315 on A | 315 A Street | Fort Point

[ParkerChris]

Re: 319 A Street Rear

As I mentioned, Congress is much better suited for this type of build out, and needs the residential focus and density of streets such as A to thrive. I agree 100% with your points and would be much happier with retail inclusion, just perhaps jaded by the lack of movement in this area and excited to see "something".

What I was getting at though, was much better articulated by Shepard.

 

[Sicilian]

Re: 319 A Street Rear

And perhaps in the other direction, I'm jaded by seeing property owners and developers cashing in year after year having built either nothing at all (selling approvals) or crap (making excuses for a quality downgrade) and then leaving town having made a bundle on the resale of these upzoned Fort Point / Seaport buildings and vacant land.

Most of the empty buildings you see on Summer Street and Melcher were mothballed by this property owner or one they flipped to after securing approvals for new construction.

As for a high bar, as mentioned the example exists right next door. FP3. Sportello. Menton. Drink. Flour. Arts Community Store. Offsite parking for condo owners.

That's by one developer, right next door to this one who has done virtually NOTHING during the same period of time with roughly the same size portfolio.

 

[davem]

Re: 319 A Street Rear

Even in the rendering the tall blank wall above the front entrance looks sloppy. As far as I can tell from the plans there is no reason for it to exist, there are no mechanicals near it. Its counterpart against W. Service Road doesn't look as bad, I think because the first few floors don't "bump" out as they do on the front. I don't know if it looks too busy, too brutalist, too ill conceived, or too phallic, but I do know I don't like it. I do however like the bump out, I think its the only redeeming quality of the building in fact.

As for a complete absurdity (I still think demoing an existing building in a sea of nothing asinine, but I digress), WHY are they building a temporary driveway next to USPS's existing driveway. They want to push Melcher St. through as per the 100 Acre plan so why not just do it now? You wouldn't loose a single spot since its currently a driveway anyway, and they could align the little security hut with the former rail ROW that cuts diagonally through the parking lot. This would also give more appealing access to the retail area, should they be able to find a tenant. I would imagine a real estate office or something similar would work even now, nothing requiring substantial foot traffic however.

 

[whighlander]

Re: 319 A Street Rear

It can be handsome and not ideal at the same time.

There absolutely should be retail at the bottom levels, but given the time it takes to build and the state of retail development in Boston, I don't think anyone should be surprised. I personally would love A street to become a bustling residential/retail connection between southie proper and the waterfront (as with D street), and I think in time it still very well could be.

My opinion on this now though is that there are a lot of undeveloped and underdeveloped buildings on both Summer and Congress for retail, and my hope here is that with a couple more "handsome" residential buildings such as this one, retail on those streets will flourish and eventually spill onto the connector streets.

Above ground parking is silly, but if that's what it takes to build this thing why complain?

Parker - if you look at the "World Class " Back Bay -- the retail is concentrated on Newburry, Boylston and only a couple of the perpendicular streets. Nothing to speak of on Marlborogh St., Commonwealth Ave. or even as far from Newburry St. as Beacon St.

There is plenty of opportunity for retail on Congress, Summer and a couple of the more important corners -- the rest can be like Marlborough St. or Beacon St. -- just residential

 

[ParkerChris]

Re: 319 A Street Rear

I agree with that concept in general. However, I think both ends of A are very well suited for retail givin the amount of foot traffic that it already gets. It is slowly taking place already. Congress and Summer should absolutely be the primary retail streets in the area, though.

This building is fairly pushed back from A, so there doesn't seem to be any urgency to full the bottom with retail. I'm not well versed in the 100 acre plan, so I could be missing something.

 

[Sicilian]

Re: 319 A Street Rear

A (new) Notice of Project Change has been filed for the companion project associated with 319 A Street Rear, at 49-63 Melcher.

I'm not sure if there is a 49-63 Melcher thread on ArchBoston. If so, I can repost.

http://bit.ly/xSVMUp

After a quick scan of the NPC, the major change looks positive:

49 Melcher, formerly approved office, now residential.

Other changes:

51 Melcher ground floor, formerly approved retail, now office space.

Approved rooftop addition on 63 Melcher and infills (2) have been abandoned.

 

[tmac9wr]

Re: 319 A Street Rear

For old, abandoned factories which aren't (currently) desirable as apartment conversions...is there a chance they could be converted into parking garages for these apartment projects? I know parking isn't desirable to us, but it is to many others...and it's a must in any new development.

