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

[HenryAlan]

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.

Then you should know that this is so far from that, as to make urban renewal not worth mentioning. The term is not remotely relevant to this project.

 

[davem]

DId the developer buy the entire complex? (Aka both towers?) Because if so there is a whole lot more land there that could be redeveloped, and even less of an excuse for this. Not to mention the existing tower has two single story parking garages on either side that could easily be replaced with towers that would have no bearing on the historic district.

 

[whighlander]

DId the developer buy the entire complex? (Aka both towers?) Because if so there is a whole lot more land there that could be redeveloped, and even less of an excuse for this. Not to mention the existing tower has two single story parking garages on either side that could easily be replaced with towers that would have no bearing on the historic district.

Davem -- from what I've seen its the parking lot + CityView at Longwood as shown on the aerial with highlights

 

[coleslaw]

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.

so does this.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

Wow, this thread is a complete shit show.

First off, I think it's pretty fucking offensive to call this urban renewal. It diminished the term. If I was a victim of urban renewal -- you know, having my property seized, bulldozed, and turned into some crony deal of some kind -- I'd be fucking pissed that you're calling this urban renewal. This is an empty parking lot next to a very tall apartment block. This building, while fairly mediocre, helps resolve that eyesore next-door in fact. It adds much needed housing stock to Boston, and specifically to the LMA which is teeming with medical and educational jobs but lacking on housing big time. Also, if we are looking at Boston's "high spine" and transportation network, this fits in perfectly. Boston's high spine stems from the dense urban core, following the E Line and Orange Line, essentially. This project is right between both! It is a natural continuation of Boston's loftiest development patterns.

Nobody is destroying pre-existing historical homes or displacing anyone. There is transportation, jobs, and amenities to support this. There is demand to support this and then some many times over. I can't believe some of the people here being against this. Frankly, you're just part of the problem, somehow justifying this by one way or the other. If we nitpick every damn thing, you maintain the status quo. We continually hold up the development process and stand in the way. You're a part of the problem, and not a part of the housing solution.

 

[George_Apley]

Wow, this thread is a complete shit show.

First off, I think it's pretty fucking offensive to call this urban renewal. It diminished the term. If I was a victim of urban renewal -- you know, having my property seized, bulldozed, and turned into some crony deal of some kind -- I'd be fucking pissed that you're calling this urban renewal. This is an empty parking lot next to a very tall apartment block. This building, while fairly mediocre, helps resolve that eyesore next-door in fact. It adds much needed housing stock to Boston, and specifically to the LMA which is teeming with medical and educational jobs but lacking on housing big time. Also, if we are looking at Boston's "high spine" and transportation network, this fits in perfectly. Boston's high spine stems from the dense urban core, following the E Line and Orange Line, essentially. This project is right between both! It is a natural continuation of Boston's loftiest development patterns.

Nobody is destroying pre-existing historical homes or displacing anyone. There is transportation, jobs, and amenities to support this. There is demand to support this and then some many times over. I can't believe some of the people here being against this. Frankly, you're just part of the problem, somehow justifying this by one way or the other. If we nitpick every damn thing, you maintain the status quo. We continually hold up the development process and stand in the way. You're a part of the problem, and not a part of the housing solution.

It's more of a shitshow that people are latching onto one reference to urban renewal, and arguing against strawmen instead of realizing that no one here is arguing to kill this project... Jesus.

 

[coleslaw]

Wow, this thread is a complete shit show.

First off, I think it's pretty fucking offensive to call this urban renewal. It diminished the term. If I was a victim of urban renewal -- you know, having my property seized, bulldozed, and turned into some crony deal of some kind -- I'd be fucking pissed that you're calling this urban renewal. This is an empty parking lot next to a very tall apartment block. This building, while fairly mediocre, helps resolve that eyesore next-door in fact. It adds much needed housing stock to Boston, and specifically to the LMA which is teeming with medical and educational jobs but lacking on housing big time. Also, if we are looking at Boston's "high spine" and transportation network, this fits in perfectly. Boston's high spine stems from the dense urban core, following the E Line and Orange Line, essentially. This project is right between both! It is a natural continuation of Boston's loftiest development patterns.

