1280-1330 Boylston Street, Brookline

kdmc said:
OK, so if you're in favor of it, then what are we actually disagreeing about? The term "pedestrian-centric"? Fine, whatever. All I'm saying is that if you consider all the ways in which this specific Route 9 parcel could be redeveloped, the proposed one is a relative win for urbanists.
Click to expand...

Nice adjustment now from "ped-centric" to "win for urbanists".

I have no idea where you got the idea I was AGAINST the proposal. You jumped to a conclusion just because I pointed out this was not a ped-centric proposal. FACT: It is a very car-centric proposal of an 845 parking space development, 12 minutes walk (and across a very busy straightaway of Route 9) from a T station. I know that stretch quite well. It doesn't cater to pedestrians at all. It is what it is. And it isn't what it isn't. That particular walk to the Chestnut Hill T won't be turning into the Greenway anytime soon - - the Longwood Cricket Club ain't looking to encourage farmers markets and civic balloon festivals. The members like the protection from walking humanoids that Route 9 provides. Those people are VERY well-connected.

I've seen traffic at many times of the day back up on Boylston east from the light at Hammond all the way to the Wegmans. Put another 845 parking spaces and buildings up to 18 stories there and you'll see that back up all the way to the former Tony's Italian Villa (whatever the hell it is now) stop light at Langley Road. It's not as bad as the backups on the ridiculously zoned Needham Street, but it would trend in that direction.

It would be a huge win if Brookline/Newton/The Commonwealth (or the actual developer) could help with infrastructure to make the area far more ped-centric. If the developer could affect anything in that direction, then, perhaps, we could call it "ped-centric".
 
Last edited:
Just jumping into this now... does anyone have any thoughts about the actual proposal? ;)

I'd guess about half this height is sacrificial, since this would be over 200' and this part of Brookline would sooner give up their membership to The Country Club than allow that to happen. I'm concerned that this quickly becomes a landscraper once it gets shorter, and the punch-through "portals" developers like to cheat into these things don't actually create a diversified streetwall. This should be at least six buildings, not three.

That's also a lot of retail spaces to fill in a project that won't have an anchor (Wegman's at Chestnut Hill Square, Star Market and the cinema at The Street, Macy's and the Apple Store at the mall...). This area is pretty saturated with small retail spaces at those three. With the parking underground and thus less convenient for quick stops, are these really going to be desirable to lease?
 
Equilibria said:
Just jumping into this now... does anyone have any thoughts about the actual proposal? ;)

I'd guess about half this height is sacrificial, since this would be over 200' and this part of Brookline would sooner give up their membership to The Country Club than allow that to happen. I'm concerned that this quickly becomes a landscraper once it gets shorter, and the punch-through "portals" developers like to cheat into these things don't actually create a diversified streetwall. This should be at least six buildings, not three.

That's also a lot of retail spaces to fill in a project that won't have an anchor (Wegman's at Chestnut Hill Square, Star Market and the cinema at The Street, Macy's and the Apple Store at the mall...). This area is pretty saturated with small retail spaces at those three. With the parking underground and thus less convenient for quick stops, are these really going to be desirable to lease?
Click to expand...



Please. 😏

The 845 proposed parking space additions and their placement at that spot on Route 9 are no less relevant re the "actual proposal" than your evident concern about what retail shops go in there.

But, obviously, if this proposal height gets cut in half, most likely the retail square footage would be similarly reduced (unless they want to cut into the residential component and turn this into another Atrium Mall from up the road).

.
 
Last edited:
I mean at the northeast edge of the property at Tully St there's a light with a crosswalk. There's also an on demand crosswalk just past that (which I wouldn't do at night but I have seen enough people use to know that it's a viable way to cross 9 on that stretch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FK4
AdamBC said:
I mean at the northeast edge of the property at Tully St there's a light with a crosswalk. There's also an on demand crosswalk just past that (which I wouldn't do at night but I have seen enough people use to know that it's a viable way to cross 9 on that stretch.
Click to expand...
Yes, a fairly well-used crosswalk and I think the light is responsive.

@Equilibria I agree, the height surely must be sacrificial, nice word for that too. I wish it were real, though. I share your concerns about boring landscapers, that do nothing but block block block. If only we could just be honest from the start about heights... in so many cases, multiple shorter buildings is actually better urbanism than these horrible boxy blobs.

Edit--I finally went to Shake Shack and the new (or new to me) movie theater across the street a few weeks ago. I didn't even know Bernard's had moved from Chestnut Hill Mall, lol. I think despite the obvious appeal to rich people they did a pretty decent job with the whole area. It's definitely better than it was back in the day. At any rate, given the overall success of this area and swankiness factor, re; your retail concerns, if this new development could snag a very upscale hotel and another high end anchor, retail could work. But it won't work if it's just several retail shop spaces or run of the mill restaurant spaces.
 
FK4 said:
Yes, a fairly well-used crosswalk and I think the light is responsive.

@Equilibria I agree, the height surely must be sacrificial, nice word for that too. I wish it were real, though. I share your concerns about boring landscapers, that do nothing but block block block. If only we could just be honest from the start about heights... in so many cases, multiple shorter buildings is actually better urbanism than these horrible boxy blobs.

Edit--I finally went to Shake Shack and the new (or new to me) movie theater across the street a few weeks ago. I didn't even know Bernard's had moved from Chestnut Hill Mall, lol. I think despite the obvious appeal to rich people they did a pretty decent job with the whole area. It's definitely better than it was back in the day. At any rate, given the overall success of this area and swankiness factor, re; your retail concerns, if this new development could snag a very upscale hotel and another high end anchor, retail could work. But it won't work if it's just several retail shop spaces or run of the mill restaurant spaces.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the economics of landscrapers trump those of multiple buildings broken up, even though the latter is far better urbanism. I wonder whether the old time Amsterdam property regime of taxing by width (which resulted in some very slim buildings) would be an antidote.
 
