Friday, April 1, 2011
Back Bay losing Population
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.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
BC Expansion approved despite "no"
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.
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.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Governor Patrick "Does the Right Thing!"
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.
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.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Rejected by the Neighborhood
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.”
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
Tempers flare as Boston College presents revisions to expansion plans in Brighton
By Matt Seidner, Correspondent
Allstton Brighton Tab
Thu Dec 04, 2008, 11:46 AM EST
Allston-Brighton - Update: A Boston College Task Force meeting previously scheduled for Dec. 9 has been cancelled. A new date has not yet been set.
Tempers flared at Wednesday night’s Boston College Task Force meeting as outraged residents denounced the college’s plans to build a new stadium complex and undergraduate dormitories close to their homes.
Most of the residents who attended were either members or supporters of Brighton Neighbors United, a group that fiercely opposes BC on its current housing and athletics plans. The handful of people who spoke out in support of the university quickly found themselves shouted down by the more vocal BNU members.
At the request of the Boston Redevelopment Authority, BC scaled back the details of its planned sports complex on the Brighton Campus. BC reduced proposals for a 1,500-seat baseball and 500-seat softball complex, to 1,000 and 300 seats respectively, in the version of the plan presented at the Wednesday, Dec. 3, meeting. The complex would host varsity practices from September to November from 3-7 p.m., and there would be at least 10 night games each for baseball and softball. Intramural teams would be able to use the fields from 3-9:30 every night but Saturday, when the park would close at 7.
One woman in the audience said the hours were too late for professionals and families who have to wake up early in the morning. Many more said that BC should remove the complex entirely. “The opposition is against the stadium, whether it is 1,000, whether it is 1,500,” said BNU member Maria Rodrigues.
BNU members passed out fliers showing that of the 600 letters written to the BRA during the June 2008 comment period on the plans, 90 percent were against building the stadiums.
Another hotly disputed issue of the night was BC’s plans for housing its undergraduate students. The university proposes a net increase of 940 beds, including 150 on the Brighton campus, and 560 beds in the recently acquired 2000 Commonwealth Ave. apartment building. The current plan would house 96 percent of students on-campus, and the BRA has requested the university study the impact of placing another 350 beds on either the Brighton or Chestnut Hill campus to reach 100 percent.
The vast majority of residents at the meeting demanded that the university house all undergraduate students on its main campus. The BNU analysis stated that 86 percent of letter-writers opposed building residences on former Archdiocese of Boston properties, and 82 percent were against using the 2000 Commonwealth Ave. building as a dorm. “We consider this an invasion into the residential area, and it was uncalled for,” task force member Terry Cohen said about the 2000 Commonwealth Ave. building.
Many attendees asked BC to replace the mods, campus residences built in the 1970s that were intended to be temporary, with a high-rise dorm instead of building smaller units in Brighton, a plan the institution appears to reject.
“The mods are as densely populated as we feel we can sustain,” said Jack Dunn, a university spokesman.
While schools such as Boston University and Northeastern choose to house students in high-rise buildings, BC prefers lower-density options that bring students closer to surrounding communities, according to BRA Chief Planner Kairos Shen. “I think the university wants to take a particular approach,” said Shen. In this case, the plan reflects the school’s reluctance to build large housing complexes. “I think they [BC] are trying to work with the city to find a compromise,” he said.
Shen added that, for the benefit of the neighborhood, he hopes to see headway soon. “The longer we argue on this, the longer that new dorms will not get built, and we’re prolonging the time before there will be relief in the neighborhood,” said Shen.
Still, many Brighton Neighbors United members show little intention of giving ground on this issue. “I feel really distressed that my lifestyle is being impinged upon because BC does not want a crowded campus,” said BNU member Lisa Lieberman.
The college maintained that it has already made many of the revisions the community requested. “We think that the plan that we have proposed is in the best interest of Boston College and the neighborhood of which we have been a part for 95 years, and we hope that we can reach a resolution so that we can proceed with the plan’s implementation,” Dunn said when asked if and when residents could expect to see more revisions.
For its part, the BNU isn’t budging. “This is 15, maybe 10 percent of the plan where we have to fight you; we don’t want to, but we have to,” said member Alex Selvig.
By Matt Seidner, Correspondent
Allstton Brighton Tab
Thu Dec 04, 2008, 11:46 AM EST
Allston-Brighton - Update: A Boston College Task Force meeting previously scheduled for Dec. 9 has been cancelled. A new date has not yet been set.
Tempers flared at Wednesday night’s Boston College Task Force meeting as outraged residents denounced the college’s plans to build a new stadium complex and undergraduate dormitories close to their homes.
Most of the residents who attended were either members or supporters of Brighton Neighbors United, a group that fiercely opposes BC on its current housing and athletics plans. The handful of people who spoke out in support of the university quickly found themselves shouted down by the more vocal BNU members.
At the request of the Boston Redevelopment Authority, BC scaled back the details of its planned sports complex on the Brighton Campus. BC reduced proposals for a 1,500-seat baseball and 500-seat softball complex, to 1,000 and 300 seats respectively, in the version of the plan presented at the Wednesday, Dec. 3, meeting. The complex would host varsity practices from September to November from 3-7 p.m., and there would be at least 10 night games each for baseball and softball. Intramural teams would be able to use the fields from 3-9:30 every night but Saturday, when the park would close at 7.
One woman in the audience said the hours were too late for professionals and families who have to wake up early in the morning. Many more said that BC should remove the complex entirely. “The opposition is against the stadium, whether it is 1,000, whether it is 1,500,” said BNU member Maria Rodrigues.
BNU members passed out fliers showing that of the 600 letters written to the BRA during the June 2008 comment period on the plans, 90 percent were against building the stadiums.
Another hotly disputed issue of the night was BC’s plans for housing its undergraduate students. The university proposes a net increase of 940 beds, including 150 on the Brighton campus, and 560 beds in the recently acquired 2000 Commonwealth Ave. apartment building. The current plan would house 96 percent of students on-campus, and the BRA has requested the university study the impact of placing another 350 beds on either the Brighton or Chestnut Hill campus to reach 100 percent.
The vast majority of residents at the meeting demanded that the university house all undergraduate students on its main campus. The BNU analysis stated that 86 percent of letter-writers opposed building residences on former Archdiocese of Boston properties, and 82 percent were against using the 2000 Commonwealth Ave. building as a dorm. “We consider this an invasion into the residential area, and it was uncalled for,” task force member Terry Cohen said about the 2000 Commonwealth Ave. building.
Many attendees asked BC to replace the mods, campus residences built in the 1970s that were intended to be temporary, with a high-rise dorm instead of building smaller units in Brighton, a plan the institution appears to reject.
“The mods are as densely populated as we feel we can sustain,” said Jack Dunn, a university spokesman.
While schools such as Boston University and Northeastern choose to house students in high-rise buildings, BC prefers lower-density options that bring students closer to surrounding communities, according to BRA Chief Planner Kairos Shen. “I think the university wants to take a particular approach,” said Shen. In this case, the plan reflects the school’s reluctance to build large housing complexes. “I think they [BC] are trying to work with the city to find a compromise,” he said.
Shen added that, for the benefit of the neighborhood, he hopes to see headway soon. “The longer we argue on this, the longer that new dorms will not get built, and we’re prolonging the time before there will be relief in the neighborhood,” said Shen.
Still, many Brighton Neighbors United members show little intention of giving ground on this issue. “I feel really distressed that my lifestyle is being impinged upon because BC does not want a crowded campus,” said BNU member Lisa Lieberman.
The college maintained that it has already made many of the revisions the community requested. “We think that the plan that we have proposed is in the best interest of Boston College and the neighborhood of which we have been a part for 95 years, and we hope that we can reach a resolution so that we can proceed with the plan’s implementation,” Dunn said when asked if and when residents could expect to see more revisions.
For its part, the BNU isn’t budging. “This is 15, maybe 10 percent of the plan where we have to fight you; we don’t want to, but we have to,” said member Alex Selvig.
Proposals for Air Rights Parcels Due Today
Heavy Hitters Poised To Push For Pike Parcels
By Paul McMorrow
Banker & Tradesman Staff Writer
The Massachusetts Turnpike Authority’s latest offering of developable air-rights space at the intersection of Boylston Street and Massachusetts Avenue in Boston has some familiar faces jockeying for position, Banker & Tradesman has learned.
At stake is 145,540 developable square feet, spread over four parcels spanning the Pike (Turnpike Parcels 12-15). Proposals are due Friday at noon.
Adam Weiner, of Weiner Ventures, confirmed Monday he will be bidding on the parcels, but declined further comment. The Chiofaro Co. also confirmed its intention to bid on Parcels 14 and 15. Trinity Financial said it is a “likely bidder,” and has been making the rounds of politicians and neighborhood groups, but declined to elaborate.
Weiner’s group may have an inside track on the Pike parcels, thanks to a land acquisition this past spring. In May, ADG Scotia LLC purchased an 11,187-square-foot parcel from the Archdiocese of Boston for $13.85 million. The parcel, a vacant lot formerly belonging to St. Cecilia parish, abuts Parcels 14 and 15 and is seen as a staging ground that might be used to leverage more significant development.
