Why 2 Charlesgate West Project should be Exempted from Park & Parkways Ordinance

As Published by The Boston Sun on 11/14/24

When I ran for office, I featured the iconic footbridge of the Public Garden behind my name on my campaign logo, because Boston’s parks were integral to my sense of belonging here. As a young professional just out of college, finding housing in Boston was a huge challenge. The costs were often steep, and the sacrifices I had to make were unsustainable. Many of the students and recent graduates I hear from as District 8’s City Councilor face the same issue. They love this city, want to contribute their talents, but can’t find a place to call home.

A year into my tenure, two core priorities I hold close—protecting our parkland and increasing housing opportunities—came into direct conflict. The proposal for 2 Charlesgate West in the Fenway, proposed by Morro sought to work around City of Boston Ordinances, 7-4.10, “Restrictions on Park Frontages,” colloquially known as the Parks and Parkways Ordinance, which provides important protections for our City’s green spaces by requiring necessary setbacks and height restrictions for parcels of land abutting the parks, by seeking a subdivision of the parcel. The plan to allow for a subdivision of the parcel would have created a harmful precedent. This precedent-setting regulatory path didn’t sit right with me, Parks advocates or most importantly the Boston Parks and Recreation Department (BPRD). We know that the ordinance is a crucial safeguard that protects our open spaces, including the historic Emerald Necklace. The original strategy would have set a dangerous precedent, opening the door for future development projects to bypass this vital protection.

In response to this dilemma and community concerns, I authored an amendment that creates a one-time, site-specific exemption for 2 Charlesgate West. This amendment passed last week with strong support from my colleagues on the Boston City Council. Importantly, this is not a blanket change to the Parks and Parkways Ordinance, but a carefully crafted site-specific solution that preserves the integrity of the ordinance, while allowing for the development of 400 units of housing (17% IDP, including 68 units of affordable housing) on this particular site.

Here’s why this amendment strikes a necessary balance:

1. No Precedent for Future Circumvention: The amendment doesn’t set a new precedent; the ordinance has been amended before for specific addresses, yet this amendment only allows for the confines of the BPDA board approved project, including the nuances of specific height and setbacks. 

2. Affirming the City's Commitment: The site-specific amendment upholds the position of the Boston Parks and Recreation Department (BPRD) that the “proponent seek an amendment to the Municipal Code from the City Council so that its effort to exempt the project from the height restriction does not set a precedent that would have significant negative impact on the iconic design; historic landscape materials; and user experience of the parks and parkways of the Emerald Necklace.”

3. Limited Use of Site-Specific Amendments: Since 1985, no other site-specific amendments have been sought, making it clear this will not become a frequent tool to alter parkland protections.

By ensuring that this amendment is carefully tailored, we maintain the strength of the Parks and Parkways Ordinance while addressing the pressing need for housing. The 2002 Fenway neighborhood zoning plan identified the parcel in question as a gateway parcel, allowing for additional height at this specific site, but this amendment provides a path forward for this specific site that doesn’t undermine the ordinance. 

The amendment that passed the City Council reflects a critical balance: protecting our cherished parks, while allowing for responsible development that meets the housing needs of a growing city. This careful, site-specific amendment allows for this important project that meets our City’s housing needs, but not in a way that pits our priorities against each other. Our amendment threads a needle that few have been able to thread, one that prioritizes a city that grows responsibly, stays true to its historic values, and provides opportunities for everyone to call Boston home.

Sharon Durkan is a Boston City Councilor Representing District 8.