45 Worthington Street | 6 (née 35) stories, 141 (née 385) units | Mission Hill

[datadyne007]

Data and Dshoost - it was hard to tell from the pictures - isn't that a 3-5 story podium on Worthington? It didn't interpret the massing as a straight-up 35-story wall.

No, it is not a full podium. Next to 49 Worthington is a full 35 story run up. The podium actually cuts off there and the tower meets the ground. There is a 62' podium (same height as 49 Worthington on the corner of Huntington), but the tower itself is only 18 (EIGHTEEN) feet back from Worthington St.

 

[choo]

^ Idk, a 35 story tower with an adjacent 21 story tower in an area surround by colleges and hospitals.

It's on a surface parking lot and next to a building with utilizing .14 parking spaces per unit. So its not knocking anything down and it is not taking away parking from a saturated market. Urban renewal was bad, but this is not urban renewal.

This is the type of project where Walsh and the city put up or shut up on affordable housing, ToD and their targets.

 

[coleslaw]

I was at the meeting with dshoost and my worst nightmares came true. They totally blew the massing on this one and poisoned the well entirely. The Mission Hill residents are so pissed off with Equity that I don't even think they'd allow a modest proposal at this point. I lived on Worthington and I felt the citizens' pain. It honestly felt like the 1960s all over again.

I'm speechless, offended, and in shock from the 45 Worthington St. proposal. I don't understand how ANY architect can stand up in front of a community that has been ravaged by urban renewal and propose a 35 story WALL next to 3-5 story buildings on a quiet residential side street that survived the urban renewal. This is offensive to the professions of architecture, urban design, and historic preservation, but most importantly, this is offensive to the Mission Hill Triangle community.

This is NOT Huntington Ave. This is freaking Worthington St. They even proposed putting the parking access on Worthington, essentially making Smith & Worthington into a driveway.

I have no problem with any of the other towers on Huntington like MassArt, but this one is proposed to be plopped on a street from the 1800s. It's just not right. Worthington St is a gem. Luckily this project will never see the light of day. It violates all Mission Hill zoning (by double!!) and most importantly pissed off the entire community which called out their bluff: "if you expect us to be impressed next time when you come back with a tower half the size, you thought wrong. This is a horrible way to start this process."

First of all it is not on Huntington but it is less than 200 ft from it https://www.google.com/maps/dir/42.3349656,-71.1024636/42.3347277,-71.101852/@42.3348698,-71.1023468,18z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0 so do not be disingenuous.

In other words you are a NIMBY. You don't want a high rise in an area already with several of them because you have a connection to it. This is not urban renewal; they are replacing a damn parking lot not tearing down a neighborhood.

The change in massing at the bottom at around the height of the existing buildings gives the impression of a pedestal (and in my opinion looks rather good).

how does having access to parking on a street turning it into a driveway? I am genuinely asking because if that is the case every residential street would be a driveway to you.

As to this being on a 1800s street: Boston is a city full of juxtaposition of new and old a tower on a street from the 1800s is not that out of place (Jacob Wirth).

Boston needs housing this is a lot of housing this is a lot of housing feet from the green line, half a mile from the orange line, 0.8 miles from another orange line stop and the commuter rail, right next to an area full of jobs and colleges. these are the places we need density.

 

[datadyne007]

^ Idk, a 35 story tower with an adjacent 21 story tower in an area surround by colleges and hospitals.

It's on a surface parking lot and next to a building with utilizing .14 parking spaces per unit. So its not knocking anything down and it is not taking away parking from a saturated market. Urban renewal was bad, but this is not urban renewal.

This is the type of project where Walsh and the city put up or shut up on affordable housing, ToD and their targets.

You are ignoring the fact that immediately next to this building is a 5 story building and 3 story brownstones the rest of the stretch of Worthington.

You are right in that this not urban renewal in the sense of tearing down a community, but it is in the spirit of urban renewal in the sense of that community being abused & ignored for high density development on a quiet side street that predates Huntington Avenue itself.