ADG Scotia is a joint venture between John Fish’s Suffolk Ventures and Weiner’s Weiner Ventures. Weiner’s father, Stephen, is the developer behind the Mandarin Oriental complex on Boylston Street, not far from the Turnpike parcels. ADG Scotia’s public filings with the Secretary of State’s office list Stephen Weiner as an officer.
The Weiner-Fish group has an incentive to be an active developer, rather than a group of investors looking to flip their parcel. A clause in the purchase agreement stipulates that if ADG Scotia sells the St. Cecilia parcel within five years of acquiring it, half of the resulting profit will revert back to the Archdiocese.
Chiofaro, the big-ticket developer behind International Place, acquired the Harbor Garage for $155 million last November. Sources said Chiofaro was preparing his bid in conjunction with Prudential Insurance, but those reports could not be confirmed.
Sarah Barnat, a project manager at Trinity Financial, developers of the $150 million Avenir mixed-use project in the Bulfinch Triangle, described her firm as another likely bidder, but gave no further comment.
Trinity has been briefing neighborhood politicians and residents on its plans for a mixed-use project over the Pike for the past month. A source with knowledge of the developer’s proposal described it as “modest” in height, which could play into Trinity’s hands.
Appropriate size is a hurdle any developer will have to clear, because it is difficult to squeeze profit out of an air rights development that may face serious massing constraints.
The BRA’s 1998 master plan for the area, commissioned in response to Millennium Partners failed 1 million-square-foot proposal for Parcel 12, envisions only one building topping 15 stories, with the rest topping out at 14 floors. Height would be set back, too, with street-front heights only reaching between 50 and 75 feet. The Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay has said it will be evaluating bids based on the parameters outlined in this plan.
State Rep. Marty Walz held up Millennium and Arthur Winn’s Columbus Center as cautionary examples any would-be Pike developers should avoid repeating. Both proposals were “grossly out of scale,” Walz said.
“Developers would be well advised to propose projects consistent with the neighborhood,” Walz warned. She also said state aid for the decking necessary to bridge the Turnpike may not be forthcoming, especially given the for-profit nature of any proposed development.
Other developers rumored to be considering bids include the Kensington Investment Co., and Clark Construction. Calls to those developers did not yield comments.
By Paul McMorrow
Banker & Tradesman Staff Writer
The Massachusetts Turnpike Authority’s latest offering of developable air-rights space at the intersection of Boylston Street and Massachusetts Avenue in Boston has some familiar faces jockeying for position, Banker & Tradesman has learned.
At stake is 145,540 developable square feet, spread over four parcels spanning the Pike (Turnpike Parcels 12-15). Proposals are due Friday at noon.
Adam Weiner, of Weiner Ventures, confirmed Monday he will be bidding on the parcels, but declined further comment. The Chiofaro Co. also confirmed its intention to bid on Parcels 14 and 15. Trinity Financial said it is a “likely bidder,” and has been making the rounds of politicians and neighborhood groups, but declined to elaborate.
Weiner’s group may have an inside track on the Pike parcels, thanks to a land acquisition this past spring. In May, ADG Scotia LLC purchased an 11,187-square-foot parcel from the Archdiocese of Boston for $13.85 million. The parcel, a vacant lot formerly belonging to St. Cecilia parish, abuts Parcels 14 and 15 and is seen as a staging ground that might be used to leverage more significant development.
ADG Scotia is a joint venture between John Fish’s Suffolk Ventures and Weiner’s Weiner Ventures. Weiner’s father, Stephen, is the developer behind the Mandarin Oriental complex on Boylston Street, not far from the Turnpike parcels. ADG Scotia’s public filings with the Secretary of State’s office list Stephen Weiner as an officer.
The Weiner-Fish group has an incentive to be an active developer, rather than a group of investors looking to flip their parcel. A clause in the purchase agreement stipulates that if ADG Scotia sells the St. Cecilia parcel within five years of acquiring it, half of the resulting profit will revert back to the Archdiocese.
Chiofaro, the big-ticket developer behind International Place, acquired the Harbor Garage for $155 million last November. Sources said Chiofaro was preparing his bid in conjunction with Prudential Insurance, but those reports could not be confirmed.
Sarah Barnat, a project manager at Trinity Financial, developers of the $150 million Avenir mixed-use project in the Bulfinch Triangle, described her firm as another likely bidder, but gave no further comment.
Trinity has been briefing neighborhood politicians and residents on its plans for a mixed-use project over the Pike for the past month. A source with knowledge of the developer’s proposal described it as “modest” in height, which could play into Trinity’s hands.
Appropriate size is a hurdle any developer will have to clear, because it is difficult to squeeze profit out of an air rights development that may face serious massing constraints.
The BRA’s 1998 master plan for the area, commissioned in response to Millennium Partners failed 1 million-square-foot proposal for Parcel 12, envisions only one building topping 15 stories, with the rest topping out at 14 floors. Height would be set back, too, with street-front heights only reaching between 50 and 75 feet. The Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay has said it will be evaluating bids based on the parameters outlined in this plan.
State Rep. Marty Walz held up Millennium and Arthur Winn’s Columbus Center as cautionary examples any would-be Pike developers should avoid repeating. Both proposals were “grossly out of scale,” Walz said.
“Developers would be well advised to propose projects consistent with the neighborhood,” Walz warned. She also said state aid for the decking necessary to bridge the Turnpike may not be forthcoming, especially given the for-profit nature of any proposed development.
Other developers rumored to be considering bids include the Kensington Investment Co., and Clark Construction. Calls to those developers did not yield comments.
Getting to YES at the Pru
2 towers will finish Prudential Center
By Casey Ross
Globe Staff / December 5, 2008
Boston officials yesterday approved the construction of two more towers at the Prudential Center, despite opposition from lawmakers and neighbors who object to the height of the buildings.
The properties, a 17-story office tower at 888 Boylston St. and the 27-story Exeter Residences, would be the final two buildings at the Prudential site, which was first developed in the mid-1960s. But these two projects, in particular, have drawn sharp criticism, with opponents arguing to the final moments before city approval came yesterday.
"I'm disappointed that the Boston Redevelopment Authority has approved excessively scaled buildings, particularly in light of the overwhelming community opposition," said state Representative Marty Walz, a Back Bay Democrat.
The Prudential Center's owner, Boston Properties, initially received approval for an 11-story building at 888 Boylston, a proposed height that complied with a city-approved master plan for the property. But this year the company sought to increase the height by almost 90 feet, saying it needed at least six more floors to make the project economically viable.
The $192 million project will include 422,000 square feet of offices and retail space on the lower floors. It also calls for upgrades to the Boylston Street plaza, which will be expanded by 1,000 square feet and adorned with new plantings, lighting, and seating. Construction is expected to begin in the spring.
Exeter Residences will contain 188 apartments, including three affordable units in the building and another 49 to be spread among three other residential buildings at the Prudential Center. The $129 million project is being managed by Avalon Bay Communities Inc., which co-owns the development with Boston Properties. The developers earlier this year had reduced the size of that building by three floors. Work on the complex is also scheduled to begin in the spring.
Supporters of the two developments argued that they will fill gaps in the neighborhood's streetscape and create 1,600 construction jobs and 3,000 permanent positions.
"We're in a recession, and we have a developer here who wants to move forward and put my members to work," said Michael Durant, business manager for Iron Workers, Local 7, of South Boston. He said the union has 400 jobless members as a result of the construction slowdown.
Casey Ross can be reached at cross@globe.com.
By Casey Ross
Globe Staff / December 5, 2008
Boston officials yesterday approved the construction of two more towers at the Prudential Center, despite opposition from lawmakers and neighbors who object to the height of the buildings.
The properties, a 17-story office tower at 888 Boylston St. and the 27-story Exeter Residences, would be the final two buildings at the Prudential site, which was first developed in the mid-1960s. But these two projects, in particular, have drawn sharp criticism, with opponents arguing to the final moments before city approval came yesterday.
"I'm disappointed that the Boston Redevelopment Authority has approved excessively scaled buildings, particularly in light of the overwhelming community opposition," said state Representative Marty Walz, a Back Bay Democrat.
The Prudential Center's owner, Boston Properties, initially received approval for an 11-story building at 888 Boylston, a proposed height that complied with a city-approved master plan for the property. But this year the company sought to increase the height by almost 90 feet, saying it needed at least six more floors to make the project economically viable.
The $192 million project will include 422,000 square feet of offices and retail space on the lower floors. It also calls for upgrades to the Boylston Street plaza, which will be expanded by 1,000 square feet and adorned with new plantings, lighting, and seating. Construction is expected to begin in the spring.
Exeter Residences will contain 188 apartments, including three affordable units in the building and another 49 to be spread among three other residential buildings at the Prudential Center. The $129 million project is being managed by Avalon Bay Communities Inc., which co-owns the development with Boston Properties. The developers earlier this year had reduced the size of that building by three floors. Work on the complex is also scheduled to begin in the spring.
Supporters of the two developments argued that they will fill gaps in the neighborhood's streetscape and create 1,600 construction jobs and 3,000 permanent positions.
"We're in a recession, and we have a developer here who wants to move forward and put my members to work," said Michael Durant, business manager for Iron Workers, Local 7, of South Boston. He said the union has 400 jobless members as a result of the construction slowdown.
Casey Ross can be reached at cross@globe.com.
