Boston02124
Senior Member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 6,871
- Reaction score
- 6,420
315 on A | 315 A Street | Fort Point
- Thread starter Boston02124
- Start date
Re: A st Highrise
^Shepard, I'll agree with your general philosophy, and am no fan of plazas and setbacks, or useless landscaping. Boston's waterfront (closer to Fan Pier and along the Fort Point Channel on the downtown side, most especially at the Intercontinental) are egregious by comparison to what world-class cities are doing.
But I also don't think it's wise to consider projects one at a time, absent of context, as an area evolves. In this instance, all of the area's large property owners (Gillette, USPS, Archon) came to agreement during the planning process to consolidate development parcels in order to eliminate needless plazas and open spaces, maintaining the shoulder-to-shoulder construction as found throughout the Fort Point district. A tract of recreational open space, made possible by the consolidation of density and approval of significant zoning variances, is planned in the heart of the emerging residential area. As for the 60" x 100" parcel at Wormwood, it is virtually unusable by area children and families now, having been adopted for use mainly as a dog park. It is well used and appreciated by many, as you state -- but is by no means adequate for the hundreds of residents that already surround it. If anything, the dearth of recreational space continues to be a factor in disuading newcomers from moving to Fort Point.
^Shepard, I'll agree with your general philosophy, and am no fan of plazas and setbacks, or useless landscaping. Boston's waterfront (closer to Fan Pier and along the Fort Point Channel on the downtown side, most especially at the Intercontinental) are egregious by comparison to what world-class cities are doing.
But I also don't think it's wise to consider projects one at a time, absent of context, as an area evolves. In this instance, all of the area's large property owners (Gillette, USPS, Archon) came to agreement during the planning process to consolidate development parcels in order to eliminate needless plazas and open spaces, maintaining the shoulder-to-shoulder construction as found throughout the Fort Point district. A tract of recreational open space, made possible by the consolidation of density and approval of significant zoning variances, is planned in the heart of the emerging residential area. As for the 60" x 100" parcel at Wormwood, it is virtually unusable by area children and families now, having been adopted for use mainly as a dog park. It is well used and appreciated by many, as you state -- but is by no means adequate for the hundreds of residents that already surround it. If anything, the dearth of recreational space continues to be a factor in disuading newcomers from moving to Fort Point.
Re: A st Highrise
The building's demolition was hard-fought, but the BRA considered that this site was the only one available to the property owner (at the time The Boston Wharf Company) on which additional density was possible. The lots, during the 100 Acre process, were already owned by USPS and Gillette, not BWCo. The lots will sit there until USPS moves, or Gillette decides to sell their parcels for development.
The building's demolition was hard-fought, but the BRA considered that this site was the only one available to the property owner (at the time The Boston Wharf Company) on which additional density was possible. The lots, during the 100 Acre process, were already owned by USPS and Gillette, not BWCo. The lots will sit there until USPS moves, or Gillette decides to sell their parcels for development.
Shepard
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2009
- Messages
- 3,518
- Reaction score
- 66
Re: A st Highrise
100 acres master plan
See specifically the maps on pages 17 and 19
Explain to me, since I probably don't understand yet, how anyone could say this 100 acre plan doesn't have enough "open space"? Personally, I like the way it's done since it still creates masses of density - but how could anyone say this isn't enough? Why would anyone make it their business to hound developers for more open space on their footprint when all this green space is already in the plan?
100 acres master plan
See specifically the maps on pages 17 and 19
Explain to me, since I probably don't understand yet, how anyone could say this 100 acre plan doesn't have enough "open space"? Personally, I like the way it's done since it still creates masses of density - but how could anyone say this isn't enough? Why would anyone make it their business to hound developers for more open space on their footprint when all this green space is already in the plan?
Re: A st Highrise
No one is hounding the developers for more open space. The open space you are referring to in the maps, that I agree is well-designed, is created by contributions from each large property owner in exchange for the density. The 319 A Street project is one of the sites that is contributing to a fund that will create that parcel shown in the 100 Acre plan. That is THE only open space referred to by me, and referenced in the Herald article.
No one is hounding the developers for more open space. The open space you are referring to in the maps, that I agree is well-designed, is created by contributions from each large property owner in exchange for the density. The 319 A Street project is one of the sites that is contributing to a fund that will create that parcel shown in the 100 Acre plan. That is THE only open space referred to by me, and referenced in the Herald article.
Shepard
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2009
- Messages
- 3,518
- Reaction score
- 66
Re: A st Highrise
So, Sicilian, if what you're saying is right, then considering the BRA is approving this, the developer must have already agreed to funding that open space. Correct? If so, why is Steve Hollinger so concerned and, seemingly, negative? (Or is he just trying to maintain a degree of relevance by getting his name in print?)
