Whose views?
Without neighborhood clout, some Bostonians shafted on sunlight
The angry residents of Strada234 call themselves ''Down In Front."
Banded together to protect their views from what they see as the looming encroachment of the planned Lovejoy Wharf development next door, they say their panoramas of Boston and the harbor will turn into dark walls, punctuated by glazed peeks into their new neighbors' living rooms.
The battle between Strada234 and Lovejoy Wharf ''has taken away comfort from anyone in the city who's buying a property in the second row of seats without the first row being filled," says Jennifer Hertz, 35, a bankruptcy lawyer whose Strada condo currently has a sweeping view of the Leonard P. Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge.
''It's beautiful," she says proudly. ''With sunsets in summer, a big, new beautiful bridge, and some water."
But because of the plans for Lovejoy, she says, ''You can't be confident about what you're buying in the second row, because the law can be changed at any time to suit a developer's interest."
A room with a view is the nesting ideal of city life. Windows overlooking the water, or Boston landmarks, or opening to the sun and sky, become prized portals to ward off the bricked-up blues of urban claustrophobia.
Yet in the rapidly changing landscape of downtown Boston, where each new development vies for its slice in the shrinking pie of picture-pretty tableaux, today's vista could be tomorrow's mirage. The scenery comes with a price tag, but it does not come with a money-back guarantee. Who owns the panoramas? Everybody and nobody -- and there's the rub. Ultimately, Boston views are fragile and subject to change, and nowhere is this truer than along the Waterfront.
Inland, the development hotbeds, such as the Back Bay, Beacon Hill, and the South End, have vigilant citizen posse architectural groups who work with the city's Environment Department and Zoning Board of Appeal to protect sight lines. The Beacon Hill Architectural Commission, for example, is constantly beset by neighbor fights over renegade roof decks, which the commission, staffed by a city official, often nixes.
In the North End recently, a Quincy developer was forced to modify an illegal penthouse he stacked on top of a historic building at 42 Snow Hill St. because it lacked the proper permits and it blocked views. At a neighborhood meeting to discuss what to do about the Snow Hill incursion, Charles Colburn, Boston's chief building inspector, warned that these situations will come up more frequently with any development in sight of the harbor. Colburn compared properties with any possibility of a water view with ''Deadwood in the gold rush."
The North End neighborhood groups are vigilant about height issues, but Strada234, at the intersection of Causeway and North Washington streets, is at a disadvantage. The property is on the border of the North End and the Bulfinch Triangle.
''Unfortunately, the Strada people are all alone," says David Kubiak, a member of the North End/Waterfront Residents Association and activist who monitors development. The association is aware of the Strada problem, but has not come out in vigorous support of its residents.
The isolation has caused misconceptions. A few of those who support the Lovejoy development, says Hertz, have insinuated the Strada band is composed of ''rich babies who should take their Mercedes and move somewhere else." She begs to differ. ''We're the kind of people the city of Boston would like living in its neighborhoods."
Somewhat surprisingly, Vivien Li, guardian of water views as the executive director of the Boston Harbor Association, has little sympathy for Down In Front.
''It's not a given that you will have a view for the rest of your life," she says.
Li points out that only a few residents of Strada will lose views. ''The people most agitated are the people on the higher floors." She is more concerned with the amount of ground-level amenities, such as public parkland and restroom facilities, that the developer must provide for getting permission to raise the height.
Li concedes she could have been tougher on a views issue in the past, when the Simons
At the time, the strapped Aquarium's then-director argued the movie theater was necessary for its survival. ''He wrapped himself in motherhood," remembers Li, who had a part in the approval process. ''There was a lot of political pressure." Now, she decries ''the monstrosity. . . . That ugly building is there forever. It doesn't get much uglier than that."
The supporters of the Lovejoy Wharf development argue the new buildings will not be ugly, and will only accrue value to Strada. ''A beautiful building enhances your view," says Robert O'Brien, executive director of the Downtown North Association, a business-oriented activist group.
Such was not the consideration in 2003 when the Strada condos hit the market. Situated next to the decrepit Hoffman Building at Lovejoy Wharf, the 180 condos at Strada234, priced between $600,000 and $1.6 million, were a tough sell at first. Then Otis & Ahearn, the marketing agent, came up with a catchy slogan, ''360-Degree Views." The Down In Fronters all bought on the north side of the building, lavishly within sight of the Boston Harbor, TD Banknorth Garden, and the Zakim Bridge.
Now, the views of 20 residents will fade behind the new Lovejoy Wharf makeover of the Hoffman Building, the next-door neighbor on the lip of the Charlestown Bridge. Strada234, a former bakery for Stop & Shop, was also once a pile of bricks before its makeover and metrosexy name change.
''This is a lot more than about rich yuppies" complaining ''about their view," says Joshua Cummings, 35, a Strada resident whose panorama of the Zakim Bridge will be ''nothing" if the Lovejoy plan goes through. Cummings, who works for an investment company, defends his due diligence regarding the Hoffman Building's future. ''I remember standing on our terrace with the broker and talking about that building. What the broker failed to tell us was that the Muncipal Harbor Plan can be changed. It was like a sin of omission. What they didn't tell us was that any developer with enough money and connections could get the law changed," he says.
