General South Bay Development (Formerly Gateway Center)

[tmac9wr]

How are they going to build over this? It seems like most of the highways are above ground. It makes sense with the Pike since so much of it is below grade, but how are they gonna do it here? Are they just going to build around the elevated parts?

 

[JANAM]

Parcel 25 + Sheldon Adelson = Casino?? Infrastructure is already in place, (South Station, 93 & 90), and he prefers urban locations.

 

[whighlander]

How are they going to build over this? It seems like most of the highways are above ground. It makes sense with the Pike since so much of it is below grade, but how are they gonna do it here? Are they just going to build around the elevated parts?

Think the Pru and the Copley Place complexes -- you build on the open spots and deck over the highway ramps and even the main barrel of I-93 an be covered -- the dimensions of Pru & Copley are comparable to the "Gateway"

 

[datadyne007]

Parcel 25 + Sheldon Adelson = Casino?? Infrastructure is already in place, (South Station, 93 & 90), and he prefers urban locations.

That is actually a brilliant idea. That would be the best purpose for the "deck" in my opinion. Critical points of entry and drop-off zones would be on the ground level and the casino level would be elevated up on top of the ramps on the deck. The only other use for a deck I can see is a mall (ala Pru/Copley Place) and we have enough of those.

 

[Shepard]

I do see how this could work with a sort of Pru/Copley approach... but, I don't see how that would be consistent with a piecemeal approach.

I understand the piecemeal approach for bits of the parcel fronting Kneeland, or Lincoln, or Surface/Albany street... but, looking at the satellite view Justin7 posted, the southeastern quadrant has no local road access, and neither does the extreme southwestern bit that currently has that strange little shack. How, in that case, could these be sold piecemeal? Or, will they be superimposing some sort of street grid (how?)

 

[gyro]

how exactly do you just get rid of a steam generation plant? I mean I think it would be a major improvement, but Trigen isnt going to just want to pick up and leave, right?

 

[whighlander]

That is actually a brilliant idea. That would be the best purpose for the "deck" in my opinion. Critical points of entry and drop-off zones would be on the ground level and the casino level would be elevated up on top of the ramps on the deck. The only other use for a deck I can see is a mall (ala Pru/Copley Place) and we have enough of those.

Data -- parcel 25 is actually quite small 75,000 sq ft although mention is made of the adjacent parcels all of which have access from existing roads and / or the HOV ramps

if the max FAR with specified 300 ft height is used you end up with 20+ floors of office or near 30 floors of hotel / residence total of 700,000 sq ft.

Not sure if that's enough for a major Hotel / casino

see the official document on the offering

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...iBlmRSHTWr4yDYmRw&sig2=peqhXWWCJ5LlXgPa5g6i9A

 

[datadyne007]

how exactly do you just get rid of a steam generation plant? I mean I think it would be a major improvement, but Trigen isnt going to just want to pick up and leave, right?

Scroll back a couple pages in this (now merged) thread. Trigen was going to move the plant.

Edit: Post 97 from our resident dog, tobyjug.

 

[whighlander]

I do see how this could work with a sort of Pru/Copley approach... but, I don't see how that would be consistent with a piecemeal approach.

I understand the piecemeal approach for bits of the parcel fronting Kneeland, or Lincoln, or Surface/Albany street...

Shep -- if you think about Pru / Copley over the past 30 to 40 years it has evolved piecemeal -- its just started big and added mostly small

No particular reason you couldn't start with medium scale to the North and West where the existing streets already provide access and build big later to the South and East using the HOV ramps for access as in the case of both the Pru and the Copley complexes "private ramps" off of the Pike ramps

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

What's nice about this whole parcel is that you can build nicer buildings along the edges, where people are going to be entering and interacting with the buildings, and stick the garages, mechanics, and other obtrusive stuff back over the awkward highway parcels. There is a lot more to work with here than with Columbus Center.

 

[whighlander]

What's nice about this whole parcel is that you can build nicer buildings along the edges, where people are going to be entering and interacting with the buildings, and stick the garages, mechanics, and other obtrusive stuff back over the awkward highway parcels. There is a lot more to work with here than with Columbus Center.