So, Sicilian, if what you're saying is right, then considering the BRA is approving this, the developer must have already agreed to funding that open space. Correct? If so, why is Steve Hollinger so concerned and, seemingly, negative? (Or is he just trying to maintain a degree of relevance by getting his name in print?)
Re: A st Highrise
Because in Fort Point -- and throughout Boston, is that projects approved on maps, regardless of years of planning and community input, are never what actually are developed when the shovels go in the ground. The developer has agreed to contribute to a fund, but no one has been able to comprehend how such a fund is administrated, how contributions are made, what the timetable is, etc. And, because of proximity to the Financial District, there is a lot of pressure just to fill in the space with more office space. Most people in the community involved in the day-to-day dialog are not as NIMBY as often suggested by others - they are interested in the evolution of a mixed-use urban district. Frankly, if you look at the Seaport around Fan Pier, you might agree that what's being built doesn't match the "world-class" maps published in the Seaport Public Realm Plan. There's a reason for that, but this is probably not an appropriate forum.
Because in Fort Point -- and throughout Boston, is that projects approved on maps, regardless of years of planning and community input, are never what actually are developed when the shovels go in the ground. The developer has agreed to contribute to a fund, but no one has been able to comprehend how such a fund is administrated, how contributions are made, what the timetable is, etc. And, because of proximity to the Financial District, there is a lot of pressure just to fill in the space with more office space. Most people in the community involved in the day-to-day dialog are not as NIMBY as often suggested by others - they are interested in the evolution of a mixed-use urban district. Frankly, if you look at the Seaport around Fan Pier, you might agree that what's being built doesn't match the "world-class" maps published in the Seaport Public Realm Plan. There's a reason for that, but this is probably not an appropriate forum.
BostonYoureMyHome
Active Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2009
- Messages
- 221
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: A st Highrise
I disagree. That building, to put it bluntly, sucks. What a blight on and up and coming neighborhood. Tear it down. Add some nice residential. The rest will follow and we will continue to see this neighborhood finally develop into something.
The parking lots will be built up eventually.
Go by that building on a cold day when the furnace is pumping out thick black smoke that fills the street corridors. Observe the beautiful "art" (graffiti) that encompasses the old brick facade. Oh how I love an unoriginal rundown factory. The historical element it brings sustains all of Boston and its removal will be the demise of the little remaining culture Boston has.
Seriously?
I disagree. That building, to put it bluntly, sucks. What a blight on and up and coming neighborhood. Tear it down. Add some nice residential. The rest will follow and we will continue to see this neighborhood finally develop into something.
The parking lots will be built up eventually.
Go by that building on a cold day when the furnace is pumping out thick black smoke that fills the street corridors. Observe the beautiful "art" (graffiti) that encompasses the old brick facade. Oh how I love an unoriginal rundown factory. The historical element it brings sustains all of Boston and its removal will be the demise of the little remaining culture Boston has.
Seriously?
BostonYoureMyHome
Active Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2009
- Messages
- 221
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: A st Highrise
The BBJ's article on the project:
Thursday, November 5, 2009, 4:59pm EST | Modified: Friday, November 6, 2009, 5:30am
Developers submit revised 25-story residential plan for Fort Point Channel
Boston Business Journal - by Craig M. Douglas and Tim McLaughlin
The city of Boston received a proposal late Thursday from two out-of-state developers that details a substantially scaled-back blueprint to convert a Fort Point Channel warehouse populated by artists into a 25-story residential tower in South Boston.
The plan, submitted by New York-based Goldman Properties and Archon Group, the real estate arm of Wall Street titan Goldman Sachs, would comprise 315,000 square feet, of which 259,000 square feet would be dedicated to residential space. That footprint is considerably smaller than the developers? prior plan to build two buildings at the site.
The earlier plan, submitted in 2007, was scrapped over objections by the Boston Redevelopment Authority and Boston Landmarks Commission.
Nonetheless, a new proposal was filed Thursday to convert the site into a massive residential development along the South Boston waterfront. That plan appears to have gained steam in recent months after Goldman and Archon locked up a $12.9 million mortgage for the property from JPMorgan, according to state records. In 2005, the developers borrowed $26 million from Column Financial Inc., the commercial real estate arm of Credit Suisse. That loan was paid down around the time they landed the JPMorgan mortgage in June.
The Boston Redevelopment Authority said the new proposal?s public-comment period will end Dec. 7, at which point the city will formally weigh in on the plan?s details.
