It IS a historic landmark, being the location of the famous Ted fight scene. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoT9pSlsV7E
30 Dalton St. Residences | Back Bay
- Thread starter Equilibria
- Start date
It IS a historic landmark, being the location of the famous Ted fight scene. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoT9pSlsV7E
I like that corner exactly the way it is and hope they never build anything there. Standing by the fountain and looking down, you see the line of trees, the reflecting pool, and the reading room. It's a perfect architectural vista, and it would be ruined by any distraction.
There's plenty of other spots in this immediate area to put in new towers. I hope they leave the plaza alone.
Are you kidding?! It would totally affect the plaza. AND get rid of part of the bank of trees that so gracefully outlines the perimeter and the lines of the reflecting pool. The plaza is a unified piece - despite the disparate elements. Having some modern glass piece of shit looming over the reading room would completely overshadow it. No matter how sexy this 270 foot building might be (which is to say, not very). No, leave it alone.
JeffDowntown
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 4,307
- Reaction score
- 2,636
coleslaw had brought up his hopes for the development of the third site and, correctly I believe, mentioned that that site was canceled and that was how they were able to build the other two buildings at the currently approved heights. That site sits between the Sunday school building, which I mistakenly called the reading room building, and Huntington Avenue. Then the discussion moved to the Midtown hotel site. It is merely my opinion that although the third site at the CSC is a bit of a blank wall and could have a short, infill development that is the same height as the Sunday school building, I would not want to see a new, large building towering over the entire complex from that angle. I think the midtown hotel site would be an excellent place for something in the 20-30 story range, but it looks like that's been discussed and kiboshed already by the neighborhood (which, if I lived on st botolph, isn't entirely unreasonable though nonetheless unfortunate ).
coleslaw
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2013
- Messages
- 596
- Reaction score
- 0
I see what you are saying and there is definitely a real and justified point to it. However I think that what makes that plaza so fantastic and look so amazing is the presence of towers looming over it. look at the angle everyone takes pictures from, its towards all the towers not away from them. I think another tower on the other side could increase the effect. I may be wrong but thats what I think. I also think it would really improve the urban feel of that intersection.
I understand the local opposition to to building up on the hotel site. However this is a city. This site is a block away from the second tallest and the future either second or third tallest building in Boston. Yes there is an architectural district behind it but
1) isn't this building more of a drain on that than a tower? part of what makes these little neighborhoods so amazing is their location next to high-rises. this hotel is fucking ugly why do thy not care about that?
2) This is not in the district so (besides the obvious reason that NIMBYs have a lot of power in our city) why the hell would it matter?
JeffDowntown
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 4,307
- Reaction score
- 2,636
I think a developer would have no problem with an 11 to 14 story building there, like the Colonnade Hotel or Greenhouse Apartment Building, in that same stretch as Huntington. (Developers have just never been able to time it right so far.
Part of the historic "high rise spine" zoning compromise along the turnpike corridor that dates back to the 1960's (to prevent high rises on Commonwealth Avenue, for example) is trying to step down buildings as you approach the architecturally protected neighborhoods.
paperless paul
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2013
- Messages
- 214
- Reaction score
- 0
I would agree that the Midtown site could use some redevelopment for the increase in tax revenue, better architecture, more dense use and possibly better streetscape.
Although improving the streetscape may be hard because there is very little activity on that side of Huntington and the street serves as such a divide here. But I think thoughtful architecture, perhaps two landscaped alcoves with large bars or restaurants that were destinations themselves coupled with the average and likely increasing pedestrian activity on Huntington might make it enough to rival the bosque in the CSC plaza for walking from Mass Ave to Copley. And such uses would be well placed in a new hotel, with no objections from the street side, and no adjacent neighbors, and would be shielded from St Botolph.
Which gets me to my main point. This neighborhood already has some great examples of how good architecture can help a lot to transition in building height and density, like from the St Botolph townhouses to much taller buildings along Huntington.
For example, farther east on St Botolph where the Greenhouse Apts and Colonade Hotel, but are unfortunately not great architecture. Even better are the residences at 116 Huntington and the Colonade residences which are 20-odd which step up from the Garrison St apartments which are 8-10 story apartment buildings already somewhat denser than brownstones. Best of all is Tent City which gradually steps from 4 story historical South End to twice as high apartments at Harcourt St / Copley Place separated by the SW corridor to twice as high again Copley Place Mall, and then the 2.5x as high Marriot on Huntington. Finally the Pru and CSC buildings then across Huntington can be the 600' to 800'.
A few blocks should easily accommodate low rise to skyscraper if done right. Arguably this works similarly from Boylston to Newbury. These transitions happen in relatively short amounts of space but generally enhance the neighborhood and take away very little. Even from a traffic perspective they are not overly onerous. And particularly if new residents are more pedestrian and urban transit even worse traffic doesn't affect their travel times. The point is from street vantage point, a properly designed height transition should be possible even from the perspective of existing abutting residents.
I really don't understand why architects and planners don't do a better job presenting these kinds of success stories of transitioning density to people in East Cambridge, North End or Brookline for that matter. Simply saying greater density is out of character just isn't a compelling argument if you spend time in places like the Southwest Corridor.
