11-21 Bromfield Street | DTX | Downtown

JeffDowntown said:
One reason to save the Payless facade is to get the architect to think a bit about street wall and context (something the rendering shows zero regard for). This design really does not try to fit into DTX context at all.

I agree wholeheartedly about the other buildings though.
Click to expand...

Context is important, and I agree that this design doesn't conform to the vernacular, but I'll venture the CBA of facade preservation has proven it's a very expensive gesture with little tangible benefits.

I believe a dynamic street features dynamic street walls, so this outlier could enrich the streetscape.
 
Every time there is a risk of demolition for a historical building, the city should be pushing for a facadectomy in exchange for significantly more height. It would have made a ton of sense in Kenmore recently. I thought the tower portion of the last iteration was AWESOME. It just needed a serious fix for the base and parking/Bromfield situation. The tower wasn't the problem, it could hit 700' without breaking the shadow law, and it's literally in the heart of downtown! This is basically another Seaport building, which are already bad enough in the Seaport but at least there's a reason over there. This location doesn't make sense to underbuild, or to just accept the loss of the historical corner to something so underwhelming.
 
No parking and brings the opportunity to pedestrianize and table that section of Bromfield to expand the DTX area... I like that compared to the original proposal.
 
DZH22 said:
Still annihilates the Payless building on the corner....
Click to expand...
Why is it, again, that people want to save the Payless building? It's rather unremarkable. I'd like to see more height here, along with better street level engagement. But otherwise the render is kind of cool. Stretch it at the top, open it at the bottom, and I think it would be a fine addition to that corner.

[edit]
Actually, I take that back about street level. Looking at it again, it appears to have street facing commerce.
 
If this current design was like 500' + it would be a major win. Even 400'+ would be a win. This is barely 250' im assuming. It just doesnt fit...
 
Everyone realizes that that Payless has been a closed and empty eyesore for a while now, right? I hate this new proposal, but is it better than a perpetually empty storefront?
 
dotdude78 said:
Everyone realizes that that Payless has been a closed and empty eyesore for a while now, right? I hate this new proposal, but is it better than a perpetually empty storefront?
Click to expand...

There are a few storefronts on Bromfield that have literally been vacant since the late 90s. Over 2 decades.
 
dotdude78 said:
Everyone realizes that that Payless has been a closed and empty eyesore for a while now, right? I hate this new proposal, but is it better than a perpetually empty storefront?
Click to expand...
Payless and the other spaces in this project's footprint are empty because the developer owns them and won't rent them out. The developer should get blame for the empty storefronts, not credit for tearing them down.
 
The Payless building is part of Boston's charm, and sits right on a highly visible corner. You may think that Boston has plenty of these types of buildings, but each one that we chip away will never be replaced. Facadectomies + more height is Boston's Win-Win scenario.
 
reverend_paco said:
Manufactured timber has been making inroads. I'm hoping that this is Boston's first. Glulam, etc. have been certified by various code organizations as perfectly fire safe. I've been following the overseas developments and hope to see one make its way here.

www.bbc.com

‘Plyscrapers’: The rise of the wooden skyscraper

Timber skyscrapers are sprouting up across the globe, from Vancouver to Vienna. Are they strong enough? Will they rot? And won't they burn down?
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
Click to expand...

I've been following it too and I'd be excited to have have the trend continue here in Boston. Given the dense forest cover in New England and the history of logging/timber processing in Northern New England, I think it's something that would be good to embrace here. Norway is doing it well. Embracing it could give a shot of life to dying mill towns in Northern New England as well as revive a logging industry that has been hurting. Plus is generally better for the environment than what we're currently building with.

I guess I'm in the minority here, but I like this proposal. I realize the height enthusiasts are disheartened, but I hated the old One Bromfield proposal. It turned Bromfield into a driveway and the building was unremarkable apart from simply being tall. This shaves off most of the height but is far friendlier toward the corner of Bromfield and Washington. Zero parking is a huge win. And if it is actually timber, it'll add a bit of warmth to a corner that feels pretty dead at the moment. I generally lean towards preservation when possible, but I'm having a hard time mustering up a lot of emotion about the Payless building.

*Edited to add* Just noticed this in the article I linked: "The model building code in the United States does not currently allow tall timber buildings, but it will, up to 270 feet, as of 2021." - This proposal would seem to fit just under that 270ft threshold.
 
Last edited:
Lrfox said:
.....the building was unremarkable apart from simply being tall.....
Click to expand...

Here are some links to fairly high-quality renders of the prior proposal. Unremarkable? The tower portion itself was literally the definition of remarkable, especially by Boston standards! If they had fixed the podium and Bromfield treatment the tower itself would have been a showstopper.



 
^Yeah, that tower was awesome, and would have looked especially good from the Common. This and the Copley tower are big losses.
 
Not surprising that the knee jerk reactions to this are the usual height fetishism and seething about NIMBYs and even disbanding the BPDA but does it ever occur to you folks that this is as much risk as the developer is willing to take on? We’re likely on the brink of a recession and we currently have three major office projects underway, two entirely on spec, one half-leased and a fourth aggressively making its way through the process without a tenant. Beyond that, Midwood doesn’t have a track record of developing large office projects. In addition to what might be a glut of commercial space and Midwood’s inexperience in this sector this is a somewhat small piece of land and when you take into account how much the core would grow to accommodate additional elevators and egress stairs you’re likely looking at relatively little leasable space per floor.
 
Payless building? Keep it, my hope. Unremarkable? Yeah, I guess, sure. Nonetheless, it's a fine contributor to the street wall. This stretch was once - still, mostly, I'd say - a varied and eclectic collection of street fronts. Mega-blocks diminish the mix and thereby change the street - snazzier, yes, but not for the better. Not everything has to be noteworthy to be worthy of saving. I don't mind the tall proposal. The massing, the curves, the color palette may well be a fine addition. Why not fit the Payless building into the concept? Okay, cost, always cost. But a little old, a little new? That's Boston.
 
DZH22 said:
Here are some links to fairly high-quality renders of the prior proposal. Unremarkable? The tower portion itself was literally the definition of remarkable, especially by Boston standards! If they had fixed the podium and Bromfield treatment the tower itself would have been a showstopper.



Click to expand...

I remember it and we can agree to disagree on the definition of "remarkable." I don't think it was particularly wonderful. I didn't hate it, but the important part (the Podium) was never going to change for that proposal as having parking on site was essential to the overall project. The current proposal is better for the area. I also think it's very nice looking.
 
I feel like the old proposal would not have aged well. Also, the shadow/fun police would never let that tall building get built.
 
Czervik.Construction said:
I feel like the old proposal would not have aged well. Also, the shadow/fun police would never let that tall building get built.
Click to expand...

Midwood was never going to build that original tower either. They have never built anything close to the magnitude of the original and definitely no where near that height. Currently under development for them is a small shopping mall and a five floor market.
 
Gunner02 said:
Midwood was never going to build that original tower either. They have never built anything close to the magnitude of the original and definitely no where near that height. Currently under development for them is a small shopping mall and a five floor market.
Click to expand...

Then maybe Midwood should sell the parcels to a developer that has the vision and guts to deliver something better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top