An existing five story, 37,920-square-foot warehouse now stands at the site of the proposed development, known as 319 A Street Rear. The development would be constructed at the east end of South Boston?s Pastene Alley.
The proposed building?s height would be 240 feet and would include 232 rental apartments and four levels of parking to accommodate up to 98 cars.
The developers? legal counsel is Goulston & Storrs. ADD Inc. has been hired as the architect for the project while Maynard, Mass.-based Epsilon Associates is working as a permitting consultant. Epsilon submitted the plan to the BRA Thursday.
Goldman and Archon own a slew of property in the Fort Point Channel neighborhood, although development has been slow to date. Controversies over displaced artists who have long rented in the area created a groundswell of negative attention two years ago.
Archon and Goldman later took steps to shed properties in the area in 2007 after incurring delays.
http://boston.bizjournals.com/bosto...ly56.html?s=industry&i=commercial_real_estate
The BBJ's article on the project:
Thursday, November 5, 2009, 4:59pm EST | Modified: Friday, November 6, 2009, 5:30am
Developers submit revised 25-story residential plan for Fort Point Channel
Boston Business Journal - by Craig M. Douglas and Tim McLaughlin
The city of Boston received a proposal late Thursday from two out-of-state developers that details a substantially scaled-back blueprint to convert a Fort Point Channel warehouse populated by artists into a 25-story residential tower in South Boston.
The plan, submitted by New York-based Goldman Properties and Archon Group, the real estate arm of Wall Street titan Goldman Sachs, would comprise 315,000 square feet, of which 259,000 square feet would be dedicated to residential space. That footprint is considerably smaller than the developers? prior plan to build two buildings at the site.
The earlier plan, submitted in 2007, was scrapped over objections by the Boston Redevelopment Authority and Boston Landmarks Commission.
Nonetheless, a new proposal was filed Thursday to convert the site into a massive residential development along the South Boston waterfront. That plan appears to have gained steam in recent months after Goldman and Archon locked up a $12.9 million mortgage for the property from JPMorgan, according to state records. In 2005, the developers borrowed $26 million from Column Financial Inc., the commercial real estate arm of Credit Suisse. That loan was paid down around the time they landed the JPMorgan mortgage in June.
The Boston Redevelopment Authority said the new proposal?s public-comment period will end Dec. 7, at which point the city will formally weigh in on the plan?s details.
An existing five story, 37,920-square-foot warehouse now stands at the site of the proposed development, known as 319 A Street Rear. The development would be constructed at the east end of South Boston?s Pastene Alley.
The proposed building?s height would be 240 feet and would include 232 rental apartments and four levels of parking to accommodate up to 98 cars.
The developers? legal counsel is Goulston & Storrs. ADD Inc. has been hired as the architect for the project while Maynard, Mass.-based Epsilon Associates is working as a permitting consultant. Epsilon submitted the plan to the BRA Thursday.
Goldman and Archon own a slew of property in the Fort Point Channel neighborhood, although development has been slow to date. Controversies over displaced artists who have long rented in the area created a groundswell of negative attention two years ago.
Archon and Goldman later took steps to shed properties in the area in 2007 after incurring delays.
http://boston.bizjournals.com/bosto...ly56.html?s=industry&i=commercial_real_estate
Shepard
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2009
- Messages
- 3,518
- Reaction score
- 66
Re: A st Highrise
Good point, Sicilian. Another reason why the planning function and acting as the development gatekeeper should be roles given to different and distinct bodies.
If it's true that Fort Point NIMBYs really want a dense mixed-use area with that well-planned (imho) strip of open space in the 100 acre plan, then my advice to them would be to act less oppositional from the get-go. The gentleman's comments to the Herald are negative and unconstructive - and whether it's his attitude or bad journalism that didn't set the context as well as you did, the result of all of this could well be sub-par development all around. "NIMBYs" should be aware of this very real danger - just look at North Allston. The approach should be constructive, and while a milk-it-for-all-we-can approach might look constructive to neighbors on the ground, it's easily detrimental to both the pace and quality of development overall. [/soapbox]
Good point, Sicilian. Another reason why the planning function and acting as the development gatekeeper should be roles given to different and distinct bodies.
If it's true that Fort Point NIMBYs really want a dense mixed-use area with that well-planned (imho) strip of open space in the 100 acre plan, then my advice to them would be to act less oppositional from the get-go. The gentleman's comments to the Herald are negative and unconstructive - and whether it's his attitude or bad journalism that didn't set the context as well as you did, the result of all of this could well be sub-par development all around. "NIMBYs" should be aware of this very real danger - just look at North Allston. The approach should be constructive, and while a milk-it-for-all-we-can approach might look constructive to neighbors on the ground, it's easily detrimental to both the pace and quality of development overall. [/soapbox]
statler
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 7,927
- Reaction score
- 525
Re: A st Highrise
No worries, and Welcome by the way.