Moving Forward at the Pru, Despite NIMBYs
Prudential towers win city approval
Boston Herald
By Thomas Grillo
Friday, December 5, 2008
The Boston Redevelopment Authority yesterday approved two controversial Prudential Center towers.
In a unanimous vote, the BRA OK’d a 17-story office building at 888 Boylston St. and a 27-story apartment tower on Exeter Street.
The votes came after nearly four hours of testimony, as proponents including Mayor Thomas M. Menino, who was represented by a spokesperson, union officials, residents and business representatives said the buildings would create jobs and bring needed affordable housing to the Back Bay.
“The process worked,” said Michael A. Cantalupa, senior vice president of Boston Properties, the developer of the $192 million office building at the Pru. “We have a good development. We will start construction when we find a tenant.”
The Exeter Residences, to be built by Avalon Bay Communities, will include 188 units. Of that number, 52 affordable apartments will be located in Avalon’s four buildings at the Pru including six units at the new tower.
Yesterday’s vote in a packed hearing room at City Hall was the culmination of more than 17 months of contentious meetings. The Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay and state Rep. Martha M. Walz asked the BRA board to reject the proposals, saying they believed both buildings would be too tall.
“These buildings do not fit the scale of the Prudential Center,” said Ann Gleason of the neighborhood association. “They are out of character.”
But the BRA board rejected the claims. The 888 Boylston St. project, to be built between the new Mandarin Oriental Hotel and the John B. Hynes Veterans Memorial Convention Center, has been in the works for years.
Boston Herald
By Thomas Grillo
Friday, December 5, 2008
The Boston Redevelopment Authority yesterday approved two controversial Prudential Center towers.
In a unanimous vote, the BRA OK’d a 17-story office building at 888 Boylston St. and a 27-story apartment tower on Exeter Street.
The votes came after nearly four hours of testimony, as proponents including Mayor Thomas M. Menino, who was represented by a spokesperson, union officials, residents and business representatives said the buildings would create jobs and bring needed affordable housing to the Back Bay.
“The process worked,” said Michael A. Cantalupa, senior vice president of Boston Properties, the developer of the $192 million office building at the Pru. “We have a good development. We will start construction when we find a tenant.”
The Exeter Residences, to be built by Avalon Bay Communities, will include 188 units. Of that number, 52 affordable apartments will be located in Avalon’s four buildings at the Pru including six units at the new tower.
Yesterday’s vote in a packed hearing room at City Hall was the culmination of more than 17 months of contentious meetings. The Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay and state Rep. Martha M. Walz asked the BRA board to reject the proposals, saying they believed both buildings would be too tall.
“These buildings do not fit the scale of the Prudential Center,” said Ann Gleason of the neighborhood association. “They are out of character.”
But the BRA board rejected the claims. The 888 Boylston St. project, to be built between the new Mandarin Oriental Hotel and the John B. Hynes Veterans Memorial Convention Center, has been in the works for years.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Opposing 27% Affordable Housing!
PruPAC divided over projects on Boylston, exeter by Dan Salerno
Back Bay Sun
At a full meeting last week, members of the Prudential Public Advisory Committee (PruPAC) were split nearly down the middle in non-binding votes on whether to oppose new development projects on Exeter and Boylston streets.
The votes indicate committee members are far from in agreement on whether the new towers-one residential, one office and retail complex will ultimately benefit or detract from the community, and the results send an unclear message to the Boston Redevelopment Authority, who will ultimately decide the fate of the projects.
PruPAC voted twice, once on the proposed residential tower known as the Exeter Residences, and once on the modern glass and steel office and retail complex proposed for 888 Boylston Street. The vote on 888 Boylston tipped narrowly towards approval, with 13 members approving and 10 opposed. The vote on the Exeter Residences was a dead-even push, with 11 yays, 11 nays, and 2 abstentions.
In response to the vote, Mayor Tom Menino has asked developers Boston Properties to rethink the design of the Exeter Residences to address residents’ concerns.
“The developer has to go back and see how they can win majority approval for the residences,” Menino told the Boston Herald. “The developer has made concessions on height and affordable housing, but they have to figure out a way to get majority community support for the apartments.”
The projects were also roundly criticized at an open public meeting earlier this fall.
Eliot Laffer, who represents the Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay (NABB) at PruPAC meetings, said the group opposed both projects in their current form for several reasons. Specifically, Laffer said NABB objects to the height of the 888 Boylston building proposed, which, at 235 feet, exceeds the 155 feet allowed by zoning.
Laffer said it was also worth considering that the residents of the neighborhood have been dealing with almost non-stop construction for years.
“The people that live around there have been dealing with continuing construction for a very long time, and a little pause might not be a bad thing to evaluate what might be the total impact of the Mandarin in terms of traffic and other considerations,” said Laffer.
For the Exeter Residences, NABB and most of the dissenters disapproved of the effective loss of "sky," the open space that gives residents of nearby buildings their impressive city views. The new building could result in the loss of some of those views, which are a major part of what owners believed they were buying when they originally purchased their condos.
However, Meg Mainzer-Cohen of the Back Bay Association (BBA) has strongly supported both projects, citing the economic benefit-$1.2 million in projected tax revenue and 600 jobs – and the need for both office space and affordable housing.
"There is very little affordable housing in the neighborhood, and the Exeter Residences would have 27 percent affordable units, which is significant," said Mainzer-Cohen. "I also think that the building design is vastly improved and would be a benefit to the streetscape of Exeter Street."
Meanwhile, 888 Boylston would provide for much-needed office space. "We continue to have a pretty strong demand for office space, especially at the Prudential Center," she said. "There are tenants that want to relocate, and there isn't enough space." She added she thought the design of the new building fits in well with the surrounding architecture, and that lowering the height of either building would reduce the economic benefit.
However, opposition to the project included not just residents, but also influential elected officials. State representatives Marty Walz and Byron Rushing and City Councilor Mike Ross voted against both projects, citing the concerns of their constituents. Councilor Bill Linehan voted in favor of 888 Boylston Street and against the Exeter Residences.
The final decision now rests with the BRA, which will vote on the matter at its public meeting on December 4. PruPAC advises the BRA but has no actual authority to approve or halt the project. Given the divided nature of last week's vote, it is also unclear what message the body will ultimately send to the BRA. Besides the divided note, calls from the mayor to address concerns with the Exeter Residences - one or both of the buildings - could be in jeopardy in their current proposal.
The project could start construction as early as June if the necessary approvals are obtained. The 888 Boylston building has been rumored to be courting Bloomingdale’s for residence in its proposed lower retail section, and would also be fronted by an expansive new pedestrian plaza with elaborate plantings and fountains.
The Prudential Public Advisory Committee, composed of local residents, business owners, and officials, has been working with the developers on the project for over a year.
Back Bay Sun
At a full meeting last week, members of the Prudential Public Advisory Committee (PruPAC) were split nearly down the middle in non-binding votes on whether to oppose new development projects on Exeter and Boylston streets.
The votes indicate committee members are far from in agreement on whether the new towers-one residential, one office and retail complex will ultimately benefit or detract from the community, and the results send an unclear message to the Boston Redevelopment Authority, who will ultimately decide the fate of the projects.
PruPAC voted twice, once on the proposed residential tower known as the Exeter Residences, and once on the modern glass and steel office and retail complex proposed for 888 Boylston Street. The vote on 888 Boylston tipped narrowly towards approval, with 13 members approving and 10 opposed. The vote on the Exeter Residences was a dead-even push, with 11 yays, 11 nays, and 2 abstentions.
In response to the vote, Mayor Tom Menino has asked developers Boston Properties to rethink the design of the Exeter Residences to address residents’ concerns.
“The developer has to go back and see how they can win majority approval for the residences,” Menino told the Boston Herald. “The developer has made concessions on height and affordable housing, but they have to figure out a way to get majority community support for the apartments.”
The projects were also roundly criticized at an open public meeting earlier this fall.
Eliot Laffer, who represents the Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay (NABB) at PruPAC meetings, said the group opposed both projects in their current form for several reasons. Specifically, Laffer said NABB objects to the height of the 888 Boylston building proposed, which, at 235 feet, exceeds the 155 feet allowed by zoning.
Laffer said it was also worth considering that the residents of the neighborhood have been dealing with almost non-stop construction for years.
“The people that live around there have been dealing with continuing construction for a very long time, and a little pause might not be a bad thing to evaluate what might be the total impact of the Mandarin in terms of traffic and other considerations,” said Laffer.
For the Exeter Residences, NABB and most of the dissenters disapproved of the effective loss of "sky," the open space that gives residents of nearby buildings their impressive city views. The new building could result in the loss of some of those views, which are a major part of what owners believed they were buying when they originally purchased their condos.
However, Meg Mainzer-Cohen of the Back Bay Association (BBA) has strongly supported both projects, citing the economic benefit-$1.2 million in projected tax revenue and 600 jobs – and the need for both office space and affordable housing.
"There is very little affordable housing in the neighborhood, and the Exeter Residences would have 27 percent affordable units, which is significant," said Mainzer-Cohen. "I also think that the building design is vastly improved and would be a benefit to the streetscape of Exeter Street."
