11-21 Bromfield Street | DTX | Downtown

[Justin7]

Re: One Bromfield (28-story DTX tower) | 1 Bromfield Street | Downtown

Save the Payless, improve the streetscape fully around the building (new pavers, curb removal), and make this stretch of Bromfield pedestrian only.

 

[DigitalSciGuy]

Re: One Bromfield (28-story DTX tower) | 1 Bromfield Street | Downtown

I'd love to ban parking for all buildings in this corridor, but it would probably kill a lot of these projects. The target market wants a place to park their Lambo and chauffeured Bentley. Then again, maybe the high share of absentee owners makes it realistic.

If we outright banned parking for this and future developments, yeah, we'd probably kill some of them. The opportunity here is looking into existing untapped capacity, chiefly determining whether it exists in the area and if a shared parking scheme would alleviate need for this and/or future towers to valet park the top earner's luxury imports in adjacent towers. In particular, do we know if 45 Province's garage is at capacity?

You bring up a good point about absentee owners; is there any study out there that puts a number on what that impact tends to be in other cities?

You really think the Richie Riches who can afford to live in an ultra lux building want to ride PUBLIC transit side by side with the peons?

If I were a betting man, I'd bet you will be disappointed by the (more than 0) amount of parking in the proposal.

Unsure how I should feel about your snide comments this morning... I'm unconvinced there wouldn't be some, but I'm also sure that number is going to be inconsequential.

If you were a betting man, you'd lose on the condition that I'd be okay with some nominal amount of parking and the lions share of that were allocated explicitly to Zipcar or otherwise added to the city's car sharing (pilot) parking program. I guess I really should just explicitly say that I want to see this building be a part of some TDM scheme that BRA and BTD are legitimately working on - for the corridor, for DTX, for the city as a whole - any of those. I'll hold my tongue until the actual DEIR is released and we have numbers.

Instead of replying with snark, answer me this: was there some sort of parking sharing scheme implemented at the Lovejoy project that gave the developer no qualms about nixing parking for their luxury condo component? Am I overlooking parking that exists inside Converse's side?

 

[DZH22]

Re: One Bromfield (28-story DTX tower) | 1 Bromfield Street | Downtown

Instead of replying with snark, answer me this: was there some sort of parking sharing scheme implemented at the Lovejoy project that gave the developer no qualms about nixing parking for their luxury condo component? Am I overlooking parking that exists inside Converse's side?

I have no idea the conditions of that building. But to flip the question around, is that development on par with Millennium Tower like this one plans to be? Do you really think somebody buying into the absolute cream of the crop developments is going to use zipcars or any other sort of car sharing? These are going to be the richest of the rich. They aren't riding the red or orange lines, and they aren't sharing zipcars.

 

[Equilibria]

Re: One Bromfield (28-story DTX tower) | 1 Bromfield Street | Downtown

If we outright banned parking for this and future developments, yeah, we'd probably kill some of them. The opportunity here is looking into existing untapped capacity, chiefly determining whether it exists in the area and if a shared parking scheme would alleviate need for this and/or future towers to valet park the top earner's luxury imports in adjacent towers. In particular, do we know if 45 Province's garage is at capacity?

You bring up a good point about absentee owners; is there any study out there that puts a number on what that impact tends to be in other cities?

It's a good idea, but I don't see it being tenable. Rich people will pay the most to park directly below their units, where their elevator goes. Leaving the building and walking a block to their car isn't as attractive, so it isn't as lucrative for the developer. I assume the condo agreements with these owners also guarantees that the space they paid hundreds of thousands for will be open whenever they arrive, regardless of how often they're in Boston with a car.

That also doesn't account for the fact that much of the luxury parking in the neighborhood is at buildings that will despise this project for blocking their views (45 Province and MT being the principals).

P.S. I think this thread is ready for a name change, since the 28-story proposal is dead.

 

[JeffDowntown]

Re: One Bromfield (28-story DTX tower) | 1 Bromfield Street | Downtown

I have no idea the conditions of that building. But to flip the question around, is that development on par with Millennium Tower like this one plans to be? Do you really think somebody buying into the absolute cream of the crop developments is going to use zipcars or any other sort of car sharing? These are going to be the richest of the rich. They aren't riding the red or orange lines, and they aren't sharing zipcars.

The uber rich do not drive themselves, they ride limos with drivers that do not need to be parked in the building.

 

[bigeman312]

Re: One Bromfield (28-story DTX tower) | 1 Bromfield Street | Downtown

If we removed all forced parking requirements, and let developers only build parking when they believed it would be profitable, when owners/tenants were willing to pay the true cost of parking, these luxury developments would still have parking. So, I that way, I am more okay with developers choosing to build parking knowing that the users of said parking spots are paying market-rate for them.

On the other hand, many developments that currently are forced (by the city or stupid nearby residents) to have parking, are basically giving parking away for free. This is more of a problem: inducing demand by giving away unnecessary storage of single-use, private automobiles for free. In that way, if after removing forced parking requirements, these developments still chose to have parking, that's the evil I can accept.

