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

Seems as though someone's hijacked the Wikipedia page for Mission Hill

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Hill,_Boston#cite_ref-18

Current community organizing of hundreds of residents involves broad opposition to a 305-foot 35-story 385-unit residential high-rise at 45 Worthington Street in the Historic Triangle (populated by 3-story historic brownstones), an unprecedented (in Mission Hill) densely-packed commercial property that violates existing laws and quality of life standards for the City. The proposal from Equity Residential fo Chicago (EQR) is for a 'transit-oriented' property (housing appealing to car-free commuters), since the Huntington Avenue E-Line is within a few yards of the intended site
Click to expand...
 
JohnAKeith said:
Seems as though someone's hijacked the Wikipedia page for Mission Hill

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Hill,_Boston#cite_ref-18
Click to expand...

I will say though, of all the neighborhoods, Mission Hill by far has the largest number of unused resident permit parking spaces in the City. Iroquois near New England Baptist is a ghost town. Pontiac near Cherokee, empty.

I'm not saying that this proposal wouldn't have a negative impact on parking, but as a former Mission Hill resident, I never once considered owning a car. It's just pointless. It's probably one of the most accessible neighborhoods of the City. Everything is within walking distance: transit, supermarket, drug store, parks, restaurants, hospitals. Everything.
 
It's pretty funny that they think 35 stories is only going to equate to 305'. Got to be 350' minimum.
 
DZH22 said:
It's pretty funny that they think 35 stories is only going to equate to 305'. Got to be 350' minimum.
Click to expand...

DZF -- that's a good number for an office tower

Residential, particularly with concrete could average about 9' per floor -- works out to 315'

perhaps plus 12 to 15 or so for a top mechanical level
 
whighlander said:
DZF -- that's a good number for an office tower

Residential, particularly with concrete could average about 9' per floor -- works out to 315'

perhaps plus 12 to 15 or so for a top mechanical level
Click to expand...

10' per floor for an office tower?

225 Franklin (Old State Street): 33 floors, 477'
33 Arch: 33 floors, 477' (still well over 400' before the top/spire)
125 High Street: 30 floors, 452'
100 Summer Street: 32 floors, 450'
100 Federal (Pregnant Building): 37 floors, 591'

Ready to admit that you don't know what the hell you're talking about? A 35 floor residential built here in 2015 is going to be 350', minimum, end of story.
 
By the way, it's DZH, not DHZ, not DZF... DZH. It's only 3 letters. Once is a typo, but I don't think you have EVER gotten it right.
 
OK, so it seems like we are all agreeing that height alone or the potential for a project to contribute to the skyline alone should not qualify or disqualify a project from our consideration.

Now that this is out of the way, I am in favor of this project going forward. Like always, I would be happy if the developer would elect to spend more to design a better looking building, but otherwise this is a good project. I'm all for preserving neighborhood character, but that doesn't mean we can't go for tasteful juxtaposition from time to time. This building doesn't require the tearing down any historic buildings, the site as-is contributes nothing to the city as a parking lot, and this is as transit-oriented as any development can be. Let's build it.

If there are going to be taller buildings in Mission Hill, they should be off of Huntington like this one is. Plus, there are two tall buildings within a block of this building. This development is good for the environment and good for the city.
 
I'm not in favor of it unless they rework the base. As has been discussed ad nauseum upthread.
 
DZH22 said:
10' per floor for an office tower?

225 Franklin (Old State Street): 33 floors, 477'
33 Arch: 33 floors, 477' (still well over 400' before the top/spire)
125 High Street: 30 floors, 452'
100 Summer Street: 32 floors, 450'
100 Federal (Pregnant Building): 37 floors, 591'
Click to expand...

Having been inside the lobbies of 33 Arch, 100 Summer, and 100 Federal too many times to count, I have noticed that their respective lobbies are, if not cathedral-like, then nevertheless still with extremely high ceilings. So how many feet, on average, gets lopped-off in the distance between the lobby floor to the floor of the first occupied office level for these towers? Forty? Fifty even? It certainly impacts the average height per floor.
 
