The Ipswich | 2 Charlesgate West | Fenway

Re: 2 Charlesgate West

Whoa, I forgot about this. That is one serious PNF.
 
Re: 2 Charlesgate West

MDWDxIq.png


gmpCTRR.png


JV7kE9S.png


2S0voBF.png


BUfh7tO.png


7eQBgo8.png


FnwBSAT.png


E5GUx4S.png


08BHnzo.png
 
Re: 2 Charlesgate West

Incredible presentation w/ great renders!

Should go about 60-80' higher, but it's a fantastic design.
 
Re: 2 Charlesgate West

That's tall for a crappy lot in Fenway. I'm happy with this. Hopefully it gets approved quickly.

A new downtown is rising alongside fenway! I love it.
 
Re: 2 Charlesgate West

This does abut some brownstones :0. Hopefully the proposal isin't lowered because of this though. I doubt they could do any taller. This will still be the 2nd tallest in Fenway.

https://goo.gl/maps/uMUnGxmaBt42

That 415 ft proposal from odura is sexy though.
 
We are getting to the point where they will have zero parcels in which to build minimum highrises such as this, unless they either take out sections of rowhouses for step-ups, or accept that a few towers are going to abut them. The south side of the Mass Pike at the end of a set of brownstones is such a place where the city needs to put their foot down and build.

The other thing we need is rowhouse creep into the triple streets.
 
Interesting that they are using elevators to get the cars to the parking floors. But disappointed that they are trying to do 50% of their affordable units off-site. The whole point of inclusionary development is to include the units in the development.

Should be fun to see what the neighborhood reaction is to this.
 
if we don't stop the neighborhoods from having such massive veto powers on obvious GO towers, Boston will eventually, implode from a lack of housing + massive infrastructure deficits.... then not be able to serve the requirements of businesses that wish to have a footing here.

i don't think we need to build an enormous core to make Boston a significantly better city. i think a 10-15% increase of density inside Rt128 would have an hugely positive effect overall. i don't want to see anywhere near that increase in the number of cars though. Maybe 2-4%. i'd love to steal a look at Boston in 2028.
 
Last edited:
Do you guys realize what this is like to get entire projects, new renders, and news every day now in Boston. Back in the day we would just talk on here while we waited for the next 350 footer to be proposed. There would be like 3 towers going up in the city and we would get a couple renders everyone once in a while and then people would add some construction pictures. This is insane how fast we get updates now, its great to see.
 
odurandina said:
if we don't stop the neighborhoods from having such massive veto powers on obvious GO towers, Boston will eventually, implode from a lack of housing + massive infrastructure deficits.... then not be able to serve the requirements of businesses that wish to have a footing here.

i don't think we need to build an enormous core to make Boston a significantly better city. i think a 10-15% increase of density inside Rt128 would have an hugely positive effect overall. i don't want to see anywhere near that increase in the number of cars though. Maybe 2-4%. i'd love to steal a look at Boston in 2028.
Click to expand...

I agree
We need to make blatently obvious additions to transit. Everywhere inside rt 128 should have access to rapid transit.it should be damn near the cities #1 priority right now. We need to be doing everything we can to fix and expand transit, because the future success of Boston is directly tied to this.
 
stick n move said:
I agree
We need to make blatently obvious additions to transit. Everywhere inside rt 128 should have access to rapid transit.it should be damn near the cities #1 priority right now. We need to be doing everything we can to fix and expand transit, because the future success of Boston is directly tied to this.
Click to expand...

Stick -- when you read the details in their filing -- because its essentially all residences this thing generates essentially 0 new demand on the transportation infrastructure

Most of the likely residents would be assumed to work in the immediate area -- they would most likely walk or perhaps bike to the Longwood Medical area or to the Back Bay [Pru] office area
 
Re: 2 Charlesgate West

tysmith95 said:
This does abut some brownstones :0. Hopefully the proposal isin't lowered because of this though. I doubt they could do any taller. This will still be the 2nd tallest in Fenway.

https://goo.gl/maps/uMUnGxmaBt42

That 415 ft proposal from odura is sexy though.
Click to expand...

