171 Tremont Street | Downtown

Why did they cave so easily? Marty is pro development and considering tremont on the common next door 350' isn't so crazy.
 
JeffDowntown said:
Also the key point in the Atlanta example is -- if you want to preserve your views, then you PAY FOR THE RIGHTS -- as in AIR RIGHTS -- to preserve your view. No money up front for the view rights (and it is not your 20th floor unit that counts -- it is the air around that unit that counts) then you are just a cry baby.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY.
 
617 said:
Why did they cave so easily? Marty is pro development and considering tremont on the common next door 350' isn't so crazy.
Click to expand...

Marty is completely full of shit. He talked the talk and I half believed him despite the fact that he was an establishmentarian, pro union Irish politician... But he's revealed himself to cave time and again. He's offered nothing new or visionary, and hasn't defended any sort of meaningful change from the bully pulpit. I'll give him the expanded liquor licenses, ok. But what about all these developments? Someone needs to stand up to the neighborhoods. And what about the fucking BRA?
 
This is disappointing news. It's not as if there wasn't precedent for building "tall" on this site. Not to mention that it looked like a solid, trim design. That said I'm happy with 20 stories over what's there now.
 
FK4 said:
Marty is completely full of shit. He talked the talk and I half believed him despite the fact that he was an establishmentarian, pro union Irish politician...
Click to expand...

What does his ethnicity have to do with it? What if he was black? Would you identify him as an "establishmentarian, pro union black politician"?

FK4 said:
Someone needs to stand up to the neighborhoods. And what about the fucking BRA?
Click to expand...

Isn't the city the neighborhoods? Why would the elected representatives "stand up" to the people they are supposed to represent? To tell them they don't know what's good for them? Why do you know better what's good for them?

I'm all for a taller building here. But I can't help but take issue with these specific comments.
 
Pretty disappointing this one has been chopped down. Reminds me of a miniature scale of something that's going up in London. Going to have a really nice cluster of glass when all's said and done.
 
Oof. I find the proportions on this just atrocious. Especially with actual towers looming behind it, this looks like a "real tower" shrunk down to scale and plopped onto Tremont.
 
Is it just me, or does it seem that there is really no significant view blocking given the positions of this proposal and both Millennium towers?
 
Hutchison said:
I don't know that there was ever any rendering/plan for the old proposal, but here it the new one:

http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/getattachment/fac78f72-a59d-4b40-99a8-1d2cb9577bde
Click to expand...

Maybe I've had too much sencha today, but the cover illustration on this PNF seems to have snow banks drawn in along the sidewalks on the far side of Tremont, whereas the Common in the foreground is all leafed out in summer foliage. Am I seeing this? [it is a triviality, I know, slow day here...]

I'm fine with the height of this iteration. It seems to fit well in its context. I generally share the preference for height and density that seems the default mood here at aB, but I do not feel that taller and taller is always better, and everywhere, no matter what. I'm not accusing anyone on this thread of having said that: I'm stating that for me, some sites cry out for some restraint, at a height which is of course wide open for dispute.

So, my two cents: Less height than this iteration would have been dumb. A few more floors than this would have been fine here, too. Another ten would have seemed a bit too spindly for its place along the Common edge, and another twenty would have veered into silly territory. I think the prior iteration was an additional 12 floors? I can't find a rendering upthread, so I'm not going on an actual drawing, just mentally extrapolating from the current one. I just don't see the 12-floor reduction as a loss, and it might be some modest gain (purely on the height issue alone).

Aside from height, the aesthetics otherwise look pretty blah, a missed opportunity. Plenty of that going around. Shame to see it happen right along the Common.
 
I would have liked a taller tower too. Nonetheless, this looks like a solid project that will improve the area.
 
Yes it would have been better if it was taller. That being said this is a solid development that brings some actual high quality architecture to the city.
 
The address of the current building is 172. 171 must sound 'trendier'.
 
sm89 said:
The address of the current building is 172. 171 must sound 'trendier'.
Click to expand...

Interesting quirk of Tremont Street that it abandons odd/even numbering on opposite sides of the street along the Common. Odds and evens appear interspersed along that stretch.
 
From the rendering, the height is about the same as Tremont on the Common. I so wish Tremont on the Common was rental, so it could readily disappear from sight.
 
I decided to make a model to see how it would look as proposed as well as a couple taller versions to see how it changes its impact and how the proportions compare.

255'
kaetPTw.png


400'
6C2UCnw.png


500'
1rSKVhe.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top