I think I figured out what Marty is so afraid of these soaring towers....she lives on Comm Ave between Fairfield and Gloucester......that would be two new towers just two streets over from her....that means some additional shadows may come within 200 feet of her.
Avalon Exeter | 77 Exeter Street | Back Bay
- Thread starter quadratdackel
- Start date
kz1000ps
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2006
- Messages
- 8,818
- Reaction score
- 10,257
TONIGHT:
BRA meeting regarding the Project Notification Form/Notice of Project Change filed by Boston Properties for its Exeter Residences and 888 Boylston Street proposals.
Boston Public Library, Copley Square. 6-8:30 pm.
****
I'll probably attend. For anyone else who goes and feels like searching me out (I most likely won't have access to a computer between now and then), I'll be wearing a grey t-shirt that says "Vermont Baseball" (go UVM!), jeans, boots and a blue windbreaker.
BRA meeting regarding the Project Notification Form/Notice of Project Change filed by Boston Properties for its Exeter Residences and 888 Boylston Street proposals.
Boston Public Library, Copley Square. 6-8:30 pm.
****
I'll probably attend. For anyone else who goes and feels like searching me out (I most likely won't have access to a computer between now and then), I'll be wearing a grey t-shirt that says "Vermont Baseball" (go UVM!), jeans, boots and a blue windbreaker.
BRA meeting
so i attended the BRA meeting tonight and just wanted to note a few things i noticed (not really related to the exeter/boylston topic, but about the meeting itself).
first off, an introduction. this is my first post, but i have been reading this forum for probably 6 or so years (has it been around that long?... cant keep this and skyscrapercity, skyscraperpage, cafe l'urbanite, etc... straight.) i lived in boston from 2000-04, then los angles from 2004-06, then nyc from 2006-07, and currently back in boston getting my masters is architecture and urban planning.
now on to the meeting. after living in the above cities, i must say that boston is very lucky (or not?) to have a development process that involves the community as much as it does. What i witnessed tonight is virtually non existent in los angeles and new york. and to have the architects present was awesome as well. frickin manfredi was there addressing these people and answering their questions. we are talking a name partner and a huge design firm.
now onto the Q and A... what a mess. what is the issue with height? how do you argue over the difference between 180 feet and 300 feet when the bldg in question is surrounding by blgds twice its size? it seems everyone has an agenda, and reason goes out the window. This open and input based design process should be embraced not abused.
some good questions were brought up (emergency/evac/police/fire, etc...) but were somewhat brushed over, not by the designers/builders/BRA, but by the community attending the meeting. what surprised me the most was the round of applause that is received whenever someone mentions a reduction in height. some one pretty much stated that the bldgs should be completely redesigned from the ground up, because this is an opportunity for something grand, and the current design is not to her aesthetic pleasing of her idea of what is grand. she in fact used the word ugly. when is ONE person's SUBJECTIVE OPINION the basis for redesign?
there also seemed to be a big issue that the height to be cut down, but no stated reason for it. Apparently 115 ft (or 175, not sure of the exact number) is some sort of magical number that makes a design acceptable. honestly it seemed like people were screaming about height just to hear their voice.
also many residents wanted to know where their benefits were for the project? is it not enough that these projects are encouraging economic development, creating jobs, creating house, filling in dead holes in the street wall (honestly what is better for your neighborhood, a vacant lot next to a loading dock or a vibrant apartment tower?). redeveloping these lots should be benefit enough, correct? what else are people looking for? no one in the community seemed to offer up what they think should be there to benefit the community, but instead jumped on the developers for not offering whatever these imaginary benefits are. is it not enough to finance a 300 mill bldg replacing a vacant lot, developers have to read minds now?
honestly (and ironically?), it seems that these subjective and opinion based issues seem to hijack the meeting and take away from the true issues that the meeting is intended to bring up and resolve. i picked up an undercurrent of residents somehow being offend by the idea of a new development coming in. its like the developers and their bldgs have a vendetta against the residents of the back bay.
