315 on A | 315 A Street | Fort Point

Re: A st Highrise

Oh, I agree there's no way and not even much of a legal rationale for the building to be saved. It's only a waste from an urban design perspective. Unfortunately, there's no way to really reset priorities to make sure development pressure is shifted from already-developed parcels citywide without such a rule being so overinclusive as to discourage lots of worthy development, probably.

As for planning - I'm thinking more of the dispiriting layout of the WTC buildings than Fan Pier or Seaport Square. Both FP and SS could turn out well urbanistically; it's too early to tell. But I wonder how anyone can justify the amount of parkspace included by the WTC developers.
 
Re: A st Highrise

^czsz
If the developments continue the way they have been, with the "dispiriting" lack of respect for the potential the area deserves, and a bar set lower than most surburbs of Dallas, the greenspaces you mention will be a complete waste and I would support filling them in with whatever the market will bear.
I was an optimist in 1997. But not any more.
 
Re: A st Highrise

Sicilian said:
^czsz
If the developments continue the way they have been, with the "dispiriting" lack of respect for the potential the area deserves, and a bar set lower than most surburbs of Dallas, the greenspaces you mention will be a complete waste and I would support filling them in with whatever the market will bear.
I was an optimist in 1997. But not any more.
Click to expand...

I don't understand the 100 acre plan at all.

If there is a need for a park, why not a single squarish usable park instead of a strip of cut up green? The greenway at least has the excuse of a very defined space that needed to be filled. This is parking lots.

Terrible.
 
Re: A st Highrise

^Justin7

A) There was a call for aggregating the greenspace, placing it at the heart of the growing residential community, and having it create a relationship between A Street and the Channel, rather than walling off A Street from the Channel.

B) There is a thin, perhaps less useful strip that runs from the smokestack to A Street. That dates back to the Public Realm Plan which envisioned an eventual connection to the Convention Center, which -- if ever achieved, would be a amazing point of entry from BCEC into Fort Point, and on to the water's edge.

B) As for the greenspace layout, much was forced on the plan based on the exact CAT/Tunnel locations, ensuring that the 7-9 million sf of buildings, particularly those that exceeded 100' would be placed in the corner parcels of the lots, instead of over the tunnel. In other words, the current parking lots were at no time considered an empty slate.
 
Re: A st Highrise

I think the strip of parkland in the plan will work well. The streets that surround it are perpendicular to the main arterials and lead cars nowhere, which means that this will be far from a highway median. It could turn out to be exactly what the greenway should have been.
 
Re: A st Highrise

Sicilian - I want to apologize for my rash, knee-jerk comment the other day regarding your post.

I am currently working on a project (not in this area) that "the neighborhood" demanded more "open space" for, and the result has been tragic. In order to appease (or to shut-up) these people, the developers agreed to build too much open, empty, dead space. Now that the project has been open for many years, the complaint (on this board and in general) is about all this dead space.

I have seen such a knee-jerk reaction by neighborhood groups to bland down developments with grassy, windy, dead space. I saw the plans for this little apartment tower and thought "this is nice" and then read your post "needs open space" and it just hit a nerve!

If we force these developers to build a park, the money will be saved in cheap architecture and lousy materials.

I'm glad you've posted such thoughtful analysis and enjoy reading your input. I do respectfully disagree that this area needs any more parks. It's the heart of the city, and in my opinion already has far too many parks, parkettes, and dreadful "open spaces". Rather than add to the inventory, I'd rather start adding some density so the already-existing dead spaces start to come to life with people.
 
Re: A st Highrise

Please be advised that there will be a BRA-sponsored community meeting on Monday, November 23, @ 6:30 ? 8:00 PM, at the Boston Convention & Exhibition Center, Room 102 A, 415 Summer Street, South Boston, regarding the proposed redevelopment of 319 A Street Rear, which is located in the Fort Point Channel District.

The Proponent, W2005 BWH II Realty, LLC, filed a Project Notification Form for the construction of approximately 232 rental apartments, a lobby and amenities spaces, and above-grade parking for approximately 98 cars. The total project size is approximately 315,000 square feet of which approximately 259,000 square feet is residential program (apartments, circulation, lobbies, and amenities) and approximately 56,000 square feet for parking. The proposed project is undergoing Large Project Review pursuant to Article 80B of the Boston Zoning Code.

The 30-day public comment period ends on Monday, December 7, 2009. Comments letters can be mailed, faxed or emailed to:

MAIL TO:
KRISTIN KARA
BOSTON REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ONE CITY HALL SQUARE, 9TH FLOOR
BOSTON, MA 02201
 
Re: A st Highrise

^pelhamhall

Comment much appreciated, and point taken regarding what you've experienced. I can completely understand that NIMBY calls for greenspace are widespread.

As for Fort Point, you and I can agree to disagree. I've lived downtown for 20 years, worked with some of the finest planners and architects, and there is widespread support both in the professional and residential Fort Point community for the swath of greenspace in the 100 Acre Plan.

Even in the short term, things are not working well here today. During our summer outdoor movie series in Wormwood Park, barely anyone will sit on blankets in the 60' x 100' area because the grass has been saturated by dogs. So everyone brings chairs and sits at the periphery, on top of the mulched plantings that other neighbors tend to. We have a maximum capacity of roughly 35 attendees and sometimes people just stand outside the park and look in.

