11-21 Bromfield Street | DTX | Downtown

DZH22 said:
Is it really a project worth supporting in its current iteration?
Click to expand...

Yes, although I’d prefer residential over office space. Anything taller here probably won’t pass muster with the locals or the BPDA. Some people are even opposed to the building at its current height of ~325’, so there’s basically no chance that anything taller here will get approved.
 
Last edited:
I personally think the ground floor of the current proposal is much better than the ground floor of the previous proposal and its a much more attractive overall building as well. Its unfortunate that theyre not maxing out the height here, but the tower itself is a quality proposal.

I know a lot of people on here liked the previous proposal but I always hated it… well the bottom half of it. I’m not a fan of buildings that hover over a podium the way it did, plus the way the tower got wider in the middle where it over-hanged over the thinner base looked weird. The color, curves, and general shape from about 50% of the way up to the roof looked really good, they just should have continued that down to ground level imo.

This looks incredible.
IMG_9420.jpeg


This looks awkward and like its going to fall over.
IMG_9421.jpeg


If the top image had continued to ground level getting rid of the weird over hangs and removing the podium this thing would have been an absolute home run.

It actually would have looked a lot like copley tower, which is one of the greatest towers never built in Boston.
1701218422481.jpeg
 
I hear ya, but really only one of those should have been built (and I lament it every day).
 
atlantaden said:
Dudes, you're killing me with these pics of what should have been built, instead of what we're getting or didn't get! Ugh!
Click to expand...
I’m sorry. I know copley tower is a sore spot for a lot of people and that even posting the pic was going to bring back up a lot of repressed pain in peoples sub conscience. It hurts me too every time I see the renders and especially knowing that they were the last plot to get grandfathered in before the shadow laws and instead of selling the plot to a willing dev theyre just sitting on their hands and letting it expire. Its unfathomable why theyre going about it that way. What could have been… damn.
 
Is it possible to repeal the shadow law by getting signatures? I feel like a lot of people would be onboard with it as it's one of the most archaic laws we have in place.
 
stick n move said:
I personally think the ground floor of the current proposal is much better than the ground floor of the previous proposal and its a much more attractive overall building as well. Its unfortunate that theyre not maxing out the height here, but the tower itself is a quality proposal.

I know a lot of people on here liked the previous proposal but I always hated it… well the bottom half of it. I’m not a fan of buildings that hover over a podium the way it did, plus the way the tower got wider in the middle where it over-hanged over the thinner base looked weird. The color, curves, and general shape from about 50% of the way up to the roof looked really good, they just should have continued that down to ground level imo.

This looks incredible.
View attachment 45103

This looks awkward and like its going to fall over.
View attachment 45104

If the top image had continued to ground level getting rid of the weird over hangs and removing the podium this thing would have been an absolute home run.

It actually would have looked a lot like copley tower, which is one of the greatest towers never built in Boston.
View attachment 45105
Click to expand...

As an aside - Not shown in that pic, but that blue glass Copley Tower would've been 1.5 blocks from the blue glass Hancock Tower and 2 blocks from the blue glass Raffles Tower. I'm not loving the idea of a jewelry box skyline.
 
I didn't see this posted upthread:
www.bostonglobe.com

Wind developer Vineyard Offshore hires Alicia Barton to lead expansion - The Boston Globe

Plus: Will an office tower revitalize downtown? Donations for the Stone House, and "Deets" on Paul English's new startup.
www.bostonglobe.com www.bostonglobe.com

^Within Chesto's Bold Types column, there's a titled section about this development ("Debate about office tower looms over downtown")

Some great (& by that I mean forehead-pounding) nuggets therein:
"Midwood previously tried [proposing a residential project], with a much taller proposal that faced neighborhood resistance. One reason Midwood could pare back the size: It doesn’t need parking for an office project."
"What tall buildings will do . . . is actually deter people from coming to see Boston’s historic structures,” said Martha McNamara, chair of the Revolutionary Spaces nonprofit. “It will deter foot traffic in the downtown neighborhood.”"
 
"What tall buildings will do . . . is actually deter people from coming to see Boston’s historic structures,” said Martha McNamara, chair of the Revolutionary Spaces nonprofit. “It will deter foot traffic in the downtown neighborhood.”"

If you're going to make such rock-solid assertions, you need some metrics to back them up. Demostrate how tall buildings deter visitors to visit historic spots then. What laughably self-serving horseshit. Aren't there ALREADY plenty of "tall buildings" surrounding all of the (many) heavily visited/trafficked historic structures in the CBD?
 
chrisbrat said:
"What tall buildings will do . . . is actually deter people from coming to see Boston’s historic structures,” said Martha McNamara, chair of the Revolutionary Spaces nonprofit. “It will deter foot traffic in the downtown neighborhood.”"

