🔹 What's Happening With Project X?

DZH22 said:
I doubt it means anything but there appear to be some new renders on this site for the Aquarium Garage. I'm sure I haven't seen the below one before.
https://tmrw.inc/gallery/

HOWEVER, before you get too excited, here's a new article to put a damper on that.
https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/...-allow-boston-to-withdraw-its-downtown-w.html

View attachment 20605

Or this one???
View attachment 20606
Click to expand...
 
chrisbrat said:
I don't get what seems "oppressive" at all in that rendering. It looks like a really nice tower in a big city next to lots of great outdoor space. When will folks grasp that Boston is a city. Move to Concord or Marlborough or wherever if you find tall buildings oppressive.
Click to expand...

Gotta hop on the Wu Train and go with the NIMBYS on this one. It’s not the shadows over the Greenway that bug me about this tower. It’s the lack of community involvement. This tower doesn’t serve the greater good of the area. It would work better in the Seaport or Dorchester Bay Point. My $0.02.
 
The tower is without a doubt a better use of the land than is what is there. However, I have little sympathy for Chiofaro/Prudential for fucking this up royally over the last decade and a half. They haven't shown an ounce of competence with moving this project forward in any tangible way.

They pissed off Menino, still couldn't get it done under Walsh, and now they are where they are.
 
kingofsheeba said:
It would work better in the Seaport or Dorchester Bay Point. My $0.02.
Click to expand...

A 600' tower would work better in 2 places where it would be impossible to build? Seaport maxes out around 260'-270' as you move away from the water. Dorchester Bay Point can't break 375'. FAA map linked below. When you have maybe 10-12 lots left in the whole city that could support a building this tall, those become the appropriate lots to go tall!

 
DZH22 said:
A 600' tower would work better in 2 places where it would be impossible to build? Seaport maxes out around 260'-270' as you move away from the water. Dorchester Bay Point can't break 375'. FAA map linked below. When you have maybe 10-12 lots left in the whole city that could support a building this tall, those become the appropriate lots to go tall!

Click to expand...

Then shoot for 375’ and then change the law
 
kingofsheeba said:
Then shoot for 375’ and then change the law
Click to expand...

The law is based on the location of the airport. Also, IMO the largest/tallest buildings should be in the most transit heavy areas of the metro, ie downtown, not the lesser served neighborhoods.

Dorchester Bay Point does have at least 1 building proposed over 300' already.

In this case, the only way the money works for taking down the garage (and maintaining the lawful amount of open space by the water) is by going that full 600'. Even then, it may not work, hence why the original proposals called for 2 buildings. It's not like we can take down the garage, replace it with something 300', and everybody's happy. It's either 600' tower or keep the garage.
 
jdrinboston said:
View attachment 20618

All I'm saying is based on this angle and rendering, I don't think this plot of the Greenway will be particularly pleasant or enjoyable spot to be or hang out in, particularly during cold winter weather and spring/fall shoulder seasons.

Look, the building is stunning and would have been a net positive for the city and if I was on the BPDA board, I almost certainly would have voted in favor of it as depicted. But a lot of the selling of this project - through both official and unofficial channels - was that this project would be a significant boon to enhancing and activating this particular portion of the Greenway. And based on the depiction above, I think that argument is somewhat disingenuous.
Click to expand...

have you been in that portion of the greenway when the current, ugly, falling-apart, pointless garage is casting shade? shadows move with the sun, there are moments where that part of the greenway is ALREADY in shadow -- would you rather the culprit be that shitty garage or this gorgeous tower?
 
I too love this design....but for another location. What the renders fail to include, and which might sell the building more effectively, is showing the entire area around the Aquarium, the promised winter garden to the sea, and a surrounding pedestrian/retail-friendly area that might integrate the building within a larger context. As it stands in these renderings it just looks like another version of Chiafaro's International Place ensemble, that also rises out of nowhere, is hostile to its overall context and to pedestrians, and insults our intelligence with it's insipid architectural detail. And yes, the shadows, not only on the Greenway but also on the Grain Exchange Building, are huge red flags. Time to put lipstick on the pig and reimagine the garage in some way, even if its to clad the facades in interesting sculptural panels and create the afore-mentioned cafe/garden up above....and definitely improve the retail/pedestrian experience below, which for years has looked like a remnant of the Combat Zone.
 
