It’s hard not to see the proposed One Mystic residential tower in Boston’s Sullivan Square as a test case for whether the Wu administration can follow through on its housing production rhetoric.
At first blush, the signs aren’t good. A 630-unit development that’s already shrunk itself in response to city pushback is being pressured to cut a further 168 units to appease concerns about the building’s bulk.
If the city is going to add enough rental units to house everyone as fast as we clearly need to, much less hit Mayor Michelle Wu’s goal of hitting a city population of 800,000 by 2030, what little available, transit-connected land there is in the city is a precious resource. By one calculation, the mayor’s goal will need 38,000 new homes, or 4,700 per year – 1,000 more than the city currently permits per annum.
In this respect, Sullivan Square and the entire Rutherford Avenue corridor is blessed. The Boston Planning & Development Agency’s PLAN: Charlestown acknowledges this, recommending heights of up to 250 feet around Sullivan Square and 350 feet around Bunker Hill Community College, with floor-area ratios of 6 in both places. We applaud them for this. But that ratio may be insufficient.
The difference between 250 feet and One Mystic’s 279 feet is fairly small. The real change is in the FAR. Combined with a height reduction, slimming the tower down from an FAR of 8 to 6 means the loss of 168 units, by the developer’s calculations. That’s 168 households that will have to compete with other, likely less well-off Bostonians for existing apartments.
The larger a building can be built, also, the easier it is to add affordable units. A 250-foot building with an FAR of 6 must build much of the same foundations, parking and high-speed elevators as a 279-foot building with an FAR of 8. The fewer units those costs can be spread out over, the less room there is to hit the city’s affordability targets – or, as in One Mystic’s case, accept market rents between 10 percent and 30 percent below what’s typical for a building with its amenities.
A vocal slice of the neighborhood feels anything other than low-rise development in this area is an unacceptable “impact.” But it’s worth asking: Can you quantify that impact? Most of these new residents will walk or take the T. And the property taxes One Mystic and other buildings will generate will certainly be sufficient to cover new municipal services like fire trucks, schools or libraries.
There’s also a question of democracy here.
First, the vast majority of the neighborhood hasn’t weighed in on One Mystic or PLAN: Charlestown; the BPDA’s own surveys for the latter garnered less than 200 responses, for example. Looking at other communities’ experiences, that can legitimately be construed as support for bigger buildings. And plenty of other rich Boston neighborhoods see their neighboring skyscrapers as visual amenities – just look at how many Back Bay and South End homeowners have built themselves roof decks with sweeping skyline views.
Second, is it democracy when a vocal minority from a wealthy enclave – median income $91,067 – is able to block development of new homes on a scale that would have regional implications?
Letters to the editor of 350 words or less in response to this editorial or any other content in Banker & Tradesman may be submitted via email at editorial@thewarrengroup.com with the subject line “Letter to the Editor,” or mailed to the offices of The Warren Group. Submission is not a guarantee of publication.
