Hey, there! Log in / Register

Measure to allow an apartment building next to the Emerald Necklace took on added urgency after Tuesday's election, backer says

Proposed stairway along Ipswich Street

Proposed stairway at Ipswich Street.

The Boston City Council yesterday approved a change in a regulation designed to protect the Emerald Necklace from being overwhelmed by tall buildings so that a developer can build a 28-story, 400-unit apartment building at 2 Charlesgate West, next to a little used portion of the Emerald Necklace along the Bowker Overpass.

City Councilor Sharon Durkan (Fenway, Back Bay, Beacon Hill, Mission Hill), first proposed the change in August, saying then Boston desperately needs housing and that the measure was crafted not to become a precedent for allowing other big private development along one of the nation's most famous urban parks.

At a council meeting yesterday, she reiterated the need for housing, but said the results of the national elections make the proposal by Scape, an English company, even more important.

"Boston stands as a beacon to the rest of the country, as a city where we protect human rights, including reproductive rights and the rights of LGBTQIA people, to ensure public safety and provide quality education," and Boston needs to provide even more housing for people who share those values, she said, adding, "however, these values that are core to Boston, that we're all proud to uphold, come at too steep a cost and currently exclude many who would like to live here." The new building would be a small step in "welcoming those who wish to live here," she said.

Scape's proposal includes 68 affordable apartments, or 17% of the total. At the time it submitted its plans that exceeded the city affordable-housing requirements, although it now exactly matches requirements that went into effect Oct. 1.

The project was approved by the Boston Planning Department in July. However, it was facing rejection by the Parks and Recreation Department because of an ordinance that bans new construction of buildings more than 70 feet tall on lots within 100 feet of parts of the Emerald Necklace (as well as certain parkland in South Boston and Brighton) and the proposed building was both way taller than that limit on a lot way closer than 100 feet to the Charlesgate segment of the Emerald Necklace.

The proposed change in the parks ordinance, which now goes to Mayor Wu for her consideration, would only apply to an area bounded by the roads that surround the Scape proposal.

Durkan said the new building would replace three little used commercial buildings along the turnpike with "a vibrant welcome to the Fenway." In addition to apartments, Scape has also proposed a new outdoor stairway and a public elevator, as well as a public restroom for Necklace users and $700,000 in total donations to the city and DCR for parks maintenance in the area.

Councilor Tania Fernandes Anderson (Roxbury) said the ordinance amendment was "not such a perfect solution," and said some people in her district had called for other changes. But she said that because the project is not in her district, and "out of respect" for Durkan, she declined to elaborate, save to say she hoped there would be "further conversations."

Durkan agreed additional discussion is needed - and might result in further possible changes to the ordinance - but said that the project is critical enough to move forward now - an answer that did not sit well with Councilor Ed Flynn (South Boston, South End, Chinatown, Downtown.

The council voted 10-1-2 in favor of the measure. Flynn voted no; Fernandes Anderson and Julia Mejia (at large) voted "present."

2 Charlesgate filings.

Watch the discussion:

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

Last Christmas Magoo gave Mrs Magoo an emerald necklace. Said emerald necklace was from the Emerald Isle and reminded Magoo of Durin’s jewels now since lost in the depths of Moria since the Balrog tried to smite Gandalf. Alas Gandalf fell but managed to smite the Balrog and escaped the pits thru an eleven friend (unlike as depicted in Peter Jackson’s trilogy, Gandalf got help escaping the pits). Any who, sumtimes when Magoo is bored, Magoo will find an ant hill and pretend ants living in said ant hill are Magoo’s servants and Magoo is the evil lord Sauron. Magoo will pretend that the ant-orcs are digging deep in Middle Earth searching for the one Ring. Magoo.

up
Voting closed 41

Marginalized people (which at this point includes women) in red states are in imminent danger. Our area should be building as much housing as possible as rapidly as possible, not just because it's the right thing to do, but because it will help our economy and our culture.

up
Voting closed 38

...with building more luxury premium housing and skirting regulations in the process. This is a money grab not a project for world peace.

up
Voting closed 82

Developers want to make money and we need housing for all.

