315 on A | 315 A Street | Fort Point
- Thread starter Boston02124
- Start date
JohnAKeith
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 4,319
- Reaction score
- 57
Re: A st Highrise
I saw John Hines at First Fridays in the South End, tonight. He was there with his wife / girlfriend / significant other. He looks different out of a suit! Downright frumpy (sorry, John). I introduced myself and asked how things were going. He said, "Alright," and words to the effect, "Things are loosening up," and, "Things will be better, next year."
Seaport Square has the potential to be a great new downtown business district with a fair amount of residential and (yes) park space. Add the retail / mall space at Watership Down (I mean, 'Place') and we have a great tax revenue generator.
East Cambridge, look out!
I saw John Hines at First Fridays in the South End, tonight. He was there with his wife / girlfriend / significant other. He looks different out of a suit! Downright frumpy (sorry, John). I introduced myself and asked how things were going. He said, "Alright," and words to the effect, "Things are loosening up," and, "Things will be better, next year."
Seaport Square has the potential to be a great new downtown business district with a fair amount of residential and (yes) park space. Add the retail / mall space at Watership Down (I mean, 'Place') and we have a great tax revenue generator.
East Cambridge, look out!
AmericanFolkLegend
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2009
- Messages
- 2,203
- Reaction score
- 219
Re: A st Highrise
On the A St Highrise:
How is it 25 stories and only 240 feet. When you work in the depth of the floor plates, HVAC, electrical, etc. aren't we looking at 8 foot ceilings? Doesn't exactly fit in with the character of the rest of the neighborhood.
On the A St Highrise:
How is it 25 stories and only 240 feet. When you work in the depth of the floor plates, HVAC, electrical, etc. aren't we looking at 8 foot ceilings? Doesn't exactly fit in with the character of the rest of the neighborhood.
Re: A st Highrise
The Project Notification Form can be downloaded from the BRA at:
http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/DevelopmentProjects/devprojects.asp?action=ViewProject&ProjectID=1405
The PDF may take a while to load.
The Project Notification Form can be downloaded from the BRA at:
http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/DevelopmentProjects/devprojects.asp?action=ViewProject&ProjectID=1405
The PDF may take a while to load.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,963
- Reaction score
- 1,585
Re: A st Highrise
Good catch. My gut reaction tells me that these are just numbers pulled out of the sky since they know it will have to be shortened. The final height will probably be more realistic in terms of ceiling height. Also it is possible they are going to build some bland ugly condos and try and fit in as many people as possible.
Good catch. My gut reaction tells me that these are just numbers pulled out of the sky since they know it will have to be shortened. The final height will probably be more realistic in terms of ceiling height. Also it is possible they are going to build some bland ugly condos and try and fit in as many people as possible.
disturbanist
New member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2008
- Messages
- 72
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: A st Highrise
For those of you confused about the location:
And from the Project Notification Form
http://www.bostonredevelopmentautho...9 A Street Rear/PNF/319 A Street Rear_PNF.pdf
For those of you confused about the location:
And from the Project Notification Form
http://www.bostonredevelopmentautho...9 A Street Rear/PNF/319 A Street Rear_PNF.pdf
Suffolk 83
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 2,921
- Reaction score
- 2,187
Re: A st Highrise
^^ This building has a 100% chance of being ugly and bland.
^^ This building has a 100% chance of being ugly and bland.
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,963
- Reaction score
- 1,585
Re: A st Highrise
Agreed, however it is at least far enough back from Summer St to do too much damage.
Agreed, however it is at least far enough back from Summer St to do too much damage.
AmericanFolkLegend
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2009
- Messages
- 2,203
- Reaction score
- 219
Re: A st Highrise
^ "Proposed" property line.
I don't get it - do they need to acquire some public land or build over an easement or something? Why is the property line proposed?
^ "Proposed" property line.
I don't get it - do they need to acquire some public land or build over an easement or something? Why is the property line proposed?
Re: A st Highrise
^AmericanFolkLegend
I'm not 100% sure, but that dotted line indicating "proposed property line" is probably just to denote that the entire portion of the alley outlined is proposed to be owned by this project and not shared with 327 & 337 Summer (properties also owned by Archon). This demarcation may have been part of the process of separating the project from those existing buildings. In an earlier proposal, this project infilled (or bridged) the alley and was cantilevered over the rooftops of 327 and 337 Summer St.
