11-21 Bromfield Street | DTX | Downtown

Not to be a wet blanket on the proceedings, but is this the same Midwood proposing this building?

http://www.midwoodid.com/residential

Could a company whose most recent projects are a three-story Cheesecake factory in Philadelphia and a 15-story, squat residential building in Brooklyn really pull off a 50+ story building in Downtown Crossing?
 
Yes that is the same company if you look at their properties they own the buildings that would be redeveloped in this project. There was debate earlier if they would get approval and then sell the property to another developer to actually do the building.
 
DZH22 said:
Now from the 888 Boylston page, post 849:



That was from 2 days ago. Looks like the shoe is on the other foot today!
Click to expand...

I KNEW you were gonna do that. I'm not the one in favor of everything tall so it doesnt make me a hypocrite. Get back under the bridge
 
Suffolk 83 said:
I KNEW you were gonna do that. I'm not the one in favor of everything tall so it doesnt make me a hypocrite. Get back under the bridge
Click to expand...

I'm on record opposing Renzo Piano's piece of crap. (aka the tallest building ever proposed in Boston)

The way you spin things is impressive. You should run for public office. I'd probably vote for you.
 
JSic said:
Why are some of you against this project?
Click to expand...
Current tenants aside it's a solid, perfectly urban block. As CCA pointed out in the One Canal thread, it is almost impossible to build to that level under modern building codes and cost constraints. Whatever gets built here will be flat, mostly unadorned, not nearly as permeable and most likely (based on most new development in Boston) not human scaled at the ground level.
It will almost certainly be 'nice' and 'pleasant' and incredibly bland. I'm imagining something very similar to 45 Province.
 
Me thinks the B&T copy and paste could be shortened so we don't piss off Steve Adams & the rest of the Banker & Tradesman people?
 
fattony said:
Maybe they can mix and match? Build these 11.5% on-site and buy out the other 3.5%.
Click to expand...

Yes. That's what they're probably doing. The 3.5% are either off-site or they are paying into the IDP fund. Those are the 2 alternatives to the IDP directive currently.

I'm actually not a fan of building affordable units on site of luxury buildings. It doesn't do anything to help bring down the overall costs in the market. I feel like we could make way more progress in terms of building affordable housing & bringing down costs if it was all mandated off-site at a higher % in transit-accessible outer areas of the core.
 
I could be wrong, but I recall during a real estate development class that affordable housing % is calculated as a % of affordable units to market units rather than affordable units total units? That would place the 54 on-site affordable units as ~12.9% rather than 11.5%.
 
Hutchison said:
I could be wrong, but I recall during a real estate development class that affordable housing % is calculated as a % of affordable units to market units rather than affordable units total units? That would place the 54 on-site affordable units as ~12.9% rather than 11.5%.
Click to expand...

That's actually correct. See the PDF I linked to in the earlier post. In the third paragraph it explains 15% of market units is 13% of the total units.
 
I'll reserve judgment until the renders are released.

In my opinion, some of the buildings in this block are worth keeping (Payless), some can't disappear soon enough (AT&T / Children's Place), and some sit in the middle of that spectrum.

I can imagine this project going either way--a positive for the neighborhood or a negative--depending on its execution.
 
JumboBuc said:
I'll reserve judgment until the renders are released.

In my opinion, some of the buildings in this block are worth keeping (Payless), some can't disappear soon enough (AT&T / Children's Place), and some sit in the middle of that spectrum.

I can imagine this project going either way--a positive for the neighborhood or a negative--depending on its execution.
Click to expand...

It would be great if they managed to the keep the facade of One Bromfield, ala the attempt at saving the Filenes 1905 facade.
 
Rarely have renders caused so much suspense. I wait with bated breath.
 
statler said:
Current tenants aside it's a solid, perfectly urban block. As CCA pointed out in the One Canal thread, it is almost impossible to build to that level under modern building codes and cost constraints. Whatever gets built here will be flat, mostly unadorned, not nearly as permeable and most likely (based on most new development in Boston) not human scaled at the ground level.
It will almost certainly be 'nice' and 'pleasant' and incredibly bland. I'm imagining something very similar to 45 Province.
Click to expand...

I'm in this camp; Statler put it better than I could. I'll await renders at this point, but I'd be very surprised if this project improves the streetscape of downtown crossing.
 
commuter guy said:
I'll await renders at this point, but I'd be very surprised if this project improves the streetscape of downtown crossing.
Click to expand...

I agree with your overall sentiment but keep in mind that some of the Downtown Crossing streetscape on this site is, at the present, total garbage:

lVzLH4K.jpg


It wouldn't be hard to improve upon that.
 
timsox6 said:
Rarely have renders caused so much suspense. I wait with bated breath.
Click to expand...

http://www.bankerandtradesman.com/2016/01/five-projects-to-watch-in-2016/

"Midwood Development met with BRA staff in mid-2015 to discuss plans for a condo and apartment skyscraper in the 700 foot range at 1 Bromfield Street, replacing a block of low-rise retail buildings."

There have been other utterings over the last few months at B&T: "...and the Midwood people are proposing 60 stories going slightly over 700 feet..." and "These people are serious. They brought out the big guns..." so i asked my contact at the BRA if she could remember if the preliminary design had reached 700' or not.... to which she replied, "yes, it goes just over 700."

Which is nice because from my dealings with her, she's got a near photographic memory on every damn building going up in the city.

The bad news came a few moments later when she told me there were no plans to do a tall skyscraper at Back Bay train station. I asked her if she was absolutely sure.... But, she was adamant there were no plans for tall, and that any changes were very remote.
 
Last edited:
GW said:
Yeah, that's a huge win.

Maybe someone better informed can correct me, but it seems like paying $380,000 for each affordable unit that was supposed to be constructed onsite won't result in anywhere near the same amount of units being constructed offsite, because construction costs per unit have got to be so much more than $380,000 (especially in a neighborhood like that).
Click to expand...

Actually, that is supposed to be a pretty accurate cost per unit for affordable units, even downtown. It was set based on current understanding of affordable development cost in the City. That is about the cost I heard for Oxford-Pingon Housing and One Greenway (affordable section, not the luxury tower with superior buildout.)
 
Don't want the render. Need it.

This, with Winthrop Garage, is going to be HUGE for our skyline.

Good timing since the NYT is making fun of us today for having the T close at midnight and bars close at 2:00 AM.
 
JumboBuc said:
I agree with your overall sentiment but keep in mind that some of the Downtown Crossing streetscape on this site is, at the present, total garbage:

lVzLH4K.jpg


It wouldn't be hard to improve upon that.
Click to expand...

I'd support the project if they keep the payless building, but I'll be very surprised if that happens.

Also, what you see there in your pic is classic land/parcel banking. The asking rents are astronomical on Washington St. due to very high foot traffic. There are plenty of forlorn looking buildings that just sit as landlords wait for the highest rent possible from a national chain guaranteeing a low risk of default. Look at good old boy Druker's building on Arlington and Boylston St. The commercial space is often vacant or in a shabby state of condition, yet that may be some of the most valuable commercial space in all of Boston. The old Barnes and Noble space in Downtown Crossing is another example.

I consider Bromfield St to be part of the ladder district along with winter, temple, and west streets. These streets have increasingly unique commercial architecture in downtown Boston with small scale spaces for rent. I realize many on this board love the height, but I'm not willing to trade the denigration of this part of town in order to erect some ho hum Kensington #2 tower.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top