The hotel should be replaced, but a squat hulking landscaper just ain't what the doctor ordered. I'm happy this proposal failed, and hopefully they find a LOT more inspiration whenever they do go back to the drawing board.
Midtown Hotel Redevelopment | 220 Huntington Avenue | Back Bay
- Thread starter JSic
- Start date
stick n move
Superstar
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 13,361
- Reaction score
- 23,942
It would either need to be a proposal with multiple buildings or break it up into multiple lots.
What does this mean?
Charlie_mta
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2006
- Messages
- 5,088
- Reaction score
- 7,613
Yeah, the one long landscraper wall depicted above needs to be broken up by a few cross-streets, or at least alleys, and some variable height, including a couple of talls, thrown in the mix. This need seems so elementary and obvious, it makes me wonder why the city can't vet proposals in a way that would encourage it.
It means our resident Steven Miller impersonator cares more about development meeting his personal aesthetic standard than accepting the trade off of a marginally less than perfect development having meaningful impact on the challenges the city’s facing with regard to housing and dramatically improving a long and depressing block.
I assume you're talking about me although didn't know who this was without looking it up. I'll let you know I still have a full head of graying hair, thank you very much.
Here's how I picture you, but I gotta admit you do it better:
It's been at least 15 years since I last read the church's PDA.80 as approved by the then-BRA, but since FCCS owns the land under the Midtown, might there be some height/massing/shadow restrictions in what could be built to replace the Midtown (with respect to the plaza and reflecting pool)? You know, like, building shadows are the Great Satan, but trees provide blessed shade! And all that jazz.
MrDee12345
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2019
- Messages
- 214
- Reaction score
- 347
It's not perfect, but I don't see anything wrong with it. We need the housing and not all buildings need to be perfect.
I suppose if that was ever still possible in this day and age it would be here where the land is owned by a non-profit/church, and thus they could decide that is in their best interests. I'd think, however, even here the best that could be hoped for is pseudo breaks in the facade to simulate different buildings in the mega-block akin to Assembly Square and other developments, unfortunately.
ball_square
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2023
- Messages
- 277
- Reaction score
- 824
The utility of cross-streets is diminished by the geometry of the abutting block of long rowhouses:
You could theoretically have a mid-block cross street from Huntington to Alley 404 but I don't think that does much for pedestrian experience. My hunch is that it's better to use the space for housing or a greenery.
LtKije
New member
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2021
- Messages
- 55
- Reaction score
- 264
I like the landscraper.
The area is already full of "squat hulking landscraper" Art Deco and Brutalist buildings (that look great imo), so it would have fit the vibe of the neighborhood. We live in a city, we can have a little monumentalism sometimes, as a treat.
Faking the appearance of multiple building with facade gimmicks never works. I personally find it to be insulting.
Blackbird
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2014
- Messages
- 1,240
- Reaction score
- 1,818
I’M NOT!
Thanks for reminding me what was lost, though!
That was the best design for a new building here.
Last edited:
I’M NOT!
Thanks for reminding me what was lost, though!
That was the best design for a new building here.
Maybe if they turned it on its side and built 2 of them, with a park in the middle. The cladding was OK but the proportions were brutal.
I have to come back at you one more time. I guess this development isn't happening because I didn't like it. Apparently my opinion has the power to get things cancelled. Who knew? Plus, this was the singular development to end our housing crisis, right at the top of the pipeline. Now the crisis will never end because this one development got shelved. Is that how things work in the La La Land that you inhabit?
If this building matters so much to you, then fund it yourself. Isn't that what you like to say? Go get a loan and get it built. Stop crying and start acting. There's a local housing crisis that only you can solve.
Um, I have a checkered history here of sometimes being an inflammatory, drunk, arse, but could we all take a beat?
Mods, maybe would you might consider locking this for a few days.
I avoid the front page of national newspapers, and don't watch TV news or talk shows any more. This is one of the spaces I treasure for serious, learned discussions about nerd stuff I love (even when I don't contribute, I still like to read threads). I just don't need any more pointless toxicity in my life. :-/
Mods, maybe would you might consider locking this for a few days.
I avoid the front page of national newspapers, and don't watch TV news or talk shows any more. This is one of the spaces I treasure for serious, learned discussions about nerd stuff I love (even when I don't contribute, I still like to read threads). I just don't need any more pointless toxicity in my life. :-/
That’s not what I said. What I said was that you don’t actually give a damn about Boston or the people who live here or the challenges the city’s facing with housing or the street level urban experience and that you see Boston and probably cities in general entirely as repositories for the kind of buildings you like and nothing more. Pretty sure you’ve lamented other successful mid rise developments like the Herald area redevelopment or perhaps it was the Seaport because of a delusion that they somehow reduced demand for theoretical potential high rises elsewhere. The most amusing one was swearing that you’d never visit Providence again if they tore down the Superman building, as if anyone would care about the missed opportunity to sell you a burger and Diet Coke for a 12% tip.
Last edited:
Maybe we can all just agree that this project isn't going to happen for the foreseeable future and any discussion of what should go here is purely academic now:
"But interest rates rose, and so did inflation. The luxury real estate market cooled, and National Development didn’t see the new building becoming reality any time soon.
So now, the Midtown Hotel is back. Virtually every surface inside the 160-room hotel was changed in the span of just a few months.
Ted Tye, a founding partner at National Development, said the plan is to keep the Midtown Hotel in place for seven to 10 years — or possibly more."
https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/...-midtown-hotel-is-back-after-renovations.html
ND ran the numbers and decided that renting Class C hotel space at $100 a pop makes better financial sense than attempting to build new luxury units in this market. Sounds like they're happy to stay parked on this asset until the economy, construction and debt costs, and demand fundamentals all improve.
In the meantime...enjoy yourselves some midcentury lowrise design.
"But interest rates rose, and so did inflation. The luxury real estate market cooled, and National Development didn’t see the new building becoming reality any time soon.
So now, the Midtown Hotel is back. Virtually every surface inside the 160-room hotel was changed in the span of just a few months.
Ted Tye, a founding partner at National Development, said the plan is to keep the Midtown Hotel in place for seven to 10 years — or possibly more."
https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/...-midtown-hotel-is-back-after-renovations.html
ND ran the numbers and decided that renting Class C hotel space at $100 a pop makes better financial sense than attempting to build new luxury units in this market. Sounds like they're happy to stay parked on this asset until the economy, construction and debt costs, and demand fundamentals all improve.
In the meantime...enjoy yourselves some midcentury lowrise design.