whighlander
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 7,812
- Reaction score
- 647
Not from Franklin -- it goes right down 600' to the street
45 Worthington Street | 6 (née 35) stories, 141 (née 385) units | Mission Hill
- Thread starter dshoost88
- Start date
Not from Franklin -- it goes right down 600' to the street
Barely. Still plenty visible from the street. Nothing like what you guys are asking for here.
Context - the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs
Seeing a tower at the end of a street is completely different than one hulking over a street for no reason whatsoever. It is out of character, out of context, and out of scale for the street. And as for who gives a shit... the majority of the planning profession not still masturbating to Corbusier. And likely every resident in the area.
------
How about this. Can someone give me a coherent argument as to why a setback, that has no effect on square footage whatsoever, would not be appropriate? Is there actually any reason why the tower has to be smack against the streetwall of Worthington?
Seeing a tower at the end of a street is completely different than one hulking over a street for no reason whatsoever. It is out of character, out of context, and out of scale for the street. And as for who gives a shit... the majority of the planning profession not still masturbating to Corbusier. And likely every resident in the area.
------
How about this. Can someone give me a coherent argument as to why a setback, that has no effect on square footage whatsoever, would not be appropriate? Is there actually any reason why the tower has to be smack against the streetwall of Worthington?
After a park/plaza. And there is a balcony and a slight step back around the 6th floor.
It still has it. And the podium is visually differentiated from the rest of the tower by materiality, massing, and the aforementioned setback. Even though the tower is RIGHT THERE, it visually integrates itself into the established contextual relationship of the buildings along Washington.
This isn't NIMBYism (at least those who are arguing against it on here). Its just a reaction to shitty design.
The street is what's now out of scale for the surrounding area. Gem of a street or not, policy shouldn't be dictated based on the smallest scale buildings in a neighborhood.
You don't know this. None of us will know until it's fully built.
Because there aren't renderings, or anything.
Besides, we're talking design intent, not actual success at execution. This proposal fails before even trying.
Last edited:
HenryAlan
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 3,705
- Reaction score
- 3,287
You keep using that term. I do not think it means what you think it means. If somebody was proposing a bulldozer for the entire block, all of what you've said would be spot on. But this is not that. It is an infill project, replacing a surface parking lot, on the end of the street that is already no longer brownstones and quaint. This will make housing in this neighborhood that you love more affordable to more people, fill a vacant space in the street wall, and not eliminate the good that is already there.
Now I'd like to have a conversation about how to tweak things in a way that helps it to blend in better at street level. But we can't have that conversation when you wrongly label the proposal as urban renewal, dismiss it out of hand as illegal, and make the ultimate defining NIMBY statement of anywhere ut here. There is no credible basis to respond to that in any kind of onjective manner.
KentXie
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,185
- Reaction score
- 744
Honestly, I don't see an issue if they set it further back from the street if they can do so without sacrificing units. However, wanting to kill the project because the architect didn't do so in it's first iteration is overreacting as well. I agree that having the tower without it being set back does make it out of context street-level wise but the tower as a whole is not out of context with it's surrounding considering the block it is on contains 3 other apartment towers.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Messages
- 5,078
- Reaction score
- 1,653
It should be dictated by involving everyone. I'll echo Dave's point, what was the reason for the developer lobbing a grenade and alienating the community immediately? Especially knowing that the neighbors are probably just looking for a reason to be pissed, why would the developer actually throw a pitch right down the middle for them to hit right out of the park? It's just really unwise and makes the developer look either totally out of touch, or like a complete asshole.
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2010
- Messages
- 8,894
- Reaction score
- 271
Nope. I have never called it urban renewal. I have been very careful with my wording and consistently said this project invokes the spirit of urban renewal and has the same mentality at its core. I never said this is urban renewal.
I spent my entire senior semester studying and researching the urban renewal of Roxbury Crossing including the Whitney Redevelopment Project & Inner Belt/I-695, where large swaths of historic Roxbury was destroyed while residents cried out. I know what urban renewal is, thank you very much.
By the way, rent for a 1 BR in this tower - around $2900. Just throwing this out there because it was announced at the meeting. Undergrad students will also be banned. They are currently working to kick out all the students in the next few years from their other tower too.
fattony
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 2,098
- Reaction score
- 478
How do you get the same square footage with the setback? You need to go fatter or taller to win back what you lose to the setback.
Fatter affects the tower behind that the developer already owns. Taller sets off its own alarm bells.
The developer isn't an idiot. The architects didn't skip the day they covered context in class. They filled out the space in the way that works best for them and they want to get away with it.
Given our irrelevant zoning code, this is modus operandi. You know this. Data knows this. So ease up on the professional indignation. Something has to give and the developer is going to fight to make sure it isn't his bottom line. They are testing the city's commitment to building more housing. This is what maximizing the number of units looks like. It comes up short on aesthetics to maximize space.
You don't need to be an architect to run through the tradeoffs and see how this building came out shaped like it is. If the BRA pushes back, then they have to settle for less area OR sacrifice views in their other building. Both cost the developer money. If the BRA doesn't care what two dozen residents of one block think then it will go up as-is.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Messages
- 5,078
- Reaction score
- 1,653
Who here has said they want to kill the project? What has been said is that the developer was stupid to throw a grenade, instead of a bone with the first presentation.
This will be, in all likelihood, not built as presented. We know it, the neighborhood knows it, the developer knows it. So why the developer chose to give a really really easy pitch for neighbors to hit out of the park just doesn't make any sense. Burning bridges for no reason.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Messages
- 5,078
- Reaction score
- 1,653
Developers don't put all their eggs in one basket. Tons of developments get downsized after the public review process, and most developers know that and account for it when they introduce a proposal. The developer will make a handy profit on this building whether it's 35 stories, or half the size. It's not like a setback would put them in poor house...
By eliminating the 11 space surface parking and/or private park.
They could also eliminate the driveway along the northern side of the site and instead build right up to the party wall of the adjacent 6 floor building. (similarly, they could look into purchasing the vacant lot next to the rowhouses for even more square footage to work with).
To touch on your latter comment, part of being an architect (or anything in the design profession) is going through 6 years or so of having everything you do ripped to shreds in critiques. You pull all nighters and then you cry. You have professors ask you why you are even bothering, and that you should go be an accountant. The professional indignation would be NOT to critique a shitty uncontextual design.
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2010
- Messages
- 8,894
- Reaction score
- 271
By eliminating the surface parking and/or parklet.
The architect never justified the surface parking either. There's no retail here, so there's no purpose for it beyond leasing appointments - which btw she tried to call the leasing office a "public space." She kept saying the surface lot was for Zipcars. Uh, Zipcars can go in the f'ing garage (that's not used) too...
The park is not a park either. It's a patch of grass that we all know will be patrolled at Equity's discretion.
So you automatically fully understand the street level impact this will have based on a rendering that doesn't even show the top of it? You will not know the true impact until it is actually BUILT and you can judge it for yourself, in person, and not based on computerized render.
If this building is a "grenade", maybe the problem is with the community.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Messages
- 5,078
- Reaction score
- 1,653
You don't seem to understand anything about tone, trust-building, or engagement. But given the tenor of many of your posts, I guess that's to be expected...
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2010
- Messages
- 8,894
- Reaction score
- 271
Actually, now that I'm thinking about it, why not create a small low-rise brownstone/townhome community (much like Worthington) in that area where the "park" and parking are? That could take some height or bulk off the tower portion. Hmm... I think I'm gonna play with some massing models later. Keeping it low rise wouldn't impact the tower residents' views, which is clearly what they're trying to preserve by the way they have situated the tower. It's painfully obvious.