wow you NIMBY’s are weird, you seem to want everything - - substantial affordable housing opportunities in the the neighborhood, created because of the development, general housing opportunities in the neighborhood, generation of an active streetscape at that block, redevelopment a long vacant building, AND refurbishment of an unimpressive older building (thats not protected by City or State landmark organizations)?? If you want to live in a museum, move to the Midwest.

kevin: What letter were you reading? No where did Jeff (author of letter) mentioned anything about “substantial affordable housing” as you suggested. In fact if you read the letter closely, you could have deduced that he was in favor of the original design, which was a larger development than the compromise.

Jeff wrote: “In fact, I am strongly in favor of the original design proposed by the developer, both for its graceful design, contextual sensitivity and urban planning elements.”

thats exactly my point Mr. Blogger…is that he wanted it all, housing, affordable housing, maintaining the older building, etc. The fact is there has to be a compromise, in this case, the compromise was lower height - therefore, something had to give and it was removing the older building, which was of no proven historical significance. All this aside, the city just approved this project today to overwhelming community and political support. This will be a wonderful addition to the city, the greenway, and most importantly to the great neighborhood of Chinatown.

kevin: With all due respect, again, he never mentioned a single word about housing, or affordable housing but you keep insisting he wants it all. What the author of the letter did say was he wanted to preserve the old Dainty Dot. The original design in the developer’s words, was going to be a “28-story iconic tower next to the Greenway” which would also preserve the Dainty Dot. In the compromise that reduced the height of the building, the developer Hudson Group is taking a hit financially, which made preserving the Dainty Dot not feasible. I don’t think this is the NIMBYism as you insist. I interpreted the letter as that if a tower was to be built, he rather have a taller “iconic” tower that preserves the Dainty Dot, rather than a mediocre tower. Also, a higher tower does not automatically equate to more affordable housing, because Hudson Group can just as well have those units as market-rate. The affordable units are built off-site on nearby Oxford St. which is capped at some number in the 40s (don’t have exact number now).

the difference in height is 30 feet or 3 stories, how do you go from “iconic” to “turd” in 3 stories? The Oxford Street number is 47, hooray for Hudson Group at working with Chinatown to create such a substantial benefit for Chinatown residents and others - this greatly outweighs 3 stories and an ugly, old building. Mr. Blogger, even though this is your site I don’t need you to mediate the conversation, I think we’re clear on your intent, If Jeff felt he needed to respond he would.

kevin: Because you came out swinging and I need to manage the comments section so it doesn’t start looking like the Boston Herald. I’m not opposed to posting contrary views, why don’t you write a rebuttal? You can send me an email, which is posted in the About page.

Kevin,

I feel a bit compelled to respond to your comments.

As the Chinatown Blogger noted, I never mentioned afordable housing. That was never a point of my objection to the compromise. I was commenting on the architecture and urban design of the project.

You have obviously never seen the original design. The developer did not just drop 3 floors, he completely changed the design from a sweeping, sail shaped iconic landmark to a 1/4 round cylinder of glass. The difference in the urban design interaction at ground level was also massive. And although the Dainty Dot is not a wonderful structure — it is a blending element that matches the streetscape, and was well used in the original design.

The “3 story compromise” turned an elegant design into a miserable, mediocre compromise. Nobody won.

Jeff, good point. This is really gets to the core of development in Boston: until people get over there misguided conclusion, based on past bureacrat mistakes, of height being bad and realize the many benefits of tall buildings, from sustainability to improved quality of life, there will always be this haggling around public benefits and furthering Boston’s mediocre skyline.