This is LITERALLY the proposed Worthington St elevation. How can anyone in their right mind say this is appropriate:

Let me be clear that I would be much more likely to support that is set back into that parking lot area, rather than meeting Worthington. I'm also not opposed to a podium on Worthington filling in the streetwall. I also support high rise development pretty much everywhere else in the city. This is just not the place for it and luckily the Mission Hill Triangle district protects this tower from ever happening.

 

[coleslaw]

but it is in the spirit of urban renewal in the sense of that community being abused for high density development on a quiet side street that predates Huntington Avenue itself.

This is LITERALLY the proposed Worthington St elevation. How can anyone in their right mind say this is appropriate:

How is this in the spirit of urban renewal honestly what is the community giving up? How are they being abused? It is replacing a parking lot.

Also that looks pretty similar to the Millennium Tower elevation.

 

[datadyne007]

How is this in the spirit of urban renewal honestly what is the community giving up? How are they being abused? It is replacing a parking lot.

Also that looks pretty similar to the Millennium Tower elevation.

Jacob Wirth & Millennium Tower are downtown, in the core.

 

[coleslaw]

Jacob Wirth & Millennium Tower are downtown, in the core.

Look how many towers are around this. It really is not that different. This is also in one of the cores of our city LMA.

 

[whighlander]

You are ignoring the fact that immediately next to this building is a 5 story building and 3 story brownstones the rest of the stretch of Worthington.

You are right in that this not urban renewal in the sense of tearing down a community, but it is in the spirit of urban renewal in the sense of that community being abused & ignored for high density development on a quiet side street that predates Huntington Avenue itself.

This is LITERALLY the proposed Worthington St elevation. How can anyone in their right mind say this is appropriate:

Let me be clear that I would be much more likely to support that is set back into that parking lot area, rather than meeting Worthington. I'm also not opposed to a podium on Worthington filling in the streetwall. I also support high rise development pretty much everywhere else in the city. This is just not the place for it and luckily the Mission Hill Triangle district protects this tower from ever happening.

Data take a look up State St. -- you have the 17th/early 18th C Old State House directly across the street from the late 20th C Black 41 story 600' tower One Boston Place [originally called the Boston Company Building now BNY-Mellon]

 

[datadyne007]

Look how many towers are around this. It really is not that different. This is also in one of the cores of our city LMA.

The problem is that you are seeing this from the air and not from a contextual standpoint. You are essentially arguing to ignore the context and neighbors, which was the exact spirit of the urban renewal.

Take a walk down Worthington St sometime. You actually forget the towers the exist when you are on the street. The towers are not part of the context on Worthington St. You're surrounded by beautiful brownstones and leafy trees on brick sidewalks. It's like Roxbury's little sliver of the South End.

 

[coleslaw]

The problem is that you are seeing this from the air and not from a contextual standpoint. You are essentially arguing to ignore the context and neighbors, which was the exact spirit of the urban renewal.

Take a walk down Worthington St sometime. You actually forget the towers the exist when you are on the street. You're surrounded by beautiful brownstones and leafy trees on brick sidewalks. It's like Roxbury's little sliver of the South End.

I have walked down that street. I went to High school a 5 min walk from here. I am not oblivious to the feel of the area. You are the one arguing to ignore the overall context, you want everyone to focus on a very specific context. Yes this is a really nice small scale street but 1) I do not see a tower taking away from that in absolutely any way. Boston's built environment is amazing because of the clashes of old and new, it will only add an interesting new element not take anything away. 2) the towers around it are also part of its context. You want another example of something similar? CSC fits pretty well (its much bigger than this too).

Also this is a view you see walking down that street: Street view. Google maps has full foliage, in the winter there are even more vies like this.

 

[fattony]

The problem is that you are seeing this from the air and not from a contextual standpoint. You are essentially arguing to ignore the context and neighbors, which was the exact spirit of the urban renewal.

Take a walk down Worthington St sometime. You actually forget the towers the exist when you are on the street. You're surrounded by beautiful brownstones and leafy trees on brick sidewalks. It's like Roxbury's little sliver of the South End.