I would think it could be cheaper to simply convert an old factory rather than try to build underground parking. Also, in cases where parking is in the base of the tower, it would free up space for additional apartments, etc. In order to make it so people didn't have to walk into the freezing cold weather, they could have a sky walk going into the adjacent garage. The money saved from not creating underground parking could perhaps be used for higher quality materials, better designs, etc.

I know this isn't necessarily ideal, but many factories (like the one here) are just sitting empty, waiting to be knocked down and replaced by some precast box. It would be nice if they could be kept around as attractive parking garages. Perhaps some could have ground-floor retail?

 

[Sicilian]

Re: 319 A Street Rear

The statement "For old, abandoned factories which aren't (currently) desirable as apartment conversions" is unsupported by the market for units at Fort Point Place, Channel Center, FP3, Mondo Condo and Dockside Place.

As a separate issue, "Old factories" to some are seen as the most important collection of historic industrial-era collections in the USA to others (me among them). The Boston Landmark District designation of Fort Point not only recognized this, but calls for a renewed appreciation for streets, sidewalks, lighting, utility location, etc. In other words: a major upgrade in potential for reuse.

Some Fort Point buildings with large enough floorplates have both workable retail and ground floor parking (Fort Point Place, for example).

I don't think anyone would suggest below grade parking for relatively small buildings 1t 49-63 Melcher (moving forward largely as-of-right without new construction involved).

These three buildings, now to be developed in 3 separate phases, have significantly smaller floorplates. Offsite parking might make sense.

They abut a parking garage owned by the same property owner.

BTW, this project was approved as a component of 319 A Street Rear, which itself will offer 4 floors of above grade parking.

 

[tmac9wr]

Re: 319 A Street Rear

The statement "For old, abandoned factories which aren't (currently) desirable as apartment conversions" is unsupported by the market for units at Fort Point Place, Channel Center, FP3, Mondo Condo and Dockside Place.

I wasn't suggesting all of these factories aren't desirable for conversions, but I imagine there have to be some, right? They're knocking one down for this project. I wasn't meaning people don't want to convert these (I think it's great that they do and would love it if all similar buildings in Ft Point were converted), I'm saying if a particular historical building isn't desirable for a conversion and is sitting there to rot, could it be converted to parking?

As a separate issue, "Old factories" to some are seen as the most important collection of historic industrial-era collections in the USA to others (me among them). The Boston Landmark District designation of Fort Point not only recognized this, but calls for a renewed appreciation for streets, sidewalks, lighting, utility location, etc. In other words: a major upgrade in potential for reuse.

That would be fantastic. However what happens if (as I mentioned) some of these aren't desirable for conversion to apartments, offices, etc. What would be your preferred action: sit empty, bulldozed for new development, or parking garage w/ground-floor retail? I guess none are optimal, but only one results in a cleaning of the building along with some form of preservation (at least externally).

Some Fort Point buildings with large enough floorplates have both workable retail and ground floor parking (Fort Point Place, for example).

I don't think anyone would suggest below grade parking for relatively small buildings 1t 49-63 Melcher (moving forward largely as-of-right without new construction involved).

These three buildings, now to be developed in 3 separate phases, have significantly smaller floorplates. Offsite parking might make sense.

They abut a parking garage owned by the same property owner.

BTW, this project was approved as a component of 319 A Street Rear, which itself will offer 4 floors of above grade parking.

Theoretically, couldn't they have converted the existing structure into four stories of above-ground parking and then built the apartment project next door (ignoring the fact that USPS owns the lot)? They could build the new building without parking, and add several new apartments.

I guess one big question is would it be too much to restore the floors to hold the kind of weight of all these vehicles.

 

[Sicilian]

Re: 319 A Street Rear

I don't understand your point.

Your suggesting a wharf building would be more easily and/or more profitably be rehabilitated as a parking garage than as a condo or office? Based on what facts?

I'm also not clear what "rotting" building(s) are you referring to. That demolition at the rear of 319 A Street was largely approved as part of 100 Acre planning process, before the official landmarking process recognized value in the Fort Point "collection."

I use the word "collection" here because the interesting part of landmarking was learning that individual buildings weren't seen as less or greater than others -- the totality of buildings with little erosion at the edges of the district lent significant value to the whole.