The developers of the Lovejoy Wharf site, Ajax Management Partners, seek to build additional residential stories and raise the height of the Hoffman Building from 122 feet to 155 feet -- topped off by ''mechanicals," such as air conditioning, that could tack on 30 more feet at some spots -- as well as to enlarge an adjacent parcel at 131 Beverly St. The result will yield 250 new condos and 350 parking spaces in a state-of-the-art robotic garage.
To accomplish all this, Ajax must get an amendment waiver of the state's Chapter 91 law, which limits any new development to a height of 55 feet at water's edge. The BRA and the Downtown North Association fully support the Ajax proposal. O'Brien says the plan to renovate Lovejoy has been on the boards for 20 years, and shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. The BRA board voted earlier this month to approve an amendment to the Municipal Harbor Plan, which is part of the Chapter 91 regulations.
One irony of the controversy is that the developers of Strada got their own waiver in 1999, when they built up that building from 120 to 155 feet, provoking protest from North End activists such as Kubiak and the North End/Waterfront Residents Association members.
However, because Strada was not officially part of the North End and had no other residences within sight, the height variance was allowed. Now, the residents say they shouldn't bear the burden for this original sin.
Down In Front does have its supporters, notably Marty Walz, the state representative from the Back Bay whose compromise proposal calls for the Lovejoy development to stay at the current height of the Hoffman Building.
Unsympathetic neighbors, meanwhile, suggest the Down In Fronters didn't do their homework before buying their Strada units.
''We chose not to buy on the north side because we did our due diligence and estimated that Lovejoy was going to increase in massing. We knew that something was going to happen," says Philippe Winthrop, 32, whose unit faces Causeway Street. ''Nothing can make my view of Causeway any worse and nothing will change my view of Old North Church," he says. ''Much of the North End would have to radically change for me to lose my view of the Old North Church."
The Down In Fronters defend their due diligence, saying they were assured by the BRA's documented Municipal Harbor Plan, which contained no advisory that conditions could change on the Lovejoy site. They now charge the BRA with ''spot zoning" and say the situation they face could happen anywhere a view-hog developer wants to put up a big building.
Developer Robert Easton, a principal at Ajax, comments during a conference call from Europe. On the phone, he is joined by Carolyn Spicer, an executive vice president of McDermott Ventures, a consulting firm guiding Ajax through the shoals of Boston politics.
Easton labels the Strada flap as ''the tragedy of public process sometimes." He promotes the development's potential benefits to the community: an acre of public parkland, a cleanup of the Hoffman blight. ''We're very confident this is a better project for that community, but some individuals take a selfish view of things." Easton says the roofline of Lovejoy Wharf has been angled to accommodate Strada peepers. The developer's design concession does not appease the view finders.
''We live on the north side of the building, on the 10th and 11th floors," says Dr. Robert Sarno, 60, the dean of admissions at Tufts Medical School, an empty nester who moved to the city from the suburbs. Sarno and his wife sold off the family home in Milton after sending two kids to college, and moved into a brand-new Strada duplex two years ago.
''We have a view of the Zakim Bridge, part of Charlestown, the Charlestown Monument, part of the harbor, and the top of the Garden." If the Lovejoy development goes through as planned? ''I would lose the entire bridge, the entire Charlestown, and parts of the harbor," he says. ''My views would be completely demolished."
Jamy Madeja, an attorney hired by the Strada group, says there's a ''long list of legitimate concerns one could make" when looking at possible litigation, ranging from ''the process issues of municipal harbor planning" to wetlands details.
And the views issue?
''As I understand, loss of view is not a causable action you can sue on," says Hertz.
Madeja disagrees. She thinks you can build a case ''when the loss of private view impacts the public experience. Lower in front, higher in back maximizes the public experience."
After its recent vote to amend the Municipal Harbor Plan, the BRA moved the matter on to the state's Executive Office of Environmental Affairs for approval. Developer Easton says he expects to begin construction early next year. ''We have an awful lot of respect for our neighbors who paid an awful lot of money for condominiums. But we disagree with the view that they own their view and have the right to sue over it."
The north side residents of Strada234 grimly anticipate the new blankness where once a gorgeous suspension bridge laced the horizon. Janet Sweeney, 43, imagines the worst: ''I'll probably just see brick walls and windows, somebody else's terrace maybe. We'll be passing hors d'oeuvres between terraces."
E-mail Monica Collins at mcollins @globe.com
Mess not with the king's tidelands
The tidelands regulations, under Chapter 91 of Massachusetts law, go back to the king's realm, protecting the public's right to ''fishing, fowling, and navigation," according to Vivien Li, executive director of the Boston Harbor Association. ''No one envisioned back then that we would have skyscrapers."
Skyscrapers are subject to Chapter 91, and to the municipal harbor plans forged by coastal cities and towns. Basically, the Chapter 91 formula for waterside development stipulates that no new or expanded building can be over 55 feet within 100 feet of the high water mark. If variances are allowed, the developer must provide public amenities such as restrooms, elevators, and walkways.
MONICA COLLINS
What do you think?
Has your view ever been ruined by development? Should people have a ''right" to their views? Send your response to City Weekly at ciweek@globe.com. Please include your name, a daytime phone number, and your neighborhood or community. Responses may be edited for length and grammar.
