222 Friend St | Bulfinch Triangle

R

rjacobs

Active Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Messages
241
Reaction score
422
I apologize if this has been posted before, but apparently there's a proposal to replace a 3-story office building (pictured below) with an 11-story lab.

Unfortunately, I don't know if there are any plans to preserve the facade (there absolutely should be, in my unsolicited opinion).


1686947184701.png
https://www.bldup.com/posts/11-stor...=email&utm_term=0_-ebc7a854cd-[LIST_EMAIL_ID]
 
Well, that sucks. Fantastic old building replaced by yet another lab that could as easily have been built along Rt 128 and is unlikely to have any commerce on the ground floor. A loss for us all.
 
rjacobs said:
I apologize if this has been posted before, but apparently there's a proposal to replace a 3-story office building (pictured below) with an 11-story lab.

Unfortunately, I don't know if there are any plans to preserve the facade (there absolutely should be, in my unsolicited opinion).


View attachment 39195https://www.bldup.com/posts/11-story-lab-planned-in-bulfinch-triangle?utm_source=BLDUP.com+Customer+List&utm_campaign=ebc7a854cd-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2023_06_15_06_35&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-ebc7a854cd-[LIST_EMAIL_ID]
Click to expand...

Thats an extremely attractive brick building.
 
I also hope the facade is preserved.

itchy said:
Well, that sucks. Fantastic old building replaced by yet another lab that could as easily have been built along Rt 128 and is unlikely to have any commerce on the ground floor. A loss for us all.
Click to expand...

Scientists like the city too. I’m not sure where the hate for labs comes from. It is the same as any commercial space. Some workers commute from the burbs, some come by pubic transit, and some walk from a few blocks away. I 100% acknowledge that the central business district needs more housing far more than more commercial, but don’t single out labs. There is nothing about science and engineering jobs that makes them belong on 128 while (presumably?) some other jobs belong in the city.

And if the ground floor doesn’t get retail, I think that is a failure of the city and zoning.
 
The size, shape, loading requirements, mechanical requirements (hideous HVAC up top), density (people / sq foot actually working inside) and - while more on the city than the nature of the use of labs - fact that they effectively never have any retail / commerce on the ground floor make labs - in concept and especially in reality - a less desirable use of space than almost anything else. Residential, hotel, non-lab office ... the only worse use is Amazon warehouses.

Obviously labs are an important part of the metro area's economy. There's plenty of great space in non-downtown parts of Boston, Cambridge and other close-in suburbs, and all around Rte. 128 for exactly that.
 
Here I was thinking this was referencing the old US Trust/ITA Software building in Kendall Square and getting extremely confused.

That is a criminally poor choice for that lot. Sadly, I don’t think a facadectomy is the right answer, since any lab program will overpower the facade. Too bad the BPDA couldn’t/wouldn’t broker a swap with some developer that wants to do something other than labs.
 
itchy said:
The size, shape, loading requirements, mechanical requirements (hideous HVAC up top), density (people / sq foot actually working inside) and - while more on the city than the nature of the use of labs - fact that they effectively never have any retail / commerce on the ground floor make labs - in concept and especially in reality - a less desirable use of space than almost anything else. Residential, hotel, non-lab office ... the only worse use is Amazon warehouses.

Obviously labs are an important part of the metro area's economy. There's plenty of great space in non-downtown parts of Boston, Cambridge and other close-in suburbs, and all around Rte. 128 for exactly that.
Click to expand...

The labs definitely should have more ground floor retail, this is something that can be pretty easily solved though if ppl push for it.
 
For our hub and spokes transit system to work there needs to be a mass of employment in the center. This is also important for the city tax revenue and overall safety and liveliness feeling of downtown which is "face" of region. Unfortunately all of these are currently under significant threat by remote work. By contrast lab work needs to be done on location. So I think we need to be in favor of large lab projects in the general down town. I do hope they preserve the atttractive facade.
 
Hydrobus said:
For our hub and spokes transit system to work there needs to be a mass of employment in the center. This is also important for the city tax revenue and overall safety and liveliness feeling of downtown which is "face" of region. Unfortunately all of these are currently under significant threat by remote work. By contrast lab work needs to be done on location. So I think we need to be in favor of large lab projects in the general down town. I do hope they preserve the atttractive facade.
Click to expand...
This is a great point. The rise of remote work has vastly reduced the density of workers per sq ft in commercial office space. I wouldn’t be surprised if the new normal is much closer to equal density between offices and labs.
 
