[CANCELED] 1000 Boylston Street | MassDOT Parcel 15 | Back Bay

bbfen said:
No. They haven't closed the deal (as of Thursday), therefore permits can't be issued.
Click to expand...

Stupid question: do any of you know what still needs to actually happen for the 'deal to be closed'? Financing? An additional review meeting? A backroom massage?
 
BREAKING NEWS: the site has been fenced off and porta potties delivered.
 
rjacobs said:
Excellent news/info! Thanks for sharing.
Click to expand...

My understanding is the fencing is more or less to deter the indigent encampments that have been there since St. C sold the site, and that the potties are for field workers doing pre-con site evaluations, should a deal be struck. Still no official closing, as of Tuesday morning (at least, to my limited knowledge.)

ETA: I don't think [this] one is as [fully] baked as some folks hope/dream it is.

2nd ETA: bracketed subtext, sorry.....
 
Last edited:
Well the developer gave to much up. It’s going to at least take a 700 ft to make the economics work for this . If I can see it they can see it too. Sell it to MP or Boston properties . They seem to be the only ones that understand economics
 
This is disappointing. But, really it would have been more shocking if this actually got off the ground. Air rights projects should just be viewed as fun little pipe dreams on par with relocating Logan to allow skyscrapers in the Seaport.
 
I can try to find it but in the review process some of the people actually said looking at it now I think it should have been taller. Obviously they need the height here to make it work. This HAS to get done, whatever it is. The holes in this corner of the back bay are unacceptable. We complain about all the tax breaks going out around in the seaport but if thats what it takes to make the economics work over the pike then help them out. These are more than some random empty lots these are massive holes right outside the prudential center that destroy the urban fabric of the back bay right at the corner of friggin mass ave and boylston.

Also the tower here was being built on solid land and only the podium was going over the hole. It wasnt anything like Copley tower or other actual air rights projects, so this tower itself isnt an air rights project. I knew after I read about fears of a recession on wednesday that things that were on the verge would start to drop and here we go. How the hell is the muuuch smaller viola... which has had no news in years, going to be built if this cant? Viola is a no shit air rights project unlike this tower and its like 11 stories. Damnit...
 
^ Good point. Maybe we shouldn't blame "air rights" and consider that the developers may have fucked up something major in the financing of this project.
 
The original proposal included a taller main tower, PLUS an additional fat midrise. Combined the project had over double the amount of units it was reduced to. It never made sense to make BOTH concessions, canning the midrise AND simultaneously chopping down the tower. If anything, removing the midrise should have led to an even bigger single building! So, from the get-go, this made no sense and it's disappointing that an obviously barely feasible project got approved without pushback. It went in the wrong direction with that first revision and should have been steered accordingly.

How tall can this actually go here without running into the onerous "shadow on the parks" rules? When I tell people that the shadow on the common rules were extended to places like Copley I am met with shock. My last friend reacted with "Copley needs more shade in the Summer!" The rules are mostly nonsense and it's shameful that a few minutes of extra early morning shade a couple times a year is enough to scuttle major developments here.

At the end of the day, this should come back as tall as is allowable. Instead of 544', it should go like 900'. However, I am still disappointed. The Back Bay skyline now looks somewhat awkward and lopsided from many angles. 1 Dalton by itself was always going to throw things off. This tower in particular, along with the Copley Tower on the other side, would have gone along way towards (re)balancing out the Back Bay skyline.

I thought the city had turned a corner, but I guess I should be used to disappointing results around here by now. I'm tired of developers blindly being pressured to lower the heights, lower the units (is it a housing CRISIS or isn't it?!), make it the exact heights of the buildings around it, all while trying to extract more and more from the "greedy" developers. It's a wonder anything over 250' gets built here at all!

Where the heck is SST? Why didn't the BPDA try to work with 1 Bromfield about fixing the base/preservation? Why didn't Simon find a partner for Copley Tower? Why is there an insistence on an unworkable number of square feet to replace the Harbor Garage? Why was the Hub residential chopped down so severely, when it's right on top of North Station? Why is that garage by South Station getting so much pushback at just 385', and why wasn't it proposed much taller (and a bit thinner) to begin with? Why is Cambridge, the "hottest market around" still stuck on 290' for everything, and not encouraging Volpe (or any developer) to strive for greatness? Why did they pick the Winthrop Square Tower at 750'-775' when it couldn't be built above 691'? Why is there nonstop building of Seaport stumps in an area with inadequate transit, yet everything being built right by transit (even downtown!) keeps getting cut down/cancelled. The building process here is a JOKE. Over half the proposals 400'+, when we even get them at all, never get out of the ground. Most of them get chopped down and VE'ed at least once. I know I sound like a broken record (or the second coming of another user here) but at some point it's like WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
The next time one of these assholes says, yimby's have some kind of pathological problem with nimby's, MAYBE it's the nimby's and their dickhead enablers who are the actual problem. Yes, they are destroying Boston. Slashing every other project to the bone. Slashing affordable units by 40, 50, 60 and even 70% on project after project after project.