Thanks for reading? sorry for the rant, i had to down a few beers after the meeting
so i attended the BRA meeting tonight and just wanted to note a few things i noticed (not really related to the exeter/boylston topic, but about the meeting itself).
first off, an introduction. this is my first post, but i have been reading this forum for probably 6 or so years (has it been around that long?... cant keep this and skyscrapercity, skyscraperpage, cafe l'urbanite, etc... straight.) i lived in boston from 2000-04, then los angles from 2004-06, then nyc from 2006-07, and currently back in boston getting my masters is architecture and urban planning.
now on to the meeting. after living in the above cities, i must say that boston is very lucky (or not?) to have a development process that involves the community as much as it does. What i witnessed tonight is virtually non existent in los angeles and new york. and to have the architects present was awesome as well. frickin manfredi was there addressing these people and answering their questions. we are talking a name partner and a huge design firm.
now onto the Q and A... what a mess. what is the issue with height? how do you argue over the difference between 180 feet and 300 feet when the bldg in question is surrounding by blgds twice its size? it seems everyone has an agenda, and reason goes out the window. This open and input based design process should be embraced not abused.
some good questions were brought up (emergency/evac/police/fire, etc...) but were somewhat brushed over, not by the designers/builders/BRA, but by the community attending the meeting. what surprised me the most was the round of applause that is received whenever someone mentions a reduction in height. some one pretty much stated that the bldgs should be completely redesigned from the ground up, because this is an opportunity for something grand, and the current design is not to her aesthetic pleasing of her idea of what is grand. she in fact used the word ugly. when is ONE person's SUBJECTIVE OPINION the basis for redesign?
there also seemed to be a big issue that the height to be cut down, but no stated reason for it. Apparently 115 ft (or 175, not sure of the exact number) is some sort of magical number that makes a design acceptable. honestly it seemed like people were screaming about height just to hear their voice.
also many residents wanted to know where their benefits were for the project? is it not enough that these projects are encouraging economic development, creating jobs, creating house, filling in dead holes in the street wall (honestly what is better for your neighborhood, a vacant lot next to a loading dock or a vibrant apartment tower?). redeveloping these lots should be benefit enough, correct? what else are people looking for? no one in the community seemed to offer up what they think should be there to benefit the community, but instead jumped on the developers for not offering whatever these imaginary benefits are. is it not enough to finance a 300 mill bldg replacing a vacant lot, developers have to read minds now?
honestly (and ironically?), it seems that these subjective and opinion based issues seem to hijack the meeting and take away from the true issues that the meeting is intended to bring up and resolve. i picked up an undercurrent of residents somehow being offend by the idea of a new development coming in. its like the developers and their bldgs have a vendetta against the residents of the back bay.
Thanks for reading? sorry for the rant, i had to down a few beers after the meeting
awood91
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2006
- Messages
- 456
- Reaction score
- 471
first, welcome to the board daimio1! i enjoyed reading your post and have several comments. for example, WHY DO PEOPLE THINK THAT PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT IS SUPPOSE TO MAKE THEIR LIVES SOOOO MUCH BETTER???? do the same rules in the suburbs apply to the city? who goes by a huge effing house under construction in Weston and says to them selves, "How will this new huge ass house make my life better?" its ridiculous! second, people must not have any respect for mr. manfredi or maybe they don't really know who he is, but for people to only talk about their individual problems is totally inappropriate. last question, does anyone know just how much an architect takes these stupid comments to heart? will the designs actually be changed? are they legally bound to apply the suggestions of the retards(if you can even call them that) or do they just do it to make the people who attend the meetings feel important/influential?
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,999
- Reaction score
- 1,737
daimio1, I am going to have to talk with you some other time about urban planning schools....
Also, having lived in other cities, do you feel the sense of elitism that surrounds Boston? From your post it seems that these people think they all deserve something. I never noticed it living there but now that I am in New York (where there is a community process, btw) it is glaring. Although it is apples and oranges, it doesn't mean it isn't there.
Also, having lived in other cities, do you feel the sense of elitism that surrounds Boston? From your post it seems that these people think they all deserve something. I never noticed it living there but now that I am in New York (where there is a community process, btw) it is glaring. Although it is apples and oranges, it doesn't mean it isn't there.
i wouldn't go as far as calling it elitism. maybe provincialism? but every city has an certain stench in the air if you know what i mean.
i am aware that these types of meeting exist in nyc and los angeles, but my point was that they are nothing to this extreme. a next door neighbor is not telling richard meier how to design a bldg. it was almost disrespectful how manfredi was being treated. Resident A was telling him his bldg was ugly and should be completely redesigned to something grander. i am sure he would love to bldg a granite skyscraper, but the economics aren't there, and until resident A has 500 mill to throw around to develop one of these projects, her design input is null and void.
as far as the people at the meeting feeling like they deserve something, it was very obvious from the meeting that they do feel like they deserve something. since when is it a private developer's responsibility to give to the community when they are bldg a private bldg on private land? as is, they already laid out 5 mill. in community incentives (redesigned plaza and entrance to the pru, funding to upkeep a park, 20% affordable housing).. WHAT ELSE DO THEY WANT? no one in the community had a clear plan as to what these community benefits should be, all they know is what is on the table was not enough. i would of loved to see the developers say they were opening and funding the biggest homeless shelter in boston in one of these bldgs, and seen the look of the community then. hows that for community benefits.
