I was the guy in the red shirt with the "roll out" written on it (I had just came from work at Suffolk) and I am appalled at the behavior of many of these neighbors. There is nothing historic about a Pay-less shoe store and decrepit old brick buildings. I'll be going to all the remaining meetings.
11-21 Bromfield Street | DTX | Downtown
- Thread starter Mike
- Start date
statler
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 7,927
- Reaction score
- 525
This photo doesn't make the building historic by any means but it at least shows it wasn't always a Payless and I think proves its value to the urban fabric.
And again, I'm not against a tower here, but at the minimum I think these facades should be preserved. And again, not because I think they hold any great historic or sentimental values, but simply because, if restored, they will provide a much better urban streetscape than any modern developer is capable of pulling off.
And again, I'm not against a tower here, but at the minimum I think these facades should be preserved. And again, not because I think they hold any great historic or sentimental values, but simply because, if restored, they will provide a much better urban streetscape than any modern developer is capable of pulling off.
To them, every single building in Boston is "historic". You throw a rock on one of those streets and they will cry "historic rock, do not touch". The quicker Downtown area is completely rebuilt, the better for everyone. At this moment, it's still a "piss district" (excuse my french).
stick n move
Superstar
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 11,197
- Reaction score
- 15,402
^ Thats an insane take.
Reposting this, because the Payless building could be preserved in situ with minimal impact to the proposal, and none to the tower.
I'm not a fan of the cantilevers either, it makes it look like the tall, slender cousin of the pregnant building.
Related to the streetscape, I give you an unapologetically bad photoshop. The perspective is off a bit and I'm pretty sure the scale is too, but you get the idea:
Obviously you'd want to restore the original cornice:
I think retaining the Payless building, or at least the very least the facade, helps to break up the monotonous streetwall and homogony this proposal creates. Washington Street is, after all, a traditional downtown shopping district consisting of frequent facade changes of varying materiality and texture. Small retail bays are the hallmark of this, and should be retained even within larger developments. Too many large, continuous facades are detrimental to the human scale of a walkable retail street.
odurandina
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2015
- Messages
- 5,328
- Reaction score
- 265
Most nimby just don't like highrises. The bigger they are, the more upset they become. If you read what they post over a given period, you soon discover the same people fly into a rage when a tall tower is proposed no matter where - every time. They want the old Boston of the 1940s to remain forever with no exceptions. They have no interest in the modern-day Boston coexisting with the past.
from my long post on housing that i've put up, everywhere....
http://boston.curbed.com/2016/5/27/11791274/boston-flower-exchange-development
We have a few luxury highrises going up and people will move in. It takes many years to plan and build these……. Contrary to what some say, a number of people move up out of lower cost units into luxury low-skyscrapers most certainly do create vacancies for the next tier below, those people in turn, vacate lower cost units and so on… Luxury housing absolutely contributes to the total number of units coming on line. Still, it isn’t going to make up a significantly large portion of the 53,000. But every bit helps.
...But the nimby makes a largely, a nonsensical argument that pales in comparison to our housing woes… talking in circles, and defaulting back to a thinly veiled message: ‘the critical needs of Boston are an abstract that does not apply to me or my neighborhood. You can’t build that here because i don’t want that built here. My vote is subject to bribery.’ Then followed by non-denial denials that their mischief isn’t harming Boston. It is.
Brian Tracy explained the psychology of the nimby, 'Parks Lover' some time ago....
"Perhaps the most common emotions of poor performers are envy and resentment. They are jealous of other people's success. They seek every opportunity to criticize and complain about high-performance people usually behind their backs. Fortunately, their negative attitude has no effect on these high achievers. But, it dooms these under-achievers to personal failure throughout their careers."
from my long post on housing that i've put up, everywhere....
http://boston.curbed.com/2016/5/27/11791274/boston-flower-exchange-development
We have a few luxury highrises going up and people will move in. It takes many years to plan and build these……. Contrary to what some say, a number of people move up out of lower cost units into luxury low-skyscrapers most certainly do create vacancies for the next tier below, those people in turn, vacate lower cost units and so on… Luxury housing absolutely contributes to the total number of units coming on line. Still, it isn’t going to make up a significantly large portion of the 53,000. But every bit helps.
...But the nimby makes a largely, a nonsensical argument that pales in comparison to our housing woes… talking in circles, and defaulting back to a thinly veiled message: ‘the critical needs of Boston are an abstract that does not apply to me or my neighborhood. You can’t build that here because i don’t want that built here. My vote is subject to bribery.’ Then followed by non-denial denials that their mischief isn’t harming Boston. It is.
