Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you all need a dissertation on the #1 nimby enclave in USA?
Will Boston permit any more buildings over 390' -- ever?
Will Boston permit any more buildings over ~290' in the next 10 years??
btw, who predicted it in the Globe in 2015?
Do you like an even more squat City? Well you're about to get it.
Did you see who's about to be elected mayor?
A mayor of a City the size of Boston that won't allow anything permitted >300'.
That's not a typo.
Wu's Boston's big D party machine/anti-development Antichrist.
I feel like having more sub-300ft multi family housing in the outer neighborhoods will be better for cheapening the city than more 700ft luxury towers in the back bay..
^^Well, slowly but surely, Boston is planning as much 150~200' infill apart from pre-existing row-houses as they can push through--given the current context, and filling row-house cavities *(at least before the Wu anti-urban machine kicks into gear). Boston will benefit from having projects permitted during Walsh time in office still in the pipeline. Good thing. But, are the two mutually exclusive? I've always believed these can be false arguments anyway. Boston is land-locked, possessing too many nimby enclaves already: (W Roxbury, Rozzie, Hyde Park that should share in TOD). W/ Back Bay there's much to consider.
Go look at 1 Dalton from Google Earth, then tilt and zoom out. Look out over Back Bay. The projects we lost were valuable Air Right's projects that have the combined effect of knitting together the South End & the Fenway to Back Bay, the Midtown Cultural District and Chinatown.
Grand slam home runs: Only NYC and Boston has achieved significant headway in rejoining neighborhoods via Air Right's construction all while making rail and freeway's disappear. You're not just adding new street grids and green zones over those freeways:
From a good urban planning perspective, it's easy to note Back Bay should have built Boylston Square (650') on what remains the under-utilized air right's stump on the south edge of I-90 at Boylston St and Mass Ave: in heart of Back Bay (geebus). Imagine the site combining with 1000 Boylston (full/ 627'), diagonally across the street, (the (2) Parcel 12 towers, Parcel 13 "Viola," The Huntington (400') soon to rise just up Mass Ave, and possibly another step up tower at the 1065 Boylston St block---all mixing with the 3 or 4 modest, 300~340' Fenway towers already permitted. ....Add Copley Tower (625') to the (6) offices & residential highrises ranging from 350~446' including Columbus Ctr, Back Bay Station w/ 2 topping 400', and 40 Trinity Pl.
You're looking at a proper dense, urban zone over 8 major transit stops running continuously from the Midtown Cultural District clearway to the Longwood Medical Area (with the insane mid-rise/highrise construction down Brookline Ave---all the way to Brookline Village) with only 1 modest shadow added to Back Bay proper (Copley Tower). All those other highrises were/are planned to cast most of their shadow/s upon the I-90 Freeway.
These projects are extremely hard to do (inordinate site prep): The success for just one of these partnerships, like Samuels or Weiner partnering with Suffolk Construction, creates opportunity for experienced teams, and their lenders ready to risk more capital to further the endeavor.
There's more: 1000 Boylston is was designed for larger families, or empty nesters that might be more inclined to take up the highrise space rather than buying up 3 deckers in Mission Hill or JP and convert them to luxury townhomes----something that should be discouraged as much has possible.
What's better urbanism than that?
Last edited by odurandina; 10-21-2021 at 02:02 PM..
I feel like having more sub-300ft multi family housing in the outer neighborhoods will be better for cheapening the city than more 700ft luxury towers in the back bay..
But that makes sense. See what you did there? You want better housing.. we will give you another 800ft lux tower that is 52% vacant 3 years after completion!
^^btw, per the typical,
Bostonplans approved 4.2M sq ft/$4B in new construction last Thursday.
Boston in 5 years: like if DC and Vancouver had a baby.
I knew I saw a similar post in another thread. Then the next was it was Philly +DC ='s Boston
Quote:
Originally Posted by odurandina
Vancouver + DC = Boston
a sticks out /no brainer type thing.