Nobody is destroying pre-existing historical homes or displacing anyone. There is transportation, jobs, and amenities to support this. There is demand to support this and then some many times over. I can't believe some of the people here being against this. Frankly, you're just part of the problem, somehow justifying this by one way or the other. If we nitpick every damn thing, you maintain the status quo. We continually hold up the development process and stand in the way. You're a part of the problem, and not a part of the housing solution.

+∞

 

[KentXie]

If the tower were to be setback as desired, would you approve the proposal at the current height? I'm personally not against the setback but I'm certainly disagreeing with the argument that the current proposal is out of context with it's surrounding area (besides street-level).

 

[StillInTheHood]

Agree that this thread is a s@#tshow.

So much so that I've logged back in after some time of mostly lurking.

I don't have a dog in this hunt (I don't live near here) but I'm frankly disappointed at our inability to have a more civil discussion. Two points:

1. Data is a long-time poster here and has contributed a lot of positive content and observations over a long period of time. I haven't always agreed with her BUT I find her comments thoughtful and deserving more intelligent response without the simplistic name-calling. C'mon guys.

2. The opponents are completely correct about the architecture/massing. It's awful. Instead of shouting "NIMBY! NIMBY!" if you are going to contribute constructively to the discussion you should do a better job of defending the proposal. We all understand that we need to build more housing in this city, but does that really require that we build a 35-story tower straight to the streetline? Or situating the driveway on a residential street? I suspect Data is correct that the orientation is designed to preserve views of the tall building behind at the expense of the streetscape of Worthington. This doesn't make much sense to me.

I come to this site to discuss architecture ... not to celebrate any random building just because it is tall. I also don't understand the "Prove you aren't a NIMBY?" questioning? It would be just as fair to pose the question, "Do you guys support every single proposal that is more than 30 stories tall that extends the skyline? Is it all a simple matter of phallus worship?" Because that's just as anti-urban as NIMBY behavior. An articulate defense of this proposal should go beyond "well, we need more housing" or "there are a bunch of other tall buildings a block away on Huntington"

 

[datadyne007]

Agree that this thread is a s@#tshow.

So much so that I've logged back in after some time of mostly lurking.

I don't have a dog in this hunt (I don't live near here) but I'm frankly disappointed at our inability to have a more civil discussion. Two points:

1. Data is a long-time poster here and has contributed a lot of positive content and observations over a long period of time. I haven't always agreed with her BUT I find her comments thoughtful and deserving more intelligent response without the simplistic name-calling. C'mon guys.

2. The opponents are completely correct about the architecture/massing. It's awful. Instead of shouting "NIMBY! NIMBY!" if you are going to contribute constructively to the discussion you should do a better job of defending the proposal. We all understand that we need to build more housing in this city, but does that really require that we build a 35-story tower straight to the streetline? Or situating the driveway on a residential street? I suspect Data is correct that the orientation is designed to preserve views of the tall building behind at the expense of the streetscape of Worthington. This doesn't make much sense to me.

I come to this site to discuss architecture ... not to celebrate any random building just because it is tall. I also don't understand the "Prove you aren't a NIMBY?" questioning? It would be just as fair to pose the question, "Do you guys support every single proposal that is more than 30 stories tall that extends the skyline? Is it all a simple matter of phallus worship?" Because that's just as anti-urban as NIMBY behavior. An articulate defense of this proposal should go beyond "well, we need more housing" or "there are a bunch of other tall buildings a block away on Huntington"

I'm a guy, but thanks for your kind words and desire to actually discuss architecture. That's what I'm trained to do and what I always want to do on this site, as I actually have a degree in architecture & work in the field with a knowledge of how development actually works. The discussions I engage in are always in the effort of creating better architecture & urban design for this city. I refuse to champion first gos in most cases and never do so only for the matter of height. There are many ways to achieve the housing goal. We shouldn't compromise our existing neighborhoods and residents in the name of bringing new ones in.

(besides street-level).

You just admitted the fatal flaw. Street level is how we view buildings and neighborhoods! You can draw plans and figure-ground diagrams all you want, but what matters is the experience at street level.