Meanwhile, 888 Boylston would provide for much-needed office space. "We continue to have a pretty strong demand for office space, especially at the Prudential Center," she said. "There are tenants that want to relocate, and there isn't enough space." She added she thought the design of the new building fits in well with the surrounding architecture, and that lowering the height of either building would reduce the economic benefit.
However, opposition to the project included not just residents, but also influential elected officials. State representatives Marty Walz and Byron Rushing and City Councilor Mike Ross voted against both projects, citing the concerns of their constituents. Councilor Bill Linehan voted in favor of 888 Boylston Street and against the Exeter Residences.
The final decision now rests with the BRA, which will vote on the matter at its public meeting on December 4. PruPAC advises the BRA but has no actual authority to approve or halt the project. Given the divided nature of last week's vote, it is also unclear what message the body will ultimately send to the BRA. Besides the divided note, calls from the mayor to address concerns with the Exeter Residences - one or both of the buildings - could be in jeopardy in their current proposal.
The project could start construction as early as June if the necessary approvals are obtained. The 888 Boylston building has been rumored to be courting Bloomingdale’s for residence in its proposed lower retail section, and would also be fronted by an expansive new pedestrian plaza with elaborate plantings and fountains.
The Prudential Public Advisory Committee, composed of local residents, business owners, and officials, has been working with the developers on the project for over a year.
Friday, November 14, 2008
NIMBY success
Thomas Menino: Redo plan on Back Bay tower
By Thomas Grillo
Thursday, November 13, 2008 - Updated 1d 6h ago
Mayor Thomas M. Menino gave a thumbs-up for an office tower at the Prudential Center, but he wants the developer to revise plans for a nearby housing high-rise.
Menino’s comments came in response to a close vote Monday night by the Prudential Project Advisory Committee (PruPAC) on a proposal by Boston Properties for a 17-story office building at 888 Boylston St. and Avalon Bay’s plans for a 27-story apartment tower on Exeter Street.
PruPac - a 24-member panel made up of representatives from community groups and commercial interests - favored the office space by three votes, but tied on plans for an apartment complex.
“The developer has to go back and see how they can win majority approval for the residences,” Menino said. “The developer has made concessions on height and affordable housing, but they have to figure out a way to get majority community support for the apartments.”
By Thomas Grillo
Thursday, November 13, 2008 - Updated 1d 6h ago
Mayor Thomas M. Menino gave a thumbs-up for an office tower at the Prudential Center, but he wants the developer to revise plans for a nearby housing high-rise.
Menino’s comments came in response to a close vote Monday night by the Prudential Project Advisory Committee (PruPAC) on a proposal by Boston Properties for a 17-story office building at 888 Boylston St. and Avalon Bay’s plans for a 27-story apartment tower on Exeter Street.
PruPac - a 24-member panel made up of representatives from community groups and commercial interests - favored the office space by three votes, but tied on plans for an apartment complex.
“The developer has to go back and see how they can win majority approval for the residences,” Menino said. “The developer has made concessions on height and affordable housing, but they have to figure out a way to get majority community support for the apartments.”
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
"Opponents Dug in Their Heals"
Proposed Pru projects divide advisory panel
By Thomas Grillo | Tuesday, November 11, 2008 | http://www.bostonherald.com |
For the first time in its 20-year history, a panel overseeing Prudential Center expansion can’t reach consensus on future development.
In a high stakes vote last night, the Prudential Project Advisory Committee (PruPAC), barely mustered majority support for a proposal by Boston Properties for a 17-story office tower proposed for 888 Boylston St. Proponents won by three votes.
In a separate ballot, members were evenly split on Avalon Bay’s plans for a 27-story residential high-rise on Exeter Street. The 24-member panel comprised of representatives from community groups and commercial interests, advises City Hall on commercial real estate projects at the Pru.
“For two decades, PruPac votes on projects around the Prudential Center have reached almost unanimous support,” said Betsy Johnson, PruPac’s chairwoman. “But the opponents dug in their heels very early on the height issue and refused to consider any zoning changes.”
Michael A. Cantalupa, senior vice president of Boston Properties, and Michael Roberts, vice president of development at Avalon, declined to comment following the meeting.
Originally, Boston Properties proposed a 19-story tower while Avalon Bay filed plans for a 30-story apartment building. But Mayor Thomas M. Menino asked the developers to compromise following protests from the Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay that the buildings were out of character in the historic district.
The Boston Redevelopment Authority will consider the project at a public hearing on Dec. 4.
By Thomas Grillo | Tuesday, November 11, 2008 | http://www.bostonherald.com |
For the first time in its 20-year history, a panel overseeing Prudential Center expansion can’t reach consensus on future development.
In a high stakes vote last night, the Prudential Project Advisory Committee (PruPAC), barely mustered majority support for a proposal by Boston Properties for a 17-story office tower proposed for 888 Boylston St. Proponents won by three votes.
In a separate ballot, members were evenly split on Avalon Bay’s plans for a 27-story residential high-rise on Exeter Street. The 24-member panel comprised of representatives from community groups and commercial interests, advises City Hall on commercial real estate projects at the Pru.
“For two decades, PruPac votes on projects around the Prudential Center have reached almost unanimous support,” said Betsy Johnson, PruPac’s chairwoman. “But the opponents dug in their heels very early on the height issue and refused to consider any zoning changes.”
Michael A. Cantalupa, senior vice president of Boston Properties, and Michael Roberts, vice president of development at Avalon, declined to comment following the meeting.
Originally, Boston Properties proposed a 19-story tower while Avalon Bay filed plans for a 30-story apartment building. But Mayor Thomas M. Menino asked the developers to compromise following protests from the Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay that the buildings were out of character in the historic district.
The Boston Redevelopment Authority will consider the project at a public hearing on Dec. 4.
Representative Marty Walz Strikes Again!
The Boston Globe
Advisor panel divided on Back Bay towers
November 11, 2008
BOSTON
The Prudential Project Advisory Committee came to no consensus after voting yesterday on proposals to build a 242-foot building at 888 Boylston St. and a 27-story tower on Exeter Street. Many opponents object to the towers' special designation, granted by the Boston Redevelopment Authority, to exceed the neighborhood's 155-foot zoning code. Mayor Thomas M. Menino and the BRA will ultimately decide the project's fate. A public hearing on the proposals will be held Dec. 4 at City Hall. "This is unprecedented . . . we've always been able to come up with a consensus," said state Representative Marty Walz, a Democrat from the Back Bay and an advisory panel member who voted against the proposals. Representatives from both development teams declined to comment on the vote.
Editor Note: There were more votes in FAVOR of 888 Boylston Street (in spite of the spin by State Representative Marty Walz), and a tie vote for Exeter Residences.
Advisor panel divided on Back Bay towers
November 11, 2008
BOSTON
The Prudential Project Advisory Committee came to no consensus after voting yesterday on proposals to build a 242-foot building at 888 Boylston St. and a 27-story tower on Exeter Street. Many opponents object to the towers' special designation, granted by the Boston Redevelopment Authority, to exceed the neighborhood's 155-foot zoning code. Mayor Thomas M. Menino and the BRA will ultimately decide the project's fate. A public hearing on the proposals will be held Dec. 4 at City Hall. "This is unprecedented . . . we've always been able to come up with a consensus," said state Representative Marty Walz, a Democrat from the Back Bay and an advisory panel member who voted against the proposals. Representatives from both development teams declined to comment on the vote.
Editor Note: There were more votes in FAVOR of 888 Boylston Street (in spite of the spin by State Representative Marty Walz), and a tie vote for Exeter Residences.
$2 Million for baseball
Fenway: Let’s not play ball
College wants to trade park fix-up for field time
By Thomas Grillo
Monday, November 10, 2008 - Updated 9h ago
Emmanuel College will provide $2 million to refurbish Roberto Clemente Field in the Fenway, but residents say the arrangement is a raw deal for the neighborhood.
The Menino administration is set to approve a plan that allows the college to restore the 6-acre park at Kilmarnock Street and Park Drive if the Catholic liberal arts school is guaranteed access for its students.
The city argues that the matching grant from Emmanuel and the Yawkey Foundation is good for Boston Latin and Fenway high schools, which need athletic fields. But some neighbors are opposed.
“We object to the privatization of a public ball field,” said William Richardson, president of the Fenway Civic Association. “If this is about playing fields for high schools, let’s figure out how to pay for the improvements. But the idea that Emmanuel donates cash and gets huge chunks of time is wrong.”
Residents say they would be prohibited from the park on weeknights - prime time for working people.
City Councilor Michael Ross said he was skeptical about the plan, but now supports it. “The park will still be available to the neighborhood and provide athletic opportunities for several high schools,” he said.
Sarah Welsh, an Emmanuel spokeswoman, said the project has widespread support in the community. “There’s been a 14-month public process and only two people are opposed,‘ she said.
College wants to trade park fix-up for field time
By Thomas Grillo
Monday, November 10, 2008 - Updated 9h ago
Emmanuel College will provide $2 million to refurbish Roberto Clemente Field in the Fenway, but residents say the arrangement is a raw deal for the neighborhood.
The Menino administration is set to approve a plan that allows the college to restore the 6-acre park at Kilmarnock Street and Park Drive if the Catholic liberal arts school is guaranteed access for its students.
The city argues that the matching grant from Emmanuel and the Yawkey Foundation is good for Boston Latin and Fenway high schools, which need athletic fields. But some neighbors are opposed.