Brian Tracy explained the psychology of the nimby, 'Parks Lover' some time ago....
"Perhaps the most common emotions of poor performers are envy and resentment. They are jealous of other people's success. They seek every opportunity to criticize and complain about high-performance people usually behind their backs. Fortunately, their negative attitude has no effect on these high achievers. But, it dooms these under-achievers to personal failure throughout their careers."
Last edited:
God, what is going on around here? Can we please have this discussion without quoting some fifth-rate, social Darwinian hack who's spent way too much time reading Ayn Rand?
"These people are just losers, and they resent my amazingness." That is the attitude of a child.
"These people are just losers, and they resent my amazingness." That is the attitude of a child.
underground
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 2,390
- Reaction score
- 3
It makes as much sense as, "they already own and just want their own property values to increase," which is crazy because the best thing for your own property values is a growing city. No, neither of these make sense. What's going on is an Occam's Razor: people just hate change. They hate change and they'll apply that hate to everything, including construction.
odurandina
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2015
- Messages
- 5,328
- Reaction score
- 265
i'm sure after investigating the designer's motives (or not), we'll get a number of expert opinions as to what in fact, needs to be done. i felt their reasoning for the bronze, post modernist podium w/ tinted glass made a lot of sense and i was mostly convinced. Some time after i heard the argument/s (at the first meeting) as to why the architects felt they couldn't make the old building or it's facade work with the new tower... they came with a bold plan to incorporate the tower and hide the parking above ground and achieve several other ambitious goals at the base. it sounds like they're trying to do a lot in a very tight space. i'm incredulous as to what the right answer is.
i love to walk up to people at dinner parties in Boston, the Pops and other venues and smile, 'My pleasure... i'm Tosh–anti-communist.' Would have loved to sit down for a beer with Ayn Rand. i've read enough nimby posts and what they say elsewhere. They're big on huge socialist, nanny state tactics. extorting developers to the point where 'shh, maybe they'll just walk.' You're entitled to your opinion. And i'll keep mine.
i do regret mentioning William McCabe (can't delete up there). I spoke for a moment about Bill's love of Porsches. Good thing i didn't mention Bill's extreme passion for wines (especially the pricy reds from France and the desert wines from Germany–you know, the exotic ones with the really short shelf life), improving his golf game, designing boats, sailing, or racing yachts with his country club buddies in Newport.
Yes, there are bad ideas, and evil, money hungry developers out there. But i happen to think their tactics usually are fairly well vetted in Boston. Okay, maybe not with the old Emperor. And, i've heard that Don Chiofaro continues to win friends in our PAY TO PLAY TOWN. i side with the developer and other visionaries who put the civil engineer to work over some 47% anti-capitalist hack posting in the Globe. i could post many of their quotes, and other nimby. If it quacks like a duck....
https://www.bostonglobe.com/busines...estate-firm/VYeGgppKf7vk4GilCDaNUL/story.html
Last edited:
underground
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 2,390
- Reaction score
- 3
All those brave John Galts out in Dover and Weston sure do seem to love development. Think they'll put up a 1000 footer out there?
bigpicture7
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2016
- Messages
- 3,768
- Reaction score
- 8,732
Many (not all) of those who blindly protest every skyscraper are members of an "undertaxed class" - that is, they bought into or inherited their urban space long ago when it was much more accessible for a reasonably successful professional to do so; then the city completely changed around them, with members of today's generation's successful professional class completely shut out of acquiring a similar dwelling. They have seen their property value double or triple. They are very content with the status quo; they have not felt the burden of this city's inadequacies (vast housing shorting, transit and infrastructure desperately needing improvement). And they refuse to be "taxed" to make the city a better place for those other than them. They have reaped their benefits and want to be left alone.
Now does every skyscraper proposal imply an improvement for the city? Of course not. Some are probably coups for developers. But there's so much potential in the infusion of new investment into our city. Money doesn't grow on trees. Ask anyone in Jackson, MS, where beautiful building facades are rotting in front of empty building shells downtown. It takes investment beyond just tax dollars to make a city beautiful and functional. We need to partner with developers; it's the only way any great city can work. That said, the city, the planning agencies, and the developers need to do a much better job (than we typically see them do in the first few iterations of a proposal in Boston) crafting a strong value proposition. For example - can't millenium partners or midwood be chipping in to renovate the DTX T station as part of their deal?
If a skyscraper results in new affordable housing, a renovated subway station, improved sidewalks and streetscapes, then that's value for everyone. Value that may not have otherwise been produced - at least not for a very long time.
Sorry for the rant, but what I am trying to say is that we need to reframe these conversations before the NIMBY's. We need to push VALUE for the greater good, and work with developers on proposals that are borderline charitable in what they do for the city. This is hard work, but as a community we can do it.
