11-21 Bromfield Street | DTX | Downtown

Fair enough. i still had fun saying it! :)

Some of the crap the usual supsects are saying here might even be true.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/06/01/zoning/HPLdEzAxJwsKbgx0CYsUiJ/story.html#comments

But, it doesn't help much at places like 1 Bromfield, Garden Garage and Harbor Garage. We have a lot of big money stuff to pay for in the coming years. Building a few dorm towers won't get Boston out of it's fiscal mess...


itchy said:
Preserve the Payless building's facade.
Click to expand...

Returning to your point – if that's the gap the developers need to slip 1 Bromfield through, then by all means, keep the payless building's facade. i also like Payless as much as everyone. Once again, look into the multiple reasons Smith and Gill have given for the controversial design. There's only so much space at 1 Bromfield.
 
I was trying to steer the discussion back toward: builders + gov + community reconciling development proposals toward a net gain/value add. I know that sounds fluffy, but it's a simple concept we should be reminded of. Without the net gain, the project is non-viable (regardless of which party is the one that's slighted). I did not intend that to be a political perspective whatsoever.

Meanwhile, I agree with GW. We can discuss this concept of whether a project is net value added without excessively politicizing it. I think most everyone in this forum enjoys seeing great development unfold in our city.

SO, (trying to) taking politics out of it, the question is whether 1 Brom can be made net value added on that particular street corner.
 
I think the tower will add density, which is good for both the area and the city. I think the podium will kill Bromfield and hurt Washington.
 
Trying to get back on subject, I think the only way to preserve the payless façade and have it look appealing would be to build a new façade in the same style down Washington and Bromfield in both directions. Not sure how viable that would be or how good it would look.
 
Why? Keep the old art deco facade from City Sports. If it ain't broke...
 
statler said:
I think the tower will add density, which is good for both the area and the city. I think the podium will kill Bromfield and hurt Washington.
Click to expand...

There may have been a private exchange between the developer and Director Golden prior to the unveiling, But, sooner or later, all of those involved may have to reconcile the podium design as presented isn't workable for the greater community. But, if you'll pardon me for repeating; the developer could use this as leverage to slip the height and density through!
 
Last edited:
Suffolk 83 said:
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
Click to expand...

Can we implode the JFK Building and put this in its place?
 
Does anyone have any info on what went on at last night's meeting?
 
Odur, can you stop doing this:
i hope they get this proect done. Like Harbor Garage tower, Copley Tower, 111 Fed, 1 Dalton, Garden Garage tower and the rest,
Click to expand...

and this:
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
Click to expand...

I appreciate that your excited about projects but you do this in every thread and its very annoying. Just talk about the project the thread is about. Go to those general threads to bring up every project in the city!
 
No problem.

You're right. it's definitely something i tend to do.
 
I definitely would like as much of the existing facades preserved as possible, on Washington and Bromfield, and I'd like as continuous as a street wall on both streets as possible. I get there needs to be car access somewhere, and I think the proposal for the driveway between Province Ct and Bromfield St is decent, but it still feels like too big of a gap in the street wall. I'm also not sure which alternative I prefer in terms of direction of access and turning Bromfield St one-way in the opposite direction for the last block or not.
 
bigpicture7 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Bigpicture -- Millenium has already been hit up for 'Linkage payments" and building some affordable housing somewhere

Perhaps if you didn't do those kinds of de-jure extortions they might just be more interested in fixing-up the DTX Station

The Big Picture is that Boston is a desireable place for young Millenials with skills to build companies, houses, play spots. To make this a sucessful social-contract though -- the political-types and their retinue need to get it through their thick skulls -- that the old Blue Collar Boston of the 1950's is gone

Listen to Jeff Immelt and hundreds of others who have made the choice for Boston
 
^ whigh, well said. I completely agree. The hostile du jour extortions are what cause problems and are not systemically well thought out. I was primarily referring 1 Brom, which is at the letter-of-intent stage (*edit*, it's at "under review"). I referenced Millenium Partners only as a nearby example of someone else building in DTX.