“We object to the privatization of a public ball field,” said William Richardson, president of the Fenway Civic Association. “If this is about playing fields for high schools, let’s figure out how to pay for the improvements. But the idea that Emmanuel donates cash and gets huge chunks of time is wrong.”
Residents say they would be prohibited from the park on weeknights - prime time for working people.
City Councilor Michael Ross said he was skeptical about the plan, but now supports it. “The park will still be available to the neighborhood and provide athletic opportunities for several high schools,” he said.
Sarah Welsh, an Emmanuel spokeswoman, said the project has widespread support in the community. “There’s been a 14-month public process and only two people are opposed,‘ she said.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Calling out the NIMBY's
Common goals for the common good in Boston
By Meg Mainzer-Cohen
October 25, 2008
AT A TIME when the economy has ground to a halt, Boston Mayor Thomas Menino is right to encourage the Boston Redevelopment Authority to expedite projects that are in the pipeline. The city may also want to reflect on the contentious public process that businesses must go through in order to build in Boston.
When it comes to development, the business community is often the underdog to anti-development zealots. The benefits of creating jobs, tax revenue, and new development get hidden in the shadow of invalid claims about environmental impacts and zoning.
Consider the Back Bay. Much of the Back Bay and South End is historically protected or is now parkland. Minimal new development will ever happen. Between them is an area called the "high spine," identified in the 1960s as a place for density connecting Back Bay with downtown. This makes perfect sense in the Back Bay where people want to live, work, stay at a hotel, shop, eat in a restaurant, or attend a convention at the Hynes. These activities are a catalyst for economic growth that supports the city and state. During boom times and bust, the economy of the Back Bay remains strong, which should be leveraged as a highly viable way to add to the tax coffers and create jobs.
With concern about the environment, the Back Bay is an ideal area to build density near public transportation. Menino created "green building" amendments to the Boston zoning code that encourages smart growth and environmentally friendly development. Back Bay benefits from having the commuter rail, MBTA Green and Orange lines, and soon the Silver Line. With a mix of housing, and office and retail space, people who live here don't need cars.
Zoning in Back Bay was written 20 years ago, before the concepts of smart growth, and should be rewritten to allow building for the future, incorporating smart growth in areas that are not historically protected.
Yet there has been opposition. The Neighborhood Association of Back Bay has opposed every building proposal as well as efforts to improve transportation for citizens. It opposed the MBTA adding articulated buses, and sued to stop handicapped-accessible stations. It said "no" to Columbus Center, 888 Boylston Street, the Exeter Residences, the Mandarin Oriental, 350 Boylston Street, and the Back Bay Restaurant Group's plan for TGIF's. The group wanted traffic signals on Storrow Drive, restricting traffic by 40 percent.
At a recent public meeting held as part of the Article 80 review process to inform the community about updated plans for 888 Boylston Street and the Exeter Street residences, presenters were cut off by the NIMBY crowd who wanted to comment on why the projects shouldn't happen.
Activists used buzzwords like "zoning," "shadow," and "wind." The public didn't learn that the "wind" improved in more areas than it worsened, "shadows" were not considered impactful because they were minimal during December, and "zoning" was created to allow changes in a planned development area, where the development is located. Instead, the meeting debased into a NIMBY-fest as one activist questioned the legal authority of the Boston Redevelopment Authority and advocated its dismantling.
The city must advocate for common goals for the common good, considering how to build Boston for the future. We must add housing and office space in areas that can support it, translating into the creation of jobs, housing, and increased taxes. We must advocate for transportation projects that ensure people can get where they need to go.
When it comes to creating jobs and homes, and increasing tax revenue, NIMBYers just say no. We must raise our voices in support of common goals for the common good.
Meg Mainzer-Cohen is president of the Back Bay Association.
© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.
By Meg Mainzer-Cohen
October 25, 2008
AT A TIME when the economy has ground to a halt, Boston Mayor Thomas Menino is right to encourage the Boston Redevelopment Authority to expedite projects that are in the pipeline. The city may also want to reflect on the contentious public process that businesses must go through in order to build in Boston.
When it comes to development, the business community is often the underdog to anti-development zealots. The benefits of creating jobs, tax revenue, and new development get hidden in the shadow of invalid claims about environmental impacts and zoning.
Consider the Back Bay. Much of the Back Bay and South End is historically protected or is now parkland. Minimal new development will ever happen. Between them is an area called the "high spine," identified in the 1960s as a place for density connecting Back Bay with downtown. This makes perfect sense in the Back Bay where people want to live, work, stay at a hotel, shop, eat in a restaurant, or attend a convention at the Hynes. These activities are a catalyst for economic growth that supports the city and state. During boom times and bust, the economy of the Back Bay remains strong, which should be leveraged as a highly viable way to add to the tax coffers and create jobs.
With concern about the environment, the Back Bay is an ideal area to build density near public transportation. Menino created "green building" amendments to the Boston zoning code that encourages smart growth and environmentally friendly development. Back Bay benefits from having the commuter rail, MBTA Green and Orange lines, and soon the Silver Line. With a mix of housing, and office and retail space, people who live here don't need cars.
Zoning in Back Bay was written 20 years ago, before the concepts of smart growth, and should be rewritten to allow building for the future, incorporating smart growth in areas that are not historically protected.
Yet there has been opposition. The Neighborhood Association of Back Bay has opposed every building proposal as well as efforts to improve transportation for citizens. It opposed the MBTA adding articulated buses, and sued to stop handicapped-accessible stations. It said "no" to Columbus Center, 888 Boylston Street, the Exeter Residences, the Mandarin Oriental, 350 Boylston Street, and the Back Bay Restaurant Group's plan for TGIF's. The group wanted traffic signals on Storrow Drive, restricting traffic by 40 percent.
At a recent public meeting held as part of the Article 80 review process to inform the community about updated plans for 888 Boylston Street and the Exeter Street residences, presenters were cut off by the NIMBY crowd who wanted to comment on why the projects shouldn't happen.
Activists used buzzwords like "zoning," "shadow," and "wind." The public didn't learn that the "wind" improved in more areas than it worsened, "shadows" were not considered impactful because they were minimal during December, and "zoning" was created to allow changes in a planned development area, where the development is located. Instead, the meeting debased into a NIMBY-fest as one activist questioned the legal authority of the Boston Redevelopment Authority and advocated its dismantling.
The city must advocate for common goals for the common good, considering how to build Boston for the future. We must add housing and office space in areas that can support it, translating into the creation of jobs, housing, and increased taxes. We must advocate for transportation projects that ensure people can get where they need to go.
When it comes to creating jobs and homes, and increasing tax revenue, NIMBYers just say no. We must raise our voices in support of common goals for the common good.
Meg Mainzer-Cohen is president of the Back Bay Association.
© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Benefits of Columbus Center Warrant More Public Support
Home / Business
Columbus Center asks for boost of $40m
Says public funds could spur project
Email|Print|Single Page| Text size – + By Casey Ross
Globe Staff / July 3, 2008
The owners of the massive Columbus Center project over the Massachusetts Turnpike have gone back to city and state officials to request as much as $40 million in public funding to try to resurrect one of Boston's most ambitious developments.
A spokesman for WinnDevelopment and its partners confirmed the Columbus team has held a series of meetings to push for additional taxpayer assistance, despite lingering controversy over public funds that have already been awarded. Officials briefed on the talks said the ownership has discussed the idea of creating a special development zone that would give developers tax relief to pay for a deck over the turnpike and other upgrades.
Columbus Center is intended to be a $800 million hotel, residential, and retail complex that would straddle the turnpike and reunite two neighborhoods now divided by the highway. It would occupy four blocks between Clarendon and Tremont streets where the South End borders Back Bay.
Construction of the long-planned project was halted abruptly in March after develop ers were unable to secure construction financing and about $35 million in state assistance. They now face an uphill battle to keep the project alive as capital markets have tightened and costs for fuel and building materials have soared. They have already sought to delay construction up to 18 months.
Alan Eisner, a spokesman for the developers, said executives have been negotiating for months to try to revive Columbus Center, which went through 11 years of permitting and neighborhood opposition. Projects costs have nearly tripled. He confirmed that officials met last week with state Senator Dianne Wilkerson, a Roxbury Democrat, to discuss ways to generate fresh public assistance.
"We've been meeting with various state and city officials to try to see what support is out there that can jumpstart the project once market conditions improve," said Eisner. "Anything and everything is on the table."
Eisner would not discuss specific proposals, but officials briefed on the talks, who were not authorized to comment on them publicly, said Columbus Center's owners have asked the city and state to consider designating the project a special development zone.
The arrangement, known as a District Improvement Financing agreement, allows developers to get an abatement on a portion of their future property tax bill now to pay for infrastructure upgrades.
Wilkerson did not return phone calls seeking comment. She has been a key supporter of Columbus Center on Beacon Hill, where a number of foes, including House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi and Representative Martha Walz, a Back Bay Democrat, have fiercely opposed public funding for the project under the belief that the state should not be footing the bill for a private development.
WinnDevelopment is Columbus Center's managing partner in an ownership group that includes the California Public Employees Retirement System and MacFarlane Urban Realty Co. LLC, which invests in large urban projects nationwide. In 2007, construction financing fell through, delaying the project and raising questions about its viability. As a result, the state withdrew $20 million in potential job-creation grants, and the project never received $15 million in loans from MassHousing.