Van -- i think that you've characterized it well as to the opportunities

There are of course further challenges posed by the complexity of the BIG DIG structures (essentially you can't put any loads on them, need tor ventilation of the covered ramps and highway) and the weird material (trash left over from the 1872 fire, dead wooden ships, etc.) originally used to fill most of mud flats in that area

I suspect that the foundations need to be mostly deep drilled shafts to the heavy clay or even the underlying rock ( Cambridge Argillite )

 

[Beton Brut]

Re: Parcel 25 - Southern Gateway

That map is being referred to as if it is an official FAA map on a few threads now. I don't think so. My guess is that it is a reporter's interpretation based on past FAA statements regarding particular projects, IPOD's and Master Plans.

Can someone clarify the source of that FAA map?

I'm asking because Parcel 25 would be a PERFECT area for soaring towers, and may be well situated even by FAA standards. Also, FAA may be able to accommodate development density by shifting flight patterns, especially for areas that are outside of some critical radius from Logan.

This might be tougher than architecture junkies like us would imagine.

Consider:

• Runway 9/27 is aimed right at this site;
• The FAA clipped the spire off of the South Station Tower proposal, took issue with the height of the Winthrop Square and Harbor Garage proposals, and even expressed concern at the height of Columbus Center;
• Westbound departing flights already bank sharply south immediately after lifting off from 9/27.

Given the existing landscape of towers in proximity to Logan, I think 600'-700' might be the max for this location. If someone wants to build a real monster, they'll need to look at North Station or the Congress Street Garage.

 

[whighlander]

Re: Parcel 25 - Southern Gateway

This might be tougher than architecture junkies like us would imagine.


Given the existing landscape of towers in proximity to Logan, I think 600'-700' might be the max for this location. If someone wants to build a real monster, they'll need to look at North Station or the Congress Street Garage.

Bet -- the official RFP issued by Mass DOT talks of 300 feet and FAR of 10 on a 70,000 sq ft site = 700,000 sq ft. -- the "of right" height limit is 100 feet

My guess is 300 feet to perhaps 350 feet including a mechanical penthouse with max 40,000 sq ft floor plates on a 70,000 sq ft site -- that translates into about 25 stories max with average floors of 27,000 sq ft.

so you could envision an 8 to 10 floor pedestal with 40,000 sq ft floor plates for retail and research labs with the upper 15 floors a slimmer 20,000 sq ft floor plate for residences and hotel uses

the above is far from the tall thin tower which you are talking about

 

[Sicilian]

Re: Parcel 25 - Southern Gateway

This might be tougher than architecture junkies like us would imagine.

Consider:

• Runway 9/27 is aimed right at this site;
• The FAA clipped the spire off of the South Station Tower proposal, took issue with the height of the Winthrop Square and Harbor Garage proposals, and even expressed concern at the height of Columbus Center;
• Westbound departing flights already bank sharply south immediately after lifting off from 9/27.

Given the existing landscape of towers in proximity to Logan, I think 600'-700' might be the max for this location. If someone wants to build a real monster, they'll need to look at North Station or the Congress Street Garage.

Good points.

Perhaps mistaken, I think South Station tower has cleared state approvals (a Chapter 91 exemption) at upwards of 1000'. Is there any data about the clipping of that spire to suggest a final height for the South Station tower?

Most flights I've observed off 27 seem to head directly over Fan Pier and the Fort Point neighborhood, sometimes directly over the Channel. Once in a while they bank sharply west, directly for downtown, long before Parcel 25. I haven't seen flights bank west directly over Parcel 25 but wouldn't doubt it.

I do think Parcel 25 is far enough away from Runway 27 for the FAA to make some adjustments to flight patterns in order to accommodate greater height. Certainly more than 700' given that One Financial Center's antenna is (according to Wiki) already at 683'.

^whighlander -- wow, 300' ? Could a developer afford to cap the ramps and still produce a viable project?

 

[whighlander]

Re: Parcel 25 - Southern Gateway

^whighlander -- wow, 300' ? Could a developer afford to cap the ramps and still produce a viable project?

