company is best known for its large, urban mixed-use developments. One of its most recent projects is Atelier505, a mixed-use development adjacent to the Boston Center for the Arts, at Tremont and Berkeley streets. It opened two years ago with 103 units of luxury condominiums, shops and restaurants.

In addition, the company has completed the Heritage on the Garden, an upscale complex on Boylston Street that features residential, retail and office suites across from the Public Garden. In 1971, the firm built the Colonnade Hotel on Huntington Avenue.

Druker’s proposal comes as several projects are in the works for the Back Bay and the Prudential Center. The Clarendon, a luxury condominium and apartment tower, is under construction near the John Hancock Tower. In addition, the 13-story Mandarin Oriental Boston hotel is scheduled to open this summer next to Lord & Taylor on Boylston Street. The $230 million project will add 168 guestrooms and the property will be part of a mixed-use complex with first-floor retail and condominiums on the upper floors.

Another proposal that has not yet been filed with the BRA is a new tower at Copley Place. The Simon Property Group is considering a mix of condominiums and retail uses in front of the Neiman Marcus store at the corner of Stuart and Dartmouth streets. At the other end of the Back Bay, Berklee College of Music is considering plans for a dormitory.

Earlier this year, Boston Properties and Avalon Bay Communities filed plans for a $192 million proposal that calls for a 35-story residential high-rise on Exeter Street across from the Boston Public Library and construction of a 19-story office building at 888 Boylston St., adjacent to the John B. Hynes Veterans Memorial Convention. The plan has faced fierce opposition from neighbors who say the buildings are out of scale in the historic neighborhood.

More on Dorms

2008-01-04T11:30:00.000-05:00

Banker & Tradesman
Developers Scale Back Fenway Dorm Plan
By Thomas GrilloReporter

Developers of a dormitory in Boston’s Fenway neighborhood will downsize their proposed 34-story tower by 10 floors to win neighborhood approval, Banker & Tradesman has learned.
In response to community opposition, the Phoenix Property Co. and Lincoln Property Co. expect to file revised plans next month with the Boston Redevelopment Authority for GrandMarc. The private, $170 million residence hall will offer about 800 beds for students to be built near the YMCA on Huntington Avenue.

The project would be the first of its kind in Boston, where dorms typically are operated by colleges and universities. In the case of GrandMarc, the company would lease the one- to four-bedroom units directly to students. But the firm is willing to consider a provision that would guarantee a certain number of beds to schools based in the Fenway.

“We heard the [Boston Redevelopment Authority] and the neighborhood’s concerns and devised a plan that is significantly less than what we proposed,” Jason P. Runnels, Phoenix’s executive vice president, told B&T on Wednesday. “We were happy to build more than 1,000 beds in that location to meet the demand, but the community and BRA said it was way too much for the neighborhood and we heard them.”

Last year, the pair of Dallas-based real estate developers proposed a building that would have reached 34 stories in one section and 12 stories in another. The original plan would have included 1,140 beds as well as a cafe, recreation room and lounge on the ground floor.
But neighbors said the complex was too big and the concentration of more than a 1,000 students would overwhelm the neighborhood. Residents argued the skyscraper would be the largest building in the Fenway and would not fit the scale of the other properties. In addition, neighbors worried that GrandMarc, coupled with Northeastern University’s plans to build more than 3,000 units of student housing, would concentrate too many students in the area.

Questions were also raised about how alcohol use and underage drinking would be controlled, whether the dorm would provide police details on weekends, what consequences would result for students who misbehave and how the building will handle disposal of party-related trash. The developer’s history of selling its properties after a few years also was flagged as a concern.
In response, Runnels said he will reduce the size of the tallest tower to about 24 stories and increase the other section of the building to about 15 stories. He also has hired a local company and a consulting firm that will help resolve security questions. In addition, while Runnels acknowledged that his company holds its buildings for about seven years, he said Phoenix has a partner, Behringer Harvard Real Estate Investment Trust, which typically keeps properties for the long-term.

Jane Hartmann, a member of the Impact Advisory Group, an eight-member panel appointed by Mayor Thomas M. Menino to advise the city on the development, said she has not heard from the developer about the revised plans.

“We haven’t received any notice for a redesign,” she said. “But many of the concerns are around the governance and the security and we didn’t like the idea that this is a firm that wants to build something and sell it in five years. The neighborhood has spent two years negotiating with Northeastern University and we already have said we will support student housing on two sites, so neighbors are concerned that this new project would put too many students in a small section of the Fenway.”

In a prepared statement, Jessica Shumaker, a spokeswoman for the BRA, said, “We’re happy to hear that the developers are responding to our concerns and the concerns from the community. Ultimately, the public review process results in a better project, and we look forward to reviewing their new submission with the community soon.”

Dorms vs. Apartments: The Herald Gets it Right!

2008-01-04T10:02:00.000-05:00

Hub can’t afford to be Lease Police
By Boston Herald editorial staff Friday, January 4, 2008

City Councilor Michael Ross’ plan to regulate how many students can share an apartment in Boston is a classic case of treating the symptom instead of the underlying disease.
Ross wants to cap the number of students who can rent a single apartment in the Hub, part of an effort to crack down on unruly behavior as well as unscrupulous landlords who exploit students. But his time might be better spent reasoning with neighbors who scream bloody murder when a local college or university proposes plans for a new residence hall.

Yes, we understand the frustration of many of Ross’ constituents. But frankly, it doesn’t much matter whether there are two or 20 students living somewhere - real problems arise when 200 arrive for the big bash. Regulating the number of names on a lease will do nothing to address that.

And while it’s hardly our first instinct to leap to the defense of students’ civil rights (they have the ACLU for that) we have to wonder whether Ross would be so heavy-handed with non-students who pack apartments to share expenses. Room and board is costly (as is city living) and many students and non-students alike save by bunching up.

Make no mistake - we sympathize with the hard-working city residents who grow weary of beer cans piling up on their doorsteps and having to report loud parties at 2 a.m. on a Tuesday.
But we grow equally weary of residents like those in Brighton who are lining up against Boston College and its plans to build a new residence hall on the self-contained grounds of the former Boston archdiocese - or the folks on Beacon Hill who forced Suffolk University to abandon plans for a new high-rise dorm near its main campus.

There will always be town-gown tensions, particularly in a city as densely populated as Boston. But the solution is to encourage more schools to bring their students back onto campus where they can keep an eye on them - not in mobilizing the Lease Police.