Given the $6m facade preservation money available to this project, it would be a travesty if the restoration opportunity were missed.
Yeah, I hate those. They don't complement the existing hotel.
Boston has had one of the tightest, if not the tightest, hotel market in the continental US for years now.
Hotel Alexandra is walking distance from (or very short uber from if you’re lazy or weather is horrific): Northeastern, symphony hall, MFA, prudential center, Berklee, Fenway park, back bay, etc, and is IN the south end with all the restaurants etc that are located there. It’s not like this is in the fringes of W Roxbury near the Dedham line with no obvious “hotspots.”
I mean, that was my point - To elaborate on what I meant by diffuse... as you say, it's not far from several points of interest, but it isn't particularly aligned with any one other than the South End residential neighborhood, which isn't likely to matter to a majority of visitors, by default a hotels guests. By being "not far," from anything, it also isn't particularly close to anything - meaning that unless there's a price/experience incentive, a visitor may see the Alexandria on a map and decide that this is the further, less accessible, and therefore less preferable option. They're not going to know the history - It's not about being in W. Roxbury or South End, it's the lack of a clear alignment of demand from which you can extrapolate stay data. I know folks who have ubered between the Greenway Canopy Hilton and our meeting in Government Center; proximity matters. If the Alexandria is to continue to be an independent hotel as all indications seem to show? It needs to stay booked.
Fair points. I guess my own work- and leisure-travel demands are different (or have been, thusfar). Aside from instances where I *need* to be next to, say, a particular convention center, in either scenario being "fairly close" to a bunch of reasonably interesting/compelling/relevant stuff is sufficient.
This is a really important point. We tend to see these preservation issues as somehow something that the developer should be obligated to fund. But to make that work, the developer needs to build something that may not otherwise fit. As you suggest in your closing point, if we are serious about preservation, we need to take on that responsibility ourselves, as a community. Here we get a nice, new building that generally respects the landmark district, and we also get a rehabbed historically significant building, but only because the state was willing to pay for this.
This is an important point. I think financing for subterranean parking, where appropriate, for commercial/residential developments in/near business districts should be approached a similar manner. However, instead of the anticipated public benefit from hotel room tax revenues, localities can consider a partnership that eventually produces some public revenue from the parking facility. It might mitigate some NIMBY arguments
www.bostonglobe.com