This project seems to piqued your interest, are you connected to it in any way?
No worries, and Welcome by the way.
This project seems to piqued your interest, are you connected to it in any way?
Re: A st Highrise
This is BS...Tony Goldman is the owner of Goldman Properties. He is a phenomenal developer. He is responsible for much of the restoration and revitalization of South Beach and SOHO. It may well be that Goldman Sachs is an investor, but Goldman Properties is a seperate and distinct entity.
This is BS...Tony Goldman is the owner of Goldman Properties. He is a phenomenal developer. He is responsible for much of the restoration and revitalization of South Beach and SOHO. It may well be that Goldman Sachs is an investor, but Goldman Properties is a seperate and distinct entity.
Ron Newman
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2006
- Messages
- 8,395
- Reaction score
- 12
Re: A st Highrise
Does the warehouse to be demolished currently contain either artists' studios or other tenants?
Does the warehouse to be demolished currently contain either artists' studios or other tenants?
Re: A st Highrise
^ Shepard... what reads as negativity is a certain toughness that exists throughout the community that developed over the past decade of highly positive and productive participation in the City's so-called "planning" exercises and charettes. It's difficult to explain the backroom politics that go on that leave community people -- even seasoned folks in the dialog, fairly bitter or disillusioned. See my response to sidewalks below regarding a particular widespread negativity that does exist regarding this project.
^ statler... the project piques my interest mostly because I live and work here, as I have for 20 years.
^Ron... No artists live in those buildings anymore. Leases were not extended and most moved away. A small handful of artists were offered some temporary workspace in the rear building until the project moves forward.
^sidewalks... for examples of great developers and projects I'd probably choose to cite Berkeley Investments (Drink/FP3/Sportello/Flour/FPAC Gallery/Landmark Study Committee/Rehabs up and down Congress) and Beacon Capital Partners (Channel Center, Fort Point Place, etc.). BTW, Archon/Goldman arrived at roughly the same time as Berkeley Investments.
^ Shepard... what reads as negativity is a certain toughness that exists throughout the community that developed over the past decade of highly positive and productive participation in the City's so-called "planning" exercises and charettes. It's difficult to explain the backroom politics that go on that leave community people -- even seasoned folks in the dialog, fairly bitter or disillusioned. See my response to sidewalks below regarding a particular widespread negativity that does exist regarding this project.
^ statler... the project piques my interest mostly because I live and work here, as I have for 20 years.
^Ron... No artists live in those buildings anymore. Leases were not extended and most moved away. A small handful of artists were offered some temporary workspace in the rear building until the project moves forward.
^sidewalks... for examples of great developers and projects I'd probably choose to cite Berkeley Investments (Drink/FP3/Sportello/Flour/FPAC Gallery/Landmark Study Committee/Rehabs up and down Congress) and Beacon Capital Partners (Channel Center, Fort Point Place, etc.). BTW, Archon/Goldman arrived at roughly the same time as Berkeley Investments.
JohnAKeith
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 4,321
- Reaction score
- 69
Re: A st Highrise
Zoning allows for heights of 180 feet; the new building as proposed is 240 feet. There is wiggle room in the 100-acre plan, at least according to what the developer says in the PNF. Isn't this more a "mid-rise" than a "high-rise"? At most, it's 12-stories, no? (I consider a mid-rise 6-10 stories.)
The building IS behind the Chimera building - if you look at Google Maps you will see the # 319 written on the Chimera building, and the proposed building is behind there.
I don't believe neighbors will have any problems with this proposal as it brings in residential housing, which they've practically begged for.
If they complain, the developer can just throw in a high-end coffee shop or something "faux" urban so the neighbors can all wet themselves with pleasure about being "hip".
Zoning allows for heights of 180 feet; the new building as proposed is 240 feet. There is wiggle room in the 100-acre plan, at least according to what the developer says in the PNF. Isn't this more a "mid-rise" than a "high-rise"? At most, it's 12-stories, no? (I consider a mid-rise 6-10 stories.)
The building IS behind the Chimera building - if you look at Google Maps you will see the # 319 written on the Chimera building, and the proposed building is behind there.
I don't believe neighbors will have any problems with this proposal as it brings in residential housing, which they've practically begged for.
If they complain, the developer can just throw in a high-end coffee shop or something "faux" urban so the neighbors can all wet themselves with pleasure about being "hip".