Now does every skyscraper proposal imply an improvement for the city? Of course not. Some are probably coups for developers. But there's so much potential in the infusion of new investment into our city. Money doesn't grow on trees. Ask anyone in Jackson, MS, where beautiful building facades are rotting in front of empty building shells downtown. It takes investment beyond just tax dollars to make a city beautiful and functional. We need to partner with developers; it's the only way any great city can work. That said, the city, the planning agencies, and the developers need to do a much better job (than we typically see them do in the first few iterations of a proposal in Boston) crafting a strong value proposition. For example - can't millenium partners or midwood be chipping in to renovate the DTX T station as part of their deal?
If a skyscraper results in new affordable housing, a renovated subway station, improved sidewalks and streetscapes, then that's value for everyone. Value that may not have otherwise been produced - at least not for a very long time.
Sorry for the rant, but what I am trying to say is that we need to reframe these conversations before the NIMBY's. We need to push VALUE for the greater good, and work with developers on proposals that are borderline charitable in what they do for the city. This is hard work, but as a community we can do it.
Suffolk 83
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 2,978
- Reaction score
- 2,330
Lots of new members speaking out about this project,thats a good thing I suppose.
I'm against this project, I like the urbanity and character of the block and the area as they are now. This tower will destroy that and have bmw's running people over on Washington st.
I love tall buildings too people but there's plenty of empty lots and shitty buildings left downtown, obviously this developer doesnt own those but they can sell this and buy one of those if they'd like
I'm against this project, I like the urbanity and character of the block and the area as they are now. This tower will destroy that and have bmw's running people over on Washington st.
I love tall buildings too people but there's plenty of empty lots and shitty buildings left downtown, obviously this developer doesnt own those but they can sell this and buy one of those if they'd like
Let's leave aside the fact that Rand was a hypocrite, a philosophical dunce, a bad writer, and a sociopath who lived her whole life in a state of extreme arrested development. The point I was making wasn't pro-NIMBY (I'm in favor of this development). It's that Manichean, self-congratulating nonsense about the people you disagree with being "poor performers" full of "envy and resentment" ought to be beneath this site. Ditto garbage about the "47%." This isn't SkySkraperPage. We ought to be able to talk about this without someone ranting about how half the country is a bunch of bloodsuckers.
odurandina
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2015
- Messages
- 5,328
- Reaction score
- 265
To be sure, and probably not unlike dozens of singly focused geniuses.
Not everyone though. So sad, we don't have this great man with us today....
www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-8g5S0z5Y4
i hope they get this proect done. Like Harbor Garage tower, Copley Tower, 111 Fed, 1 Dalton, Garden Garage tower and the rest, i welcome this recent chapter of bold and fresh thinking that will also help pay for improvements to the T and other infrastructure.
Last edited:
odurandina
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2015
- Messages
- 5,328
- Reaction score
- 265
Yes and no. I was stuck in nightmare traffic yesterday in Connecticut. i would have given ground that valid concerns were raised. But, i would have had a few words about some of the motivations of the people in opposition. With the exception of 111 Fed (handed down in a decree from a mayor who wielded extraordinary power), we have several extremely contentious projects currently proposed such as
1. Harbor Garage
2. Garden Garage
3. 1 Bromfield St
4. 45 Worthington
5. 533 Washington/Canvas/Felt Nightclub
6. South Station Tower
7. 2 Charlesgate West
8. Ft Point Tower/Berkeley Investments
9. Tremont Crossing
10. Dudley Square
and probably a few more.
but the overall cycle is being politicized by a good number of people including some members of the Globe staff.
*not pointing at Tim Logan. But there are others at the Globe who seem to like to stoke the flames of resentment toward builders.
1. Harbor Garage
2. Garden Garage
3. 1 Bromfield St
4. 45 Worthington
5. 533 Washington/Canvas/Felt Nightclub
6. South Station Tower
7. 2 Charlesgate West
8. Ft Point Tower/Berkeley Investments
9. Tremont Crossing
10. Dudley Square
and probably a few more.
but the overall cycle is being politicized by a good number of people including some members of the Globe staff.
*not pointing at Tim Logan. But there are others at the Globe who seem to like to stoke the flames of resentment toward builders.
I'm not talking about complaining about the excesses of NIMBY's or whatever. Everyone here does that. I'm talking about broad, extreme, pseudo-philosophical generalizations about large groups of people, which is exactly what you did with that hack quote, and what you did again with that "47%" garbage.
Anyway. I'm going to try to back away now....
Anyway. I'm going to try to back away now....