^AmericanFolkLegend
I'm not 100% sure, but that dotted line indicating "proposed property line" is probably just to denote that the entire portion of the alley outlined is proposed to be owned by this project and not shared with 327 & 337 Summer (properties also owned by Archon). This demarcation may have been part of the process of separating the project from those existing buildings. In an earlier proposal, this project infilled (or bridged) the alley and was cantilevered over the rooftops of 327 and 337 Summer St.
Re: A st Highrise
Possibly....certainly the Google Sketch-Up quality rendering leaves much to be desired.....but this same design using high-quality matertials and subtle detailing could be ok.
Possibly....certainly the Google Sketch-Up quality rendering leaves much to be desired.....but this same design using high-quality matertials and subtle detailing could be ok.
kz1000ps
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2006
- Messages
- 8,721
- Reaction score
- 9,511
Re: A st Highrise
Why do people keep bashing it? We've seen one "Google Sketch-Up quality rendering" (good one, atlrvr) so far, and at worst it looks kinda bland. But at best, I'd say it has the potential to be quite handsome in a square-jawed sort of way, which IMO would fit the simple and robust character of the neighborhood well.
Why do people keep bashing it? We've seen one "Google Sketch-Up quality rendering" (good one, atlrvr) so far, and at worst it looks kinda bland. But at best, I'd say it has the potential to be quite handsome in a square-jawed sort of way, which IMO would fit the simple and robust character of the neighborhood well.
kennedy
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 2,820
- Reaction score
- 7
Re: A st Highrise
I agree with KZ. We haven't seen nearly enough to judge this sucker yet. Usually, I'd be disappointed that an old brick warehouse has to be demolished, but in this case I'm not. This is at the outside of the Fort Point district, and on the edge of the Great Parking Sea. Hopefully, it's architecture will work to raise the quality of whatever is built on the treacherous asphalt ocean. Definitely a transitional building, and has a great potential to be a very strong piece (which we may see in future renders) in the burgeoning area. Hell of a lot better than Fan Pier, wouldn't you say?
I agree with KZ. We haven't seen nearly enough to judge this sucker yet. Usually, I'd be disappointed that an old brick warehouse has to be demolished, but in this case I'm not. This is at the outside of the Fort Point district, and on the edge of the Great Parking Sea. Hopefully, it's architecture will work to raise the quality of whatever is built on the treacherous asphalt ocean. Definitely a transitional building, and has a great potential to be a very strong piece (which we may see in future renders) in the burgeoning area. Hell of a lot better than Fan Pier, wouldn't you say?
PlanBoston
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2006
- Messages
- 128
- Reaction score
- 12
Re: A st Highrise
That's the economics of design and development at work. Not all condo projects can be "Luxury", not all buildings can be landmarks. This project seems to be a mid-income price point, affordable for new construction. A developer can't afford to build high ceilings to match the old warehouse buildings (8' is adequate), use the best materials, give back for public amenities such as open space, etc. and still be successful.
Sure, this building is bland, too tall, and generally blah; but it suits its purpose. Goldman is one of the better developers, by far. They have a big stake in the neighborhood, and want to add to its overall vibrancy. This building will help bring people to a somewhat gritty area and contribute to the critical mass. It is set back from Summer and A streets so it doesn?t take away from the street wall, and its slender profile won?t cast huge shadows. Plus, it will probably end up at 180? after it is put through the bureaucratic wringer.
Look at this one in a broad context. Add a few more buildings like this to the revitalized BWCo buildings, street level retail, sidewalk cafes, etc. and you have a real neighborhood.
That's the economics of design and development at work. Not all condo projects can be "Luxury", not all buildings can be landmarks. This project seems to be a mid-income price point, affordable for new construction. A developer can't afford to build high ceilings to match the old warehouse buildings (8' is adequate), use the best materials, give back for public amenities such as open space, etc. and still be successful.
Sure, this building is bland, too tall, and generally blah; but it suits its purpose. Goldman is one of the better developers, by far. They have a big stake in the neighborhood, and want to add to its overall vibrancy. This building will help bring people to a somewhat gritty area and contribute to the critical mass. It is set back from Summer and A streets so it doesn?t take away from the street wall, and its slender profile won?t cast huge shadows. Plus, it will probably end up at 180? after it is put through the bureaucratic wringer.
Look at this one in a broad context. Add a few more buildings like this to the revitalized BWCo buildings, street level retail, sidewalk cafes, etc. and you have a real neighborhood.
