315 on A | 315 A Street | Fort Point
- Thread starter Boston02124
- Start date
Ron Newman
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2006
- Messages
- 8,395
- Reaction score
- 9
Re: 319 A Street Rear
Did either the USPS or Gillette parking lots ever have warehouses or other buildings on them, or have the lots been vacant ever since the land was filled?
Did either the USPS or Gillette parking lots ever have warehouses or other buildings on them, or have the lots been vacant ever since the land was filled?
BostonUrbEx
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2010
- Messages
- 4,340
- Reaction score
- 127
Re: 319 A Street Rear
I would guess they were all rail yards, maybe scattered freight housings and warehouses, but mostly rail.
I would guess they were all rail yards, maybe scattered freight housings and warehouses, but mostly rail.
Re: 319 A Street Rear
The parcels were mostly vacant, with some rail line crossings.
For construction of CAT/Tunnel casting basin and I-90 a few brick wharf buildings were demolished. The concrete lions in the park on Wormwood Street today were salvaged by CAT/Tunnel from the doorway of one of the buildings along A Street on the USPS property that came down (I think that building was leased to some kind of wedding dress retailer in the 1990's).
I also remember from early photographs that there was a large glass factory circa 1900 on the USPS tract.
The current Gillete tract was owned by the Boston Wharf Company from the mid-1800's through the 1990's and hosted a number of wooden structures, one of the last of which was best known in recent decades as the Channel nightclub. After the Channel closed, it was a strip joint for a year or two, then it was demolished.
The parcels were mostly vacant, with some rail line crossings.
For construction of CAT/Tunnel casting basin and I-90 a few brick wharf buildings were demolished. The concrete lions in the park on Wormwood Street today were salvaged by CAT/Tunnel from the doorway of one of the buildings along A Street on the USPS property that came down (I think that building was leased to some kind of wedding dress retailer in the 1990's).
I also remember from early photographs that there was a large glass factory circa 1900 on the USPS tract.
The current Gillete tract was owned by the Boston Wharf Company from the mid-1800's through the 1990's and hosted a number of wooden structures, one of the last of which was best known in recent decades as the Channel nightclub. After the Channel closed, it was a strip joint for a year or two, then it was demolished.
Ron Newman
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2006
- Messages
- 8,395
- Reaction score
- 9
Re: 319 A Street Rear
I should have remembered the Channel, given that I occasionally went to shows there. But I recall it being an isolated building surrounded by emptiness.
I should have remembered the Channel, given that I occasionally went to shows there. But I recall it being an isolated building surrounded by emptiness.
Re: 319 A Street Rear
Aside from the Channel, it was an empty lot for the past few decades. The Channel was a stone's throw from the original Necco factory buildings on Necco Court and Necco Street (still standing, owned by Gillette). In the early 1900's I think there were multiple wooden structures in addition to the Channel, which itself seemed to be a few connected buildings. Further down along the FP Channel, at Mount Washington Street, I recall seeing maps showing a bridge of some sort that was angled toward South Station, maybe a rail crossing over the water.
Aside from the Channel, it was an empty lot for the past few decades. The Channel was a stone's throw from the original Necco factory buildings on Necco Court and Necco Street (still standing, owned by Gillette). In the early 1900's I think there were multiple wooden structures in addition to the Channel, which itself seemed to be a few connected buildings. Further down along the FP Channel, at Mount Washington Street, I recall seeing maps showing a bridge of some sort that was angled toward South Station, maybe a rail crossing over the water.
Ron Newman
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2006
- Messages
- 8,395
- Reaction score
- 9
Re: 319 A Street Rear
Before it was the Channel (and before I ever went to a show there), it was called the Mad Hatter. It may have had other names before that.
I always wondered about the Necco street names. The candy company was here before it built the big factory near MIT in Cambridge?
Before it was the Channel (and before I ever went to a show there), it was called the Mad Hatter. It may have had other names before that.
I always wondered about the Necco street names. The candy company was here before it built the big factory near MIT in Cambridge?
Re: 319 A Street Rear
Excerpts from Necco website at http://www.necco.com/aboutus/history.asp
If you stand on the site of the Channel nightclub and look up you can still see a faint, massive Necco wafer / logo on the side of one of the two buildings nearest the water.
Excerpts from Necco website at http://www.necco.com/aboutus/history.asp
If you stand on the site of the Channel nightclub and look up you can still see a faint, massive Necco wafer / logo on the side of one of the two buildings nearest the water.
Re: 319 A Street Rear
Despite what looks like possible retail on lower levels shown here...
First floor contains residential lobby, two car ramps to and from parking above grade, 2 or 3 "amenity" rooms which look far too small for future retail -- maybe a Nautilus would fit as a small workout room. No pedestrian interaction with this building (except for resident access to lobby) on any side.
Floors 2-3 (maybe 4) are parking.
I'm not sure why the rendering shows a pleasing glow emerging from floors 1-4. Without some unusual lighting behind cars, those floors will be dark.
The project includes one floor of small rental studios with a common area in the center, in line with "Innovation District" spaces.
The architect said below grade parking was technically possible, but not financially possible.
Despite what looks like possible retail on lower levels shown here...
First floor contains residential lobby, two car ramps to and from parking above grade, 2 or 3 "amenity" rooms which look far too small for future retail -- maybe a Nautilus would fit as a small workout room. No pedestrian interaction with this building (except for resident access to lobby) on any side.
Floors 2-3 (maybe 4) are parking.
I'm not sure why the rendering shows a pleasing glow emerging from floors 1-4. Without some unusual lighting behind cars, those floors will be dark.
The project includes one floor of small rental studios with a common area in the center, in line with "Innovation District" spaces.