The prospect of a new tax relief plan drew contrasting reactions from the community.
"This is a great project to knit the city back together and it is critical to get some assistance for it," said David I. Begelfer, chief executive of the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties of Massachusetts, a business advocacy group that supports development incentives. "It does not have to be dead. If the developers can get a couple of years of breathing room, I wouldn't be surprised to see it back on the front burner."
But Walz said the project's survival should not be the public's responsibility. "This is another instance of the developer seeking relief from its financing problems with taxpayer money," she said. "It's not appropriate for taxpayers to be financing this project, and we've made that point to the developer time and again."
Overall, the public assistance being sought by the Columbus team is a small portion of the project's overall cost, but developers have made clear that the money is a crucial in tough economic times. Eisner said the project would produce public benefits, including four new parks, improvements to air quality in the MBTA's Back Bay Station, and better groundwater management in nearby neighborhoods that have struggled with flooding.
The City of Boston provided initial support for the project, including a package of tax deferrals, but officials said the city would be reluctant to grant further taxpayer assistance.
"We [will not] consider district improvement financing for this project," said Susan Elsbree, a spokeswoman for the Boston Redevelopment Authority, the city's planning arm. "The city has already given [tax incentives] valued at $14 million over the life of the project."
The developers are also trying to renegotiate a lease with the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority to allow for a construction delay of up to 18 months; the authority owns the space above the highway where the complex will be built. Mac Daniel, a turnpike spokesman, said the talks continue as it works with the developers to clean up the area surrounding the inactive construction zone.
Casey Ross can be reached at cross@globe.com.
© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.
Columbus Center asks for boost of $40m
Says public funds could spur project
Email|Print|Single Page| Text size – + By Casey Ross
Globe Staff / July 3, 2008
The owners of the massive Columbus Center project over the Massachusetts Turnpike have gone back to city and state officials to request as much as $40 million in public funding to try to resurrect one of Boston's most ambitious developments.
A spokesman for WinnDevelopment and its partners confirmed the Columbus team has held a series of meetings to push for additional taxpayer assistance, despite lingering controversy over public funds that have already been awarded. Officials briefed on the talks said the ownership has discussed the idea of creating a special development zone that would give developers tax relief to pay for a deck over the turnpike and other upgrades.
Columbus Center is intended to be a $800 million hotel, residential, and retail complex that would straddle the turnpike and reunite two neighborhoods now divided by the highway. It would occupy four blocks between Clarendon and Tremont streets where the South End borders Back Bay.
Construction of the long-planned project was halted abruptly in March after develop ers were unable to secure construction financing and about $35 million in state assistance. They now face an uphill battle to keep the project alive as capital markets have tightened and costs for fuel and building materials have soared. They have already sought to delay construction up to 18 months.
Alan Eisner, a spokesman for the developers, said executives have been negotiating for months to try to revive Columbus Center, which went through 11 years of permitting and neighborhood opposition. Projects costs have nearly tripled. He confirmed that officials met last week with state Senator Dianne Wilkerson, a Roxbury Democrat, to discuss ways to generate fresh public assistance.
"We've been meeting with various state and city officials to try to see what support is out there that can jumpstart the project once market conditions improve," said Eisner. "Anything and everything is on the table."
Eisner would not discuss specific proposals, but officials briefed on the talks, who were not authorized to comment on them publicly, said Columbus Center's owners have asked the city and state to consider designating the project a special development zone.
The arrangement, known as a District Improvement Financing agreement, allows developers to get an abatement on a portion of their future property tax bill now to pay for infrastructure upgrades.
Wilkerson did not return phone calls seeking comment. She has been a key supporter of Columbus Center on Beacon Hill, where a number of foes, including House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi and Representative Martha Walz, a Back Bay Democrat, have fiercely opposed public funding for the project under the belief that the state should not be footing the bill for a private development.
WinnDevelopment is Columbus Center's managing partner in an ownership group that includes the California Public Employees Retirement System and MacFarlane Urban Realty Co. LLC, which invests in large urban projects nationwide. In 2007, construction financing fell through, delaying the project and raising questions about its viability. As a result, the state withdrew $20 million in potential job-creation grants, and the project never received $15 million in loans from MassHousing.
The prospect of a new tax relief plan drew contrasting reactions from the community.
"This is a great project to knit the city back together and it is critical to get some assistance for it," said David I. Begelfer, chief executive of the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties of Massachusetts, a business advocacy group that supports development incentives. "It does not have to be dead. If the developers can get a couple of years of breathing room, I wouldn't be surprised to see it back on the front burner."
But Walz said the project's survival should not be the public's responsibility. "This is another instance of the developer seeking relief from its financing problems with taxpayer money," she said. "It's not appropriate for taxpayers to be financing this project, and we've made that point to the developer time and again."
Overall, the public assistance being sought by the Columbus team is a small portion of the project's overall cost, but developers have made clear that the money is a crucial in tough economic times. Eisner said the project would produce public benefits, including four new parks, improvements to air quality in the MBTA's Back Bay Station, and better groundwater management in nearby neighborhoods that have struggled with flooding.
The City of Boston provided initial support for the project, including a package of tax deferrals, but officials said the city would be reluctant to grant further taxpayer assistance.
"We [will not] consider district improvement financing for this project," said Susan Elsbree, a spokeswoman for the Boston Redevelopment Authority, the city's planning arm. "The city has already given [tax incentives] valued at $14 million over the life of the project."
The developers are also trying to renegotiate a lease with the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority to allow for a construction delay of up to 18 months; the authority owns the space above the highway where the complex will be built. Mac Daniel, a turnpike spokesman, said the talks continue as it works with the developers to clean up the area surrounding the inactive construction zone.
Casey Ross can be reached at cross@globe.com.
© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.
Friday, June 27, 2008
"Protests Kill Plan"
Towering opposition
Protests kill plan for a glass-walled garden at Hancock
By Casey Ross
Boston Globe
Globe Staff / June 27, 2008
The Hancock Tower's owners dropped plans to build a glass-enclosed public square outside the Clarendon Street doors after neighbors and the famed building's architect protested that the addition would mar the tower's slender design and the views of neighboring Trinity Church.
Architect Henry Cobb doesn't like what has happened inside the Hancock Tower but is glad the exterior won't be changing.
WORRIED ABOUT HIS MASTERPIECE
Architect Henry Cobb, who designed the 60-floor Hancock in the 1960s, strongly objected to Broadway Partners Fund Manager LLC's plan for a 12,000-square-foot glass "winter garden" on the plaza at the base of the building.
Back Bay residents were also marshaling opposition, arguing the changes would have ruined the tower's architectural integrity.
Parties involved in negotiations over the plaza said Cobb, who is known to be particular about the iconic Hancock, was immediately concerned that an addition would block views of Trinity Church across the street.
The addition would have fundamentally changed the forbidding, half-acre plaza, long known for umbrella-buckling wind gusts that torment passers-by.
Now, Broadway Partners and Elkus | Manfredi Architects are instead proposing to add only landscaping and glass benches. A pair of restaurants would still be opened underground, on the concourse level, but they would be entered through the tower's lobby, not through a winter garden.
"That's certainly what I had been urging. They have been very respectful of my views," Cobb said yesterday about the end of the plan for a new structure.
Alan G. Rubenstein, director of asset management for Broadway Partners, said the plaza will remain open and views of Trinity Church unobstructed. "The constituent groups with whom we spoke led us to the realization that less would be more," he said.
Broadway Partners also faced opposition from politicians and a powerful residents' group.
"There was tremendous concern about changing the face of the building," said state Representative Marty Walz, a Cambridge Democrat whose district includes the Back Bay. "It's world famous for a reason, and there was a consistent feeling that the new structure would not be a good addition."
The initial plan, announced in January, included an enclosed seating area with a small bar for drinks or coffee. Under the new concept, that lounge would be in the Hancock's lobby, where patrons could congregate before heading down to the concourse.
Rubenstein said new portals on the north and south sides of the lobby will help patrons get to the restaurants.
Broadway may file its revised design with the Boston Redevelopment Authority as early as next week, with construction of the restaurants to be completed in about 12 months. Rubenstein said Broadway Partners has not begun speaking with potential tenants but suggested at least one occupant would be a "white tablecloth" restaurant in the mold of the nearby Davio's or Grill 23.
While there was considerable opposition to a glass-walled structure, some of the business neighbors supported the idea as a way to enliven the barren plaza, which has never realized its potential as a public gathering place.
"I thought the new structure would help with the [windy] conditions," said Meg Mainzer-Cohen, president of the Back Bay Association, which represents business and property owners. "I still think adding the restaurants is a great way to open the Hancock to Bostonians. Right now, unless you have a business meeting, most people don't go there."
The public's connection to the monolithic skyscraper diminished after its observatory was shuttered amid terrorism concerns following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Broadway Partners' initial plan was designed to make the plaza a destination for residents and visitors. Cobb and others argued that the way to enhance the space is to preserve sight lines with the sandstone and granite facade of Trinity Church, designed by Henry Hobson Richardson.