i am aware that these types of meeting exist in nyc and los angeles, but my point was that they are nothing to this extreme. a next door neighbor is not telling richard meier how to design a bldg. it was almost disrespectful how manfredi was being treated. Resident A was telling him his bldg was ugly and should be completely redesigned to something grander. i am sure he would love to bldg a granite skyscraper, but the economics aren't there, and until resident A has 500 mill to throw around to develop one of these projects, her design input is null and void.
as far as the people at the meeting feeling like they deserve something, it was very obvious from the meeting that they do feel like they deserve something. since when is it a private developer's responsibility to give to the community when they are bldg a private bldg on private land? as is, they already laid out 5 mill. in community incentives (redesigned plaza and entrance to the pru, funding to upkeep a park, 20% affordable housing).. WHAT ELSE DO THEY WANT? no one in the community had a clear plan as to what these community benefits should be, all they know is what is on the table was not enough. i would of loved to see the developers say they were opening and funding the biggest homeless shelter in boston in one of these bldgs, and seen the look of the community then. hows that for community benefits.
kz1000ps
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2006
- Messages
- 8,818
- Reaction score
- 10,257
OK, I went to the meeting last night too. I don't have much to add to what daimio1 said (and welcome aboard daimio!), so I'll just list the stats I gathered on the Exeter tower:
--30 stories, 340 feet, 9300 s.f. footprint.
--approx. 200 units, 140 parking spaces.
--approx. 2000 s.f. of retail on two levels (street and deck).
--there will be exterior stairs on axis with Blagden St. connecting Exeter St. to the plaza that will be open 24/7 (Mr. Manfredi spoke for some time about the permeability of the Pru).
--20% affordable housing spread amongst the new and three existing Avalon towers.
--the north and east facades will be primarily glass, while the south and west facades will be primarily precast brick.
--there will be 60 feet between the new building and the Gloucester Apartments, and likewise between it and the Lenox Hotel. Also, the west facade is on axis with the east facade of the Gloucester as to preserve views as much as possible (to state the obvious: it's a tight site).
--30 stories, 340 feet, 9300 s.f. footprint.
--approx. 200 units, 140 parking spaces.
--approx. 2000 s.f. of retail on two levels (street and deck).
--there will be exterior stairs on axis with Blagden St. connecting Exeter St. to the plaza that will be open 24/7 (Mr. Manfredi spoke for some time about the permeability of the Pru).
--20% affordable housing spread amongst the new and three existing Avalon towers.
--the north and east facades will be primarily glass, while the south and west facades will be primarily precast brick.
--there will be 60 feet between the new building and the Gloucester Apartments, and likewise between it and the Lenox Hotel. Also, the west facade is on axis with the east facade of the Gloucester as to preserve views as much as possible (to state the obvious: it's a tight site).
two choice quotes from the latest Courant article:
"In response to the latest design [of the office building], State Rep. Marty Walz, who is a member of PruPAC, said, 'I don't think we should be left with a choice between a grand entrance for extra height. We should insist on 155 feet, with a beautiful entrance," she said to applause.
and
"In light of the excess height, several attendees asked if the developers intended to go to extra lengths to compensate the neighborhood for the impacts the buildings would have."
----
To anyone who went to the meeting, did any person speak in support of the proposals, particularly the heights?
"In response to the latest design [of the office building], State Rep. Marty Walz, who is a member of PruPAC, said, 'I don't think we should be left with a choice between a grand entrance for extra height. We should insist on 155 feet, with a beautiful entrance," she said to applause.
and
"In light of the excess height, several attendees asked if the developers intended to go to extra lengths to compensate the neighborhood for the impacts the buildings would have."
----
To anyone who went to the meeting, did any person speak in support of the proposals, particularly the heights?
palindrome
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2006
- Messages
- 2,276
- Reaction score
- 124
These mindless nimbys make my blood boil. :evil: :evil:
kz1000ps
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2006
- Messages
- 8,818
- Reaction score
- 10,257
Re: BRA meeting
That person who spoke about the Exeter tower being ugly was none other than Back Bay and Beacon Hill state representative Marty Walz. Her telling David Manfredi (great to see him show up and submit to the torture) point blank that the building was ugly was something else. My eyes rolled all the way around the globe after that little nugget of wisdom came out.. lol.