The architect said below grade parking was technically possible, but not financially possible.
Re: 319 A Street Rear
Should be legally mandated --and would be if zoning did the job it was set up for.
TomOfBoston
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2007
- Messages
- 1,205
- Reaction score
- 429
Re: 319 A Street Rear
If it is mandated but not financially feasable, the the project wouldn't be built.
If it is mandated but not financially feasable, the the project wouldn't be built.
AmericanFolkLegend
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2009
- Messages
- 2,205
- Reaction score
- 224
Re: 319 A Street Rear
Not necessarily. The land would change hands for less.
If you mandate underground parking in Brockton, not much will get built. If you mandate it a quarter mile from downtown Boston, the land will be worth less but stuff will still get built.
Not necessarily. The land would change hands for less.
If you mandate underground parking in Brockton, not much will get built. If you mandate it a quarter mile from downtown Boston, the land will be worth less but stuff will still get built.
Re: 319 A Street Rear
If I pay $10m for a building and secure development rights for its demolition and the construction of a tower valued at $250m after construction costs, I'm not clear why one would assume that a mandate for underground parking would not financially feasible.
Four levels of above grade parking seems stunningly substandard for a modern construction project in a premium district.
If I pay $10m for a building and secure development rights for its demolition and the construction of a tower valued at $250m after construction costs, I'm not clear why one would assume that a mandate for underground parking would not financially feasible.
Four levels of above grade parking seems stunningly substandard for a modern construction project in a premium district.
Ron Newman
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2006
- Messages
- 8,395
- Reaction score
- 9
Re: 319 A Street Rear
Is this an area where four levels of underground parking would be problematic because it is landfill?
Is this an area where four levels of underground parking would be problematic because it is landfill?
Re: 319 A Street Rear
Don't have a precise answer since I'm not an engineer, and I'm sure there are challenges, but...
1) The architect said it was technically possible, financially not. I've made my point that financially it is quite possible -- just not when maximizing gains from BRA approvals is priority #1.
2) There are below-grade developments (including parking) throughout the Seaport including one level of parking in nearby Channel Center. Fan Pier goes deep below grade.
3) CAT/Tunnel exists far below grade, on the parcel abutting this site.
4) This owner owns the entire tract including 319 A Street front and Pastene Alley so the total capacity of four levels of parking might be shifted to a wider swath on fewer levels to reduce cost.
4) I'd contend that the importance of a building that is not a dead zone for pedestrians, perhaps accommodating significant first floor retail spaces (or some type of use) trumps the need to supply parking to renters if one is considering a long-range vision for the district.
Don't have a precise answer since I'm not an engineer, and I'm sure there are challenges, but...
1) The architect said it was technically possible, financially not. I've made my point that financially it is quite possible -- just not when maximizing gains from BRA approvals is priority #1.
2) There are below-grade developments (including parking) throughout the Seaport including one level of parking in nearby Channel Center. Fan Pier goes deep below grade.
3) CAT/Tunnel exists far below grade, on the parcel abutting this site.
4) This owner owns the entire tract including 319 A Street front and Pastene Alley so the total capacity of four levels of parking might be shifted to a wider swath on fewer levels to reduce cost.
4) I'd contend that the importance of a building that is not a dead zone for pedestrians, perhaps accommodating significant first floor retail spaces (or some type of use) trumps the need to supply parking to renters if one is considering a long-range vision for the district.
Re: 319 A Street Rear
^czsz
In my view, it's the BRA's involvement in approving significant variances without pressing for something better than four levels of above grade parking (among other things) that astounds me.
Over the past 10 years, a number of Fort Point buildings added above grade parking, including one building abutting this site (on Summer Street) and buildings along Wormwood Street.
Those examples are not the same thing as what has transpired at 319 A Street.
** I should add that this project is not approved yet. There is another month before the BRA approval process is complete. **
^czsz
In my view, it's the BRA's involvement in approving significant variances without pressing for something better than four levels of above grade parking (among other things) that astounds me.
Over the past 10 years, a number of Fort Point buildings added above grade parking, including one building abutting this site (on Summer Street) and buildings along Wormwood Street.
Those examples are not the same thing as what has transpired at 319 A Street.
** I should add that this project is not approved yet. There is another month before the BRA approval process is complete. **
Shepard
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2009
- Messages
- 3,518
- Reaction score
- 65
Re: 319 A Street Rear
Wouldn't four additional stories of more residences make up for the engineering costs of digging a below-grade garage?
I'd also like to know if there was a minimum parking requirement in effect here. That should be universally eliminated (a maximum would be far better).
In fairness I do have to note that I'm not appalled by the above grade parking... so long as the first floor interacts well with the street and has room for retail or other street-facing amenities.
Wouldn't four additional stories of more residences make up for the engineering costs of digging a below-grade garage?
I'd also like to know if there was a minimum parking requirement in effect here. That should be universally eliminated (a maximum would be far better).
In fairness I do have to note that I'm not appalled by the above grade parking... so long as the first floor interacts well with the street and has room for retail or other street-facing amenities.
Re: 319 A Street Rear
^Shepard
The first floor offers no interaction with the street on any side other than an entrance to the lobby on the A Street side (between the buildings). The wall along the Melcher Street alley side has no doors or retail, it is completely dead, and the spaces inside the building along that wall are far too small for future retail. They will be used, according to the current plan, for building amenities such as a workout room.
^Shepard
The first floor offers no interaction with the street on any side other than an entrance to the lobby on the A Street side (between the buildings). The wall along the Melcher Street alley side has no doors or retail, it is completely dead, and the spaces inside the building along that wall are far too small for future retail. They will be used, according to the current plan, for building amenities such as a workout room.