Broadway Partners sought to accommodate those concerns with the all-glass structure, but Cobb fretted that even that would block outdoor views and interfere with the tranquility of the plaza. The glass design was inspired by spaces such as the atrium at the IBM Building and the Apple store at the General Motors Building, both in New York.
Cobb has long been concerned about changes to the Hancock, a masterpiece whose concept he finished over two harried weeks in the fall of 1967.
In a 2006 retrospective on the building's opening, he told the Globe that the building's interior had been wrecked: "The last time I was in it, I turned on my heel and walked out. . . . I'm happy that the external statement of the building is so completely independent of what happens inside it."
Casey Ross can be reached at cross@globe.com.
Protests kill plan for a glass-walled garden at Hancock
By Casey Ross
Boston Globe
Globe Staff / June 27, 2008
The Hancock Tower's owners dropped plans to build a glass-enclosed public square outside the Clarendon Street doors after neighbors and the famed building's architect protested that the addition would mar the tower's slender design and the views of neighboring Trinity Church.
Architect Henry Cobb doesn't like what has happened inside the Hancock Tower but is glad the exterior won't be changing.
WORRIED ABOUT HIS MASTERPIECE
Architect Henry Cobb, who designed the 60-floor Hancock in the 1960s, strongly objected to Broadway Partners Fund Manager LLC's plan for a 12,000-square-foot glass "winter garden" on the plaza at the base of the building.
Back Bay residents were also marshaling opposition, arguing the changes would have ruined the tower's architectural integrity.
Parties involved in negotiations over the plaza said Cobb, who is known to be particular about the iconic Hancock, was immediately concerned that an addition would block views of Trinity Church across the street.
The addition would have fundamentally changed the forbidding, half-acre plaza, long known for umbrella-buckling wind gusts that torment passers-by.
Now, Broadway Partners and Elkus | Manfredi Architects are instead proposing to add only landscaping and glass benches. A pair of restaurants would still be opened underground, on the concourse level, but they would be entered through the tower's lobby, not through a winter garden.
"That's certainly what I had been urging. They have been very respectful of my views," Cobb said yesterday about the end of the plan for a new structure.
Alan G. Rubenstein, director of asset management for Broadway Partners, said the plaza will remain open and views of Trinity Church unobstructed. "The constituent groups with whom we spoke led us to the realization that less would be more," he said.
Broadway Partners also faced opposition from politicians and a powerful residents' group.
"There was tremendous concern about changing the face of the building," said state Representative Marty Walz, a Cambridge Democrat whose district includes the Back Bay. "It's world famous for a reason, and there was a consistent feeling that the new structure would not be a good addition."
The initial plan, announced in January, included an enclosed seating area with a small bar for drinks or coffee. Under the new concept, that lounge would be in the Hancock's lobby, where patrons could congregate before heading down to the concourse.
Rubenstein said new portals on the north and south sides of the lobby will help patrons get to the restaurants.
Broadway may file its revised design with the Boston Redevelopment Authority as early as next week, with construction of the restaurants to be completed in about 12 months. Rubenstein said Broadway Partners has not begun speaking with potential tenants but suggested at least one occupant would be a "white tablecloth" restaurant in the mold of the nearby Davio's or Grill 23.
While there was considerable opposition to a glass-walled structure, some of the business neighbors supported the idea as a way to enliven the barren plaza, which has never realized its potential as a public gathering place.
"I thought the new structure would help with the [windy] conditions," said Meg Mainzer-Cohen, president of the Back Bay Association, which represents business and property owners. "I still think adding the restaurants is a great way to open the Hancock to Bostonians. Right now, unless you have a business meeting, most people don't go there."
The public's connection to the monolithic skyscraper diminished after its observatory was shuttered amid terrorism concerns following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Broadway Partners' initial plan was designed to make the plaza a destination for residents and visitors. Cobb and others argued that the way to enhance the space is to preserve sight lines with the sandstone and granite facade of Trinity Church, designed by Henry Hobson Richardson.
Broadway Partners sought to accommodate those concerns with the all-glass structure, but Cobb fretted that even that would block outdoor views and interfere with the tranquility of the plaza. The glass design was inspired by spaces such as the atrium at the IBM Building and the Apple store at the General Motors Building, both in New York.
Cobb has long been concerned about changes to the Hancock, a masterpiece whose concept he finished over two harried weeks in the fall of 1967.
In a 2006 retrospective on the building's opening, he told the Globe that the building's interior had been wrecked: "The last time I was in it, I turned on my heel and walked out. . . . I'm happy that the external statement of the building is so completely independent of what happens inside it."
Casey Ross can be reached at cross@globe.com.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Moving City Hall
Tommy’s Taj Mahal demands debates
By Boston Herald Editorial Staff
Thursday, June 26, 2008 - Added 13h ago
Dealing with City Hall these days is a little like dealing with the old Kremlin - and that has nothing to do with the Cold War “brutalist” style architecture of the building.
No, it’s the mindset - a mindset that comes with a mayor who by next month will have served 15 years in the job and shows no sign of wanting to relinquish it. But next year is an election year and so a potential rival to Mayor Tom Menino has emerged from the ranks of the City Council to ask some annoying questions about an already approved capital budget.
The Council has rather limited powers but one of them is to hold hearings and ask questions and Councilor Mike Flaherty is making the most of that.
At issue is an $850,000 item for a feasibility study involving city-owned land on South Boston’s Drydock 4, part of the Marine Industrial Park. The $850,000 is only the first installment in a three-year appropriation of more than $2 million involving that same site.
It is a possible site for a future waterfront city hall Menino seems to want as his legacy. And while the current city hall building has few fans, the possibility of relocating to the waterfront seems to have only one truly ardent supporter - and that would be Tom Menino.
Now at some point the Boston Redevelopment Authority likely can and should determine what level of development that site can support. That is a legitimate expenditure of public dollars. In fact, such a study may show that the site is prohibitively expensive for a major public building.
The real problem here is that except for this week’s Council hearing all of this is being carried out without public debate or discussion. The taxpayers of this city deserve at least that much before Tommy’s Taj Mahal on the harbor takes on a life of its own.
By Boston Herald Editorial Staff
Thursday, June 26, 2008 - Added 13h ago
Dealing with City Hall these days is a little like dealing with the old Kremlin - and that has nothing to do with the Cold War “brutalist” style architecture of the building.
No, it’s the mindset - a mindset that comes with a mayor who by next month will have served 15 years in the job and shows no sign of wanting to relinquish it. But next year is an election year and so a potential rival to Mayor Tom Menino has emerged from the ranks of the City Council to ask some annoying questions about an already approved capital budget.
The Council has rather limited powers but one of them is to hold hearings and ask questions and Councilor Mike Flaherty is making the most of that.
At issue is an $850,000 item for a feasibility study involving city-owned land on South Boston’s Drydock 4, part of the Marine Industrial Park. The $850,000 is only the first installment in a three-year appropriation of more than $2 million involving that same site.
It is a possible site for a future waterfront city hall Menino seems to want as his legacy. And while the current city hall building has few fans, the possibility of relocating to the waterfront seems to have only one truly ardent supporter - and that would be Tom Menino.
Now at some point the Boston Redevelopment Authority likely can and should determine what level of development that site can support. That is a legitimate expenditure of public dollars. In fact, such a study may show that the site is prohibitively expensive for a major public building.
The real problem here is that except for this week’s Council hearing all of this is being carried out without public debate or discussion. The taxpayers of this city deserve at least that much before Tommy’s Taj Mahal on the harbor takes on a life of its own.
Harvard Art
Harvard art is on the move
By Francis Ma
GateHouse News Service
Posted Jun 25, 2008 @ 02:00 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boston — When the doors of the Fogg Museum in Cambridge close to the public on June 30, they won’t open again until 2013.
But the five-year sabbatical is for a good cause — the Harvard museum will undergo structural renovations that are 50 years overdue. Among the highest priorities: the air-conditioning and plumbing, in addition to an electrical system that pre-dates the FDR administration.
The plan also includes a bigger and longer-range goal — to add a complementary arts complex across the Charles River in Allston.
But right now the priority is the Fogg.
“Our climate control problem is a source of deep embarrassment and shame for us,” says Museum Director Thomas Lentz. “All of the systems in the building have to be updated.”
How bad is it? The electric and plumbing systems haven’t been overhauled since the museum was built in 1927.
In order to rectify this, the Harvard art collection from all three museums — the Fogg, the Bush-Reisinger and the Sackler — will be consolidated after the museum closes on June 30.
Most of it will end up in storage while a “representative overview” called “Re-View” will be on display when the Sackler reopens on Sept. 13. (The Sackler will also be closed this summer for the reorganization.) Harvard hope that all three museums will reopen at full capacity in 2013.
The proposal for the Allston location is to have a building of contemporary art (though not solely about contemporary art) that will have a dual relationship with Harvard University and the local community. It’s scheduled to break ground some time next year.
The Allston location would give Harvard the opportunity to embrace more contemporary art, a medium that has never had a home at the Fogg.
“We will never have the space that we need here,” says Lentz. “Allston will be a place where we can do things we never could.”
The idea of extending Harvard University into Allston was first hatched in 2003. Along the way, Allston residents have questioned whether or not it was going forward and whether having Harvard in Allston would be a good idea.
“I think some people assumed that the delay of the museum meant that Allston was off the table,” adds Harvard’s Director of Communications Daron Manoogian. “That has never been the case.”