Sicil --- I think the lab / retail could cover all the rest of the site (leaving off 15 feet for sidewalks) and then just lightly deck over the relatively narrow ramps or even the main barrel of the highway for landscape purposes

Structurally this is a lot like a suspended ceiling versus a real ceiling and floors above -- a far cry from Columbus Center or any of the other major 'built on air-rights' directly above a wide major RoW where the deck has to hold up a building instead of just itself, turf and some planter boxes

 

[Beton Brut]

Re: Parcel 25 - Southern Gateway

Perhaps mistaken, I think South Station tower has cleared state approvals (a Chapter 91 exemption) at upwards of 1000'. Is there any data about the clipping of that spire to suggest a final height for the South Station tower?

I think the actual discussion about the FAA trimming the proposed height was lost when the board crashed back in 2006. It's alluded to in the first few pages in the SST thread, and on Emporis as well.

Most flights I've observed off 27 seem to head directly over Fan Pier and the Fort Point neighborhood, sometimes directly over the Channel. Once in a while they bank sharply west, directly for downtown, long before Parcel 25. I haven't seen flights bank west directly over Parcel 25 but wouldn't doubt it.

9 = 90 degrees (due East) 27 = 270 degrees (due West). Any banking would be to the South (a climbing turn to the left).

I do think Parcel 25 is far enough away from Runway 27 for the FAA to make some adjustments to flight patterns in order to accommodate greater height. Certainly more than 700' given that One Financial Center's antenna is (according to Wiki) already at 683'.

I think the FAA's height concerns would be driven by emergency scenarios (bird-strikes, aborted take-offs, ice on the wings, catastrophic loss of engines or flight controls, etc).

^whighlander -- wow, 300' ? Could a developer afford to cap the ramps and still produce a viable project?

That's a good question. How much of the entire site is terra firma? What would the cost associated with replacing the Trigen co-generation plant, or relocating the below-grade steam-tunnels? Someone smarter than me will need to figure that out...

 

[Shepard]

I read through the RFP documents. To clarify, Parcel 25 refers only to the top left quadrant of this site, and requires the developer to coordinate the development with the other intended uses of the South Bay parcels, 26a, 26b (the steam plant block) and 27 (the bottom right quadrant surrounded by highway ramps). So, I assume nothing yet needs to happen with the steam plant for development on parcel 25 to begin.

For Parcel 25 the guidelines are minimum 100'. But: if in excess of 150' there's a requirement for a 50' setback from Kneeland Street. I don't understand this kind of thing. Why either needlessly damage urbanity or needlessly incentivize a 100' cube?

 

[whighlander]

I read through the RFP documents. To clarify, Parcel 25 refers only to the top left quadrant of this site, and requires the developer to coordinate the development with the other intended uses of the South Bay parcels, 26a, 26b (the steam plant block) and 27 (the bottom right quadrant surrounded by highway ramps). So, I assume nothing yet needs to happen with the steam plant for development on parcel 25 to begin.

For Parcel 25 the guidelines are minimum 100'. But: if in excess of 150' there's a requirement for a 50' setback from Kneeland Street. I don't understand this kind of thing. Why either needlessly damage urbanity or needlessly incentivize a 100' cube?

Shep -- basically agree -- I might like to see a 50 or more foot setback at the top floor of the building but allow the ground floor facade to go right up to a wide sidewalk 915 feet?)

Relative to the pedestrian environment, I usually find unappealing the idea of a really tall wall rising straight-up from the sidewalk -- well OK it can make for dramatic photographs

Go up two, three or maybe even five floors -- then step back to both open the street and deflect the vicious down drafts well above head height

 

[KentXie]

I currently work in one of the skyscrapers within that area (though I won't specify because I don't want to say something here that might jeopardize my job) and what I'm guessing is about 390ft up. I can see planes taking off from Logan and I would say that towers within this vicinity should be at most 700 ft. The planes are fairly low when passing this area.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

We'd be lucky to see building the height of Atlantic Wharf proposed, to be honest. No need to be talking about 700 ft, 800 ft, 1000 ft, etc.