DZH22 said:
View attachment 20605
Click to expand...
I don't care about the shadows. Stylistically this thing clashes with anything along the waterfront and adjoining inland area, and visually it's height at this water's edge location is ridiculous. Hopefully buildings would step down a bit as you approach the shoreline, not take a sudden quantum leap upward, way taller than anything nearby. It's like plopping down an overly tall tower from Dubai right on the water's edge. "Welcome to Vegas" is what I see here. It's really looking garish as hell at this location. Somewhere else that's appropriate would be okay.
 
Charlie_mta said:
I don't care about the shadows. Stylistically this thing clashes with anything along the waterfront and adjoining inland area, and visually it's height at this water's edge location is ridiculous. Hopefully buildings would step down a bit as you approach the shoreline, not take a sudden quantum leap upward, way taller than anything nearby. It's like plopping down an overly tall tower from Dubai right on the water's edge. "Welcome to Vegas" is what I see here. It's really looking garish as hell at this location. Somewhere else that's appropriate would be okay.
Click to expand...

This doesn't feel like a valid criticism with the Harbor Towers and IP within 500-1000ft of this thing. I get the point you're going for, but the precedent for descending height towards the waterfront in this particular chunk of downtown sailed away 40-50 years ago.
 
393b40 said:
This doesn't feel like a valid criticism with the Harbor Towers and IP within 500-1000ft of this thing. I get the point you're going for, but the precedent for descending height towards the waterfront in this particular chunk of downtown sailed away 40-50 years ago.
Click to expand...
The proposed tower is about 40% taller than Harbor Towers. It's not just the height, it's the style + height + location + context. Harbor Towers are not very high compared to this proposal, and their style blends in with the rest of the waterfront context. This thing would give Boston a black eye at one of its most visible locations..
 
Charlie_mta said:
The proposed tower is about 40% taller than Harbor Towers.
Click to expand...

I think I'm on the team that those renders don't make this building seem way less oppressive than what's currently there even if it'd be prettier. However, 40% isn't a very big difference; that's definitely a pretty weak argument against the tower.
 
Blackbird said:
I think I'm on the team that those renders don't make this building seem way less oppressive than what's currently there even if it'd be prettier. However, 40% isn't a very big difference; that's definitely a pretty weak argument against the tower.
Click to expand...
If the proposed tower had a design that fits in with the immediate area, the height wouldn't be so much of a problem. I just find this design to be incredibly ugly and garish for this location. Maybe it's the style that the render was done in, but is really looks bad. It would look passably okay in pretty much any other high rise area of Boston, but not here.
 
Charlie_mta said:
If the proposed tower had a design that fits in with the immediate area, the height wouldn't be so much of a problem. I just find this design to be incredibly ugly and garish for this location. Maybe it's the style that the render was done in, but is really looks bad. It would look passably okay in pretty much any other high rise area of Boston, but not here.
Click to expand...

What would a contextual tower look like here? It's closest tall neighbors are HT and IP... I'm not sure we want something that blends in with those since they're both pretty awful.
 
Charlie_mta said:
If the proposed tower had a design that fits in with the immediate area, the height wouldn't be so much of a problem. I just find this design to be incredibly ugly and garish for this location. Maybe it's the style that the render was done in, but is really looks bad. It would look passably okay in pretty much any other high rise area of Boston, but not here.
Click to expand...

Personally, I really like the design. It would certainly be a hugely transformative improvement from what's there today. Although I can somewhat see why people wouldn't like a skyscraper on the waterfront, I don't think of that criticism as valid enough to block the development. Seeing as how the current parking garage is so apt for redevelopment, building a skyscraper in this location seems like the sensible thing to do, given how this proposal is in the downtown of a major city, exactly where skyscrapers are supposed to be. I'm not sure why the opponents of this project expect or want such a small development at a prominent location like this.
 
jdrinboston said:
View attachment 20618

All I'm saying is based on this angle and rendering, I don't think this plot of the Greenway will be particularly pleasant or enjoyable spot to be or hang out in, particularly during cold winter weather and spring/fall shoulder seasons.

Look, the building is stunning and would have been a net positive for the city and if I was on the BPDA board, I almost certainly would have voted in favor of it as depicted. But a lot of the selling of this project - through both official and unofficial channels - was that this project would be a significant boon to enhancing and activating this particular portion of the Greenway. And based on the depiction above, I think that argument is somewhat disingenuous.
Click to expand...
those are all EXISTING shadows in the picture.
 
393b40 said:
What would a contextual tower look like here? It's closest tall neighbors are HT and IP... I'm not sure we want something that blends in with those since they're both pretty awful.
Click to expand...
Judging by the Harbor Towers..."maybe we can solve one problem with another"

1643255589593.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top