 

[George_Apley]

If the tower were to be setback as desired, would you approve the proposal at the current height? I'm personally not against the setback but I'm certainly disagreeing with the argument that the current proposal is out of context with it's surrounding area (besides street-level).

The street level is what is out of context. Plus the developer seems to - on first glance - have other options that they're choosing not to take. But I agree. The tower isn't what's out of context; the tower abutting Worthington is. Move it back, with more contextual Worthington frontage.

I personally would happily take this proposal at the stated height if they did something about the Worthington side.

 

[datadyne007]

I personally would happily take this proposal at the stated height if they did something about the Worthington side.

I will go on record and second this.

 

[StillInTheHood]

Apologies, Data, I should know better as it seems that the vast majority of participants here are male! Would that some of the posts weren't quite as testosterone-fueled.

I agree 100% that it's the streetscape that should matter to all of us. Sure, the "high spine" may be elegant from a postcard view two miles away, but that's not how we experience architecture most of the time.

And context does matter. As noted above, even Jacob Wirth's new neighbor was designed with a careful set-back to harmonize at the cornice level. And I hope we can all acknowledge that a building that fronts a wide, major, commercial downtown arterial is inherently an easier fit to begin with. When the Avalon/Wirth tower was proposed, there was quite a bit of discussion about the compromise entailed in putting a vehicle entrance on Stuart, and a frank acknowledgement of the role of LaGrange as a de facto service alley ... never ideal, but service needs need to be considered with all large structures and obviously a street with a couple of strip clubs and parking lots isn't going to be disrupted much by a garage face. Integrating a façade with a narrow residential street is a different matter, even if the site is a few hundred meters from a major road with other tall buildings. A set back should have been the DEFAULT here ... it's frankly very puzzling, and again you have to conclude that someone was worried more about the views from other towers. Which I hope that all posters here would agree should NOT be the priority.

 

[FK4]

Agree that this thread is a s@#tshow.

So much so that I've logged back in after some time of mostly lurking.

I don't have a dog in this hunt (I don't live near here) but I'm frankly disappointed at our inability to have a more civil discussion. Two points:

1. Data is a long-time poster here and has contributed a lot of positive content and observations over a long period of time. I haven't always agreed with her BUT I find her comments thoughtful and deserving more intelligent response without the simplistic name-calling. C'mon guys.

2. The opponents are completely correct about the architecture/massing. It's awful. Instead of shouting "NIMBY! NIMBY!" if you are going to contribute constructively to the discussion you should do a better job of defending the proposal. We all understand that we need to build more housing in this city, but does that really require that we build a 35-story tower straight to the streetline? Or situating the driveway on a residential street? I suspect Data is correct that the orientation is designed to preserve views of the tall building behind at the expense of the streetscape of Worthington. This doesn't make much sense to me.

I come to this site to discuss architecture ... not to celebrate any random building just because it is tall. I also don't understand the "Prove you aren't a NIMBY?" questioning? It would be just as fair to pose the question, "Do you guys support every single proposal that is more than 30 stories tall that extends the skyline? Is it all a simple matter of phallus worship?" Because that's just as anti-urban as NIMBY behavior. An articulate defense of this proposal should go beyond "well, we need more housing" or "there are a bunch of other tall buildings a block away on Huntington"

Nice to hear a few voices of reason amidst the clamoring of the Ed Logue wannabes, frenziedly champing at the bit over their fetishistic and masturbatory tower fantasies, to built at any cost, neighborhoods be damned.

This is, after all, an architecture board. The discussion here is about the architecture of the building, and how it relates to the existing neighborhood architecture.

Comparing St Alphonsus to Worthington is comparing apples to oranges. Given that the city obliterated St Alphonsus as part of urban renewal, and it's a bland, depressing road, nothing is lost by putting the driveway entrances there and setting the building back from Worthington. And there is plenty of room to do all of this.

I actually think the renderings look pretty cool - what I like most is how slender the tower is from certain angles. And yes, it would look cool from afar but as stated, the most important part of a building is not the postcard pic but the closeup experience. If this were actually built, and done well, it could also soften future resistance to similar projects.

