AvalonBay Tower (Jacob Wirth's) | 45 Stuart Street | Downtown

Re: Jacob Wirth's

atlrvr said:
4a55a5aec7_ltp_stuart07302008.jpg
Click to expand...


Disclosure:this sucks.
 
Re: Jacob Wirth's

You know, if Jacob Wirth's get built that big, then I think we are definitely seeing a renaissance in building in the DTX / theater district. Other developers will start considering the area, no?

Perhaps they should think about putting something like the Grand Marc down here ...

And maybe another condo building, I don't know where. 62 on the Park?
 
Re: Jacob Wirth's

georgebaker said:
Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino wants to require developers of large projects to obtain financing before they win permission to dig up the city.
Click to expand...

Why not have the developers post a bond, to be forfeited if construction stalls?

justin
 
Re: Jacob Wirth's

Why redevelop that whole block, but teave the crappy building on the corner of Tremont and Stuart?

Wait, is that beer garden on the roof directly above Jacob Wirth's?
That would be about the only redeeming feature of that building.
 
Re: Jacob Wirth's

Maybe the long-dormant plans for the McDonalds building down the street at the corner of Washington & Stuart will come back to life?

Renderings anyone?
 
Re: Jacob Wirth's

justin said:
Why not have the developers post a bond, to be forfeited if construction stalls?

justin
Click to expand...

In theory, this is a very good idea. The practical problem is that it would be difficult to find sureties willing to underwrite such bonds, especially for those developers from whom you would most want them. A surety will undertake the same sort of analysis of the project financing as an institutional investor would. The Catch 22 is that if you can get good financing, you don't need a performance bond. If you couldn't get sound financing, you couldn't get a bond, even though you would be the sort of developer from whom the city would most want one.

One answer is the city shouldn't approve demolition permits until financing is committed, or unless there is a compelling safety reason.
 
Re: Jacob Wirth's

I don't think the definitive book on old and existing movie / live theaters in Boston has been written yet, has it?
 
Re: Jacob Wirth's

el raval said:
Why redevelop that whole block, but teave the crappy building on the corner of Tremont and Stuart?

Wait, is that beer garden on the roof directly above Jacob Wirth's?
That would be about the only redeeming feature of that building.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately each of the small crappy buildings on Stuart and Tremont Streets around that corner have different owners. Each of them thinks their lot is worth $$$ millions, so no developer can touch completly rebuilding the block. You get infill of the parking lots only.
 
Re: Jacob Wirth's

JeffDowntown said:
Unfortunately each of the small crappy buildings on Stuart and Tremont Streets around that corner have different owners. Each of them thinks their lot is worth $$$ millions, so no developer can touch completly rebuilding the block. You get infill of the parking lots only.
Click to expand...
That's not such a bad thing if you get fine-grained streetscape out of it. If the BRA were wise, it would grant FAR and height bonuses to those willing to undertake small-parcel developments. Think how it would improve the street-level experience for the pedestrian and the visual interest for the streetscape. Variety is the spice of...
 
Re: Jacob Wirth's

ablarc said:
That's not such a bad thing if you get fine-grained streetscape out of it. If the BRA were wise, it would grant FAR and height bonuses to those willing to undertake small-parcel developments. Think how it would improve the street-level experience for the pedestrian and the visual interest for the streetscape. Variety is the spice of...
Click to expand...

Good point. If only the BRA could get some FAR variances through community review.
 
Re: Jacob Wirth's

^ First they need to correct the misconception in everybody's mind that buildings are oppressive when they're tall.

People need to be led to figure out that it's not height but footprint that oppresses the pedestrian. And it's the BRA that should guide them to that truth, though it's unlikely because they too are deluded by the myth. Conventional wisdom comes with a powerful grip.

Visualize any block of buildings in Boston replaced by a single-story building with the footprint of the block. Whether or not you imagined blank walls, you can be sure it would be oppressive.