When you write your rent check next month, remember there are a couple hundred dollars extra in there subsidizing wild property value appreciation and quaint strolls for the homeowners on Worthington Street.

The rest of us can handle a little new/old and tall/short juxtaposition in exchange for being able to pay the fucking rent. Sure a few tweaks can soften this a little, but the time comes for every neighborhood to change and the time was yesterday. No one is taking a wrecking ball to the brownstones and this city is slowly straggling itself on these NIMBY arguments.

 

[datadyne007]

I just believe a tower should be considerably set back from Worthington. That view you've linked to should be filled in by a 6 story podium with a tower rising at least 30' behind it to give Worthington its breathing room.

I'm not opposed to development on this site. I am opposed to the current proposal. The dev team took an entirely wrong approach to this proposal and really angered the community by doing so. My opinion really doesn't matter, as I'm no longer a part of it because I was priced out of 49 Worthington (crappy apartment for high rent - $1700 in 2013), but everyone else that still lives on that street is pissed to no end because of the extremely defiant tone the development team took last night.

 

[Arlington]

My first impression was that they could (should) have it step further back from the street at both 3 stories (a nod to the townhomes) and 5 stories (a nod to the apartments).

So as to not lose any sq feet, it seemed the building could bulge more in the middle/backside of the tower, like a stepped rhombus or triangle.

 

[HenryAlan]

DataDyne, what are your thoughts on the building going up at the end of the brownstone centric St. Germaine St.?

 

[datadyne007]

My first impression was that they could (should) have it step further back from the street at both 3 stories (a nod to the townhomes) and 5 stories (a nod to the apartments).

So as to not lose any sq feet, it seemed the building could bulge more in the middle/backside of the tower, like a stepped rhombus or triangle.

Bingo. This is what I support and this is what the dialogue should have been.

 

[coleslaw]

DataDyne, what are your thoughts on the building going up at the end of the brownstone centric St. Germaine St.?

+100

 

[datadyne007]

+100

The CSC towers are on the edge of that area and are not directly in the middle of the block - middle meaning a building on either side.

Let me also be clear, I would welcome a tower at Worthington & Tremont, as I said earlier in the Mission Hill thread when this project was first announced. That would be the same condition as the CSC that I support.

Also, no one has responded to my point about the parking & service truck access via Smith & Worthington. It will be a pedestrian nightmare with cars coming and going.

 

[datadyne007]

So you will help tear down a very necessary proposal because it doesn't cater to your every whim? I guess you could say you can't always get what you want but if you try sometimes well you might find you'll get what you need more housing.

Well that's actually true for the developer because he's not going to get what he wants. There was a very specific attitude last night to the design team. Very few comments were responded to with phrasing such as "We hear your concerns and will take it into consideration moving forward." That was said maybe once last night. It was all a defiant tone - fighting back and defending this absurd proposal.

 

[coleslaw]

I just believe a tower should be considerably set back from Worthington. That view you've linked to should be filled in by a 6 story podium with a tower rising at least 30' behind it to give Worthington its breathing room.

I'm not opposed to development on this site. I am opposed to the current proposal. The dev team took an entirely wrong approach to this proposal and really angered the community by doing so. My opinion really doesn't matter, as I'm no longer a part of it because I was priced out of 49 Worthington (crappy apartment for high rent - $1700 in 2013), but everyone else that still lives on that street is pissed to no end because of the extremely defiant tone the development team took last night.

So you will help tear down a very necessary proposal because it doesn't cater to your every whim? I guess you could say you can't always get what you want but if you try sometimes well you might find you'll get what you need more housing.

I can't get it to look like how I want it to but whatever.

 

[coleslaw]

Well that's actually true for the developer because he's not going to get what he wants. There was a very specific attitude last night to the design team. Very few comments were responded to with phrasing such as "We hear your concerns and will take it into consideration moving forward." That was said maybe once last night. It was all a defiant tone - fighting back and defending this absurd proposal.

Do you deny we have a housing shortage?