315 on A | 315 A Street | Fort Point

Re: A st Highrise

Shepard said:
^ BYMH, what about the new building designs are you looking forward to?
Click to expand...

Something functional. It is not necessarily the design I was arguing as much as the fact that I believe preservation of this building should not be a hindrance to progress.

If anything, I agree that the current design is too tall for the area. But I feel like it is bringing much needed residential, and will help bring new reason for these PARKING LOTS to be developed. You need to bring the people before it is going to be appealing to build this thriving master-plan that is proposed.
 
Re: A st Highrise

BostonUrbEx said:
Probably because planes landing on Logan's runway 9 would be relatively close.

I believe flight patterns are the reasons for most South Boston height restrictions.
Click to expand...

25 residential storeys (typ. 10 feet to a bit under per floor for residential.)would most likely be shorter than the offices at the Trade Center complex, and is further away. The height restrictions allow for taller building the further inland you go. This site I believe was one of the designated locations on the 100 acre plan that allowed for taller structures, which I though was up to 250 feet. I might have to go flip through it again. I know a couple locations included additional structure of the new tunnels below which would allow certain spaces to be built taller, either that or they straddle the tunnel. Once, again the memory fuzzes over.
 
Re: South Boston Seaport

Article on 21 story apt building in Fort Point in today's Globe. Sorry--I'm not sure how to post articles appropriately. Here's a link that includes a rendering: http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2010/07/22/fort_point_building_plan_scaled_back/

Fort Point building plan scaled back

By Casey Ross
Globe Staff / July 22, 2010

A Boston developer is shrinking the size of a residential tower it wants to build in the city?s Fort Point Channel neighborhood.

Archon/Goldman Properties latest version of the plan for 319 A St. rear is a 21-story building with 184 rental apartments and four levels of above-ground parking. It previously had wanted to build a 25-story building with 232 apartments.

The building will replace a five-story warehouse currently used as artists? work space. After consultation with city planners, Archon/Goldman opted to market the units as modestly appointed apartments attractive to young professionals or graduate students.

?The goal has always been to create something that is affordable and can also get developed,?? said John Matteson, regional director for Archon Group, which is working with Goldman Properties in the joint venture. ?We want a building that young professionals can live in.??

The city is trying to lure younger residents to the Fort Point neighborhood as part of a broader effort to create a so-called innovation district, with technology and medical firms that typically employ large numbers of students and younger researchers. Matteson said 15 percent of the units will be set aside for affordable housing.

Archon/Goldman said it is still considering a version of the plan that would include 20 studio units built around shared kitchens, living rooms, and laundry facilities.

The plan needs approval from the Boston Redevelopment Authority. Construction would begin in 2012.
 
Re: South Boston Seaport

539w.jpg


Nice and elegant design for the facade, but not sure what they are hoping to do with that crown. It looks fairly silly. But overall, seems pretty solid if rather unadventurous.
 
Re: South Boston Seaport

Will this area of five-story warehouses gradually erode? I always liked its consistency and the miracle of its sheer survival.
 
Re: South Boston Seaport

Why was this scaled back? What did the downscaling accomplish besides eliminating 48 apartments?
 
Re: South Boston Seaport

@Ablarc ^ I think that's probably the main complaint I have with this project... why demolish an existing warehouse to build a tall apartment building that resembles a warehouse on its bottom floors... when you could build the new structure on the parking lot next door? I know this thread has been here before.
 
Re: 319 A Street Rear

It looks nice. probably can't build on a parking lot because they dont own it. (a minor detail). I dont know what the 25 to 21 story does, but i for one am thrilled to here that they are doing moderately price apartments for young professionals like myself. Hopefully people will realize once again that you dont have to cover everything and gold and sell it for 3 million to make money. But an attractive property that isnt falling apart will be 100% occupied before it opens.
 
Re: 319 A Street Rear

I wonder who owns that parking lot there next to the channel. That thing is gonna be worth a jillion $$ when development creeps down that way...
 
Re: 319 A Street Rear

Is the rear building worth saving? I remember it being (possibly) newer than the front building at that address.

I had an office at 319 A Street, above Chimera, for a year. It was such a cool space. I had to move because at that time you couldn't get internet in that area without installing a T-1 line.
 
Last edited:
Re: 319 A Street Rear

Some answers:

Re. Why scaled back: Under 100 Acres this site can go to 180 feet, higher with "exceptional benefits." I suspect the owner scaled it back to make it easier to move forward with approvals.

Re. Why demolish existing building: 100-Acres Plan regarding a proposed tower on this site preceded designation of district as Boston Landmark District. Other historic buildings in district (with few exceptions) can not be demolished without significant cause and approval of Landmark Commission.

Re. Who owns parking lot abutting this site: USPS

Re. Why build on this site rather than restore existing structure: This site was not and is not considered in a vacuum. 100-Acres considered owner's entire portfolio, offering approx 350-500k sf of new density above as-of-right across the portfolio of sites and buildings, contingent on fulfilling 1/3rd density as residential and other pieces of 100 Acre plan. Property owner elected to move forward over past 5 years, securing approvals for rooftop additions and infill and flipping a number of properties in the portfolio. No residential units were produced in somewhere around 17 separate properties in the portfolio (now all office/commercial or vacant). This tower will fulfill entire residential requirement. Owner is still obliged to fulfill other elements of 100-Acre Plan as part of the grand bargain.
 
Re: 319 A Street Rear

The rendering seems to do a good job of hiding the above ground parking. I'll believe it when I see it . . .


JSic said:
I wonder who owns that parking lot there next to the channel. That thing is gonna be worth a jillion $$ when development creeps down that way...
Click to expand...