Reductio ad absurdum, to be sure, but the height/oppressiveness theory survives entirely by cognitive dissonance, not observation of reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
 
Re: Jacob Wirth's

Howard Johnsons / Radisson obliterates that bloc, for example.
 
Re: Jacob Wirth's

ablarc said:
^ First they need to correct the misconception in everybody's mind that buildings are oppressive when they're tall.

People need to be led to figure out that it's not height but footprint that oppresses the pedestrian. And it's the BRA that should guide them to that truth, though it's unlikely because they too are deluded by the myth. Conventional wisdom comes with a powerful grip.

Visualize any block of buildings in Boston replaced by a single-story building with the footprint of the block. Whether or not you imagined blank walls, you can be sure it would be oppressive.

Reductio ad absurdum, to be sure, but the height/oppressiveness theory survives entirely by cognitive dissonance, not observation of reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
Click to expand...

I'd like to echo ablarc, though I won't be able to do so quite so eloquently, and my latin is certainly worse.
The oppressiveness of mega-projects is a function of lack of interest/ visual stimulus, which is often a direct result of number of doors that open onto the street. There's a reason that people routinely (and occasionally obsessively) walk the length of Newbury St, but you'd be hard pressed to find people strolling along the same distance of, say Huntington, from Copley to Mass Ave. On Huntington on the north side of the street in the same stretch you have Sorellina and Domani in the first block, then the Shaws, two restaurants the Pru entrance, and the 111 Huntington entrance (Oh and Duckboats!), and then the Christian Science Center. 6 or 7 things in a mile stretch.

Somewhere along the line, in catering to the developers, the BRA city planners forgot that we need smaller parcels and variety in order to construct a true urban fabric.
 
Re: Jacob Wirth's

el raval said:
The oppressiveness of mega-projects is a function of lack of interest/ visual stimulus, which is often a direct result of number of doors that open onto the street.
Click to expand...
Bingo! Those doors represent frequency of event --how often something new comes up. That's what makes things interesting. If you're walking at 3mph and you want to stay as interested as someone in a car at 30mph, there needs to be ten times as much change per hundred yards. Seems silly to put numbers to it, but that's exactly what the zoning code does: it issues mandates in numerical terms.

There's a reason that people routinely (and occasionally obsessively) walk the length of Newbury St, but you'd be hard pressed to find people strolling along the same distance of, say Huntington, from Copley to Mass Ave.
Click to expand...
It's what explains the success of Newbury Street. If the only thing you looked at was common sense real estate considerations, Boylston Street should be more successful because the available unbroken retail spaces are bigger and all at street level instead of maybe a half flight up or down. Also Boylston Street is the straight shot from Downtown to Mass Ave, and it has the subway. And yet ...

Folks vote with their feet. I know where I prefer to walk.

On Huntington on the north side of the street in the same stretch you have Sorellina and Domani in the first block, then the Shaws, two restaurants the Pru entrance, and the 111 Huntington entrance (Oh and Duckboats!), and then the Christian Science Center. 6 or 7 things in a mile stretch.
Click to expand...
Insufficient event. This is what is oppressive to the pedestrian. This is what we actually mean when we say the scale is too big. You can throw fountains and reflecting pools and pretty flowers at us till the cows come home, and we'll still prefer a stretch of sidewalk where things change every 20-30 feet. I like that you put numbers on it. Maybe we could invent a kind of pedestrian interest quotient (PID ;)).

Somewhere along the line, in catering to the developers, the BRA city planners forgot that we need smaller parcels and variety in order to construct a true urban fabric.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Actually they didn't forget; they never knew it in the first place. They don't teach such things in planning schools.
 
Re: Jacob Wirth's

Right again. They don't teach such things because they don't teach history of architecture and planning....and without history, how are they to know where we are or where we're going?
 
Re: Jacob Wirth's

I clicked on the first 30 links before getting bored. And now my computer is acting funny. Don't try this at home.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top