FK4 said:
Yes, a fairly well-used crosswalk and I think the light is responsive.

@Equilibria I agree, the height surely must be sacrificial, nice word for that too. I wish it were real, though. I share your concerns about boring landscapers, that do nothing but block block block. If only we could just be honest from the start about heights... in so many cases, multiple shorter buildings is actually better urbanism than these horrible boxy blobs.

Edit--I finally went to Shake Shack and the new (or new to me) movie theater across the street a few weeks ago. I didn't even know Bernard's had moved from Chestnut Hill Mall, lol. I think despite the obvious appeal to rich people they did a pretty decent job with the whole area. It's definitely better than it was back in the day. At any rate, given the overall success of this area and swankiness factor, re; your retail concerns, if this new development could snag a very upscale hotel and another high end anchor, retail could work. But it won't work if it's just several retail shop spaces or run of the mill restaurant spaces.
Click to expand...
This might actually be a good application for a gerbil tube, either free-standing or landing in the cinema, Container Store, or some other building in The Street.

It will never happen since the two sides are owned by different people, but it would remove the only friction from this site to the Green Line and allow people going eastbound on Route 9 to park for The Street and vice-versa.
 
BosDevelop said:
That was over a decade ago! My stomach loves their food but hates their prices so I rarely go.
Click to expand...
Yeah until this fall, I hadn't eaten these since the late 2000's I think. Having since gone back, the new place is great.

I do miss the Chestnut Hill Mall of my childhood memories (late 80s/early 90s, piano playing, the smell of the water in the fountains, throwing pennies in the staircase waterfall)—I remember when the Atrium opened as a competitor.
 
Equilibria said:
This might actually be a good application for a gerbil tube, either free-standing or landing in the cinema, Container Store, or some other building in The Street.

It will never happen since the two sides are owned by different people, but it would remove the only friction from this site to the Green Line and allow people going eastbound on Route 9 to park for The Street and vice-versa.
Click to expand...
Missed this reply. I actually agree, even tho tubes can be anti urban, for here it could help unite the whole area, in a feeling-sense. The psychology of the space would feel more connected, and closer to, the T. Especially if there were to be an eventual (likely) redevelopment of the Sunoco and CVS lots that could further extend the pedestrian-friendly feeling all the way to Hammond St.
 
The windows in Bloomingdale’s overlooking Route 9 and the hanger like feel of the main part of the mall are what I recall from my childhood.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FK4
FK4 said:
Missed this reply. I actually agree, even tho tubes can be anti urban, for here it could help unite the whole area, in a feeling-sense. The psychology of the space would feel more connected, and closer to, the T. Especially if there were to be an eventual (likely) redevelopment of the Sunoco and CVS lots that could further extend the pedestrian-friendly feeling all the way to Hammond St.
Click to expand...

Given that there's a building going up across the interesection as we speak, building on the Sunoco/CVS/parking lot (and maybe building a pedestrian street in between that building and the diagonal strip of restaurants adjacent to Star Market), would be something of a transformational project. The entire stretch from Hammond Street to Hammond Pond Parkway really only needs a couple of tweaks to be de-highwayed. And that's how Route 9 is going to get better: we just need to fix one segment at a time, following the Brookline Village model. After this, redevelop the strip mall that's right across the street from the Elliot T stop next.
 
FK4 said:
I do miss the Chestnut Hill Mall of my childhood memories (late 80s/early 90s, piano playing, the smell of the water in the fountains, throwing pennies in the staircase waterfall)—I remember when the Atrium opened as a competitor.
Click to expand...
As a teenager, I spent a lot of time at that Mall in the 80s. Cape Cod restaurant and Charley's forever!
 
  • Like
Reactions: FK4
BosDevelop said:
As a teenager, I spent a lot of time at that Mall in the 80s. Cape Cod restaurant and Charley's forever!
Click to expand...
Whoa I forgot about Charley’s, I remember that place well now that I’m reminded tho. Cape Cod Restaurant I dont think I do remember tho. I miss the Nature Store, that place was awesome.
 
As @Equilibria speculated, City Realty has shrunk its proposal down by about 266,000 square feet.

Brookline.png


“We definitely heard from everybody that 20 stories is a number that is too high for this project, as well as looking for us to reduce density overall,” Cliff Kensington, director of acquisitions for City Realty Group, told us.

The updated proposal includes 225 hotel rooms, 180 apartments, 130 condos and 111 age-restricted housing units.

More at our story here: https://bankerandtradesman.com/city-realty-cuts-266k-sf-from-brookline-project/
 
Makes sense they're going to cut most of the height for Building C, the Heath side presents more neighborhood NIMBY problems. Is that a height increase for building B or did the original render just not include it from this view?
 
I was worried about landscapers when they made it shorter. There needs to be more differentiation or more discrete buildings.

I get that this is rough massing, but notes for next version.
 
thepixelnation said:
Makes sense they're going to cut most of the height for Building C, the Heath side presents more neighborhood NIMBY problems. Is that a height increase for building B or did the original render just not include it from this view?
Click to expand...

It's a very slight increase. Building B is there in the "before" image but it's greyed out for reasons.

The massing model @NorthshoreCity posted up-thread has the view from Route 9 before this size reduction., which more clearly shows Building B.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top