Anyway, the regulations here are dumb and helping to perpetuate a terrible housing crisis in the city.

up
Voting closed 37

The people who move into new luxury housing moved out of somewhere else more affordable. The people who filled their old homes also moved out somewhere else even more affordable. And so on. Why is this so hard to understand? Supply is supply.

up
Voting closed 43

.

up
Voting closed 14

ratioed, to boot

up
Voting closed 16

Luxury units barely contribute to housing supply because these units are bought up as assets by rich people who already own multiple homes, or who wouldn't be "moving up" from affordable housing for this. "Supply is supply" doesn't apply when rich people just buy up multiple properties as assets in their portfolios.

up
Voting closed 31

The vast majority of new luxury units are occupied by someone living in them. And even the few that sit largely empty are still paying a lot of property tax that funds our city while not using any taxpayer funded resources. There is no real downside to building more units. Stop pretending we aren’t in a housing crisis.

up
Voting closed 33

on the internet are made without evidence.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a thing Carl Sagan once said.

'Ordinary claims require ordinary evidence' is a thing I said just now to you.

You've made claims. Lets go with you showing us how you came to believe this, rather than using ego and personality as proof.

How about it?

up
Voting closed 14

.

up
Voting closed 12

What a weak argument for bending the rules.

Housing is needed, yes. This is a great place for it.

Reasoning for skirting the rules to aid the company which got rid of The Sligo and then did nothing - Kind of weak.

I look forward for developers using the "something might happen because of Trump" rule all over the place now.

"I need approvals for a hot dog stand on Marlborough Street because people moving here from other states because of our values might need hot dogs".

up
Voting closed 74

She didn't say it's the only argument, she said the election results makes the need for additional housing even more important than it already was.

And you're absolutely right developers will cynically use Trump or whatever argument to get their project approved, however in this case Councilor Durkan is making the argument and she happens to be right. IMO.

RIP Sligo.

up
Voting closed 26

And for once Flynn did something right.

up
Voting closed 20

Apparently democratically legislating amendments to existing ordinances is skirting the rules. LOL

up
Voting closed 20

Unclear and very, very murky are the democratic norms in Massachusetts. In addition to the 2 a.m. procedures in the State House, I recall a caucus in 2022 that was all but an anointing, with microphones not being muted during Danielle Allen’s speech -in contrast to the fawning, reverence for the favored candidate- and the coercive practice of State Senators reading out a large set of nominations, all but one for Healey (if that, maybe) for those either not present, or unwilling to voice during the remote caucus, which feels an untoward abuse of authority having the subtext be “get with the program” “the writing is on the wall.”

up
Voting closed 10

Thanks this stopped working months ago for various reasons, glad to see its back.

Sad that we need a browser plug in to stop annoying posts by someone who can't seem to get a clue that he's not funny at all.

up
Voting closed 36

I'll see what happens after a reboot.

up
Voting closed 11

(sigh)

up
Voting closed 11

There is "Charlesgate East" and "Charlesgate West". They are parallel to each other, on opposite sides of the Bowker Overpass.

"Charlesgate", without the suffix, refers to the park itself, nearly all of which is under the Bowker Overpass and its ramps. There is no street in Boston simply called "Charlesgate".

The link to the filings indicates that this project would be at 2 Charlesgate West, although the city documents refer to "2 Charlesgate West Street" for some unknown reason.

The proposed building would be on the south side of Ipswich Street, where Charlesgate West meets Park Drive, and across from the Victory Gardens. The change in grade level there, with Ipswich Street at the lower level, explains the steps shown in the rendering.

At that point, Charlesgate West is merely a pedestrian way, unlike Charlesgate East, which allows vehicular traffic.

up
Voting closed 24

I've updated the original story to call it 2 Charlesgate West.

up
Voting closed 22

Double post

up
Voting closed 13

Just think about what happened to the greenway. It connected "Boston to its waterfront. Tell me at what point can you acrually see the waterfront from anywhere on the new Greenway UNLESS you are in one of the glass condos that were built. Same thing for the Seaport.
Do not let them do it.
How about the city allow affordable housing on the most horrible brick scape of all - city hall plaza. Or knock down Quincy market and make that all housing. Boston is becoming New Yorkified which is unfortunate.