I will acknowledge, though, that this is the part of town where parking is most damaging. In a perfect world, nobody would own and park a private automobile in the city. But I pose this question to you, which would you rather have (can't say neither, for the sake of argument):
1. Heavily subsidized parking in neighborhoods like the South End, South Boston, or Fenway. This is either forced parking requirements that cause developers to build unnecessary parking spaces or subsidized, free, unlimited street parking for residents. The tenants/owners would otherwise live car-free, but instead drive their cars because they have a cheap/free place to park it.
2. A developer choosing to build parking for luxury developments downtowns. Here, the owners are willing to pay the cost of owning and storing their vehicle. As we know, it's damaging to our urban landscape to flood downtown streets with private automobiles. More damaging than in other neighborhoods. But, at least the owners are paying for their choices, and making them in a free, not unfairly subsidized, market.

I choose 2. Although they are both evils, if we removed parking subsidies that would easily get us most if the way there.

Edit: typed on phone on T. Apologies for spelling/autocorrect.

 

[West]

Re: One Bromfield (28-story DTX tower) | 1 Bromfield Street | Downtown

Do you really think somebody buying into the absolute cream of the crop developments is going to use zipcars or any other sort of car sharing? These are going to be the richest of the rich. They aren't riding the red or orange lines, and they aren't sharing zipcars.

Clearly the richest of the rich aren't riding the T or sharing zipcars. But I see no reason to suspect that the richest of the rich will do any differently here in Boston than they do in Manhattan or the tonier parts of SF: they'll either get picked up by private car service and chauffeured to their destination (if they're going somewhere close by), or a private car service will fetch their Maserati from wherever it gets garaged and bring it by on demand (if they're heading farther afield and want to play with their vehicular toy). I am not referring to Uber or anything Uber-like, and sure as hell they won't be in taxis either. The actual overnight parking spaces for the car service vehicles and the Maserati could be in Chelsea or wherever, it doesn't need to be close by.

I am sure these service providers already exist in Boston. You think everyone in the tippy top economic tier up on Beacon Hill actually deals directly with the car hassle thing? No. They pick up the phone and say "car service in twenty" or "my Ferrari at 1:30 this afternoon" and the service staff takes care of it. For the richest of the rich, cars just appear at the front door at the appointed time, all warmed up, full tank of gas, a nice polite person holding the door and loading the trunk if that's needed, and a driver too if that's desired. Actually dealing with car storage, and schlepping of the cars to and from storage, is not something the super-rich ever mess with.

If a building really truly can sell out to the richest of the rich, it needs no parking whatever. There are scores of such buildings in Manhattan, Tokyo, SF, London, etc. They probably already exist in Boston and I just hang around with the wrong crowds so I can't tell you the address(es). Anyone who can afford the $37.5M penthouse at the Millenium, and plenty of the others in that building, will be able to afford this level of service and has probably already been experiencing it wherever they live now. The rest of us don't need to worry about it.

ETA: I see JeffDowntown beat me to it, and more succinctly too.

 

[kmp1284]

Re: One Bromfield (28-story DTX tower) | 1 Bromfield Street | Downtown

The uber rich do not drive themselves, they ride limos with drivers that do not need to be parked in the building.

Based on what I've seen at The Dorchester, London must have some insanely wealthy chauffeurs.

 

[palindrome]

Re: One Bromfield (28-story DTX tower) | 1 Bromfield Street | Downtown

Instead of replying with snark, answer me this: was there some sort of parking sharing scheme implemented at the Lovejoy project that gave the developer no qualms about nixing parking for their luxury condo component? Am I overlooking parking that exists inside Converse's side?

Related has been actively shopping for 50-60 space lease in the surrounding garages.

 

[BosDevelop]

Re: One Bromfield (28-story DTX tower) | 1 Bromfield Street | Downtown

The uber rich do not drive themselves, they ride limos with drivers that do not need to be parked in the building.

The "uber rich" like to have options which is why they utilize both chauffeured cars and also like the option of taking their own six figure + car out too even if only a handful of times a year. Very few extremely wealthy folks own no cars.

 

[Roxxma]

Re: One Bromfield (28-story DTX tower) | 1 Bromfield Street | Downtown

There are five parcels on this block:

A) "Boston Casualty" (3,654 sq.ft): Current home of Sam LaGrassa's, GEM, and a few others. Not part of this project. Good, as it's absolutely worth keeping.

B) "City Sports" (8,545 sq.ft.): Single story, pre-war but architecturally insignificant. I have no problem with this going.

C) "The Children's Place/ AT&T" (10,177 sq.ft.): Strip-mall style retail building. Architecturally worthless. The sooner this parcel is redeveloped, the better.

D) "Discount Jewelry Exchange" (1,835 sq.ft.): Run-down four-story pre-war building. It's old, but not architecturally signficant enough to worry about protecting.

E) "Payless" (3,156 sq.ft.): Six-story, pre-war. Current home of Payless Shoes and Bromfield Pen Shop, whose owner indicated to the Globe that his lease will not be renewed after 2016. This isn't the city's most beautiful building, but it gives the intersection Bostonian character and I'd like to see it stay.

