December 19, 2001
To the Boston Zoning Commission:
Re: Downtown IPOD Housing Incentive Amendment
We have become aware of a Zoning Code amendment proposed by the BRA to encourage housing development in a large area of the downtown, called the "Financial District Special Study Area." This proposal has enormous implications for the heart of Boston's downtown, and will raise the basic height line of the city to a new level. It will transform the downtown, and will have ripple effects through the Back Bay, Fenway, Chinatown, the waterfront and all other areas of the city where development density is rising.
We ask that you postpone any decision until those potential impacts receive careful and responsible analysis. Knowing about this proposal only what can be gleaned from the brief description in the BRA Memorandum to the Board dated November 14, 2001 and the petition brought to the Zoning Commission, we already can see several issues that require detailed study, including:
The Special Study Area: How was this geographic area, with its oddly shaped boundaries, determined to be the appropriate territory for such an amendment? What were the criteria on which one half-block was included and the next not? What are the opportunities and the constraints within the area for such development? Are there particular projects in the pipeline that would be interested in pursuing the RDA designation? There is no immediately obvious rationale for this SSA.
Historic resources impacts: This license to build over double the IPOD height will put tremendous pressure on historic buildings, setting off a speculative rush of demolition and redevelopment both within and eventually outside the SSA. Even protected buildings appear to be eligible for redevelopment, to 150' height. Buildings that do not have historic protections are extremely vulnerable. A change so radical to the zoning of this area cannot simply declare any site of a half acre buildable to 350' without a careful delimitation of development rights to protect historic buildings, view corridors, and other publicly valued resources.
Spatial and infrastructure impacts: The addition of a significant number of 350' towers (for reference, One Beacon Street is 34 stories tall, the Federal Reserve is 31 stories) in the very large area defined as the Financial District Special Study Area could have enormous impacts on the fabric and functioning of the downtown. The BRA document states that BRA staff have identified sites for this use; the BRA should be required to model the build-out of these sites, and of any others that would be eligible for redevelopment to 350' or 155', to show what the downtown would become if these incentives are maximally used. The analysis should include pedestrian-level views of the streets, wind studies, and shadow and light impacts, considering ambient as well as direct light (William Holly Whyte, in one of his books, displays aerial photographs of midtown Manhattan taken some years apart, showing how deeply into shadow the streets have been plunged by the continued proliferation of towers). Parking, traffic and transit impacts on downtown must be analyzed, together with demands on other infrastructure.
Review and regulation: The BRA proposes here to create yet another category of "self-zoning" for projects, the "Residential Development Area," which is described as a modified PDA. The review process in the introductory text states that each project in the proposed "RDA" category would be subject to Article 80 review and "require approval by the BRA Board and the Zoning Commission." However, the text amendment application presented to the Commission does not apparently require BZC review as do PDA's; this should be clarified.
Further: In what way are these RDA's modified PDA's? Can a single half-block building really be a "Planned Development Area"? The PDA, originally devised to assure coherent development of large (5-acre) urban areas, has been re-defined by the BRA to allow evasion of zoning regulation by owners of one-acre sites (only about a 200' by 200' block). However, there seems to be a trend toward even more lenient re-definitions of these self-zoning areas. The proponent of the 30,000 sf Residences at Kensington Place project recently submitted a proposal attempting to become a PDA-size site by drawing its boundary so as to encompass an existing nearby building owned by others. Presumably this stratagem will fail here, as it did at Two Financial Center and Loews Hotel, to create an acre of land by the stroke of a pen. The proposed amendment seems designed to relieve future tower-builders of even the need to redraw their boundary lines. It twists a legitimate planning tool into a scheme for what is in effect spot zoning.
Relation to other plans: The BRA should explain how this amendment would relate to other plans in the vicinity, e.g., Midtown Cultural District Plan, Urban Renewal Plans, Municipal Harbor Plan, etc., not only in geographic coverage but in environmental impact.
The definition of "housing": The proposed amendment is described as intended to encourage housing development, but the meaning of "housing" is not clear. College dormitories are cited as "housing" in the introductory text; hotels and other temporary lodging may also be considered by the BRA to be "housing."
Boston's need for housing must not be used to abuse the City regulatory process, or to justify harm to the city's fabric and historic resources. Before the Zoning Code is changed in a way that could dramatically alter the character of the city, the implications must be thoroughly examined, and appropriate opportunity for public discussion must be provided to nearby neighborhoods and to all who are stakeholders, as citizens and taxpayers, in Boston's historic downtown.
Thank you for considering these comments.
Shirley Kressel
President
Alliance of Boston Neighborhoods