DBM said:
Having been inside the lobbies of 33 Arch, 100 Summer, and 100 Federal too many times to count, I have noticed that their respective lobbies are, if not cathedral-like, then nevertheless still with extremely high ceilings. So how many feet, on average, gets lopped-off in the distance between the lobby floor to the floor of the first occupied office level for these towers? Forty? Fifty even? It certainly impacts the average height per floor.
Click to expand...

You are correct with the lobby adding additional height, however, in most office towers you average between 12 - 15' floor to floor. Typical 9' floor to ceiling grid, and then depending on mechanical systems, you add an additional 3 - 6'.

Residential you only need about 10' floor to floor.
 
X-Post from Millennium Tower thread:

jpdivola said:
Is 45w projected to rent for 3k a month, because that is what they need to earn a decent return or is it they a charging 3k a month because they can in a super tight Boston apartment market?

It seems Boston could be delivering cheaper class A units (maybe closer to $2,000 to $2,500 for a tiny 1 bd room). But, it needs to be building a lot more than it currently is.
Click to expand...
When asked at the IAG meeting, the developer claimed the $3000+ was "market-rate" for the area, comparable to the newly renovated The Longwood next door, so all it is competing with is its own luxury towers in the complex & around the city. It's similarly priced to 100 Pier 4 in the SBW & other developments around the city, so it's mainly because they can.
 
I'm always so confused by the average rent figures and where they come from. I know new units tend to go for that much, but you can get a gut renovated apt in a triple decker in MH for $1000-1250 per bedroom depending on how many bedrooms there are. And that's even with all the student-induced demand. From what I've seen currently available in this area for "new" apartments, the following are averages:

Studio $1200-$1800
1 Bdrm $1500-$2000
2 Bdrm $2000-$2800
3 Bdrm $3000-$3600
 
datadyne007 said:
X-Post from Millennium Tower thread:


When asked at the IAG meeting, the developer claimed the $3000+ was "market-rate" for the area, comparable to the newly renovated The Longwood next door, so all it is competing with is its own luxury towers in the complex & around the city. It's similarly priced to 100 Pier 4 in the SBW & other developments around the city, so it's mainly because they can.
Click to expand...

Thanks for moving this.

That would seem to argue for more buildings like this then. If we had 10 or more buildings like this going up, renters would be more able to shop around and then landlords would have to lower rents somewhat to compete for business. Since they are charging a premium "just because they can", they could conceivably lower rents a little and still profitably build.

It isn't so crazy. DC another dense, high income city is currently experiencing some rent relief after a huge apartment building boom. Long term prices are still heading up there. But, it is better than what would otherwise be happening to rents.

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/article...dot-c-dot-apartment-glut-its-a-renters-market
 
The documents describing the overall plan mention a few restrictions in how the housing could be built. It includes a maximum building height that changed several times, but appears to have settled on 210 feet. It also includes an 800-unit maximum for the number of new housing units that could be built in the area.

The 45 Worthington tower would exceed the height limit and may push the unit-count limit over the top, Jodoin is noting.
Click to expand...

Right, because the housing need in 1960 that dictated how much housing could be built is so relevant to the housing need 55 years later. Of course opponents would go to any legal lengths possible to prove their point, but this is still just so ridiculous.

They should redesign this proposal, STAT: make the Worthington Street side a small, quiet public park with a public passage through to St. Alphonsus and a pedestrian-only entrance, via said passage, to the building, which itself should be set back further away from Worthington. Keep the height the same.
 
FK4 said:
Right, because the housing need in 1960 that dictated how much housing could be built is so relevant to the housing need 55 years later. Of course opponents would go to any legal lengths possible to prove their point, but this is still just so ridiculous.

They should redesign this proposal, STAT: make the Worthington Street side a small, quiet public park with a public passage through to St. Alphonsus and a pedestrian-only entrance, via said passage, to the building, which itself should be set back further away from Worthington. Keep the height the same.
Click to expand...

That sounds like a good compromise. Let's get this built!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top