Elsewhere I posted that these shared value packages should be strategized and prepared in advance, ideally such as when the city sets out a RFP for things like the upcoming steam plant redevelopment (or, looking back, 111 Fed).

In the case of 1 Brom, it's developer-owned property, so there's no opportunity to frame an RFP package in advance. But that doesn't mean at EARLY stages the city can't be thinking about the impact the project will have on its surroundings (clearly the DTX transit station will be heavily used by residents), and propose shared value collaborations.

Please do not refer to me as an extortionist. I am a proponent of 1 Brom (agreeing with others about facade preservation - or at least better integeration).
 
cden4 said:
I definitely would like as much of the existing facades preserved as possible, on Washington and Bromfield, and I'd like as continuous as a street wall on both streets as possible. I get there needs to be car access somewhere, and I think the proposal for the driveway between Province Ct and Bromfield St is decent, but it still feels like too big of a gap in the street wall. I'm also not sure which alternative I prefer in terms of direction of access and turning Bromfield St one-way in the opposite direction for the last block or not.
Click to expand...

Cden -- Is gap in the streetwall the new version of Shadows?

People walking along a street don't necessarily "freaq-out" because of a door for vehicles to enter that they have to pass, anymore than they notice a bit of fascade with no windows or no doors for a few [seconds / steps]

Cities are not uniform shopping strips where every 10th step you have a door and a show window -- it's not necessary to have retail in every block on a sreet, nor are cars anymore anti-pedestrian than bikes or motor scooters

I would hazard to say that I probably walk as much as anyone on this forum and that I have done so in cities around the world -- based on very differnt cultures and styles of urbanity.

The only thing that really bothers me when I walk in a city are high opaque walls that come right out to the sidewalk [e.g. Buckinham Palace]. I'm also not a big fan of places that have signs or guards who actively discourange you from walking past the ediface let alone taking pictures [e.g. former KGB HQ in Almaty Kazhkstan]

Boston has neither of these of which I'm aware -- although there are plenty of ugly governmental sturctures [e.g. Hurley, ONeil, Boston City Hall] -- but that is a differnt matter

Finally, not every old fascade which has been casually converted to a Payless Shoes is necessary for the urban fabric of the city to be left un-rent.

Boston has a whole bunch of buildings which are just the 19th C or early 20th C version of the kind of building commonly decried on this forum -- they just happen to be oldish

Sure it would have been nice to save the Tontine Crecent on Franklin St. [kind of our version of one of the UK's famous cresencents such as Bath] -- but that's where first Filenes and then MT got built
 
bigpicture7 said:
^ whigh, well said. I completely agree. The hostile du jour extortions are what cause problems and are not systemically well thought out....

Please do not refer to me as an extortionist. I am a proponent of 1 Brom (agreeing with others about facade preservation - or at least better integeration).
Click to expand...

Bigpicture -- i wasn't directly referring to you or any specific individual when I mentioned extortion -- that was a rhetorical device -- to discuss the general approach favored by the Boston Politicals

They sem to think that the [particularly applicatble to outside] developer is just trying to take advantage of the real estate boom to grab what they can from Boston -- the Politcal types think that to "preserve Boston" that they need to grab back.

The proper approach is to invidte the outside developer to become a "Bostonian" and to then want to contribute to the city and its environs

This should be especially true about someone who is investing of order $1B in a project. They should be treated as the visit of a long lost relative or friend -- not the impositon on your time due to someone hawking vacuum cleaners or such
 
whighlander said:
The proper approach is to invidte the outside developer to become a "Bostonian" and to then want to contribute to the city and its environs
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification; and I wholeheartedly agree with above.

...And the best way to combat the NIMBY roadblock is to craft an exceptional mutual/partnered value package, and to continually steer the discussion back to that. But it can't be BS. It has to be genuine mutual value. We have succeeded in this before in some of the city's better developer partnership efforts.
 
We're at 15% now.

The present extortion just doesn't sound sexy because it's a % of tax. But it's steep.

But the nimby will say the developers aren't doing enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top