I hung around after the meeting so I could talk to Marty, to whom I said I appreciated her comments and agreed that the buildings are "ugly" (gotta do some schmoozing!) but then cut to the chase -- BEIGE PRECAST. Her eyes immediately lit up in agreement, as if she had previously come to the same conclusion about that shit. But as soon as I got a few words out she started talking about how she wanted "pretty buildings" (she used the word pretty two or three times) and how everything is ugly and depressing.. I quickly realized the conversation wasn't going anywhere I wanted it to go, so I said thanks for your time blah blah blah and got the hell outta there :roll:
On to the height issue, the number that people kept saying was 155 ft because that was the height that 888 and the Mandarin were zoned for back when the Pru was doing its master plan in the late '80s. If you recall, 888 was originally proposed at 11 stories because that was as many floors as could be fitted within the set height, a number the community agreed upon after dozens of meetings (PruPAC was formed at that time). That's why people kept questioning the 19-story 888 Boylston even though it's a good 80 feet shorter than the Exeter tower.
The 1989 Master Plan. Note that the Mandarin has been realized almost exactly as planned 18 years ago.
daimio1 said:
That person who spoke about the Exeter tower being ugly was none other than Back Bay and Beacon Hill state representative Marty Walz. Her telling David Manfredi (great to see him show up and submit to the torture) point blank that the building was ugly was something else. My eyes rolled all the way around the globe after that little nugget of wisdom came out.. lol.
I hung around after the meeting so I could talk to Marty, to whom I said I appreciated her comments and agreed that the buildings are "ugly" (gotta do some schmoozing!) but then cut to the chase -- BEIGE PRECAST. Her eyes immediately lit up in agreement, as if she had previously come to the same conclusion about that shit. But as soon as I got a few words out she started talking about how she wanted "pretty buildings" (she used the word pretty two or three times) and how everything is ugly and depressing.. I quickly realized the conversation wasn't going anywhere I wanted it to go, so I said thanks for your time blah blah blah and got the hell outta there :roll:
On to the height issue, the number that people kept saying was 155 ft because that was the height that 888 and the Mandarin were zoned for back when the Pru was doing its master plan in the late '80s. If you recall, 888 was originally proposed at 11 stories because that was as many floors as could be fitted within the set height, a number the community agreed upon after dozens of meetings (PruPAC was formed at that time). That's why people kept questioning the 19-story 888 Boylston even though it's a good 80 feet shorter than the Exeter tower.
The 1989 Master Plan. Note that the Mandarin has been realized almost exactly as planned 18 years ago.
kz1000ps
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2006
- Messages
- 8,818
- Reaction score
- 10,257
Chris said:
There was one young man bursting over with energy who said he liked height and the proposals as is, but other than that only a couple (at most) said they liked the buildings, and the only other person to speak remotely in favor for tall buildings was the BRA representative, who spoke plainly and clearly that height is a subjective issue -- while plenty seem to hate towers, there are plenty others who love 'em.
I was praying as he spoke that this dose of common sense might cure some of the close-mindedness in the room, but you know... it probably didn't change a damn thing.
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,999
- Reaction score
- 1,737
TheBostonBoy?
palindrome
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2006
- Messages
- 2,276
- Reaction score
- 124
vanshnookenraggen said:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
That was the funniest thing i have read all day. Where has he been lately?
statler
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 7,927
- Reaction score
- 525
Banker &Tradesman said:Residents Have Big Problems With Plans for Two Buildings
By Thomas Grillo
Reporter
Image courtesy Elkus Manfredi Architects
This artist?s rendering depicts Avalon Exeter, a 30-story residential tower proposed for Exeter Street in Boston?s Back Bay.
It?s not a good fit.
At a packed public hearing at the Boston Public Library last week, many residents of the city?s Back Bay area said the 19-story glass office tower proposed for Boylston Street is too tall. They argued that 180 parking spaces are not enough for the 1,600 employees expected to fill the skyscraper. Meanwhile, others pleaded for more time to study the consequences of another tall building that would overlook the historic neighborhood.
At stake is a $192 million plan by Boston Properties and Avalon Bay Communities that call for a 438,993-square-foot building at 888 Boylston St., between the Mandarin Oriental Boston Hotel and the John B. Hynes Veterans Memorial Convention. The second project, Avalon Exeter, would be a 30-story residential high-rise on Exeter Street, across from the library.
The Boylston Street office building originally was approved by the Boston Redevelopment Authority as a 287,493-square-foot, 11-story tower at the site. But the developer is seeking to add 8 stories to the design and needs city approval.
