John O'Brien, Project Manager
Boston Redevelopment Authority
Boston City Hall
RE: Comments on Two Financial Center DPIR
In the DPIR for Two Financial Center, Rose Associates, Inc., proposes a 205' tower, with FAR of 13.3, Gross Floor Area of 252,000 square feet, and a 167 net-new-space parking garage. The site is in the Leather District, recently zoned by the BRA and the community to a maximum height of 100', with FAR of 8, GFA of 112,300 square feet, with parking classified as a conditional use. Because the proposal would grossly violate both the letter and the spirit of all applicable zoning provisions, the DPIR is devoted to justifying their evasion.
Chapter 121A Agreement
The proponent has abandoned the PDA designation requested in the PNF. The .44-acre site does not meet the one-acre PDA requirement, and apparently the attempt to gerrymander the boundary, combined with the need to change the underlying zoning, was deemed too risky and too open to public process by the proponent.
Now, the proponent prefers a Chapter 121A agreement,
which will "provide comprehensive zoning and development
approval by the BRA " to facilitate evasion of the Zoning
Code, and more, a self-negotiated property tax. The
proponent can certainly depend on the BRA to produce any
"zoning" the project desires, since the BRA's mission is to
act as a development agent. And far from "guaranteeing" the
City its due taxes, this 121A agreement, like the others,
will be used to guarantee a huge tax abatements to the
developer.
However, Chapter 121A agreements have certain thresholds which this proposal does not meet.
- The site must be a "blighted, decadent, or
substandard area" by statutory definition. This is not a
"blighted, decadent, or substandard area" by any
definition. The proponent repeatedly refers to the site
as an "unattractive and underutilized parking lot," "a
hole in the urban fabric" which this project would
remedy. The proponent, who has owned and profited from
this parking lot for 30 years, brings to mind the story
of the man who killed his parents and then begged the
court's mercy for an orphan. It is a lucrative parking
lot, long kept in speculation regardless of its impact on
the neighborhood, and now one of the most valuable pieces
of real estate in the city. Any negative image of the
current site is directly attributable to actions by the
proponent, who needn't expect a reward for long overdue
remediation.
- The site must present "obstacles to development which
private enterprise cannot overcome without public
assistance." This project submitted a PNF based solely on
conventional development terms; the purpose of the switch
as described in DPIR Section 2.5.1 Zoning Controls and
Permits was to avoid zoning requirements. The city and
the nation are experiencing a real estate boom of
historic magnitude. The only obstacle here is a
well-reasoned zoning code, protecting one of Boston's
invaluable historic districts from predatory
over-development.
- The project must have a "public purpose." This is an office and retail building for private businesses. There is no public purpose; "economic development," commonly cited by the BRA and project attorneys as a public purpose, does not qualify; indeed, such a definition would make all private enterprise in the city eligible for public assistance.
In sum, there is no validity to the proponent's claims of eligibility for a 121A Agreement. The Alliance challenges this 121A designation. The project attorney will simply have to try a third scheme to evade the laws of the City.
Historic Resources:
The Leather District is listed in the National and State Registers of Historic Places. The project's architectural historian is certainly "reinterpreting historical motifs" in stating that the site is on the edge of the Leather District and was specifically carved out of the district boundaries because it is a parking lot. In fact, the site is not part of the registered Historic District (since there was no intent to preserve the lot left by the demolition of the previous historic building) but it is assuredly part of, and subject to the recent, community-based zoning of, the Leather District. The conclusion anticipating "no significant effect on other historical structures in the project vicinity" indicates ignorance of, or disregard for, the purpose of protective zoning in historic areas. The BRA itself has publicly stated that such zoning is specifically intended to prevent development pressures on near-by small historic buildings by the profitable prospects of replacement by towers. The fact of existing and anticipated massive towers all around the 8-block Leather District calls not for carving out "edge" or "transition" sites -- 7 of the 8 district blocks would qualify as edge sites -- but just the opposite: strict adherence to the protections imposed by the BRA and the community in the 1991 zoning process.
We also find far from compelling the argument that "this additional height offers the opportunity to partially screen some of the larger high-rises in the vicinity..." The proponent is in particular attempting to justify a building double the zoning height to screen his own huge adjacent tower.
By the proponent's logic, 7 of the 8 Leather District blocks should be redeveloped with mid-sized towers to "soften" the juxtaposition between the single remaining center historic block and the enormous towers of the new Boston.
