One Kenmore Square | 560 Commonwealth Avenue | Kenmore Square

DZH22 said:
Not to get too off topic but a good example of this right here in Boston is the Federal Reserve. The tower itself is fantastic, but the entire block is a dead-zone (or at least, a "pass through" zone) because of the overall aloofness of the complex.
Click to expand...

OK, but:

1) I actually really enjoy the park around the Federal Reserve Building.

2) Is is aloof because it is functionally supposed to be aloof (security).

3) For security landscaping, the Federal Reserve barriers deserve awards for attractiveness with functionality.

So I don't see any of this as a failure, but rather purposeful execution of design intent.
 
Excited to see this already interesting facade have a herringbone texture!
SmartSelect_20191031-122652_Drive.jpg
 
The new plan shows they removed a crosswalk on Beacon and they widened the Comm ave area on the western edge from 1 lane to 2 lanes.

Having two parking spots within the intersection (western edge of project) is a very bad idea that will invite double parking and block the 57 turn.

I don't see how loading is handled at all.

The transportation component of this plan is still very poor.
 
jass said:
The new plan shows they removed a crosswalk on Beacon and they widened the Comm ave area on the western edge from 1 lane to 2 lanes.

Having two parking spots within the intersection (western edge of project) is a very bad idea that will invite double parking and block the 57 turn.

I don't see how loading is handled at all.

The transportation component of this plan is still very poor.
Click to expand...

The presentation is explicit that they're designing the road layout with heavy comment from the MBTA. They removed the crosswalk to allow for signal priority for the 57.
 
I don't understand why it's necessary to remove a crosswalk in order to give signal priority to the 57. Seems strange to me.
 
You can terminate a car phase very easily, but a longish crosswalk means you have to wait to clear the pedestrians out. That particular crosswalk doesn't look like the most important one in the design, so they probably figure they can cut it out and let the signal be more flexible in getting the 57 through there quickly.
 
theSil said:
Lol @ sneaking honorary BU doctorate Papi into the "Landscape Features & Season Program" slide. At least they know their audience.
Click to expand...

I completely missed that - I bet that's not actually Papi (random render extra), but it's pretty funny nonetheless.
 
Equilibria said:
The presentation is explicit that they're designing the road layout with heavy comment from the MBTA. They removed the crosswalk to allow for signal priority for the 57.
Click to expand...

Heavy comment? Please. Heavy comment would mean the 57 goes straight.

In this plan, the 57 has to move from the right lane, for the bus stop, to the left lane. It then hits two closely spaced lights in a design that encourages blocking the box. Additionally, the left lane will be hindered by the two parking spaces. It then hits a THIRD traffic signal before being able to enter the station.

Its a horrible design for the 57.
 
I just want to point out how this project defies the logic of Boston running out of places to build.

This is a whole lot of building being sited in a location that no one thought was buildable like this. I bet there are a lot more underutilized locations in Boston that could support construction than we give credit to in this board.
 
Hope this one get's approved as is. This is one the projects I'm most looking forward to.
 
JeffDowntown said:
I just want to point out how this project defies the logic of Boston running out of places to build.
Click to expand...

*over 390'.........
Building 200~300' was never implied.
Occupied floor height here will be <300'.

i've maintained Boston has effectively run out of places to build over ~390'.
If they're not out of land vs the political will to build taller than 390'--
they're certainly getting pretty close.
Nothing black and white. But it's certainly a quite dark shade of grey.

125 Lincoln St? Nope: 370'.
West End? good luck. DOT 25, 26, etc 300'.
Midtown Hotel, Lord & Taylor? Church of CS Garage? 360~380' maybe.
This one is what, 310'?
(4) impressive highrises are on tap for Kenmore Sq area >250'.
**One Kenmore is the tallest.
Update; NPC filed for Fenway Ctr 345'/530,000 sq ft: seems they are serious about building Ph 2!!

We have an economy as strong as Seattle.
Then, why not go Seattle/resident supertall DMC 340/290~400 (440') height,
or even 400' to the top? (in the interests of building more affordable housing)

One Kenmore seems as good as any nook in the City for that.
A bump up to Seattle limits would work well at many sites in the City--
especially the West End.
Unfortunatly they seem to have pulled back on pushing taller heights.

The Huntington/400' was approved Dec 14, 2017.
Nothing <370' has been proposed since January 2017 (The Huntington).
This shouldn't come as much of a surprise.

**One Kenmore is the tallest building proposed in Back Bay or the Fenway in 3 years.
Harry Agganis is 331'.
There's no reason not to expect a few more towers getting up near One Kenmore
or maybe even Harry Agganis height,
Maybe even 125 Lincoln St height could be seen in a few select places in the coming years.
The Harbor Garage has been in the works for 5 years.

But, the trends suggest Boston is about done going taller--
building over 390' for what could be a long, long, long, long time.
 
Last edited:
JeffDowntown said:
I just want to point out how this project defies the logic of Boston running out of places to build.
Click to expand...

I don’t think any serious person has ever said or implied this. If it wasn’t for the roads and shortcomings with transit Boston could probably take another 300,000 people.
 
kmp1284 said:
I don’t think any serious person has ever said or implied this. If it wasn’t for the roads and shortcomings with transit Boston could probably take another 300,000 people.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with you, but there is a whole thread on the topic in Design a Better Boston.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top