up
Voting closed 32

Not a relevant argument for this building. This would be replacing a couple tiny, largely useless buildings next to a highway. If you want to fight for access to waterfront areas then let’s work to get rid of Storrow Drive and return it to being riverfront park land.

up
Voting closed 18

Oops lag

up
Voting closed 10

Wealth just getting its foot in the door to start the process of throwing up a lot more tall buildings around the Necklace and surrounds. The actual so-called Massachusetts establishment Progressivism is a ruse.

up
Voting closed 31

P.s., It’s a bad deal. Ma progressives are functionally the servants of the folks who have the political parties by the scruff of the neck along with the rest. These % affordable schemes are extortion and exploitation and contribute pounds to wealth inequality and provide pennies toward the people.

Wasn’t that the offices of Turner?

This will ruin the dome of unbroken sky in the Fens.

up
Voting closed 26

“Oh no I can see a building while in a city! The horror!” This building is literally next to a disgusting highway. It’s not messing up a pristine area. The highway already did.

up
Voting closed 18

… a disgusting highway? In a building which will further pollute the air?

Just because of a supposed crisis of lack of luxury housing? And money making opportunities?

up
Voting closed 17

It’s a protected part with a big city. Is a pocket of beauty a virtue Boston is unworthy of? Is art dead?
Where’s truth and beauty?
Where’s truth and beauty?
Where’s truth and beauty?

Attribution: Pulp, ‘Will to Power’

What’s next? “PAVE FENWAY?”

up
Voting closed 9

“ In addition to apartments, Scape has also proposed a new outdoor stairway and a public elevator, as well as a public restroom for Necklace users and $700,000 in total donations to the city and DCR for parks maintenance in the area. “

It’s a given this would never happen.

Say no, Mayor Wu.

up
Voting closed 27

She should be against it because they propose a benefit to the public? That doesn't make a sense.

Wouldn't it make more sense that she should support the project so she can use the powers of her office to make sure they build the public accommodations as proposed?

up
Voting closed 13

Lol. But there was no fascism when they gave away Franklin Park to private interests.

up
Voting closed 20

Not all of Franklin Park.

up
Voting closed 14

Yes of course, the golf course and the zoo stay.

up
Voting closed 16

Boy, if Sharon Durkan ever saw how domestic migration flows actually go, she might question the need for the project.

That said,I'll concede that Boston needs housing, and if the neighbors don't object, I'm not going to.

up
Voting closed 17

Invoking left-leaning policy and the national election in a debate about local zoning is among the most ridiculous things I’ve ever seen.

We need housing and I don’t know enough about zoning to really weigh in on the specific proposal. But Durkin’s argument that Boston being a bastion of reproductive and LBGT rights relates to this zoning exception is a stretch and likely to be fodder for national mockery.

Also, there’s little chance this building will be completed before the next President is elected in 2028.

up
Voting closed 10

1) Luxury is a marketing term, no? Any apartments built in the center of Boston are going to be labelled "luxury", and they're going to be expensive because that's the market right now.

2) People don't like developers, I get it. But much as I wish the opposite were true, the state is not building housing these days. If someone wants to propose a viable, more socialist system that this area would support, I'm on board. In the meantime, developers are going to make profits on housing. IMO, we should focus our efforts into making the system as equitable and fair as possible, and performing better oversight to make sure developers aren't screwing us on incentives.

3) If you somehow think we shouldn't be building more housing in this area, then I'm going to tell you that you don't care about your children or your children's children. Where are they going to live? Are you happy to see them move away to Ohio or further where they have worse education and health care outcomes? Where they let women die in parking lots or hound gay and trans people to suicide?

up
Voting closed 19

More housing does NOT necessarily mean more affordable housing.
It never has and it never will. See NYC among other places
It's a shame that people oversimplify the housing situation.

up
Voting closed 11

Studies have shown again and again that more supply brings down the price of housing.
For example:
No Single Policy Will Increase Housing Affordability. We Need a Comprehensive Strategy.

We need housing of all kinds. Making it difficult to build housing of ANY kind, as the city of Boston and its horde of NIMBYs has done, is a recipe for the disaster we currently have on our hands.

up
Voting closed 10