Urban Design
The BRA Scoping Determination stated that "it is important that development here carry the essential character of the Leather District through to complete a strong and harmonious edge." The Scoping acknowledged that "the letter of the zoning would result in a building approximately 100' in height." Then, revealing the BRA's mission as an advocate for developers, it goes on to coach the proponent in zoning evasion: "Maximization of this strategy might result in a building which rises straight to about 125'...then sets back additional floors so they are not visible from public ways within the District." That the BRA advises on "maximizing" of zoning-evasion "strategy" does not strengthen the proponent's case.
The BRA's collusion in undermining the integrity of community-based zoning is unacceptable to the citizens of Boston. Such direction to developers to violate zoning law threatens the legitimacy of the BRA itself. This project contributes to a growing body of evidence of the BRA's abuse of power.
Traffic Impacts
Traffic impacts are projected to be low based on transit proximity. However, this is not the predictor of traffic; parking capacity is the major determinant of traffic generation. The site is covered by a Restricted Parking Overlay District for this very reason, and the proposed accessory parking garage is a conditional use. The net new 167 parking spaces meet none of the Conditions specified in the Zoning Code Section 6-3A. There is, as the proponent acknowledges, excellent transit proximity; the use would be a peak-traffic generator; and the parking would not be temporary. Therefore, this added parking capacity should be denied.
Public Process
The proponent repeatedly claims to have met with the representatives of the neighborhood. However, the proponent's communications with the Leather District Neighborhood Association have been, with the BRA's blessing, late in starting, infrequent, and uncooperative. This bad-faith process culminated in a "community meeting" packed with a certain group of union workers militating for the project. The cynical use of both working people and community advocates as pawns in this development strategy disgraces the developer, as well as the BRA, whose staff have allowed and encouraged it.
The acceptance of the tower by the mayorally appointed Chinatown Neighborhood Council does not reflect a community judgment that the proposal is in the best interests of the neighborhood. It demonstrates only the tragic effectiveness of the City/BRA community management strategy of "carrots," in the form of linkage and other trivial offerings, and "sticks," in the form of withholding of public goods and services, to which our taxes entitle us, by our own government. Neighborhood groups are thus pitted against each other, grasping for housing, public space, and other social needs that our public officials consider "amenities," and led to trade away the interests of future generations to get them. The process corrupts all who participate, and betrays all who will be left with the consequences.
The recent offer to reduce the height of the building to 162' as a compromise may be accepted, finally, by the Leather District community, in despair at the uncertainty of decision by Mayoral decree.
Notwithstanding this result, the Alliance contends that negotiation is not the equivalent of planning. Whether the setback portion is visible from all points, whether the building is clad in historic trimmings, whether other community benefits are offered in trade -- none of these change the basic fact that community-based zoning is being replaced by crude bartering in a lawless development environment. In zoning-free Houston, this compromise height might be a victorious outcome. In Boston, where the unique and irreplaceable historic legacy of generations was meant to be preserved by the rule of law, this is a sad defeat, and without a doubt will simply teach the next developer that he should begin the bidding higher to achieve a more profitable compromise.
BRA Role in Planning and Zoning
The proponent claims that the project, redesigned after PNF comments from the City and the community, offers substantial improvements "rendering it more compatible with both the historic and contemporary surroundings near the project site." This argument is irrelevant. There is zoning in place for this site. It is recent zoning, expressly formulated by the BRA itself, to do what zoning is intended to do: protect existing uses, reflect a community-government consensus on good planning, embody the interests of the neighborhood, and create a predictable and reliable investment environment.
Should the BRA collude with the developer to implement this project through Chapter 121A or other evasion mechanisms, it will be an open admission that the Boston Zoning Code is a sham, and an explicit demonstration that the BRA, as Boston's planning and zoning agency, is unfit for this responsibility.
This will confirm a growing consensus that the BRA must be relieved of this mission, and its role redefined much more narrowly to constrain it from assisting private parties in violating City laws.
Sincerely,
Shirley Kressel, President
Alliance of Boston Neighborhoods
Cc: Mayor Thomas Menino
Mark Maloney, Director, BRA
Linda Haar, Director of Planning and Zoning, BRA
Larry Rosenblum, Phil Golden, Leather District Neighborhood
Association
Robert Marr, Chair, Boston Zoning Commission
Kevin Morris on, BRA Counsel
City Councilors
Ellen Lipsey, Boston Landmarks Commission
Judy McDonough, Massachusetts Historic Commission
Albert Rex, Boston Preservation Alliance
Press