7 thoughts on “Arsenal Yards Developers Show Plans for Biotech Building

  1. For those who are interested. A walk along the new parking garage of 5 ish stories will give you a sense of what walking along Arsenal Street will feel like after the new 5+ story residence and hotel are constructed. The new area will be better landscaped but the height will be the same or greater.

  2. I don’t understand why the tallest structure in this development should be the closest to the river. Since the usage has now shifted to biotech and laboratories, views from the windows are hardly an issue. Shouldn’t this structure be closer to Arsenal Street?

    • It could end up that the structures closer to Arsenal Street will also increase in size. It is obvious at this point that the current plan is not what was original proposed and there is no evidence that the plan will not continue to change even further down the line. It is unfortunate though that such a large structure is this close to the river.

  3. The current zoning rules have no provision for location restrictions. The planning board could have addressed this when they gave approval for the special district. Since this is a change from the original approval the planning department could claim it is a significant change and re-visit the earlier approval. This is very unlikely. The reason the tall building is closest to the river is because this was the most valuable location for residences. I do not understand why the labs are not located on the building with the parking garage and keep the tall building as condos. It probably is the result of what the developer could lease first. Maby someone from BP could explain this decision.

    • Creating the RMUD was a rushed process and more thorough work should have had done on it. A lot more specifics could have been added to the zoning of the district, including what you’ve mentioned, “location restrictions”. I agree that it would make a lot more sense that the labs be “located on the building with the parking garage”.

  4. Regarding “the paths have been redesigned so that fewer trees would be removed compared to the original design”, they could not recall how many trees were to be removed in the previous design and did not know the number of trees that would be removed in the new design. When I stated that I believed it was 12 in the previous design, the response was that it would be that many or fewer, but were not sure of the number. The design was not changed “so that fewer trees would be removed”. I’d also like to comment that it is unfortunate that the $500,000 that Mr. McQuillan had originally claimed would be contributed to the redesign of Arsenal Park is no longer the amount they will be contributing and will be a lesser amount that is still unknown. It would have been helpful if at the time of approval of Master Plan Special Permit, the Planning Department had reached an agreement with the Developer on the amount to be contributed toward the redesign of Arsenal Park.

  5. I appreciate all the thoughtful comments above. I too agree that a lab building should not be allowed so close to the river. Not only issues of height and light at night, but also safety and of what must be increased traffic for waste, some of which will undoubtedly be dangerous. Why not have a taller building at the side of the project instead of by the river and Arsenal Park?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *