Back Bay Garage Tower | Dartmouth and Stuart | Back Bay

giphy.gif
 
That got us GGT. 4 towers was the goal of the BRA. To make it all work, BP/DN were urged to compromise with the West End nimby on height at TD Garden. Sad part is the nimby over-rating reduced height/s. They should have pushed for a reduced width/s.

lapradetom said:
^You are absolutely correct. I'm going out on a limb here, and this may sound a bit crazy, but it's almost like a conspiracy of sorts. They want to keep their 200 Clarendon/JHT the preeminent office tower on the skyline, so nothing iconic anywhere else.......I'll reserve judgment until I see the renders, but if it's junk, I plan on being at every meeting to oppose it... a NIMBY, but for different reasons.....
Click to expand...

You're not gonna like Back Bay Station. We need to organize a movement to save this parcel. BP has no business developing a +180m parcel when they have an conflict of interest to protect the iconic JHT. They shouldn't have the right to diminish our last chance for a decent skyline here. Their next misdeed is using the $$$ they've sunk into designing the 2 box turds as leverage to say we can't turn back. We need to lobby the 'BRA 7' to do a re-do for +180m at BBS....
 
I don't understand why they wouldn't pay for the design of a new iconic tower to supplant 200 Clarendon? It seems like it would be a win win they still have control of a building that will remain iconic although no longer the peak in the skyline and they add another iconic tower that they control. I don't see any drawbacks to that. Does anyone have an explanation?

Sidenote: Shorter doesn't always mean less iconic. For example the Hearst Tower is iconic and it is only 597 feet tall. Yes height would be nice but it doesn't guarantee good or iconic design.
 
Lets just wait till the renders come out till we inevitably bash on this.
 
citylover94 said:
Shorter doesn't always mean less iconic. For example the Hearst Tower is iconic and it is only 597 feet tall. Yes height would be nice but it doesn't guarantee good or iconic design.
Click to expand...

Or Continental Center in South Street Seaport at 554'

597' is 182m! that's a home run at BBS! A nice a/r at 550 would be fine.
 
citylover94 said:
Does anyone have an explanation?
Click to expand...

This site is not just over a train station, but decked over two rail lines and part of an interstate, which makes building tall buildings expensive and difficult. They already own a 790' office tower a block away that they might be having difficulty filling/marketing, and they're in the same neighborhood as 625' and 755' luxury condo towers that will be sucking in the market and will open very shortly before them, not to mention another 400' of apartments on Stuart St.

Developers don't make decisions based on how "iconic" they can make a skyline. FWIW, the BRA has made a point of pushing height at Winthrop Square, but not here. There's presumably a reason, and I suspect it's construction costs.
 
aaaaaa said:
I personally think it'll be a real missed opportunity if the renders are released on anything but A4 paper. Releasing any documents on 8.5x11" will just be a disappointment. I know people will bitch: "A4 just doesn't fit in my folders," but if it's not the dimensions, they'll complain about the paper stock or finish.
Click to expand...

Giggling to myself at my desk. Thx.
 
odurandina said:
You're not gonna like Back Bay Station. We need to organize a movement to save this parcel. BP has no business developing a +180m parcel when they have an conflict of interest to protect the iconic JHT. They shouldn't have the right to diminish our last chance for a decent skyline here. Their next misdeed is using the $$$ they've sunk into designing the 2 box turds as leverage to say we can't turn back. We need to lobby the 'BRA 7' to do a re-do for +180m at BBS....
Click to expand...

Can you ease up on the word "we" here? If you see height as the most critical aspect of this site, that's fine, but express that in the context of your own thoughts and don't try to project this as archBoston's institutional position. My guess is you will find quite a few people here who are more concerned with ground floor activation and material quality than whether or not the building reaches 350 or 600 feet.
 
Last edited:
Sorry I'm on the road in southeast mass at the moment,can't post till I get back to Boston, I'm sure someone else will beat me to it 🙂
 
citylover94 said:
Does anyone have an explanation?
Click to expand...

told to me not in order of importance.

1. Shadow over Trinity Church and Copley Sq was a non-starter
...conspiracy? (cover for BP)
defaulting to...
2. BP didn't want a fight with the nimby
conspiracy? (cover for JHT) + bring the cranes in the current cycle.
defaulting to...
3. Neighborhood end around with loud 'NO MORE' after Copley Tower, 1 Dalton, and several 280-400' low towers.
4. engineering/costs for height (plausible).

jdrinboston said:
Can you ease up on the word "we" here. If you see height as the most critical aspect of this site, that's fine, but express that in the context of your own thoughts and don't try to project this as archBoston's institutional position...
Click to expand...

You're right. i assumed overwhelming desire for height based on side bar posts and balancing out the existing + new 280'-400'.
 
So this is what we're getting on the Columbus Center spot?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top