Re: A st Highrise
I'm not sure why the architectural bar isn't set higher for this project, for Boston, and particularly for a Waterfront that has the potential to be one of the most incredibly dynamic areas in the entire USA.
For the "market-driven" folks, it's worth mentioning that private landholders in the Seaport and immediate vicinity have already benefitted from upwards of $8 billion of public dollars (MBTA, CAT/Tunnel, Harbor Cleanup, Seaport Planning, etc.). I would also suggest that public dollars spent in planning have a role in maximizing the value of the land.
This particular property owner, like many others who have already developed in the Seaport (Fan Pier and on Massport's property) have received variances that increased value far from the purchase price of their property. Yet mediocrity continues to be the name of the game across the entire Waterfront, with an invisible army of NIMBY's to blame.
First off, just to make sure I'm not called a liar again, the following should be taken with a grain of salt -- let's say it's my opinion.
My understanding -- assume I'm lying -- is that this property owner came into Fort Point and purchased upwards of 17 properties, most of which have already been flipped for office space, and all the others still in the portfolio have already been approved for office space. I don't begrudge them at all for doing well, or flipping as-of-right, and selling what they bought for the highest number possible. NO PROBLEM.
But the BRA added upwards of 300,000 to 500,000 sf of new density to the developers portfolio in exchange for the promise of producing a mix of uses through their portfolio (residential, commercial, possibly some civic space here or there) plus contributions to the greenspace swath in the 100 Acre Plan, plus the possibility of some future "affordable" units. Maybe there are some other benefits that the BRA expected of them, I don't know.
The only reason this tower is not office space is because it is the last place in the entire portfolio left that was not already sold as office space or approved as office space.
All said, if this property owner is now holding a development rights for a new tower valued at $250 million (conservative), why shouldn't there be an expectation of stunning architecture, top notch materials, etc.? THIS IS BOSTON, NOT AUSTIN.
Why are people suggesting a woeful state of the development economics in the area?
And (IMO, to make sure I am not called a liar again) the same goes for almost every other project that has risen over the past decade in the Seaport.
The Seaport is an amazing example because there are no NIMBYs to blame. It's an absolute joke how much power people attribute to one non-profit (TBHA) and 5 residents who regularly show up at Seaport planning meetings. Vivien Li, widely despised on this board, has pretty much been consistent in calling for a dense urban mixed-use district with some measure of respect for scaled-down heights as buildings approach the water's edge.
The widespread mediocrity in planning and development is not due to a so-called "bureaucratic wringer" or to NIMBY's or to the Vivien Li's out there. That's the cookie-cutter excuse for every bland project. The problem is the milking of every cent of value from every Seaport project, exaggerating the cost of the so-called benefits (i.e. usually some landscaping) and no one put to task for the mediocre projects that get built.
Again, just as an observation, much of it has to do with the ability of property owners to secure lucrative approvals from the BRA, resell the project and approvals for a hefty profit without developing a single foot, leaving a new owner to let everyone know they overpaid and can't afford the original benefits promised under the original approval.
As for anyone who says let the towers go up and let the market dictate the outcome, it's my belief we'd be looking at Kendall-on-the-Harbor -- not much different than what we see today around Fish Pier. That is not the highest valuation of the land, nor do I believe that would serve the City well. Look at unplanned, unzoned cities elsewhere and provide some examples if you think I'm mistaken.
We should be looking at the incredible Waterfronts in the USA and around the world that have arisen and ask "why not Boston?" Call me a liar, fine, but the mediocrity is not because of Vivien Li or armchair critics like myself.
Why not Boston? Because we are not holding the developers to a higher standard.
Unless you have seen Archon's proforma and the agreements they made with the BRA in order to secure a portfolio of variances for new construction, I would suggest the standards for the Seaport architecture and land use should be set pretty damn high.
I'm not sure why the architectural bar isn't set higher for this project, for Boston, and particularly for a Waterfront that has the potential to be one of the most incredibly dynamic areas in the entire USA.
For the "market-driven" folks, it's worth mentioning that private landholders in the Seaport and immediate vicinity have already benefitted from upwards of $8 billion of public dollars (MBTA, CAT/Tunnel, Harbor Cleanup, Seaport Planning, etc.). I would also suggest that public dollars spent in planning have a role in maximizing the value of the land.
