Hey, there! Log in / Register
28-story apartment building wins approval near where the Fenway borders the turnpike
By adamg on Tue, 01/14/2025 - 1:09pm
Rendering of the view from the Muddy River by Utile.
The Zoning Board of Appeal today approved plans for a 28-story, 400-unit apartment building at 100-102 Ipswich St. at the Bowker Overpass in the Fenway.
Plans by developer Scape call for the site, also known as 2 Charlesgate West, call for 68 affordable units. All the units would be "compact," or smaller than normally required by city zoning, in an attempt to reduce their costs.
The building would have no parking. It would have indoor storage space for 200 bicycles - and would feature two Bluebikes stations.
The building would exceed city greenhouse-emissions goals because all of its systems would be electric and it would have a particularly energy-efficient exterior, architect Brett Bentson of Utile said, adding it was also designed to become a Fenway "gateway" similar to the Pierce building on Boylston Street.
Along with the apartments, Scape would put in a prominent outdoor stairway between Ipswich and Boylston streets, paired with a public elevator - and a set of public restrooms.
The developer says it will make a total of $3 million in payments for public improvement, including installation of the Bluebikes stations, $500,000 for sprucing up city parks and even $40,000 to light up the statue of Leif Erikson on Commonwealth Avenue, which commemorates the spirit of spending money on mistaken beliefs, in this case a theory that Vikings sailed up the Charles and settled in what is now Weston, promulgated by Harvard professor Eben Horsford, who had more than enough money to pay for the statue after inventing modern baking powder.
The project needed a variety of variances, including because of its size and lack of parking.
The Boston Planning Department approved the proposal in July.
In November, the City Council approved a change in regulations designed to protect the Emerald Necklace from encroachment by letting the tower go up even though it is closer than 70 feet to part of the Olmsted park - the little used section near the Bowker overpass.
The measure to exempt the building was proposed by City Councilor Sharon Durkan, who represents the Fenway and who has backed the project as a way to increase needed housing in the city - especially at a time when we're seeing a transfer of power in Washington to an administration openly hostile to the LGBTQ community.
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
If you want to build a
If you want to build a congested, gridlocked omelette you gotta break some skyline and historic character.
Why not four buildings at 7 stories? This is not a building, this is a foot in the door. Boston cannot grow much more without massive regional eminent domain implications and consequences.
I didn't realize there were
I didn't realize there were four adjacent developable plots for sale and owned by the same developer who proposed building this. No eminent domain needed when you can build tall. 400 housing units are good.
Not really near Storrow. It's
Not really near Storrow. It's a quarter mile away, where the Fenway meets the Pike.
Ipswich isn't next to Storrow
Ipswich is on the other side of the Pike. It's a road behind Fenway Park, from Boylston to Boylston, and never comes near Storrow.
And the rendering above conveniently obsures the Charlesgate West/Boylston ramp in front of the building as viewed from across the Muddy River.
Yay additional housing.
Yeah, you're right.
I was thinking of its location near the pot of spaghetti that is the Bowker overpass complex, which funnels traffic to/from Storrow, so it's sort of near Storrow, but, yes, residents on one side will have a nice view of all the brake lights at rush hour on the turnpike.
View from above
Anyone living above say the fourth floor can sit and gaze out at the distant skies. To see the traffic you'd have to stand at the window. Only someone who wants to share the misery of people stuck in traffic, or perhaps needs to see it so they can gloat, will have these lights in their view.
Lower floors will need black out shades that pull up from the bottom.
All balanced against a seriously great location.
Welcome development!
I'm not looking forward to the construction, but I think it'll be a fine addition to the neighborhood.
Regarding your final paragraph: no doubt the incoming administration in Washington will be less favorable to LGBT concerns, but did I miss some inclusionary aspect to the new project, like the Pryde in Hyde Park?
The nominee for Secretary of the Treasury is openly gay
So apparently not completely hostile to the LGBTQ community if they've got money. Perhaps more hostile to certain things wanted by a subset of the community.
Not specifically
But at the meeting where the ordinance got changed, Durkan talked about Boston's welcoming role, welcoming to all people and if it wants to keep being welcoming with the new haters coming into power in Washington, it needs to put up more housing for refugees from hater states.
Regarding your final
There is nothing included in this eyesore of a building for LGBT groups. Durkan was literally just talking out of her ass as she presumably said something like "ignore the height or that this building will negatively impact Victory Gardens, or that the developer's own study concluded Ipswich Street will get 40mph winds for much of the year because of this too-tall building....ummm, this helps housing and uhhh....given the incoming administration, LGBT people will be coming to Boston....so we need more housing!"
Brushback pitch
She wanted the development. She threw in irrelevant verbiage about lgbtqiaetc so that if someone disagreed with her she could call them names.
Hopefully this is paired with
Hopefully this is paired with removing the bowker overpass. The overpass is much more of a blight (and a wall cutting off the river from the neighborhood) than this building.
Unfortunately this project
Unfortunately this project has nothing to do with Bowker Overpass. And while it is an eyesore, it's actually the Mass Pike that cuts off the path of the Muddy River going into the Charles River--not the Overpass.
They are apparently (once again) replacing the Bowker Overpass though, even though many of us remember it was only a decade ago when there was a major, years-long renovation project on the bridge. So, unfortunately, it'll be years of insane traffic coming to the Fenway neighborhood very soon...
No parking, parking permits allowed?
I have been following this development for over a decade. I remember reading long ago something about how this address would be ineligible for a Fenway parking permit. (It was either this address or another property in Fenway).
Does anybody know anything about properties (this or otherwise) that are ineligible for parking permits?
I know there was a property, the Ropewalk, in Charlestown which had this limitation and people didn't know before they moved in, and tried to break their leases due to that detail being omitted.
Are there any other developments where you are ineligible to get the parking permit with that address?
Parking
Scape agreed to this for 1252-1270 Boylston and I believe they did the same for 2 Charlesgate West. That is, they were at least making statements along those lines during the public meetings.