Boylston Propertties
A rendering of what a taller residential tower could look like at Arsenal Yards. It would be 197 feet tall, 67 taller than currently allowed, so developers seek an amendment to the zoning to allow the increased height. The red lines show the outline of the 129-foot tower currently approved.
Editor:
I can understand that a Planning Board or Town Council member might be tempted to say, there’s no harm in approving Boylston Properties’ (BP) proposed zoning amendment which would allow BP and other developers to ask for one or more 197-foot buildings. The officials might say, approving the height amendment doesn’t approve any specific building, we can decide about a specific building at a later time, when we see plans, etc. I disagree there is no good reason to amend the zoning, on the contrary there are good reasons to reject their proposal, and there is harm in changing the ordinance.
At BP’s request, the Town changed its zoning two years ago to meet almost all of BP’s needs at Arsenal Yards except BP’s proposal that there be no limit how tall a building the Planning Board could approve. After lengthy and at times heated debate a compromise was reached to allow 130 feet, taller than is allowed in any other part of town. BP then proposed a specific site plan in which BP chose the footprint it wanted for Building G, the residential tower cheek-to-jowl with Arsenal Park and overlooking the Charles River park, and chose how close together BP wanted to put Building G and the neighboring BP buildings. The Town’s Department of Development and Planning (DCDP) recommended that the plan should be approved and the Planning Board gave the BP plan its blessing.
BP now wants the height amendment so it can change its own plans for Arsenal Yards, specifically to increase the height of Building G. If there are any benefits to the public from the taller building BP wants, they can be achieved entirely without any height increase or zoning change. BP could easily amend its own plans and make the footprint of Building G the same size BP says the footprint would be if the zoning amendment were approved. BP doesn’t want to do that because it would reduce BP’s profits, while a taller building would increase BP’s profits. BP is entitled to want greater profits, but if there is a problem with the footprint of Building G it is totally of BP’s own making. The Town should not now give BP a bonus in order to change something entirely within BP’s control in order to serve BP’s interests to our own detriment.
Opinions Split Over Taller Tower Request by Developers of Arsenal Yards
Changing the RMUD zoning so soon after approving it for BP is bad for the Town’s social and political fabric. The development boom in Watertown has stressed our community, with a great deal of anger and mistrust churned up in debates about Pleasant Street developments, the Arsenal Overlay (Athena) district zoning and permit debates, the Gables and Union Market (Elan) permits, the RMUD zoning, and what already feels like endless rush hour gridlock despite soothing traffic projections. Residents are entitled to know that when the processes of our town politics and administration produce a result, when a debate is settled – particularly when it is settled by compromise – that the settlement will stay in place for a reasonable time and not be reopened quickly and opportunistically. Residents are entitled to know that when the Town Council approved a certain zoning change, they did so with good reason and due respect to the opinions of all residents. Residents are entitled to know that when the DCDP and the Planning Board approved BP’s building plans, they carefully evaluated those plans and insisted on getting the best they could for the town – that they did not simply rubber stamp a bad plan because BP wanted it. Residents are entitled to know that the DCDP, Planning Board and Town Council will not be duped by a developer’s obviously premeditated scheme to wear them down and back them into a corner. Residents are entitled to know that marginal tax revenue has not become the be-all and end-all of every town planning decision. Residents are entitled to know that if a developer has made poor design choices, correcting those choices will be at the developer’s expense, not the Town’s.
I delivered these comments to the Planning Board at their July 11th meeting. I urge the Board and Town Council to reject BP’s proposed zoning amendment.
Jon Bockian
Watertown Resident
Here here. Well presented. I couldn’t agree more. Increased tax revenue is not the only gold standard. The citizen’s of this town should be able to expect that when changes to zoning and planning requirements are made that they don’t have to constantly be concerned that other amendments would shortly be in the queue.
Do developers–not Watertown’s Planning Board and Town Council–set the zoning requirements in Watertown? Certainly there should be more input from Watertown residents before the allowable height of buildings is changed.
This is as clear and cogent an argument anyone could want for rejecting this height proposal. The public trust in town decisions has all but eroded. Anyone who votes to approve BPs proposal should have their motives examined carefully.
Thank you Jon for sharing your thoughtful perspective on this issue. You provide a lot to consider as I seek to determine my position on this issue.
Excellent comments Jon. It is time to stop setting bad precedents with regard to development in Watertown. There seems to be no up side to making this concession and quite a bit of downside.
Very Well Said Jon. Thank you for expressing what many of us feel.
Thanks so much for taking the time to provide this thoughtful proposal. Town Councilors and Planning Board, I’m not sure how much more you need to be satisfied that Watertown residents reject BP’s proposal. Thanks again!
Jon, you are right on target. Once we give in on the height of this building, we are opening up a precedent for others to come. We are being overdeveloped and we are not seeing any tax benefits from all of this. The developers are making money and then walking away with their profits. All we get is more traffic and congestion. We don’t want to be Cambridge and Boston!