315 on A | 315 A Street | Fort Point

Re: 319 A Street Rear

DZH22 said:
IMG_4118.jpg
Click to expand...

Love the way it completely dominates this area in this picture. This is what I was hoping for when I saw the proposal. Most angles I've seen so far, it's taller than it's neighbors, but this angle really frames it.
 
Re: 319 A Street Rear

SeamusMcFly said:
I know you know the document much better than most of us. I haven't skimmed through the 100 acre plan in a few years.

I thought this (or somewhere near here) was one of like 2 spots approved for a relatively tall building. 350'? As it's not on top of the tunnel, and following the scale up from the FAA limits, this was a potential high point in the area.
Click to expand...

The 100 Acre Plan encompasses a the area between Summer St and Channel Center, and between the Channel and Bypass Road. Within that area, as I remember, new construction was proposed at 100-150 feet (State Street tower is 150').

Your memory is on target. A few special sites were cited at 180'-220', with additional height allowable if horsetrading with BRA is acceptable to BRA and owner. A second site I remember is on Gillette property just to the south of the tunnel.

Anyone who states that these heights were arrived at, chopped down through the griping of NIMBYs is lost in the wrong neighborhood and didn't attend 100 Acres planning meetings. That fact is provable... Fort Point has a barely functioning neighborhood organization and fewer than 10 residents attended 100 Acres meetings with regularity in the 2-year period of its drafting.
 
Re: 319 A Street Rear

Sicilian said:
.. flipping all of the buildings to separate owners.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with your point, and it sounds like you probably know this, but just for clarity's sake - 63 Melcher and 319 A Rear are/were concurrently developed by the same owner. The same owner that is currently going through a reapproval process at 275 Albany.
 
Re: 319 A Street Rear

True story: the one show my band played with LMFAO we watched the taller one get into a full-on brawl with their DJ. You can imagine my surprise when I heard LMFAO was breaking up.
 
Re: 319 A Street Rear

elleipsis said:
I don't disagree with your point, and it sounds like you probably know this, but just for clarity's sake - 63 Melcher and 319 A Rear are/were concurrently developed by the same owner. The same owner that is currently going through a reapproval process at 275 Albany.
Click to expand...

Correct.

Post-approval 63 Melcher and 319 A Rear were flipped to current owner/developer cited as "a breath of fresh air."

To clarify my earlier comment, as part of the interminable games, 49, 51 and 63 were bundled as one project for approval, then unbundled and 319 was bundled with 63 for another round. Upon approval of that, 49, 51 and 63 were flipped to separate owners. .
 
Re: 319 A Street Rear

Any news on the Melcher pedestrian bridge with these new owners?
 
Re: 319 A Street Rear

New owner of 51 Melcher proposed mounting a vinyl banner on the overpass with the words "M Block" as some kind of branding thing to activate the street (even though the first floor was approved for office space, not retail).

The Landmark Commission was reasonably distressed that this owner had no plans to rehabilitate the bridge along with rooftop headhouse under construction and building renovations. They had asked for a bridge renovation plan multiple times over recent years but were never accommodated. So they made the banner approval (allowing it to be mounted for 6 months) contingent on rehabilitating the overpass within 3 months of the banner coming down. Needless to say, I haven't heard a word about that banner going up and I suspect it's because of that contingency.

The good news is the owner reported that the bridge is in good structural condition.

Interestingly, the bridge is original to the building. The building, like the bridge, was constructed of concrete, not brick and beam like other Melcher St buildings.
 
Re: 319 A Street Rear

Thank you for the info. I think any pedestrian who's turned that rounded corner coming off Summer can appreciate the bridge and what it does for the street. Of course, in a profit-driven world it's hard to come up with a functional reason to spend $1mil+ rehabbing an unused connection between unrelated buldings.

Big cheap looking vinyl banner will fit right in with the Vegas-sized Blue Dragon signage. Decent food, bad exterior design.

/kindaofftopic
 
Re: 319 A Street Rear

I actually like Blue Dragon signage. The history of Fort Point dating back to early 20th century is rife with wacky advertising. Even Landmark District guidelines are fairly relaxed on this issue. BTW, the Blue Dragon building was built in mid 20th century so not really considered "contributing."

As for 51 Melcher, the rehab would only involve concrete repair work and window replacements, maybe a bit more, nothing substantial in terms of structure. I seriously doubt it would be $1M in work. I understand your point, but the owner was well aware of the expectations of the Landmark Commission prior to their purchase. How do I know that? Because the current owner had a business relationship with the prior owner, representing the prior owner in the earlier approval process.
 
Re: 319 A Street Rear

Not that anyone cares, but a correction in my account above...

After 49, 51 and 63 Melcher were approved as one project, 63 and 51 were flipped. 63 Melcher contains at least some of the "affordable" units required wirh construction of 319 A St Rear. 49 wasn't flipped, it is stilled owned by that original owner. It remains mothballed for 5+ years and I'd guess will be flipped this year since a restaurant is already working on securing a liquor license.
 
Re: 319 A Street Rear

I used to have an office in 51 Melcher. A vault-like door off our conference room was the entrance to the bridge. No one was allowed in the bridge because they hadn't done a structural analysis. But every now and then we'd hear noises during meetings in the conference room. So I suspect there were some birds or rodents living in there. Or maybe mutant troll people.

EDIT: While we're on the subject of mutant troll people... errr, bridges ... Gillette had my company take a look at the double-decker bridge around the corner (on Necco I think). Chunks of concrete were falling off so they wanted us to look at options for demolishing or repairing it.
We looked at three options:
1. Complete demo. The city said "No" because the bridge (or the building) is historic.
2. Complete renovation. Gillette said "No" because it was ridiculously expensive.
3. Clad the entire outside of the bridge in some kind of material that would catch the falling concrete. Gillette was leaning towards this IIRC, but nothing ever came of it. So I think that bridge is still raining concrete.
 
Re: 319 A Street Rear

I remain a critic of the privatized ground floor of this building and above grade parking, but those aspects were inherited by the developer.

I also remain a critic of the BRA process by which the former historic building was demolished, again an aspect of the project inherited by the developer.

That said, 319 A Street Rear is shaping up nicely, a handsome building for sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top