Now for the particular case of the Midtown site, the property directly abuts 4 story residences and is somewhat narrow itself making for a much shorter transition space. But 6 stories ought to be unobjectionable and 8 to 12 ought to really be possible. Basically much better designed versions of 116 and the Colonade should allow much higher buildings next door with few objections. The likelihood however is that since the CSC is the owner they are likely to be more sensitive to abutter objections than a heartless developer.
I would object to 20-30 stories on this site. Casting a shadow on the CSC plaza would be a real negative for such a development. While using shadow casting as an excuse to stop all development is inappropriate. Shadows are an actual issue that I think Boston development planning should respect. They do have an impact on the quality of the city.
Although improving the streetscape may be hard because there is very little activity on that side of Huntington and the street serves as such a divide here. But I think thoughtful architecture, perhaps two landscaped alcoves with large bars or restaurants that were destinations themselves coupled with the average and likely increasing pedestrian activity on Huntington might make it enough to rival the bosque in the CSC plaza for walking from Mass Ave to Copley. And such uses would be well placed in a new hotel, with no objections from the street side, and no adjacent neighbors, and would be shielded from St Botolph.
Which gets me to my main point. This neighborhood already has some great examples of how good architecture can help a lot to transition in building height and density, like from the St Botolph townhouses to much taller buildings along Huntington.
For example, farther east on St Botolph where the Greenhouse Apts and Colonade Hotel, but are unfortunately not great architecture. Even better are the residences at 116 Huntington and the Colonade residences which are 20-odd which step up from the Garrison St apartments which are 8-10 story apartment buildings already somewhat denser than brownstones. Best of all is Tent City which gradually steps from 4 story historical South End to twice as high apartments at Harcourt St / Copley Place separated by the SW corridor to twice as high again Copley Place Mall, and then the 2.5x as high Marriot on Huntington. Finally the Pru and CSC buildings then across Huntington can be the 600' to 800'.
A few blocks should easily accommodate low rise to skyscraper if done right. Arguably this works similarly from Boylston to Newbury. These transitions happen in relatively short amounts of space but generally enhance the neighborhood and take away very little. Even from a traffic perspective they are not overly onerous. And particularly if new residents are more pedestrian and urban transit even worse traffic doesn't affect their travel times. The point is from street vantage point, a properly designed height transition should be possible even from the perspective of existing abutting residents.
I really don't understand why architects and planners don't do a better job presenting these kinds of success stories of transitioning density to people in East Cambridge, North End or Brookline for that matter. Simply saying greater density is out of character just isn't a compelling argument if you spend time in places like the Southwest Corridor.
Now for the particular case of the Midtown site, the property directly abuts 4 story residences and is somewhat narrow itself making for a much shorter transition space. But 6 stories ought to be unobjectionable and 8 to 12 ought to really be possible. Basically much better designed versions of 116 and the Colonade should allow much higher buildings next door with few objections. The likelihood however is that since the CSC is the owner they are likely to be more sensitive to abutter objections than a heartless developer.
I would object to 20-30 stories on this site. Casting a shadow on the CSC plaza would be a real negative for such a development. While using shadow casting as an excuse to stop all development is inappropriate. Shadows are an actual issue that I think Boston development planning should respect. They do have an impact on the quality of the city.
Dare I say it, but if a new tower was to go up in the southern corner, it should be concrete brutalism. The whole plaza works quite well, particularly as an urban-renewal project, and after 50 years to reflect I'm sure we could get a building that aesthetically blends with the rest of the plaza while still avoids the shortcomings of traditional brutalism. Plus, a new tower would replace the blank wall of the sunday school that currently faces Huntington with an active facade. I mean, you can't tell me this is successful urbanism:
coleslaw
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2013
- Messages
- 596
- Reaction score
- 0
I agree. Something like the other tower on the north eat corner.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2012
- Messages
- 13,796
- Reaction score
- 20,638
Not to keep on hijacking this for non Dalton St business, but I actually just read that, along with plans for the towers back in 2010, they plan to cut through the reflecting pool - I guess I missed that when the news first broke about the tower development and havent heard anything about it since. I think it would be a terrible disruption if they bisected the pool, but it is indeed mentioned on their website, only in 2010, though, not in further updates that I could find. Does anyone know the status of this?
JeffDowntown
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 4,307
- Reaction score
- 2,636
I know that they have to completely rebuild the reflecting pool soon. It is part of the HVAC system, and the circulation piping under the pool is all corroded.
From an architectural standpoint I agree that bisecting the pool would be design loss.
But, having lived in the neighborhood, from a pedestrian standpoint, a connection across the pool would be very nice. There is a lot of pedestrian flow from the Cumberland street cross walk on Huntington to the Belvidere Street area (via a passage through the Church Colonnade Building) -- the bisecting path would align with that flow (it is a long way around via either end).
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2012
- Messages
- 13,796
- Reaction score
- 20,638
JeffDowntown
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 4,307
- Reaction score
- 2,636
Replacing the Sunday School building with a tower is a design mistake. It violates that conceptual design of the plaza.
The Pei school of brutalism almost always combined related buildings of multiple simple geometric forms. The Plaza is a combination of a upright rectangle (tower), a linear rectangle on its side (colonnade building) and an arc (Sunday School building).
MIT has a similar cluster with Building 54 (Green building, upright rectangle, tower), Building 18 (linear rectangle on its side) and Building 66 (triangle).
Doing something to activate the Huntington Avenue side of the Sunday School building would be nice. But not by changing its fundamental geometric form.