Priorities simply changed. Instead of focusing on the new art museum in Allston, the university decided to turn its attention to the much-needed renovations of the Fogg. This change in thinking came mostly from Harvard’s new president, Drew G. Faust, who was appointed in February 2007.
“With Faust, it feels like the arts are a real priority,” says Manoogian. “She recognizes the possibility for a Harvard-Allston community. I think, in the past, the Allston community felt overwhelmed, especially with having to approve two buildings (a science complex and the art museum) at once.”
To help alleviate past confusion, President Faust set up a Task Force for the Arts in November of last year with the job of determining how the arts at Harvard can be implemented into other areas of study, as well as to consider what type of physical building would be needed in the future.
But for some Allston residents, it’s hard to forget the confusion of past meetings and business plans and some say there still isn’t enough communication between the community and the university.
Harry Mattison, Allston resident since 1994 and part of the Harvard-Allston Task Force, has been involved with this issue from the start.
“Some people don’t feel like Harvard and Allston are in this together,” says Mattison. “We’re also concerned about what it would be like to have Harvard as a neighbor.”
The Task Force meets regularly at the Honan-Allston Branch Library with representatives from Harvard University and the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA).This fall they will be discussing the Master Plan for Allston, which includes the proposed art museum.
So far, the meetings have addressed general concerns.
At a recent meeting, Mattison passionately voiced his concern that the neighborhood would be changing and asked whether or not Harvard knew what the new neighborhood would look like.
“Does Harvard know who will be moving into Allston? And what their needs will be?” asked Mattison.
It’s a valid question that wasn’t answered with any specifics.
Kathy Spiegelman, chief planner for the Harvard University Allston Initiative, regularly attends these meetings (which are staffed by the BRA), and she takes these concerns seriously.
“I think the challenge of this project has been how to make the edges soft,” says Spiegelman. “We want the structures to be inviting to the members of the local community.”
And now that President Faust has pushed the renovation of the Fogg as a priority, it allows Spiegelman and the Allston community to figure out exactly what the new art complex could, and should, provide.
Meanwhile, the Fogg braces for a big transition. Helen Molesworth, head of the department of modern and contemporary art, says the feeling within the walls is a sad one, and that no one wants to see the museum close.
“Most people who work in museums want to share that love of art with other people,” says Molesworth. “None of us want to pack up and close our doors. But we have a broken thing and we need to fix it.”
By Francis Ma
GateHouse News Service
Posted Jun 25, 2008 @ 02:00 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boston — When the doors of the Fogg Museum in Cambridge close to the public on June 30, they won’t open again until 2013.
But the five-year sabbatical is for a good cause — the Harvard museum will undergo structural renovations that are 50 years overdue. Among the highest priorities: the air-conditioning and plumbing, in addition to an electrical system that pre-dates the FDR administration.
The plan also includes a bigger and longer-range goal — to add a complementary arts complex across the Charles River in Allston.
But right now the priority is the Fogg.
“Our climate control problem is a source of deep embarrassment and shame for us,” says Museum Director Thomas Lentz. “All of the systems in the building have to be updated.”
How bad is it? The electric and plumbing systems haven’t been overhauled since the museum was built in 1927.
In order to rectify this, the Harvard art collection from all three museums — the Fogg, the Bush-Reisinger and the Sackler — will be consolidated after the museum closes on June 30.
Most of it will end up in storage while a “representative overview” called “Re-View” will be on display when the Sackler reopens on Sept. 13. (The Sackler will also be closed this summer for the reorganization.) Harvard hope that all three museums will reopen at full capacity in 2013.
The proposal for the Allston location is to have a building of contemporary art (though not solely about contemporary art) that will have a dual relationship with Harvard University and the local community. It’s scheduled to break ground some time next year.
The Allston location would give Harvard the opportunity to embrace more contemporary art, a medium that has never had a home at the Fogg.
“We will never have the space that we need here,” says Lentz. “Allston will be a place where we can do things we never could.”
The idea of extending Harvard University into Allston was first hatched in 2003. Along the way, Allston residents have questioned whether or not it was going forward and whether having Harvard in Allston would be a good idea.
“I think some people assumed that the delay of the museum meant that Allston was off the table,” adds Harvard’s Director of Communications Daron Manoogian. “That has never been the case.”
Priorities simply changed. Instead of focusing on the new art museum in Allston, the university decided to turn its attention to the much-needed renovations of the Fogg. This change in thinking came mostly from Harvard’s new president, Drew G. Faust, who was appointed in February 2007.
“With Faust, it feels like the arts are a real priority,” says Manoogian. “She recognizes the possibility for a Harvard-Allston community. I think, in the past, the Allston community felt overwhelmed, especially with having to approve two buildings (a science complex and the art museum) at once.”
To help alleviate past confusion, President Faust set up a Task Force for the Arts in November of last year with the job of determining how the arts at Harvard can be implemented into other areas of study, as well as to consider what type of physical building would be needed in the future.
But for some Allston residents, it’s hard to forget the confusion of past meetings and business plans and some say there still isn’t enough communication between the community and the university.
Harry Mattison, Allston resident since 1994 and part of the Harvard-Allston Task Force, has been involved with this issue from the start.
“Some people don’t feel like Harvard and Allston are in this together,” says Mattison. “We’re also concerned about what it would be like to have Harvard as a neighbor.”
The Task Force meets regularly at the Honan-Allston Branch Library with representatives from Harvard University and the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA).This fall they will be discussing the Master Plan for Allston, which includes the proposed art museum.
So far, the meetings have addressed general concerns.
At a recent meeting, Mattison passionately voiced his concern that the neighborhood would be changing and asked whether or not Harvard knew what the new neighborhood would look like.
“Does Harvard know who will be moving into Allston? And what their needs will be?” asked Mattison.
It’s a valid question that wasn’t answered with any specifics.
Kathy Spiegelman, chief planner for the Harvard University Allston Initiative, regularly attends these meetings (which are staffed by the BRA), and she takes these concerns seriously.
“I think the challenge of this project has been how to make the edges soft,” says Spiegelman. “We want the structures to be inviting to the members of the local community.”
And now that President Faust has pushed the renovation of the Fogg as a priority, it allows Spiegelman and the Allston community to figure out exactly what the new art complex could, and should, provide.
Meanwhile, the Fogg braces for a big transition. Helen Molesworth, head of the department of modern and contemporary art, says the feeling within the walls is a sad one, and that no one wants to see the museum close.
“Most people who work in museums want to share that love of art with other people,” says Molesworth. “None of us want to pack up and close our doors. But we have a broken thing and we need to fix it.”
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
BRA approves Suffolk, Simmons projects
Boston Business Journal
The Boston Redevelopment Authority Tuesday approved a 10-year master plan proposed by Suffolk University to build a 10-story residence hall over a redeveloped Modern Theater in downtown Boston.
Boston-based Suffolk plans to spend $100 million on that project and a new arts school and academic building at 20 Somerset St.
Simultaneously, the BRA approved Simmons College’s plan to expand its dining hall at 300 The Fenway. The college plans to add 5.898 square feet to its existing dining hall and will spend $6 million on the project.
The Boston Redevelopment Authority Tuesday approved a 10-year master plan proposed by Suffolk University to build a 10-story residence hall over a redeveloped Modern Theater in downtown Boston.
Boston-based Suffolk plans to spend $100 million on that project and a new arts school and academic building at 20 Somerset St.
Simultaneously, the BRA approved Simmons College’s plan to expand its dining hall at 300 The Fenway. The college plans to add 5.898 square feet to its existing dining hall and will spend $6 million on the project.
Copley Tower!
Copley Place seeks city of Boston’s OK for 47-story tower
Boston Herald
By Scott Van Voorhis
Tuesday, June 24, 2008 - Updated 19h ago
Copley Place owner Simon Property Group Inc. is moving ahead with plans to remake the Back Bay skyline with a 47-story condo tower that will also expand the upscale mall’s footprint.
The mall owner, in a proposal filed yesterday with City Hall, details plans for nearly 800,000 square feet of new residential and Retail space at the corner of Dartmouth and Stuart streets.
Along with 280 high-rise condos, Simon is also banking on a significant expansion of Copley Place.
The proposal calls for adding 54,000 square feet to the existing 115,000-square-foot Neiman Marcus store, which would be renovated as well. Another 60,000 square feet of retail would be added beyond that, including space for a restaurant and a winter garden.
The condo tower will include a health club, luxury day spa, library and concierge service.
“The project will enhance the urban fabric of the neighborhood and be a striking addition to the city’s skyline,” said Carl Dieterle, executive vice president for urban development at Simon, in a statement.
But state Rep. Marty Walz (D-Back Bay) said there are still significant concerns about the shadows the new tower will cast across nearby Copley Square and the Commonwealth Mall.
“A building of that height will cast significant shadows on those two green spaces,” Walz said.
Rick Stockwood, a spokesman for the project, said the tower has been specifically designed to minimize the impact of any shadows it will cast. The impact itself, which he described as limited, is laid out in a report included in the project plans submitted yesterday to the Boston Redevelopment Authority.
The shadows that cross Copley Square, for example, are confined to the late fall and winter months, Stockwood said.
sbvanvoorhis@bostonherald.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
