142-146 St. Mary’s street | Fenway

stick n move

stick n move

Superstar
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
11,111
Reaction score
14,999
Some small changes:

IMG_1108.jpeg

IMG_1109.jpeg

IMG_1106.jpeg

IMG_1107.jpeg

IMG_1110.jpeg

https://bpda.app.box.com/s/zymc4kdcir9x4zx4wz5n6qx9oukw9cdt

“The DPIR proposal would raze and replace the outdated commercial parking garage and revitalize the Project Site with a new six (6) story residential building of approximately 84,520 gross square feet of floor area, containing 85-units of multi-family residential housing and new and expanded sidewalks, improved pedestrian and vehicular access, and 100 on-site spaces including 82-garage spaces and 18-surface parking spaces to serve both the project’s new residents, the Proponent’s off-street parking obligations for its long-existing abutting apartment building at 101 Monmouth Street in the Town of Brookline, and some spaces for neighborhood residents (the “Proposed Project”).”

https://www.bostonplans.org/projects/development-projects/142-146-st-marys-street

Previous:
stick n move said:
142-146 St. Mary’s Street
ea9f3573-ee7e-4ffc-b2c4-247cdaa44826

View attachment 43898
View attachment 43899
View attachment 43900
View attachment 43901

“The Proponent proposes to construct an approximately six-story residential building that will contain approximately 91,000 gross square feet, 90 residential units, and parking.”

https://www.bostonplans.org/projects/development-projects/142-146-st-marys-street
Click to expand...

Existing structure:
IMG_1111.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Not a huge issue, but whenever someone raises their voice it always ALWAYS leads to a smaller and worse project. I don't care about the reduced number of parking spots, but how does removing 5 units from the market make this an easier pill for anyone to swallow? The project requires relief either way for FAR and height, but chopping out 6,500 total square footage makes this better somehow? Blah.

1729868893865.png
 
Somebody get these fucking facade designers a plumb bob.
 
Jeremi said:
Maybe you should be more upset that every BUILDING is the same.
Click to expand...
You don't sound nearly as smart or funny as you think you do.

Look, if we all just left snarky angry comments on every other thread, this site would be a cesspit. If you have somthing interesting to say about a project, say it, but otherwise please chill out, or maybe direct your attitude at someone who can actually do something about what you're complaining about.
 
Gentlemen you can’t complain about architecture here! This is the architecture forum!
 
Jeremi said:
Gentlemen you can’t complain about architecture here! This is the architecture forum!
Click to expand...

The issue is you make statements without giving reasons.

That's Kindergarten level. You're not informing, just blowing off steam. That benefits no one here.

Criticism is indeed important. We all can be very critical in here. But we give REASONS for our critiques. Otherwise, it is just graffiti.

Looking over your short history of 19 posts so far shows a sameness - - of simply making statements without reasons for the statements. So, in effect, your posting history so far has been nothing but graffiti. Perhaps you can be better. I hope you have it in you.

.
 
Justbuildit said:
Not a huge issue, but whenever someone raises their voice it always ALWAYS leads to a smaller and worse project. I don't care about the reduced number of parking spots, but how does removing 5 units from the market make this an easier pill for anyone to swallow? The project requires relief either way for FAR and height, but chopping out 6,500 total square footage makes this better somehow? Blah.

View attachment 57147
Click to expand...

I think the MBTA was the problem child here. The MBTA submitted comments to the City expressing concerns about the lack of a setback between the proposed building and the MBTA's Fenway station. No side setback is required under the zoning but the MBTA requested one of at least 20-feet.

From the MBTA:
"Setbacks are an important zoning mechanism to separate incompatible uses, and in many areas are used to separate active rail lines from development, protecting people by physically distancing them from transit, which is a heavy industrial use [personally, I think that's an odd way to classify transit]. While the minimum required side yard setback in the zoning sub-district is zero feet, the Proponent has not considered compatibility of uses in the design..."

"While a setback of thirty feet is preferred, a setback of at least twenty feet (20’) could decrease the likelihood of patrons encroaching on MBTA property, or potentially tossing objects from the planned second-level garden terrace onto the ROW [is this a common problem?!], as well as additional undesired opportunities for residents to potentially foul the ROW, including the overhead power and communication systems."