This particular property owner, like many others who have already developed in the Seaport (Fan Pier and on Massport's property) have received variances that increased value far from the purchase price of their property. Yet mediocrity continues to be the name of the game across the entire Waterfront, with an invisible army of NIMBY's to blame.
First off, just to make sure I'm not called a liar again, the following should be taken with a grain of salt -- let's say it's my opinion.
My understanding -- assume I'm lying -- is that this property owner came into Fort Point and purchased upwards of 17 properties, most of which have already been flipped for office space, and all the others still in the portfolio have already been approved for office space. I don't begrudge them at all for doing well, or flipping as-of-right, and selling what they bought for the highest number possible. NO PROBLEM.
But the BRA added upwards of 300,000 to 500,000 sf of new density to the developers portfolio in exchange for the promise of producing a mix of uses through their portfolio (residential, commercial, possibly some civic space here or there) plus contributions to the greenspace swath in the 100 Acre Plan, plus the possibility of some future "affordable" units. Maybe there are some other benefits that the BRA expected of them, I don't know.
The only reason this tower is not office space is because it is the last place in the entire portfolio left that was not already sold as office space or approved as office space.
All said, if this property owner is now holding a development rights for a new tower valued at $250 million (conservative), why shouldn't there be an expectation of stunning architecture, top notch materials, etc.? THIS IS BOSTON, NOT AUSTIN.
Why are people suggesting a woeful state of the development economics in the area?
And (IMO, to make sure I am not called a liar again) the same goes for almost every other project that has risen over the past decade in the Seaport.
The Seaport is an amazing example because there are no NIMBYs to blame. It's an absolute joke how much power people attribute to one non-profit (TBHA) and 5 residents who regularly show up at Seaport planning meetings. Vivien Li, widely despised on this board, has pretty much been consistent in calling for a dense urban mixed-use district with some measure of respect for scaled-down heights as buildings approach the water's edge.
The widespread mediocrity in planning and development is not due to a so-called "bureaucratic wringer" or to NIMBY's or to the Vivien Li's out there. That's the cookie-cutter excuse for every bland project. The problem is the milking of every cent of value from every Seaport project, exaggerating the cost of the so-called benefits (i.e. usually some landscaping) and no one put to task for the mediocre projects that get built.
Again, just as an observation, much of it has to do with the ability of property owners to secure lucrative approvals from the BRA, resell the project and approvals for a hefty profit without developing a single foot, leaving a new owner to let everyone know they overpaid and can't afford the original benefits promised under the original approval.
As for anyone who says let the towers go up and let the market dictate the outcome, it's my belief we'd be looking at Kendall-on-the-Harbor -- not much different than what we see today around Fish Pier. That is not the highest valuation of the land, nor do I believe that would serve the City well. Look at unplanned, unzoned cities elsewhere and provide some examples if you think I'm mistaken.
We should be looking at the incredible Waterfronts in the USA and around the world that have arisen and ask "why not Boston?" Call me a liar, fine, but the mediocrity is not because of Vivien Li or armchair critics like myself.
Why not Boston? Because we are not holding the developers to a higher standard.
Unless you have seen Archon's proforma and the agreements they made with the BRA in order to secure a portfolio of variances for new construction, I would suggest the standards for the Seaport architecture and land use should be set pretty damn high.
czsz
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 6,043
- Reaction score
- 5
Re: A st Highrise
Sicilian, NIMBYs across Boston set the tone for the Seaport. Their crowing for "open space" was eventually incorporated into the city's own planning mandates, forcing developers to surround their projects with superfluous parkland. Do you really think that if developers were able to "squeeze all the value" out of their property there would be parks across the street from parks, chopping the area into an absurd park-building-park-street-park-building configuration?
As for this project - it's just absurd. Yes, I get that the developer doesn't own the oceans of parking around the building, but the fact that an existing structure is being torn down for a new one rather than occupying a small plot of wasteland leaves me incredulous. And because it's an old brick warehouse we're losing, it means there will be of Fort Point - an already tiny neighborhood - and less of what makes it unique.
Sicilian, NIMBYs across Boston set the tone for the Seaport. Their crowing for "open space" was eventually incorporated into the city's own planning mandates, forcing developers to surround their projects with superfluous parkland. Do you really think that if developers were able to "squeeze all the value" out of their property there would be parks across the street from parks, chopping the area into an absurd park-building-park-street-park-building configuration?