TySmith -- actually it will tie with the Pierce -- they specify their tower being of equal height in the filing

It looks good on many levels -- I especially like the fact that they've been looking after [almost by adverse possession] the land directly outside the Back Bay Fens which they are willing to essentially pay to incorporate as an extension of the Fens [one of the greatest natural resources of Boston]

My only concern is that all of the wind calculations are all for ground level and a few of the sites near to Van Ness St. and Ipswich St. just outside of Fenway Park [around 123 to 125 not all shown on the maps] come in at the "Dangerous" Wind speed levels and Unacceptable Gusts for most of the year

Two concerns about wind -- one parochial and somewhat trivial and one more serious:

Parochial and Trivial -- impact of the tower on the wind field at high fly ball level inside and immediately outside the perimeter of Fenway Park -- we don't want to see dramatic changes in the trajectory of "Big Papi" like potential home runs

More Serious how do the wind fields look at roof deck and balcony levels for other buildings in the area for "Uncomfortable" to 'Dangerous" at sidewalk level sites change with elevation -- we definitely don't want to see people blown off roofs or balconies while partying

Rather than the excessive emphasis on the IPCC silliness about what the Climate may be 100 years from now -- pure baseless computerized speculation -- the computational fluid dynamics modeling tools should be used to address the issue of 3D wind fields which are real and immediate and can have dramatic effects on existing and currently underway construction in the area
 
Re: 2 Charlesgate West

elemenoh said:
...disappointed that they are trying to do 50% of their affordable units off-site. The whole point of inclusionary development is to include the units in the development.

Should be fun to see what the neighborhood reaction is to this.
Click to expand...

50% of the affordable are on site. the other 50% of the affordable will exist in any case – but where you'll see more units accomplished for the dollars spent. The ratio doesn't come from the developer, but from the direct guidance of the BRA. The .gov would prefer a number closer to 100% of the affordable be done near transportation hubs, Southie, off Tremont, etc, where more units can be done and more people served. 50% of the affordable done at 2CGw is to serve the politics.

whighlander said:
My only concern is that all of the wind calculations are all for ground level and a few of the sites near to Van Ness St. and Ipswich St. just outside of Fenway Park [around 123 to 125 not all shown on the maps] come in at the "Dangerous" Wind speed levels and Unacceptable Gusts for most of the year

Two concerns about wind -- one parochial and somewhat trivial and one more serious:

Parochial and Trivial -- impact of the tower on the wind field at high fly ball level inside and immediately outside the perimeter of Fenway Park -- we don't want to see dramatic changes in the trajectory of "Big Papi" like potential home runs

More Serious how do the wind fields look at roof deck and balcony levels for other buildings in the area for "Uncomfortable" to 'Dangerous" at sidewalk level sites change with elevation -- we definitely don't want to see people blown off roofs or balconies while partying

Rather than the excessive emphasis on the IPCC silliness about what the Climate may be 100 years from now -- pure baseless computerized speculation -- the computational fluid dynamics modeling tools should be used to address the issue of 3D wind fields which are real and immediate and can have dramatic effects on existing and currently underway construction in the area
Click to expand...

You kidding? with the 3 big projects going up in Copley Square working off the wind machine formerly known as JHT, we're now in the big leagues working alongside OSLO on the frontlines to learn if humans will survive the global cataclysm.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKUipxR3bDc
 
one of the things that most excites me about this project (apart from the building itself which is nice if not amazing) is that it focuses attention on the Emerald Necklace--Charlesgate is one of the most egregious "breakdowns" in the idea of a walkable park going from Jamaica Pond (and points south) up to Commonwealth and the Esplanade on to Downtown. This is such a no-man's land that disrupts such a unique vision for Boston; something like this will require that that vision be restored.
 
whighlander said:
Stick -- when you read the details in their filing -- because its essentially all residences this thing generates essentially 0 new demand on the transportation infrastructure

Most of the likely residents would be assumed to work in the immediate area -- they would most likely walk or perhaps bike to the Longwood Medical area or to the Back Bay [Pru] office area
Click to expand...

If your assumption that they will all be car-free and close to their office base, then what you described would have 0 effect on AUTOMOBILE/ROAD infrastructure.

However, Stick is correct - - MBTA infrastructure needs would be heightened if they want to get to Cambridge/North End/Seaport, etc.

Very few people, outside of nursing home residents, spend 100% of their lives within a 1 mile radius. You are assuming that, just because their base office is in the neighborhood, they will never go to conferences or meetings at other companies/institutions? (Really? You mean the hospitals/institutions in Fenway don't have any interaction with Mass General or Kendall Square? or the outside world?). Would the residents only go to Red Sox games and never to Celtics or Bruins or Patriots games? That the only restaurants they will frequent will be those within walking distance?

Sorry, but this isn't 1843.

If, as you assume, they will have no automobiles, this would represent more folks using the T or Amtrak or Uber.

So the statement ".... this thing generates essentially 0 new demand on the transportation infrastructure" is a complete fallacy.
 
Last edited:
Re: Emerald Necklace

The Boston Sun reported last week that the path connecting the esplanade to the emerald necklace through charlesgate park is progressing. That would require a nicer path up the overpass over the pike/rr tracks. The current proposal is to use the west side, which this building adjoins - could be an excellent source of funding for some improvements that could do way more cheaply than transit upgrades.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top