State Rep. Byron Rushing, a Boston Democrat whose district includes the Prudential Center, said the buildings are out of scale. He urged the BRA to limit 888 Boylston St. to 155 feet, the height the BRA approved in 2002. In addition, he said the developer should take a second look at the elevation of Avalon Exeter and its design.
?I?m ready to negotiate the height of both buildings with the developers,? Rushing said following a meeting that was attended by more than 100 neighbors. ?On the residential tower, it?s not attractive. I think the architect is trying to do too many things. He seems influenced by the surrounding buildings, but is also trying to do something too dramatic.?
Dozens of questions centered on parking for the office tower. Michael A. Cantalupa of Boston Properties said he is convinced that 180 new parking spaces to be added to the Prudential?s 3,920-car underground garage will be sufficient for employees.
Cantalupa noted that the Boston Transportation Department estimated that of the 1,600 employees who are expected to work in the building, 25 percent will walk, 38 percent will take the MBTA and 37 percent will drive.
But that caused one resident to ask: ?That?s about 600 spaces and you are only proposing 180. Where do the rest of the cars fit? You?re talking about a substantial number of cars for people who work in this building.?
Another resident noted that in the 1980s, residents agreed to the 155-foot height limit at the Prudential with the promise of community benefits from the developer. ?We fought to limit height to 11 stories. Now you?re asking to increase the height by 40 percent. How does the community benefit??
In response, Cantalupa said the city will receive $4.3 million in the form of housing, jobs and contributions to improvements along Boylston Street, as well as a plaza in front of 888 Boylston.
?Political? Decision
Without the added height, Cantalupa said, the developers cannot afford to design and build the plaza. But then another resident suggested that at $60 per square foot or more, the public space would be paid for in just a few months.
?I can?t comment on when it would be paid for, but we can deliver a better product by going a little higher and, with the added square footage, we can build a first-class park and plaza on Boylston Street,? Cantalupa responded. ?We see this as the last major opportunity to improve the Prudential Center. This plan was developed by the Prudential Project Advisory Committee [PruPAC] in the late 1980s. ?we?re trying to make Boylston the best street that it can be.?
PruPAC is a 41-member group that was established by former Mayor Raymond Flynn in the 1980s to advise City Hall on development projects at Boston?s Prudential Center.
Elliott Laffer, PruPAC?s vice chairman, said he hopes the BRA and the developers will allow enough time to study the comment letters. He expects the panel will offer an opinion about the proposal.
?We have a couple of meetings coming up and we intend to share what?ve seen and heard and then go back to our 22 neighborhood entities and write an opinion about whether the height works or doesn?t,? he said. ?I don?t know that anyone has made those determinations yet.?
Jacquelin Yessian, president of the Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay, declined to comment, saying she must first talk to her members before a consensus is reached.
Several residents, including state Rep. Martha M. Walz, raised questions about the public process. She urged the BRA to consider further environmental review. In response to a question about how the decision will be made at City Hall, Rodney Sinclair, the BRA?s project manager, said part of the answer is ?political.?
?If 5,000 folks complain about height, even if technically height is not an issue, the mayor could say ?the voters don?t want height,? and there won?t be height,? he said. ?I?ll just tell you that the mayor, your state representatives and city councilor push decisions ? if it comes down to Reps. Walz or Rushing saying ?my constituents don?t want it,? my director will listen carefully to them.
?We?d like to not to get to that point,? Sinclair added. ?We prefer to have a conversation and mitigate these issues.?
Michael Roberts, vice president of development at Avalon, said his company is very excited about the opportunity to develop new housing downtown. ?There is always a need for more housing in Boston and we think the Pru is a fabulous location,? he said.
David Manfredi, architect for Avalon Exeter, said the project represents an opportunity to transform Exeter Street. The design offers a chance to turn a service alley into 2,000 square feet of first-floor retail and improve pedestrian activity.
?Our goal is to make Exeter more walkable and a more pedestrian-friendly street,? he said.
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,999
- Reaction score
- 1,737
These people are so short sighted I'm surprised they don't walk into things walking down the street.
awood91
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2006
- Messages
- 456
- Reaction score
- 471
oh my god, again with the fucking community benefits!! and the guy who said that the design was too 'dramatic'? just read that again and then tell me who thought it would be a good idea to let a eloquent speaker comment during the meeting?? he should probably just move on and get a job at 'architectural record' and write an article on how the hancock is NOT a masterpiece because its too dramatic. NEWS FLASH: dramatic architecture is generally good architecture!!! christ...
Ron Newman
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2006
- Messages
- 8,395
- Reaction score
- 11
But if there was already an agreement and approval for a building of a certain height, it seems like bad faith on the developer's part to renege on it and ask to build higher.