Labs, when done right, can absolutely integrate effectively into an urban space. It is expensive and requires a developer/owner who really cares. The case in proof example is 75 Ames in Kendall (Broad Institute). Decent proportions and massing, attractive street level with two cafe/restaurant slots at the street, tastefully integrated mechanical penthouse.

75a-v1.png

https://goo.gl/maps/ZqXYGmkMAXfEuMMK6

^If a person from out of town passes by this building and doesn't know its a lab, does not stand out to them as a lab. It simply seems like a city building.

Lab work is a lifeblood of the Boston area employment scene and tax base. Large quantities of real people work at these jobs. There is no reason they can't be tastefully integrated into city spaces, and for sake of diversifying employment, tax revenue sources, supporting local neighboring businesses, etc, they should be woven into the fabric of the city.
Yes, there are some constraints on lab building geometry, and no, they should not go everywhere. They should be a part of the fabric, not the fabric itself.

Exactly this:
fattony said:
I also hope the facade is preserved.

Scientists like the city too. I’m not sure where the hate for labs comes from. It is the same as any commercial space. Some workers commute from the burbs, some come by pubic transit, and some walk from a few blocks away. I 100% acknowledge that the central business district needs more housing far more than more commercial, but don’t single out labs. There is nothing about science and engineering jobs that makes them belong on 128 while (presumably?) some other jobs belong in the city.

And if the ground floor doesn’t get retail, I think that is a failure of the city and zoning.
Click to expand...
 
Handsome but otherwise unremarkable little buildings like this rarely get the preservation treatment that they deserve. I will say that it looks like the floor heights here are quite tall, which may line up with the floor heights needed for a lab space.
 
beck4537 said:
Can we change the title so it says "lab" instead of "lap"
Click to expand...

Or, perhaps message the original poster to ask them to make the easy change; takes just as much time as posting to everyone so Charlie can add a 'rolling laugh' emoji, much as I appreciate you drawing attention to my having dyslexia.
 
rjacobs said:
Or, perhaps message the original poster to ask them to make the easy change; takes just as much time as posting to everyone so Charlie can add a 'rolling laugh' emoji, much as I appreciate you drawing attention to my having dyslexia.
Click to expand...
Sorry about that. Not laughing at you, but the "lap" just struck me as funny. Anyway, we all have our disorders of one type or another. I certainly have mine, that's for sure.
 
This one has a PNF dated January 2 posted up on the BPDA's website now. Officially addressed as 222 Friend Street (not sure if there's a way to change the title?). In an incredibly oversaturated lab market I have no clue where KS Partners thinks there's room/demand for another 150k sf of space this late in the game. At 168' tall I'd much rather see a 14-16 storey residential building but I guess that's not as sexy to financiers these days when they're seeing how much money there is in the lab sector. Here's some renderings/drawings:

1706289944161.png


1706290459372.png


1706290499474.png


1706290553319.png

Not a fan of these massive blank walls facing Portland & Valenti...

1706290706487.png


All images sourced via https://www.bostonplans.org/projects/development-projects/222-friend-street
 
It looks like they are preserving the brick building at the corner of Valenti Way and Portland St. However, they are taking out this one on Portland St (see below off of Google Street View), which I suppose is no great loss. Still not a fan of the new proposed building's design. It looks too generic and plastic for Bullfinch Triangle.

1706292707640.png
 
Charlie_mta said:
It looks like they are preserving the brick building at the corner of Valenti Way and Portland St. However, they are taking out this one on Portland St (see below off of Google Street View), which I suppose is no great loss. Still not a fan of the new proposed building's design. It looks too generic and plastic for Bullfinch Triangle.

View attachment 47087
Click to expand...
Agreed, massive improvement over the surface parking lot but leaves much to be desired design-wise.
 
NorthshoreCity said:
Not a fan of these massive blank walls facing Portland & Valenti...
Click to expand...
I don't see that there is any alternative option than blank walls. Since they don't control the rights beyond the property line, it is by definition a party wall. I suppose they could come up with a more interesting cladding, but it's also something that can be changed at a later point in time, so I wouldn't worry too much about it.
 
HenryAlan said:
I don't see that there is any alternative option than blank walls. Since they don't control the rights beyond the property line, it is by definition a party wall. I suppose they could come up with a more interesting cladding, but it's also something that can be changed at a later point in time, so I wouldn't worry too much about it.
Click to expand...
There are buildings in Boston that cheat and put windows on the party wall (not modern additions, but older buildings -- I think modern zoning approval would catch that). But even so, it really messes with interior design if you have windows that later have to be blocked due to further construction on the abutting property.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top