 

[SeamusMcFly]

Re: 319 A Street Rear

If you walk along the rear of the summer street buildings facing Congress (behind the old Blue Wave RIP), you'll see some ground floor or semi-below grade parking in these buildings. The big dogs at my office have a garage in an adjacent building. Converting any to multi level parking wouldn't seem like any kind of easy thing. Maybe 2 levels of un connected parking say at the higher grade on Summer (which would be horrible), and a second level from the lower grade at Congress, Melcher, A Street.) The foot prints are not large enough, the structure isn't compatible with multi level parking unless they included large expensive car size elevators, which would eat up a ton of space.

I would let this thought die on the vine.

 

[tmac9wr]

Re: 319 A Street Rear

I don't understand your point.

Your suggesting a wharf building would be more easily and/or more profitably be rehabilitated as a parking garage than as a condo or office? Based on what facts?

I'm also not clear what "rotting" building(s) are you referring to. That demolition at the rear of 319 A Street was largely approved as part of 100 Acre planning process, before the official landmarking process recognized value in the Fort Point "collection."

I use the word "collection" here because the interesting part of landmarking was learning that individual buildings weren't seen as less or greater than others -- the totality of buildings with little erosion at the edges of the district lent significant value to the whole.

I must not be writing this correctly. I'm not suggesting that all (or many) of these buildings are rotting nor that it's more profitable to turn them into a parking garage.

I'm simply looking at the scenario we have with this plot: There is an abandoned building being destroyed for something totally new. What's there isn't architecturally spectacular, but in my opinion it's worth keeping and it definitely fits nicely into the Fort Point area. Like all residential projects, it includes several stories of parking (in this case, above ground).

What I'm suggesting is in scenarios like this--destroying a historical building to build something a plot which lies adjacent to a massive sea of parking lots--would there ever be a chance where they could instead build the new structure next to the historical structure and perhaps rehab the old structure into parking with ground-floor retail. As the neighborhood became more desirable and had more sufficient public transit, these old buildings could once again be converted to lofts, etc. I realize I'm not taking costs into consideration here...it was just a thought.

Of course there are plenty of road blocks, several which were noted by Seamus in his post. The costs, the footprint, etc...

He's probably right about letting this idea die...I was just trying to think of a different way to use these buildings.

 

[SeamusMcFly]

Re: 319 A Street Rear

I see what you're saying about the adjacent building because it is going away. I don't always see the beauty in eveything that is old, but if they are not going to put something bigger, better, etc. in it's place, why not keep, rehab, and re-use if feasible?

I think the argument of knocking down things that are adjacent to vacant lots has been made on this thread previously, and I can't say that I disagree. The problem is that someone else ususally owns the vacant lots next door, and they don't always play well with their neighbors.

 

[tmac9wr]

Re: 319 A Street Rear

I see what you're saying about the adjacent building because it is going away. I don't always see the beauty in eveything that is old, but if they are not going to put something bigger, better, etc. in it's place, why not keep, rehab, and re-use if feasible?

I think the argument of knocking down things that are adjacent to vacant lots has been made on this thread previously, and I can't say that I disagree. The problem is that someone else ususally owns the vacant lots next door, and they don't always play well with their neighbors.

Very true. However in this case it's the USPS...which is a government entity, correct? I'm sure there's billion of hoops to jump through, but Menino is quite the dictator when it comes to this crap. I feel like if he wanted to, he could angrily smash his closed fist on his desk and within a week there could be a bunch of markers in that parking lot outlining the gifted plot.

But again, my whole suggestion was total pipe-dreamery.

 

[Sicilian]

Re: 319 A Street Rear

OK I see your point.

Here's the deal.

319 A Street is somewhat of an anomaly.

A) Before the landmark district designation, demolitions were happening with routine frequency. Parking garage on Stillings. Parking garage on Necco. Demos at Channel Center for new construction. With the landmark designation in place today, demolition permits are much harder to secure.

B) Years before the Landmark designation, 319 A Street rear was identified as a "special site" in the 100 Acre plan for additional height beyond most Fort Point vacant parcels. One of two reasons that site was chosen was that it wasn't over the tunnel (where it made sense to create a swath of recreational park) and the other was that each signator was to be given adequate density in exchange for fulfilling other obligations under the 100 Acre Plan. That property owner (Archon) didn't own vast tracts of vacant land to offer new density on. So the BRA approved the demolition and replacement with new construction at that site.

The only other grandfathered demolition of an existing wharf structure approved prior to Landmarking is over at Channel Center. But recently (2010) the property owner there instead decided to renovate the existing building for a clean-tech company. So it looks like that building will be saved. A small building next to it may come down.

