Hey, there! Log in / Register
The Boston Planning and Development Agency should maybe just take Planning out of its name
By adamg on Thu, 04/27/2017 - 9:32am
Since it doesn't seem to do much of that. Peter O'Connor writes how the Winthrop Square debate once again proves Boston could really use some comprehensive planning, rather than an endless series of one-off debates over every single project:
Without any objective criteria with which to evaluate development proposals, which can have enormous impacts on their neighbors and on the city as a whole, we resort to forming so-called Citizens’ Advisory Committees. Appointed by City Hall, their purpose seems to be to tamp down neighborhood objections, primarily by wearing people out with long, incredibly boring public meetings, and by extorting “community benefits,” until everyone finally collapses from exhaustion. Essentially, every development proposal is a free-form negotiation, and a completely novel negotiation at that.
Speaking of the Millennium Partners plan for Winthrop Square, company principal Joe Larkin says:
Today’s Home Rule Petition vote marks an important step forward and is a remarkable win on multiple fronts. Among the projected wide-reaching economic benefits, our parks and affordable housing will receive a critical influx of funds. And having inspired a broad and unprecedented coalition of supporters from every corner of Boston, this project has brought our city closer together.
Looking ahead, we are hopeful that the State Legislature will join the City Councilors in supporting this vastly beneficial and transformative project.
The Friends of the Public Garden, as you might expect, are not quite so enthused:
The Council’s action today sets a precedent for future tradeoffs of money from developers for city approval of luxury skyscrapers that will cause damage to our landmark parks. It is naive to think that another developer won’t put millions of dollars on the table to entice the city into more exemptions to allow more shadows and cause more damage. ...
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Further proof of O'Connor's argument
The home-rule petition includes a provision requiring the BPDA to do a comprehensive planning study of much of downtown, which raises some questions: Why haven't they done that already? It's going to take an act of the legislature to make the city's planning agency do some planning? And if the petition is defeated, or if that provision magically disappears, does that mean the BPDA won't take a look at what's happening downtown?
What would be the point? Even
What would be the point? Even when projects are as-of-right, even when they're renovations of existing buildings -- no change in use -- people still fight tooth and nail against them.
Maybe we Bostonians are a bunch of racist, classist car-worshiping NIMBYs and maybe we just love to complain, but it doesn't matter, because regardless of who or what people show up to scream their opposition, their suspicion of the developer's parentage and motives and to pronounce apocalyptic oracles for their neighborhood, the City, the American way of life and the withering of all nature if a three story building is built next to a two story one. Reasonable worries and opposition get lost among the unbridled hysteria and people who would support development or offer up positive suggestions are cowed into silence.
And the fact of the matter is that Winthrop Square was a great example of planning: they found a decaying and disused city asset, they ran a design competition with guidelines that allowed both creativity and were designed to make sure that proposals enhanced the public realm and bring activity to a part of the city that's dead after 5:00 pm.
But because some Brahmins claim to be concerned about shadows at a time of day when they probably haven't even woken up and during which it will be dark most of the year the process is broken? Give me a break.
And there you have defined the problem
Most people don't know what planning is. You cite the example of Winthrop as planning. That's exactly what it isn't. If there were a plan in place (that we respected) - this wouldn't be a discussion. No new buildings that cause incremental shadows on the Common because over the years and even centuries - we did things that harm a historical treasure. Accept what's there - move on and do no further harm. That actually was the plan. Until someone waved an extra $50 million at us that the city MIGHT someday see as long as the real estate market doesn't collapse (don't look now - but NY is struggling at that end of the market and they tend to be a bell-weather).
This is what is known as "spot zoning" - specifically illegal under Massachusetts law. However, we have this monster known as the Planning and Development agency - that does no planning, respects no planning (I can cite you a dozen other examples and I am by no means the leading expert) and never met a project it doesn't like because their funding comes from permitting things that are otherwise illegal and then taking a payoff for allowing these things to happen. It's essentially organized crime - but it's not illegal because as a former BRA official reportedly told a friend of mine " Our job is to make the illegal legal".
No break for you.
Bostonians are angry about more than shadows.
Public Garden isn't nimby
It's everything not nimby. It's a major tourist attraction. It's why they are putting a tall building there. Nobody has exclusive rights or access. It's free to use and it's public community land.
If it wasn't an issue of housing/ building, which seems to have grown a unique kind of single-issue zealot, this would be a progressive cause.
Yes, please
Isn't planning all about making sure a healthy amount of growth happens, and most importantly: that the right type of growth happens in the right place. As a resident of a downtown landmark district I understand that I deliberately bought into a neighborhood with stringent constraints on growth. The other side of this coin is that I don't want to constrain growth too much in other parts of the city nearby.
Not that I have any particular affinity for Millennium, but I have to say when I see their Franklin Street tower from a distance, what it makes me think about is how I love that from my old timey historic district I can now just walk to a real, new full size supermarket.
Just my opinion, but the city isn't a museum: we can't forget that growth and the amenities it brings are vitally important to livability for people who live downtown....and don't hop in a car to drive to the nearest stripmall when they have to shop for their family. I use the Common a lot and really care about it. But in this case, getting new amenities in my city (and not a car ride away in Woburn or something) is my bigger concern.
Speaking of planning:
Speaking of planning:
http://www.universalhub.com/2013/election-roundup-walsh-would-replace-br...
Does anybody still have a copy?
http://web.archive.org/web/20130901000000*/http://www.martywalsh.org/iss...
Bad mission=bad planning
I don't see that changing the planning process will make a difference if the vision and mission stays the way it is.
Right now the vision is let the rich use resources and soak them a little for services to the poor.
The Common/Garden would never be preserved today. From top to bottom we do not have a vision to match the founders. They created that place knowing they would never see it fully realized.
Planning...
Wasn't the whole Jp/Rox process pretty intensive planning? Or the Dot Ave. study in S.Boston?
Yes
Yes, those were two examples of good "planning". I just wish they could do this everywhere else.