1280-1330 Boylston Street, Brookline

D

dirtywater

Active Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
677
Reaction score
333
1727795068435.png
1727795087152.png

According to Brookline News, a developer is proposing to transform "what’s now a largely vacant office building and a bank surrounded by parking lots" into a high-end hotel and 500-plus units of housing. The plan "is to build three tall buildings around a 'mini town center' filled with green space, seating and a water feature." The project includes the following:
One building, which at 20 stories would be one of the tallest in Brookline, would have a 200- to 250-room hotel on the first six floors, including a large events space, spa and restaurants. Condos would fill the rest of the tower.

A second, 12-story building would have retail space on the first two floors and apartments above. And the third, at 13 stories high, would combine a multi-floor internal shopping atrium, medical offices and senior housing. The three would total 1.2 million square feet of development on a 5.3 acre site.
Click to expand...
 
Ped-oriented housing, hotel, and green space, a 12 minute walk from the D line?? This is a no-brainer.

To the Brookliners opposing this as "out of place in the neighborhood"... f off, this is not a neighboorhood, it's a goddamn stroad with parking lots on one side and a cemetery on the other. Everett would love to have this sort of transit access, but they don't have any problem building new housing. If you live in Brookline, please write your councillors in support of this project!

1000004045.png
 
^ You can't really tell the layout of utilities, HVAC, support structure, stairwells, and elevators just by looking at the front of a building. Those might all have to change. As this board has discussed a billion times, offices centralize all their plumbing into a limited number of giant bathrooms and kitchenettes. Office tenants don't have many interior rooms so the windows serve a lot more people compared to residential tenants who want lots of separate little rooms with natural light.

Edit: typos
 
kdmc said:
Ped-oriented housing, hotel, and green space, a 12 minute walk from the D line?? This is a no-brainer.

To the Brookliners opposing this as "out of place in the neighborhood"... f off, this is not a neighboorhood, it's a goddamn stroad with parking lots on one side and a cemetery on the other. Everett would love to have this sort of transit access, but they don't have any problem building new housing. If you live in Brookline, please write your councillors in support of this project!

View attachment 56387
Click to expand...

That area of Route 9 is like the Indy 500 though. That's not an easy pedestrian stroll To the Green line station. A pedestrian bridge or tunnel below would be nice. As mapped in your post, that first half of the walk is hellacious. Once you get on Hammond Street, though, it's quite quaint.

I grew up down the road in the Highlands and, while that location may technically be "Brookline" it's character is much more vroom, vroom suburban autocentric Newton Route 9. The local authorities should kick in some pedestrian amenities to make that one work. I wouldn't buy/rent in that development unless serious changes to facilitate that.

The area across Boylston behind the Star Market/by Hammond Pond would be a far better location for this - - and far better for pedestrian access to Chestnut Hill Station.
 
Last edited:
kdmc said:
Ped-oriented housing, hotel, and green space, a 12 minute walk from the D line?? This is a no-brainer.

To the Brookliners opposing this as "out of place in the neighborhood"... f off, this is not a neighboorhood, it's a goddamn stroad with parking lots on one side and a cemetery on the other. Everett would love to have this sort of transit access, but they don't have any problem building new housing. If you live in Brookline, please write your councillors in support of this project!

View attachment 56387
Click to expand...

Unfortunately Brookline doesn't have town (or City) councilors, so this will have to go through Brookline's rather large representative town meeting.
 
Texasian said:
A Brookline NIMBY’s dilemma: Wants Brookline to lower residential taxes, opposes developments that would help Brookline lower residential taxes.
Click to expand...