One thing that would remain the same. You must see Boston will continue and become even more expensive/exclusive. Price Vancouver even with building lots of high-rises. Guess this claim and hope is as good as anyone's. I still do not see triple-decker neighborhoods having nimby's give a thumbs up to high-rise infill as seems to be needed? Never say never and will take much to be a Vancouver in the scale of high-rise living.
I could see SF building to a Vancouver in 5 yrs if it ever was allowed and Hong Kong in 10 yrs. That is if nimbyism totally ended. Doubt anyone would ever predict that baby at hand even in 20yrs. You have full faith in Boston doing it so I give you that and the prediction or bet you put out here on c-d.
Actually, if Boston could get areas of more skyscrapers allowed? You could say a Chicago + DC will = Boston in 5 yrs.
Can you imagine if Boston could have built a new airport further out a couple decades back or more? That land being mostly skyscrapers where the airport is now and the current core allowed. What a few more miles further for the airport could have meant and a totally new neighborhood arise as a Hudson Yards+ where the airport is.
I knew I saw a similar post in another thread. Then the next was it was Philly +DC ='s Boston
One thing that would remain the same. You must see Boston will continue and become even more expensive/exclusive. Price Vancouver even with building lots of high-rises. Guess this claim and hope is as good as anyone's. I still do not see triple-decker neighborhoods having nimby's give a thumbs up to high-rise infill as seems to be needed? Never say never and will take much to be a Vancouver in the scale of high-rise living.
I could see SF building to a Vancouver in 5 yrs if it ever was allowed and Hong Kong in 10 yrs. That is if nimbyism totally ended. Doubt anyone would ever predict that baby at hand even in 20yrs. You have full faith in Boston doing it so I give you that and the prediction or bet you put out here on c-d.
Actually, if Boston could get areas of more skyscrapers allowed? You could say a Chicago + DC will = Boston in 5 yrs.
Can you imagine if Boston could have built a new airport further out a couple decades back or more? That land being mostly skyscrapers where the airport is now and the current core allowed. What a few more miles further for the airport could have meant and a totally new neighborhood arise as a Hudson Yards+ where the airport is.
Boston’s real estate market was actually leveling off a bit in the 2018-2020 (pre Covid era) helped by Walsh being very pro-development and Baker pushing multi family housing in the suburbs and maybe a slight slowdown in population growth.
Vancouver is on another level. It’s price/income ratio is *double* what Boston is. About 6 and change vs about 13.
For anyone who follows the construction picture in Boston--some info worth noting: Grab your socks and hose and pull. Michelle Wu/ a champion of all nimby's planetary wide/ is now the Mayor-elect.
Including approved development in the pipeline, and considering the residential + office + lab space that will gain occupancy during Michelle Wu's time in office--will be significant. Highrise construction will noticeably trickle off toward the end of her 4 years--but modest infilling should continue. The highrise, mid-rise/low-rise growth of what we might coin, "North Boston" (Cambridge, Somerville, Everett, Malden, Revere & Chelsea) should continue for some time. Cambridge has a 475' & 430' tower/s expected to go u/c soon. Malden, Everett & Somerville all have >300' highrises planned as well).
All of this will contribute Boston gaining a more big City feel by ~2025/26 (a triumph after just 400 years). Adding Boston + North Boston together would equate to be more or less where San Francisco's was a few years ago--before it's dramatic, recent highrise additions.
The time period following Wu's first term is expected to be punctuated by a noticeable retreat from tall construction. By then, if Wu has moved on to Washington, or is still mayor, there will be a continued absence of tall construction for an extended time--at least, as there won't be anything tall in the development/planning pipeline.
Now that Wu has achieved power---hopefully she comes to her senses and backs away from her threats of blowing up the BPDA. I hope she retains the current leadership. Something i doubt will happen. A return to the Dark Ages ostensibly has begun.
Isn’t Wu especially anti-NIMBY? She wants to abolish the BRA and get rid of the zoning laws that essentially force every development to get special permits for a range of ridiculous exceptions.
Isn’t Wu especially anti-NIMBY? She wants to abolish the BRA and get rid of the zoning laws that essentially force every development to get special permits for a range of ridiculous exceptions.
Yeah thats my impression on Wu^
Anti NIMBY, abolish the BPDA and Build more.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