If you're going to make such rock-solid assertions, you need some metrics to back them up. Demostrate how tall buildings deter visitors to visit historic spots then. What laughably self-serving horseshit. Aren't there ALREADY plenty of "tall buildings" surrounding all of the (many) heavily visited/trafficked historic structures in the CBD?
Click to expand...
Exactly, its all the more ridiculous of a statement when the site is already completely surrounded by tall buildings.
 
chrisbrat said:
If you're going to make such rock-solid assertions, you need some metrics to back them up. Demostrate how tall buildings deter visitors to visit historic spots then. What laughably self-serving horseshit. Aren't there ALREADY plenty of "tall buildings" surrounding all of the (many) heavily visited/trafficked historic structures in the CBD?
Click to expand...
That has long been part of the charm of Boston, that you will see something like Exchange Place, right next to the Old State House. Every single out of town visitor that I show around specifically comments on this point, and how much they love it.
 
Justbuildit said:
You have to remember that people are willing to just say lies if it marginally helps their position. These people are liars. The “too much traffic but we need more parking” people are also liars.

They shouldn’t be given a voice at all.
Click to expand...

There's also really very little downside to lying and being as disengious as possible.
 
bigpicture7 said:
I didn't see this posted upthread:
www.bostonglobe.com

Wind developer Vineyard Offshore hires Alicia Barton to lead expansion - The Boston Globe

Plus: Will an office tower revitalize downtown? Donations for the Stone House, and "Deets" on Paul English's new startup.
www.bostonglobe.com www.bostonglobe.com

^Within Chesto's Bold Types column, there's a titled section about this development ("Debate about office tower looms over downtown")

Some great (& by that I mean forehead-pounding) nuggets therein:
"Midwood previously tried [proposing a residential project], with a much taller proposal that faced neighborhood resistance. One reason Midwood could pare back the size: It doesn’t need parking for an office project."
"What tall buildings will do . . . is actually deter people from coming to see Boston’s historic structures,” said Martha McNamara, chair of the Revolutionary Spaces nonprofit. “It will deter foot traffic in the downtown neighborhood.”"
Click to expand...

"What tall buildings will do . . . is actually deter people from coming to see Boston’s historic structures,” said Martha McNamara, chair of the Revolutionary Spaces nonprofit. “It will deter foot traffic in the downtown neighborhood.”"

Great point, Martha!........which is why so few tourists ever travel to New York City! 🤡 (seriously, where does Boston find these buffoons?).
.
 
Last edited:
Sticking this here because the BLC study report notes that, should 11 Bromfield be built, it will impact* the Sam LaGrassa's building (yes, technically the "Hutchinson Building," but 99% of the population thinks of it as the "Sam LaGrassa's building").

https://www.boston.gov/news/hutchinson-building-study-report#

Note, the public hearing is a few weeks--January 23...

*i.e., shadows there will be...
 

New Downtown Skyline Districts Would Allow for Bromfield Tower​

“The Boston Planning and Development Agency has proposed a new draft zoning amendment for Downtown Boston, creating new zoning districts, called Skyline Districts. The amendment focuses on modernizing land uses to encourage new and diverse businesses to thrive and enabling more density where appropriate to unlock new opportunities for housing Downtown. Per the filing, there would be 2 types of Skyline Districts...

- SKY-LOW District: Areas of cohesive historic buildings dating to prior eras of downtown, job centers, and housing growth. These districts are regulated to ensure that new development is compatible with existing buildings in scale. Heights would be allowed up to 180’, or a height that complies with the provisions of Boston Common & Public Garden Shadow Laws, whichever is lower.

- SKY District: The city’s most significant job, housing, and entertainment density and accommodates future growth near major transportation assets. These districts are regulated to ensure that new development enhances the urban vitality of the city and the public realm. In these areas, height would be allowed that complies with the provisions of Boston Common Shadow & Public Garden Shadow Laws.

skyline


Based on the maps provided with the zoning, the site of Midwood Development's proposed 23-story office tower on Bromfield Street would be in the SKY district, allowing for the 345-foot tower. Plans are still under review for the 400,000+ square foot office/retail project.”

bromfield


https://www.bldup.com/posts/new-downtown-skyline-districts-would-allow-for-bromfield-tower
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top