Are these the same people who comment something along the lines of...."my son/daughter/kids will never be able to afford to buy a house in this town"?
 
shmessy said:
The area across Boylston behind the Star Market/by Hammond Pond would be a far better location for this
Click to expand...
Where exactly are you referring to that would have space for a project this size? Also, that area across the street is not Brookline. The retail at The Street (and Hammond Pond) are located in Newton.
 
shmessy said:
That area of Route 9 is like the Indy 500 though. That's not an easy pedestrian stroll To the Green line station. A pedestrian bridge or tunnel below would be nice. As mapped in your post, that first half of the walk is hellacious. Once you get on Hammond Street, though, it's quite quaint.
Click to expand...
Building this proposal or one like it is how we start the path toward modifying the area. The Town won't pre-emptively fix or alter the pedestrian experience when currently there aren't (m)any pedestrians. But drop in some housing, and the conversation will start to change.
 
HenryAlan said:
Building this proposal or one like it is how we start the path toward modifying the area. The Town won't pre-emptively fix or alter the pedestrian experience when currently there aren't (m)any pedestrians. But drop in some housing, and the conversation will start to change.
Click to expand...

Then it's a game of chicken.

Who will be the brave pedestrian volunteers (any takers here?) to buy units in this project and 'take one for the team' until the town antes up in the future to make that walk to the T more palatable? I'm sure there will be some, but those people will be far more car-centric than what idealists hope for, until the infrastructure changes to make that walk easier.

I grew up there - - the walk experience to cross Route 9 from there to the Chestnut Hill T station is a crap walk. It's not the wonderful amenity being portrayed and anyone touring may buy, but they certainly won't be buying based on that "selling point".

***The posters arguing how this is so pedestrian friendly, evidently missed the sentence in the link about the "two-level underground parking garage would have space for 845 vehicles." There's a reason that the hopeful posters above are trying to ignore.

845 parking spaces - - please tell me again how this is "pedestrian oriented" centered around the T??????
 
Last edited:
Oh that's right, you like to argue with strawmen. Nobody has claimed it is super pedestrian friendly or pedestrian oriented. You complained specifically that it wasn't, and some of us have responded (even agreeing, as I did). Because you didn't get the pushback you hoped for, now you are trying to get people to defend things they didn't say.
 
shmessy said:
Who will be the brave pedestrian volunteers (any takers here?) to buy units in this project and 'take one for the team' until the town antes up in the future to make that walk to the T more palatable?
Click to expand...
If there wasn't a market for this kind of housing, they wouldn't build it, unless (a) they're dumb or (b) there's some weird incentive for them to lose money on this project, which I'm not aware of.
shmessy said:
those people will be far more car-centric than what idealists hope for, until the infrastructure changes to make that walk easier.
Click to expand...
People aren't born car-centric or non-car-centric. Yes, people have habits, but those can change as the infrastructure around them changes. I would bet that many of them will find a 15-minute somewhat-unpleasant walk to a generally high-quality transit branch (D) preferrable to driving in rush hour Boston traffic.

shmessy said:
The posters arguing how this is so pedestrian friendly,
Click to expand...
I will own this argument. Look at the map of the proposed development.Walking-distance retail with nicely-landscaped public green space and little-to-no internal traffic. It reminds me of Cambridge Crossing. Have you been there? It's awesome.
shmessy said:
two-level underground parking garage would have space for 845 vehicles."
Click to expand...
That's more than I'd prefer too, but if we're talking 500 resi units, 250 hotel units, and parking for employees, that's pretty damn close to a 1:1 parking:unit ratio. Given that most American households have 2+ cars, it's nice to see developments that push them to have just one.
 
kdmc said:
If there wasn't a market for this kind of housing, they wouldn't build it, unless (a) they're dumb or (b) there's some weird incentive for them to lose money on this project, which I'm not aware of.

People aren't born car-centric or non-car-centric. Yes, people have habits, but those can change as the infrastructure around them changes. I would bet that many of them will find a 15-minute somewhat-unpleasant walk to a generally high-quality transit branch (D) preferrable to driving in rush hour Boston traffic.


I will own this argument. Look at the map of the proposed development.Walking-distance retail with nicely-landscaped public green space and little-to-no internal traffic. It reminds me of Cambridge Crossing. Have you been there? It's awesome.