319 A St Rear is not USPS. It is owned by Archon, possibly recently sold to or partnered with Gerding Edlen.

Regarding the USPS lot, there is little Menino can do about that. The lack of movement on that tract is an eternal frustration for the neighborhood and (likely) the BRA.

EDIT: Added last bit about USPS

 

[tmac9wr]

Re: 319 A Street Rear

Haha I'm glad I finally conveyed myself properly. Thanks for the additional explanation.

Hasn't there been talk of huge reductions in the workforce of the USPS? Perhaps with such cuts we'll see them selling off some of this property...or perhaps if their budget is tightened they'll be swayed to get rid of such prime real estate...

They arguably have the key to a massive, massive project project involving South Station if the Post Office annex were to be sold to a private developer.

 

[Sicilian]

Re: 319 A Street Rear

USPS talks about moving and/or selling, but even if a move or sale was imminent, USPS moves like honey flowing down a plank in January.

That said, I've heard that MassDOT has begun scheduling public meetings to talk about South Station expansion. That's good news.

 

[tmac9wr]

Re: 319 A Street Rear

USPS talks about moving and/or selling, but even if a move or sale was imminent, USPS moves like honey flowing down a plank in January.

That said, I've heard that MassDOT has begun scheduling public meetings to talk about South Station expansion. That's good news.

For sure.

Oh, Boston! How I don't miss your development environment. I know they're obviously far different cities in far different situations, but the amount of towers being built here in São Paulo is ridiculous. Looking out the window, there is an apartment complex of 7 20-25 story apartment towers being built across the street. On my morning jogs, I see Villa Mascote, a cluster of about 20-30 towers (which is pretty small for here), with probably another 8-10 more under construction. And that's not even counting nearby Brooklin, which has dozens upon dozens of towers under construction.

I don't think Boston needs to adopt similar development strategies...but it's really amazing to see just how different certain cities are.

 

[whighlander]

Re: 319 A Street Rear

For sure.

Oh, Boston! How I don't miss your development environment. I know they're obviously far different cities in far different situations, but the amount of towers being built here in São Paulo is ridiculous.

I don't think Boston needs to adopt similar development strategies...but it's really amazing to see just how different certain cities are.

No offence Tmac -- but beside being big and apparently getting bigger by building a bunch of towers -- what is São Paulo noted for having achieved?

 

[whighlander]

Re: 319 A Street Rear

USPS talks about moving and/or selling, but even if a move or sale was imminent, USPS moves like honey flowing down a plank in January.

That said, I've heard that MassDOT has begun scheduling public meetings to talk about South Station expansion. That's good news.

Sicil -- the USPS is supposed to release sometime soon some sort of details an hold publlc meetings about proposed surplus processing and other facilities

My guess is that to preserve the union jobs in Boston for Menio and the a couple of the Congressmen that while South Station Annex will be surplused to expand South Station -- the USPS will find some way to keep some sort of processing facility in Boston and in exchange they will close the almost new one in Waltham and the one in Reading, Brockton and / or Shrewsbury

from Worcester Telegram
http://www.telegram.com/article/20120106/NEWS/101069751/0/news04

"Mr. Lynch said the USPS lost $11 billion last year. He said that even if the agency gets some relief through Congress from the controversial annual $5.5 billion pre-funded health care benefits for future retirees, the agency will continue to lose money if drastic changes aren’t made.

Because of mobile and web-based communications, postal mail has decreased from 213 billion pieces of first-class mail in 2002 to 78 billion pieces in 2010. The number is projected to drop to 39 billion by 2020. Processing and distribution centers have decreased from 673 in 2006 to 487. The Shrewsbury facility is among 252 nationwide that are being considered for consolidation. Mr. Lynch said if the studies are successful, there will be 35,000 fewer positions in the remaining mail processing and distribution centers. All relocations or closures are in abeyance until May. "


From the Globe
http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...cilities_in_shrewsbury_and_waltham_may_close/

By Emily Sweeney
Globe Staff / January 5, 2012

The US Postal Service is hosting two public meetings to discuss the possibility of closing mail-processing plants in Shrewsbury and Waltham.

The session on the future of the Shrewsbury mail facility will be held today at 6 p.m. at the Holiday Inn on Route 20 in Marlborough, while the discussion on the Waltham plant is slated for 6 p.m. Tuesday at Waltham High School, 617 Lexington St.

Postal officials are considering moving the operations to Boston and North Reading in an effort to cut costs. According to the preliminary results of a Postal Service feasibility study, as much as $27 million could be saved by consolidating the suburban locations.