Case in point: the real numbers of the slashing of Tremont Crossing and Harrison-Albany blocks was a loss of ~70% of the affordable units that would have been rendered, had the final floors been included. 45 Worthington lost 100% of it's affordable and un-affordable units. Copley Tower, 100% lost. 1000 Boylston, Columbus Center & 2 Charlesgate W: 100% affordable + un-affordable units lost. How much affordable units would have been added to housing stock along the Harrison-Albany corridor or JP-Rox if the Hub on Causeway went the full 659', or GCG residential tower going the full 700~750' Last time i checked there's still no formal proposal for Central Wharf. The list of slashed, cancelled or un-built goes on and on and on.

Philly has some number close to 30 towers planned between 500 and 1100 feet, and another 40 residential highrises in the 250~420' range. Boston isn't/won't be planning anything close to that scale in the very near future. Nimby's and their enablers on the City Council are giving the most racist, fascist, egregious message to the poor and disenfranchised, worse than any city's but San Francisco, NYC and LA. The message effectively states: KEEP OUT OF MY CITY you young, not white/not rich not my kin assholes.

That's actual message they're sending: loud and clear. Worse, half the assholes who show up to these meetings will be dead within 10 years.
 
Last edited:
Well we've seen before that a hole in the ground can lead to bigger and better things. Losing the housing here stinks, but I don't think this would have made the Back Bay skyline look less awkward.

I am sure this isn't a Boston thing, it happens everywhere.

Plus, look at the all the activity in the West End. Not too bad.
 
If the Back Bay skyline looks "awkward" I wouldn't blame it on 1 Dalton. A more likely culprit are all those 300'-400' stumps. No reason why the Marriot and Westin shouldn't have been built to 600'. Other more recent towers should have been taller as well.
 
JSic said:
If the Back Bay skyline looks "awkward" I wouldn't blame it on 1 Dalton. A more likely culprit are all those 300'-400' stumps. No reason why the Marriot and Westin shouldn't have been built to 600'. Other more recent towers should have been taller as well.
Click to expand...

It looks most awkward from the Northeast, for instance the Longfellow Bridge. This is the angle that would have benefited the most from an additional 500'+. For now, 1 Dalton is kind of smushed up next to/behind the Pru from those angles and takes away the symmetry that once was. This tower would have returned the symmetry, with it and 111 Huntington on either side and the Pru and 1 Dalton in the middle. From the West (Fenway area, driving in on the Pike) 1 Dalton looks stellar, and from the East the Back Bay skyline is barely visible anyway. But, for now I think the current setup is clumsy from many angles. This would have softened that effect.
 
Copley was going to be the key that brought it all back, but... now theyre sitting on their hands doing nothing with an already approved air rights project that was grandfathered in and is fast approaching its expiration. SELL IT, wtf is going on. Theyre letting a gold mine just expire and after it does the back bay is crooked and lopsided forever.
 
Anyone can pull this up on maps and see that the tower was going on solid ground. The viola is an air rights parcel, this had an air rights podium, which at only a couple floors can just be cantilevered. Even at its much reduced scope this would have worked and actually more so minus the height cut. I dont believe them. I look more towards market fears and that it happens now in the week of market panic vs any other week. Seems like they were already unsure and now that theres this “2020 recession” scare which could be bs, they dont wanna wrap up construction right in time to get pantsed.

It can and will work on this site and actually works better without the 2nd tower being built over the pike and instead just the tower on solid ground and the podium. This would have been a piece of cake, hopefully someone else scoops it up. Next cycle I guess...

https://forensicanthropologist.net/
 
Last edited:
DZH22 said:
It looks most awkward from the Northeast, for instance the Longfellow Bridge. This is the angle that would have benefited the most from an additional 500'+. For now, 1 Dalton is kind of smushed up next to/behind the Pru from those angles and takes away the symmetry that once was. This tower would have returned the symmetry, with it and 111 Huntington on either side and the Pru and 1 Dalton in the middle. From the West (Fenway area, driving in on the Pike) 1 Dalton looks stellar, and from the East the Back Bay skyline is barely visible anyway. But, for now I think the current setup is clumsy from many angles. This would have softened that effect.
Click to expand...

I do agree with that, and have noticed the smushing myself, whenever the Pru & Dalton are visible from the southeast. I actually liked the skyline with just the Hancock and Pru (it was visually striking) but with Dalton, it needs more tall buildings now. I actually think another one just as tall would look great as something with some degree of stepped down height.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top