As you can see, I thought the MBTA comments were a bit hyperbolic, but the City made it pretty clear it would not support zoning relief unless the applicant addressed the MBTA's concerns.
 
In a nutshell, this project proposes to replace an old parking garage with a new housing development that is literally at the doorstep of an MBTA station (this proposal would add a secondary pedestrian entrance to the Fenway D line station) and is located a mere 0.1 mile walk from a Green Line C line station (St Mary's St) and a 0.4 mile walk to a commuter rail station (Landsdowne). It's also located on the Emerald Necklace and its associated pedestrian network. To me it seems like the City should be clamoring for this, but it's incompatible with the area's terrible zoning, so it will likely go through the inevitable downsizing process.

Incredibly transit- and pedestrian- friendly location
142 St Mary.png


I think this project, which is very incompatible with the zoning requirements, highlights how archaic the requirements are. Do we really want to limit a prime transit-accessible location to three stories with a 1/3 of the lot limited to parking/open space? The following outlines the zoning non-conformities:

Maximum Density under Zoning: 29 units Proposed Density: 85 units
Maximum Height under Zoning: 3 stories (45-feet) Proposed Height: 6 stories (69-feet)
Note that the site is bounded by buildings that are the following heights: West: 8 stories, East: 6 stories, North: Rowhouses - 3 stories South: N/A MBTA station
Maximum FAR under Zoning: 2.0 Proposed FAR: 2.85
Minimum Open Space: 200 sq ft per unit Proposed Open Space: 98 sq ft per unit
 
Smuttynose said:
potentially tossing objects from the planned second-level garden terrace onto the ROW [is this a common problem?!]
Click to expand...
I'm not sure who the intended residents are, but considering there are a lot of BU students in that neighborhood, and drunk students love throwing things off of heights, I'm sure there is a possibility they may have to deal with some projectiles.
 
Smuttynose said:
In a nutshell, this project proposes to replace an old parking garage with a new housing development that is literally at the doorstep of an MBTA station (this proposal would add a secondary pedestrian entrance to the Fenway D line station) and is located a mere 0.1 mile walk from a Green Line C line station (St Mary's St) and a 0.4 mile walk to a commuter rail station (Landsdowne). It's also located on the Emerald Necklace and its associated pedestrian network. To me it seems like the City should be clamoring for this, but it's incompatible with the area's terrible zoning, so it will likely go through the inevitable downsizing process.

Incredibly transit- and pedestrian- friendly location
View attachment 57416

I think this project, which is very incompatible with the zoning requirements, highlights how archaic the requirements are. Do we really want to limit a prime transit-accessible location to three stories with a 1/3 of the lot limited to parking/open space? The following outlines the zoning non-conformities:

Maximum Density under Zoning: 29 units Proposed Density: 85 units
Maximum Height under Zoning: 3 stories (45-feet) Proposed Height: 6 stories (69-feet)
Note that the site is bounded by buildings that are the following heights: West: 8 stories, East: 6 stories, North: Rowhouses - 3 stories South: N/A MBTA station
Maximum FAR under Zoning: 2.0 Proposed FAR: 2.85
Minimum Open Space: 200 sq ft per unit Proposed Open Space: 98 sq ft per unit
Click to expand...

Agree 100%.


“Having an antiquated Zoning Code limits the City’s ability to address the current housing crisis by creating steps and costs to the creation of new housing. The report released today shows that Boston’s code is abnormally long compared to cities of comparable size by geography and population. At nearly 4,000 pages, Boston’s code is nearly 40 percent longer than that of New York City, which has 13 times Boston’s population and six times its land area. By every form of comparison to comparable size cities, Boston’s code is significantly longer.

The analysis also shows that length does not result in a clearer or more effective code, but rather, a more complex, inconsistent, and inequitable Code. The report indicates that the length of the code and its many contradictions impede residents from making even small changes to their home or business without hiring a lawyer. This creates barriers that prevent Bostonians from being able to participate meaningfully in the planning process……..”

http://www.bostonplans.org/news-cal...3/09/13/bpda-releases-analysis-of-zoning-code
 
thepixelnation said:
I'm not sure who the intended residents are, but considering there are a lot of BU students in that neighborhood, and drunk students love throwing things off of heights, I'm sure there is a possibility they may have to deal with some projectiles.
Click to expand...
Not an issue and there are currently plenty of places for drunken projectile throwing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top