Excluding Boston Casualty, which is not part of the plans, the only building I'd be sad to see replaced here is the corner Payless building, and that's only 13% of the area's total square footage.

I'd like to see a massing that looks something like this, preferably with glass on the tower and high-quality masonry on the mid-rise portions:

Parcels B and C are the same building. They were once Neisner's Department Store.

 

[DBM]

Re: One Bromfield (28-story DTX tower) | 1 Bromfield Street | Downtown

Parcels B and C are the same building. They were once Neisner's Department Store.

You have it exactly wrong, and the previous post has it right. You have mistaken Bromfield St. for Washington St. Here's the easiest way to think about it:

349 Washington St.: old AT&T/old Children's Place

365 Washington St.: Kung Fu video store on 2nd floor/ratty jewelry discount store at base

367 Washington St./1 Bromfield St.: Payless on Washington St. face/Bromfield Pen Shop on Bromfield St. face

11 Bromfield St.: soon-to-expire City Sports

Each is a separate building, and each corresponds to a separate parcel.

 

[commuter guy]

Before my time, but here is a link below from a member of this forum who used to post updates on his blog. Neisner's was an L shaped department store with two entrances, one on Washington and the other on Bromfield. Not sure if it is one or two buildings though...

Interestingly the facade on washington street was similar to the the city sports facade on bromfield st back in the day:

http://shoppingdaysinretroboston.blogspot.com/2008/02/day-out-in-boston-in-1968-part-3.html

 

[datadyne007]

Before my time, but here is a link below from a member of this forum who used to post updates on his blog. Neisner's was an L shaped department store with two entrances, one on Washington and the other on Bromfield. Not sure if it is one or two buildings though...

Interestingly the facade on washington street was similar to the the city sports facade on bromfield st back in the day:

http://shoppingdaysinretroboston.blogspot.com/2008/02/day-out-in-boston-in-1968-part-3.html

IIRC, the Neisner's logo is still on the ground at the City Sports entrance. Edit might be the Sherman's one...

Also, some historical pix on Washington:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/boston_public_library/6286390202

http://rfi.bostonhistory.org/boston/default.asp?IDCFile=DETAILS.IDC,SPECIFIC=4048,DATABASE=BIBLIO,

 

[West]

Well, emptying out one of the storefronts just got easier. City Sports is going out of business:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/busines...l-locations/DVc51tSnOuBof7JkcmCeMM/story.html

The developers of this site may have already known that, and/or a lease expiration might have made it easy to empty this space out anyhow, even without a bankruptcy.

 

[cburns]

I was in Downtown Crossing this morning and I have to be honest: IMO I think the concept of saving pre-war buildings as modern infill/replacement occurs is a mantra that is more vital in concept than in practice with this particular case.

The photos at the beginning of this thread show this building about seven years ago. It appears that little to no upkeep has been maintained since then and its aesthetic has deteriorated rather markedly.

369 Washington/1 Bromfield is really not something to write home about. When evaluating it against its immediate neighbors on that block, sure it has more to offer, but relative juxtaposition does not make this a meritorious building.

Perhaps if a significant update to the exterior was given in which rich period treatments were added (restore + improve) I could get on board, but if we're talking about creating an odd shaped parcel in which we're eliminating almost 200,000 sq ft across 60 stories, I'd rather see them start fresh.

Not gospel, just my perspective.

 

[HalcyonEra]

Well, emptying out one of the storefronts just got easier. City Sports is going out of business:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/busines...l-locations/DVc51tSnOuBof7JkcmCeMM/story.html

The developers of this site may have already known that, and/or a lease expiration might have made it easy to empty this space out anyhow, even without a bankruptcy.

I think the developers most certainly knew this, as the liquidation was pretty much expected since most of their locations in general were not necessarily desirable to any potential acquirers.

 

[JeffDowntown]

Re: One Bromfield (28-story DTX tower) | 1 Bromfield Street | Downtown

The "uber rich" like to have options which is why they utilize both chauffeured cars and also like the option of taking their own six figure + car out too even if only a handful of times a year. Very few extremely wealthy folks own no cars.

They generally keep their cars (multiple) in their 6 car garages in their country places. They utilize drivers in the city. And they do not sit in traffic "driving" their Maserati to the Hamptons -- they are chauffeured or they fly out.

 

[statler]

They generally keep their cars (multiple) in their 6 car garages in their country places. They utilize drivers in the city. And they do not sit in traffic "driving" their Maserati to the Hamptons -- they are chauffeured or they fly out.

But these buildings aren't going to be filled exclusively with the 'uber-rich'. Most of the units will go to the really rich or the plain ol' rich and I would assume most them have to schlep themselves around for the most part.

 

[JeffDowntown]

But these buildings aren't going to be filled exclusively with the 'uber-rich'. Most of the units will go to the really rich or the plain ol' rich and I would assume most them have to schlep themselves around for the most part.

I don't disagree. Some parking is probably appropriate, just not something insane like 2 spaces per unit.