That's more than I'd prefer too, but if we're talking 500 resi units, 250 hotel units, and parking for employees, that's pretty damn close to a 1:1 parking:unit ratio. Given that most American households have 2+ cars, it's nice to see developments that push them to have just one.
Click to expand...

"Pretty damn close" to a1:1 ratio is not "pedestrian centered". Let's call it what it is.

This may very well be a successful project. A successful auto-centric project. No need to pretend.

I dream of cities/areas that are pedestrian/bike/mass transit centric. This ain't it. And rationalizing that it is, only further distances the important goal from being realized. Like pseudo environmentalists touting "clean natural gas".
 
Last edited:
shmessy said:
"Pretty damn close" to a1:1 ratio is not "pedestrian centered". Let's call it what it is.

This may very well be a successful project. A successful auto-centric project. No need to pretend.

I dream of cities/areas that are pedestrian/bike/mass transit centric. This ain't it. And rationalizing that it is, only further distances the important goal from being realized. Like pseudo environmentalists touting "clean natural gas".
Click to expand...
No True Scotsman much?

This is more ped-centric and less auto-centric than it would be if had a 2:1 parking ratio, roads between each building, no retail, and zero rapid transit access. That's worth something.

Do you really dream of cities that are ped/bike/transit centric? If so, how would you go about transforming the Route 9 corridor? Would you want to wait until there was a master plan, another rapid transit branch, and billions of dollars of funding so the whole place could be densely developed into paradise at once? What would it take?
 
kdmc said:
Ped-oriented housing, hotel, and green space, a 12 minute walk from the D line?? This is a no-brainer.

To the Brookliners opposing this as "out of place in the neighborhood"... f off, this is not a neighboorhood, it's a goddamn stroad with parking lots on one side and a cemetery on the other. Everett would love to have this sort of transit access, but they don't have any problem building
Click to expand...

There really needs to be some sort of a rational or quantitative standard at to what qualifies as a 'neighborhood.' It's a term that is thrown around way too much by NIMBYs in reference to any geographic area.
 
kdmc said:
No True Scotsman much?

This is more ped-centric and less auto-centric than it would be if had a 2:1 parking ratio, roads between each building, no retail, and zero rapid transit access. That's worth something.

Do you really dream of cities that are ped/bike/transit centric? If so, how would you go about transforming the Route 9 corridor? Would you want to wait until there was a master plan, another rapid transit branch, and billions of dollars of funding so the whole place could be densely developed into paradise at once? What would it take?
Click to expand...

".......This is more ped-centric and less auto-centric than it would be if had a 2:1 parking ratio, roads between each building, no retail, and zero rapid transit access........"

Way to set the bar so very high there!

Look I'm completely IN FAVOR of this development. But with 845 new parking spaces, "ped-centric" it ain't.

And there's no amount of you exclaiming how beautiful the Emperor's clothes are to make anyone believe that it is actually "ped-centric" without a lot of ancillary help in the form of ways to more directly, quickly and safely get pedestrians over that straightaway portion of Route 9.

Once again, I am completely IN FAVOR of this development. But if you called it a 'beautiful NASA launching pad' I would call that a bullshit characterization too. It is what it is.
 
shmessy said:
".......This is more ped-centric and less auto-centric than it would be if had a 2:1 parking ratio, roads between each building, no retail, and zero rapid transit access........"

Way to set the bar so very high there!

Look I'm completely IN FAVOR of this development. But with 845 new parking spaces, "ped-centric" it ain't.

And there's no amount of you exclaiming how beautiful the Emperor's clothes are to make anyone believe that it is actually "ped-centric" without a lot of ancillary help in the form of ways to more directly, quickly and safely get pedestrians over that straightaway portion of Route 9.

Once again, I am completely IN FAVOR of this development. But if you called it a 'beautiful NASA launching pad' I would call that a bullshit characterization too. It is what it is.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top