The lot next to the channel is owned by Gillette. It was used as a staging area during the Big Dig and then returned to Gillette. As part of the mitigation for taking the land, the State agreed to build a new parking lot with new fencing, landscaping, and the harborwalk park. Unfortunately, Gillette isn't a developer so they're probably happy to keep eating the cash flow from parking.
 
Re: 319 A Street Rear

All told, the 100 acre plan is a pretty sound blueprint for the expanding neighborhood. I could be wrong about this, but I don't think the plan addressed issues of transit? That seems to be a rather glaring drawback.
 
Re: 319 A Street Rear

Sicilian said:
Some answers:

Re. Why scaled back: Under 100 Acres this site can go to 180 feet, higher with "exceptional benefits." I suspect the owner scaled it back to make it easier to move forward with approvals.

...

Re. Why build on this site rather than restore existing structure: This site was not and is not considered in a vacuum. 100-Acres considered owner's entire portfolio, offering approx 350-500k sf of new density above as-of-right across the portfolio of sites and buildings, contingent on fulfilling 1/3rd density as residential and other pieces of 100 Acre plan. Property owner elected to move forward over past 5 years, securing approvals for rooftop additions and infill and flipping a number of properties in the portfolio. No residential units were produced in somewhere around 17 separate properties in the portfolio (now all office/commercial or vacant). This tower will fulfill entire residential requirement. Owner is still obliged to fulfill other elements of 100-Acre Plan as part of the grand bargain.
Click to expand...

Sicilian, for years everyone has been pressing unsuccessfully for more residential in the Fort Point. Now someone finally proposes a large residential project and it's substantially downscaled by 50 units. Isn't this odd? What's the story here?
 
Re: 319 A Street Rear

^briv

I don't have all the information to answer this question. As mentioned earlier, this project is not being considered in a vacuum since the owner is a signator to 100 Acres. I suspect the owner decided that the "exceptional benefits" required to fulfill the obligations under 100 Acres did not make it worthwhile to do the extra floors. The whole thing has been played masterfully, since the owner's other properties received variances contingent on fulfillment of 100-Acres, so the question "why can't the guy just build as high as he wants if he's doing residential" is clouded by the owner's decisions on other properties. Essentially, they pushed all residential requirements and 100 Acres obligations to the last piece of their puzzle, leaving all other wharf buildings (including new density on rooftop additions and infill) for commercial development.

In simple terms, it's complicated. And I don't have insider info.
 
Re: 319 A Street Rear

If they use good materials then that design will be pretty attractive, if not, it will be an eye sore.
 
Re: 319 A Street Rear

Re. Who owns parking lot abutting this site: USPS
Click to expand...

USPS owns the lot abutting this site. But to JSic's question about the lot on the channel, that's Gillette, verdad?
 
Re: 319 A Street Rear

When you factor in the Davis-Macon union bribery, the bags of cash you need to appease the enviro-nuts, the linkage bribery shakedown payments to neighborhood activists, and everything else we force developers to do in order to inflate their costs, at the end of the day all you can possibly end up with are luxury buildings.

Building anything new that isn't high luxury is stupid. I'm glad the mayor is now designing smaller apartments and forcing this idea on developers. We'll reach a point where the only buildable thing in Boston - luxury residential - becomes unbuildable too.

Why haven't the artists been evicted yet? Why are they living in downtown, waterfront luxury when there are plenty of vacant warehouse in Roxbury and Dorchester where they could live?

There is just this crazy, endless cycle that keeps our city down. The Master Plan for this area is a decade old. Almost nothing to show for it.

On a related note, I'm extra bitter today!
 
Re: 319 A Street Rear

pelhamhall said:
When you factor in the Davis-Macon union bribery, the bags of cash you need to appease the enviro-nuts, the linkage bribery shakedown payments to neighborhood activists, and everything else we force developers to do in order to inflate their costs, at the end of the day all you can possibly end up with are luxury buildings.

Building anything new that isn't high luxury is stupid. I'm glad the mayor is now designing smaller apartments and forcing this idea on developers. We'll reach a point where the only buildable thing in Boston - luxury residential - becomes unbuildable too.

Why haven't the artists been evicted yet? Why are they living in downtown, waterfront luxury when there are plenty of vacant warehouse in Roxbury and Dorchester where they could live?

There is just this crazy, endless cycle that keeps our city down. The Master Plan for this area is a decade old. Almost nothing to show for it.

On a related note, I'm extra bitter today!
Click to expand...


There are no bags of cash going to environuts or neighborhood advocates or advocacy groups. That's simply made up of whole cloth.

As for area artists, the anger is entirely misplaced. Unlike Seaport area developers and property owners who sought corporate welfare (property tax abatements under 121A), Fort Point artists actually live in buildings they bought without a dime of your tax dollars or subsidies. No artists are leasing space in buildings outside of artist-run co-ops, with maybe a dozen exceptions. Those few artists are in spaces they are either paying market rate for, or they were moved to the studio they now occupy under the terms of an expiring lease that they had signed at market rate at another location.

With respect to this particular property owner at 319 A Street, my understanding is that the value of the variances being approved above as-of-right is approximately $250m over what they purchased. And what they paid for what they purchased was already returned when they flipped a fraction of their portfolio.

My point is that Boston developers are handed a pot of gold and sit on it with a tin cup. The profit margin on flipped buildings in Fort Point which were enriched simply by gaining BRA approvals (not putting in any rehab investment) is staggering. In any other city worth its salt, we'd be looking at a planning department that struck a deal that worked out well for the developers and also for some type of long-term vision -- one which included variations in housing types with a range of affordabilities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top