As for this project - it's just absurd. Yes, I get that the developer doesn't own the oceans of parking around the building, but the fact that an existing structure is being torn down for a new one rather than occupying a small plot of wasteland leaves me incredulous. And because it's an old brick warehouse we're losing, it means there will be of Fort Point - an already tiny neighborhood - and less of what makes it unique.
Re: A st Highrise
^czsz
First off, having attended most of the Seaport planning meetings, the only possible NIMBYism recognizable at the time could have been the call for offsite benefits (i.e. linkage) which, once exposed by the Globe, went away for the most part. There were about 20 area residents who would regularly show up, plus some non-profits (TBHA, Boston Natural Areas) plus the Conservation Law Foundation. There were many other organizations (Society of Boston Architects, etc.) but none I recall that were insane about greenspace.
Of course, you are correct to suggest that the Globe and Herald focused on quotes from the regular attendees who would show up and call for significant greenspace, but I think it's incorrect to suggest that drove the Fan Pier plan and Seaport Plan.
The proof is in the pudding.
If you look at the Seaport Public Realm plan that came out of those meetings (1997-2000), the planned greenspace is not at all what you describe, nor is it egregious by any reasonable standard. There is a large park at Fan Pier that, once the complete buildout is completed (50 years from now) may be actually quite spectacular. There are no plazas in the plan, and I am not aware of a call for plazas with each project. In fact, Fan Pier's buildings as approved today are all adjacent to each other, and Seaport Square's buildings are planned to abut one another, with most greenspace aggregated.
Maybe we just disagree on the value of urban planning generally -- I think it has value, but really would expect the BRA to use it as a framework for what gets built. Or maybe we just disagree that areas with an aggregation of significant greenspace, plus a few pocket parks, make sense in a dense buildout of Boston's Seaport.
It's hard to judge right now because of all the parking lots, and easy to look at Fan Pier's greenspace and call it a wasteland. I don't see it that way, looking ahead.
As for this project, I agree with you that demolition of a historic warehouse does not make sense. But in the backroom negotiations with the BRA, this site is where the original owner (the Boston Wharf Company) found possible value, and the increase in value placed them at the table in the planning dialog because they were then expected to contribute to the other needs for the urban plan.
I am not arguing in favor of this building's demolition, but think arguing against it's demolition is a waste of time. The Boston Landmark designation occured after the demolition was already anticipated by the BRA, and the property owner is a signator to the 100 Acres Plan.
^czsz
First off, having attended most of the Seaport planning meetings, the only possible NIMBYism recognizable at the time could have been the call for offsite benefits (i.e. linkage) which, once exposed by the Globe, went away for the most part. There were about 20 area residents who would regularly show up, plus some non-profits (TBHA, Boston Natural Areas) plus the Conservation Law Foundation. There were many other organizations (Society of Boston Architects, etc.) but none I recall that were insane about greenspace.
Of course, you are correct to suggest that the Globe and Herald focused on quotes from the regular attendees who would show up and call for significant greenspace, but I think it's incorrect to suggest that drove the Fan Pier plan and Seaport Plan.
The proof is in the pudding.
If you look at the Seaport Public Realm plan that came out of those meetings (1997-2000), the planned greenspace is not at all what you describe, nor is it egregious by any reasonable standard. There is a large park at Fan Pier that, once the complete buildout is completed (50 years from now) may be actually quite spectacular. There are no plazas in the plan, and I am not aware of a call for plazas with each project. In fact, Fan Pier's buildings as approved today are all adjacent to each other, and Seaport Square's buildings are planned to abut one another, with most greenspace aggregated.
Maybe we just disagree on the value of urban planning generally -- I think it has value, but really would expect the BRA to use it as a framework for what gets built. Or maybe we just disagree that areas with an aggregation of significant greenspace, plus a few pocket parks, make sense in a dense buildout of Boston's Seaport.
It's hard to judge right now because of all the parking lots, and easy to look at Fan Pier's greenspace and call it a wasteland. I don't see it that way, looking ahead.
As for this project, I agree with you that demolition of a historic warehouse does not make sense. But in the backroom negotiations with the BRA, this site is where the original owner (the Boston Wharf Company) found possible value, and the increase in value placed them at the table in the planning dialog because they were then expected to contribute to the other needs for the urban plan.
I am not arguing in favor of this building's demolition, but think arguing against it's demolition is a waste of time. The Boston Landmark designation occured after the demolition was already anticipated by the BRA, and the property owner is a signator to the 100 Acres Plan.