And I can tell you that I know at least three families who have moved away from our Fort Point condo to raise kids in a neighborhood with a place to throw a ball, frisbee, picnic. That is really not an unusual expectation even in the most urban of environments.

I especially appreciate the point made just above this post by "Shepard", because his observation is exactly the kind of thinking that went into this particular aggregation of space.

The rest of the Fort Point historic district, aside from the Harborwalk, will be shoulder-to-shoulder buildings, historic and (future) modern.

Thanks again for the post.
 
Re: A st Highrise

A correction...

In my prior post (#78) regarding raising the bar on architectural standards on this project, I mentioned that this property owner had purchased 17 buildings and, as best I could recall, all buildings had already been flipped or approved for use as office space.

The Project Notification Form for this project indicates an intention to convert 327 Summer Street to live/work arts studios, not office space. I also realized this morning that I don't know the intended use for 337 Summer St. or the redevelopment plan for the A Street deli site.

This correction does not change my opinion regarding the project's architecture, and more generally that of the Seaport. But the correction is worth noting, and IMO it's in the plus column for the property owner.
 
Re: A st Highrise

Went to the public meeting tonight.

The invisible army of South Boston and Fort Point NIMBY's was no where to be found. It was a fairly quiet meeting.

Roughly 8-10 people asked questions, mainly about traffic circulation, 100 Acre Plan, construction schedule. There were a few concerns about height, maybe 3 people raised them, respectfully, and sat down.

This approval is clearly moving forward.

IMO, the architecture looked better in person on a maquette than in the renderings. The architect was present to explain some of the considerations that went into the decision not to go with a more contemporary design, some of it having to do with the financing of a building designed for residential rental use.
 
Re: A st Highrise

So is this building all systems go? When can we expect construction to begin or do they still need more permitting?
 
Re: A st Highrise

Not so fast.

"Once zoning approval of the additional FAR is complete, these assets will be sold."


LiM9M.gif
 
Re: A st Highrise

Would any building approvals ever actually be sought if they expired with a change in ownership? I understand the drawbacks of the system now... But at least it still generates incentives for new proposals...?
 
Re: A st Highrise

^Shepard
Unfortunately, I don't think flipping approvals incentivizes improvements or great changes to a project. Just the opposite.

As profit is siphoned off during the sale of a pre-approved (unbuilt) project, the new owner is left having paid a premium for the property.

The new owner's slimmer margins means tight budgets for architecture and materials, and in a recent example in our neighborhood, one new owner was incapable of completing the project as approved.

The market for BRA approved unbuilt properties is quite lucrative for the seller and (I believe) for the BRA. I'm not sure how other cities manage this issue but would be curious to learn more.
 
Re: A st Highrise

Except with the time-consuming nature of the Boston entitlement process and high-land cost/total development cost ratio, it is very hard for all but the largest developers to buy (or option) land, get entitlements and then build. Ultimately this is the most streamlined way of doing things, and the profit in the flip gets passed on to the end user (condo buyer/renter/office tenants/etc)
 
Re: A st Highrise

atlrvr said:
Except with the time-consuming nature of the Boston entitlement process and high-land cost/total development cost ratio, it is very hard for all but the largest developers to buy (or option) land, get entitlements and then build. Ultimately this is the most streamlined way of doing things, and the profit in the flip gets passed on to the end user (condo buyer/renter/office tenants/etc)
Click to expand...

Although the process is time consuming and costly, I think you are missing the point. When huge profits are extracted from a project through flipping approvals before anything gets built, the final developer is left with very tight margins. The end result is the most cost effective, generic, boring building possible. The end user will not pay more because someone extracted profit from the development without actually improving what is built. This system is not streamlined, it simply prevents any architecturally interesting designs from being economically feasible.
 
Re: A st Highrise

No....a developer does not net out profit margin from previous land owner in its ROI. The land basis is what it is to whoever develops the land....yes, low costs are preferable, but ultimately a site is priced at whatever the market bear for whatever the site's entitlements allow.

The process is not streamlined is an absoulte sense, rather its the way things done given the cost obstacles that are imposed by the current system. However, this isn't unique to Boston.

I'd rather see entitlements have a sunset period, and property taxes reflect approximate current land value given entitlements in place, perhaps tax increases abated until an existing structure is demolished....that should prevent demoing for parking lots.
 
Re: A st Highrise

atlrvr said:
The process is not streamlined is an absoulte sense, rather its the way things done given the cost obstacles that are imposed by the current system. However, this isn't unique to Boston.
Click to expand...

^atlvr
I'm not trying to be provocative, but these are insufficient responses to a deeply entrenched system, where we have a public agency providing a steady stream of profitable entitlements to landowners, developers and their consultants with no party involved having any intention to put a shovel in the ground.

I can tell you from experience in my own neighborhood (Seaport, Fort Point) that this issue has nothing to do with the current recession, or the scale of the projects. The secondary market for BRA approvals is widespread and impacts small and large projects.

Whether it's unique to Boston, I don't know. But anyone who asks "Why are there parking lots out there?" or "Why are the building materials substandard?" or "Why isn't that architecture up to par with a world-class city?" really needs to consider this type of problem very deeply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top