Government Real Estate

BBJ: City Hall to Approve Tax Break and 600-Foot High Boston Garden Project

Boston Garden Project on Causeway Street (Rendering from BRA documents)

In the rush for development approvals before the end of the Menino administration, Boston Properties and Delaware North Companies have garnered a “blighted area” designation from Boston City Hall that would allow for a sizable tax break on the $1 billion Boston Garden Project, according to Thomas Grillo of the Boston Business Journal.

The City is also expected to approve the full height of a proposed 600-foot tower that drew criticism from members of the citizen’s Impact Advisory Group selected to advise city officials on the project. A Boston Redevelopment Authority board meeting is set for December 19th and it will be the last under Mayor Menino’s watch.

In addition to the proposed 45-story residential tower (600′ high), the phased project will include two smaller towers, a 25-story office building (420′ high) and 20-story hotel (350′ high). Below grade parking and a four story entertainment complex comprises the foundation of the project. There is no word yet as whether the developer will be able to secure a supermarket operator for the ground floor. A supermarket is currently planned for the site, but not obligated as part of the project.

Read the Boston Business Journal article, Menino, Boston Properties reach deal on TD Garden project.

12 Replies to “BBJ: City Hall to Approve Tax Break and 600-Foot High Boston Garden Project

    1. I agree, even greater news that a bunch of loud mouthed complainers didn’t destroy the project and make it a 400 ft tower that would mess up the entire scale of things. Hopefully more great projects will go up after Menino leaves. Boston needs a couple of landmark towers over 800ft to break up the 500ft sea wall of stumpy buildings downtown.

      1. My, my. Aren’t we a little bitter talking about Mayor Menino in such a way?
        And referring to people as ‘loudmouthed’.

  1. Love it! Size and design from rendering look like they will compliment the Love Joy Wharf development nicely

  2. I actually like the project itself, but the tax break is a complete waste of public funds. It’s not like they would have walked away without it.

  3. It has been refreshing to see and feel the open space around us since the green monster was taken down……now other monsters are being constructed, and there goes the open space.

    1. But this is ugly, unutilized space. And this project is clearly an improvement which will clean up that wasteland of an area.

  4. “A supermarket is currently planned for the site, but not obligated as part of the project.” the supermarket was suppose to be located at One Canal, but was given a waiver. Now, this project is not obligated. The promised supermarket has been passed from project to project. Can someone explain why and let reward them all with tax breaks.

  5. This is the perfect location for height where the buildings won’t cast shadows on a residential neighborhood. If you want “open space” move to the suburbs. The greenway as it is is underutilized so I really don’t see the need for open space on Causeway Street. The developers should probably be paying for roadway improvements rather than getting tax incentives but I’m just happy to see things moving forward.

    1. Have you been to Paris. One never gets a feeling of being closed in. It is a very large sprawled-out city with plenty of light and a sense of space, and without tall imposing buildings. It would be a good trick if Boston would retain its provincial look and feeling.

  6. Can someone in the know please post a link to the developer’s shadow studies, showing that the 600 foot tall tower three blocks to the west of this neighborhood won’t cast afternoon shadows over the North End? The only mention of shadow impact that I’ve been able to find is here: and it must be for an earlier version of the plan because it describes one 300 and one 200 foot tall tower. Thanks.

  7. I cannot believe that the project is getting tax breaks and making no contribution to the transport and other infrastructure that will be required as a direct result.

Comments are closed.