So, I say, fuck this developer doubly: there's no way he didn't anticipate pushback, so what else besides incredible arrogance and hubris would make him come up with such shitty and easily defeatable design, that make it so much less likely that a project that could have been a good one ever get built?

And context does matter. As noted above, even Jacob Wirth's new neighbor was designed with a careful set-back to harmonize at the cornice level. And I hope we can all acknowledge that a building that fronts a wide, major, commercial downtown arterial is inherently an easier fit to begin with. When the Avalon/Wirth tower was proposed, there was quite a bit of discussion about the compromise entailed in putting a vehicle entrance on Stuart, and a frank acknowledgement of the role of LaGrange as a de facto service alley ... never ideal, but service needs need to be considered with all large structures and obviously a street with a couple of strip clubs and parking lots isn't going to be disrupted much by a garage face. Integrating a façade with a narrow residential street is a different matter, even if the site is a few hundred meters from a major road with other tall buildings. A set back should have been the DEFAULT here ... it's frankly very puzzling, and again you have to conclude that someone was worried more about the views from other towers. Which I hope that all posters here would agree should NOT be the priority.

Exactly. Developer is a total asshole. Or a fool, but that seems less likely.

 

[elemenoh]

Equity made a very bad first move with this design.

The neighbors in Mission Hill are extremely well organized to fight development. They've been doing it for decades. They are very good at extorting community benefits from developers and I'm sure there will be a very big dollar amount on the table to go toward all sorts of neighborhood projects, as well as a significant commitment to affordable units (or linkage payments).

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, and at what point the Mayor gets directly involved. The Article 80 process take a lot of time and I'm sure the members of the Impact Advisory Group will be very committed to getting what they want.

 

[davem]

Ehh, we need a good argument around here every once and a while. It's nice that for once it's not about bikes or traffic

 

[fattony]

Nice to hear a few voices of reason amidst the clamoring of the Ed Logue wannabes, frenziedly champing at the bit over their fetishistic and masturbatory tower fantasies, to built at any cost, neighborhoods be damned.

This whole thing started with an emotional outburst about anger and hurt feelings followed by every phrase in the NIMBY handbook. That predictably set off the hair-trigger anti-NIMBY counterattack of rage in many, myself included. It was a perfect storm, but heads seems to have cooled all around and the conversation has returned to architecture.

There is no need to kick the hornets nest.

 

[fattony]

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.

Any guesses on what went wrong in this case then?

Did the architects get brow beaten by the developer into a poor design, or were the architects complicit?

Can a developer hand an architect a massing outline and say "make a building that fills this volume"? Does the architect have no say?

 

[datadyne007]

Any guesses on what went wrong in this case then?

Did the architects get brow beaten by the developer into a poor design, or were the architects complicit?

Can a developer hand an architect a massing outline and say "make a building that fills this volume"? Does the architect have no say?

I could tell that Nancy Ludwig, President of ICON Arch really didn't believe in this design she was presenting. She tried her best to hide it, but it was clear to me that ICON was placating the developer's desires for a freaking huge building. This is the job of architects though. Their clients are the developers and they don't get hired/paid unless they make the developers happy. That's how architecture works. In general, this building is wayyyyyy out of style of ICON's typical residential buildings. ICON does fantastic contextual low-mid rise work (3-5 stories) like One Webster in Chelsea (where I relocated to), Maverick Landing affordable housing in East Boston, and ArtBlock731. To my knowledge they have never constructed a tower. I think The Avenir is their tallest building. This tower eclipses the Avenir by a whopping 25 stories or so. This tower actually goes against everything ICON Arch stands for and it really struck me by surprise.

Explore their projects:
http://www.iconarch.com/index.html

Edit: Now essentially what ICON can do is say "see, we told you" and encourage the developer to cut back the building to a more reasonable scale with proper contextual urban design.

 

[Justin7]

As I've said before, I support a tall tower literally anywhere else in the city.

I agree with you that this isn't the best building for this location, but this quote may make it difficult for people to take your argument seriously.