Back Bay Garage Tower | Dartmouth and Stuart | Back Bay

Why would the Fort Point Channel get filled in there is no reason to do that even if Newmarket is to be developed?

JSic I think the objection is to losing the channel which has the potential to be an amazing asset for the city. Think about an area with a similar design idea to the riverfront areas in Chicago lined with buildings and retail. The channel has the potential to be a very good urban waterway especially once the USPS moves out.
 
JSic said:
The Back Bay is filled land, so is the Seaport. So what?
Click to expand...

Allston isn't in the Back Bay, so I don't see what your comment gets at. The idea is to create a future downtown away from areas of future flood hazard. If you overlay a map of 17th century Boston over today's Boston, you'll have a reasonable guess of future flood risk. I'm guessing that a lot of Allston would have been high and dry in "ye olde days".
 
Last edited:
citylover94 said:
Why would the Fort Point Channel get filled in there is no reason to do that even if Newmarket is to be developed?

JSic I think the objection is to losing the channel which has the potential to be an amazing asset for the city. Think about an area with a similar design idea to the riverfront areas in Chicago lined with buildings and retail. The channel has the potential to be a very good urban waterway especially once the USPS moves out.
Click to expand...

Sorry to further digress from the thread title.

I could be wrong, but doesn't Newmarket sit on filled land that was part of the bay that eventually got reduced to the Fort Point Channel? So it is about future flood risk, not filling in what's left of Fort Point Channel.
 
617 said:
Wow that puts things into perspective. Seems like Boston, although lacking in space/available parcels, still has lots of room to grow in comparison to SF.
Click to expand...


I believe there's at least a couple of dozen spots for up to 380~400'

so, i agree to some extent,

but i want a "debunk this parcel" thread.

i see a possibility for a crown for Back Bay on the south side of Christian Science Center or Dalton Garage...

i see a few nuclear bomb sites for possible +180~195m in Govt Center,1,2,3 Center Plaza, State Service Center and the low section of the JFK bldg, then a couple on Huntington Ave like the Colonnade and Midtown Hotel. I'd include the Suffolk Courthouse but it's more likely a 450' replacement tower eventually gets done there....

i see a few parcels that could be ok for 150-180m in the Fenway and Boylston Street.

After that, nothing.
 
It is built on filled land but one solution could be to raise the elevation of the area as it is redeveloped. With the city paying to raise the elevation of the streets initially and then being given payments by developers once they start building to cover the expense of raising the streets next to their development or some other similar situation.

Essentially I am picturing an area that before redevelopment looks like the reverse of this Streetview where the streets are raised above the level of what currently exists and then new developments are built to reach the new height of the streets. I know it would probably be very difficult to do this and would be a very long disruptive process, but I think the benefits would be worth it.
 
tobyjug said:
Sorry to further digress from the thread title.

I could be wrong, but doesn't Newmarket sit on filled land that was part of the bay that eventually got reduced to the Fort Point Channel? So it is about future flood risk, not filling in what's left of Fort Point Channel.
Click to expand...

I think so, too. As does the Harrison / Albany corridor, no? In other words, BUYER BEWARE.
 
stick n move said:
I would imagine that changed when yamasaki invented the concept of local and express elevator banks for the twin towers?
Click to expand...

It's more complicated than that. Minoru Yamasaki didn't necessarily invent the express elevator concept itself. He invented a method of express shuttle elevators and stacking elevator cores in the same shafts. The method used at the WTC where you take a shuttle elevator to a skylobby is hardly used except for supertalls. In most applications like Millennium Tower, 1 Dalton, the Pru, the Hancock, etc, all elevators connect to the ground floor lobby (in the Hancock's case, the elevators are awesome double deckers) but serve different chunks of floors, so it still eats up real estate space with Express Zone shaft. If the shuttle elevator concept were to be used, the shuttle elevators themselves take up space. The WTC "got away" with it because the footprints of each tower were a square acre.

Edit: I have no idea where the posts I was responding to were moved to.
 
Last edited:
i began to have doubts some time ago. before i edited my post i called it a 'nuke' (nightmare cost-challenged) like a few other places around town. i can't stop with how you make this station work without a lot of .gov help, and a simpler design.
 
Last edited:
Blight fight on for Back Bay mega project
Erin Smith, Erica Moura Monday, April 18, 2016


Developers for a multitower, housing and retail mega-project proposed for the Back Bay MBTA station want the Boston Redevelopment Authority to declare the site blighted — a designation that could reap the builders millions of dollars in tax breaks.

Boston Properties is seeking blight status for its Back Bay/South End Gateway project proposal, a 1.2 million square-foot development in the South End with up to 600 residential units, plus offices and retail space, according to its recent preliminary plan.

“The area where they’re talking about building above, Back Bay Station, that’s not a blighted area,” said Evan Falchuk, chairman of the United Independent Party, who noted the site is a stone’s throw from tony Newbury Street, Copley Square and the South End. “I mean it’s in the middle of a really hot area, so they shouldn’t need big tax breaks in order to develop that property.”

BRA officials refused to rule out the possibility the land could be labeled as blighted, saying there could be a variety of reasons — such as a high water table — why the land may be difficult to develop and would need a tax break. BRA bosses promised the process would be open to public comment.
Click to expand...



http://www.bostonherald.com/business/real_estate/2016/04/blight_fight_on_for_back_bay_mega_project
 
I think it's time for Boston Properties to sell the site. I'm sure another developer can eventually build something worthy of being there, and not just a gigantic glass stump wall. Because that's what this is, a big fatty and it doesn't matter if it's 200' or 900' when the ground experience is just going to be an overbearing wall. (kind of like the way Aquarium garage blocks everything even though it's just a short garage)

BP already has its hands full with its mediocre treatment of the North Station Towers. (solid podium notwithstanding) If they need a tax break to build in the heart of the high spine, they are not the right developer for the job. These guys are blowing 2 of the most prime sites in the entire city with completely inappropriate massing. For instance, EVEN MENINO would have let them build 600'+ for the NS residential tower. They really left something (iconic) on the table with that one. Now we have a mediocre, fat stack of blocks for a site that should be another Hancock sized tower. Another 1 Liberty, another Key Tower, another BOA (Charlotte).... Yet instead we get Kendall-sized boxes in the heart of the "high" spine. I really really hate these guys.
 
DZH22 said:
I think it's time for Boston Properties to sell the site. I'm sure another developer can eventually build something worthy of being there, and not just a gigantic glass stump wall. Because that's what this is, a big fatty and it doesn't matter if it's 200' or 900' when the ground experience is just going to be an overbearing wall. (kind of like the way Aquarium garage blocks everything even though it's just a short garage)

BP already has its hands full with its mediocre treatment of the North Station Towers. (solid podium notwithstanding) If they need a tax break to build in the heart of the high spine, they are not the right developer for the job. These guys are blowing 2 of the most prime sites in the entire city with completely inappropriate massing. For instance, EVEN MENINO would have let them build 600'+ for the NS residential tower. They really left something (iconic) on the table with that one. Now we have a mediocre, fat stack of blocks for a site that should be another Hancock sized tower. Another 1 Liberty, another Key Tower, another BOA (Charlotte).... Yet instead we get Kendall-sized boxes in the heart of the "high" spine. I really really hate these guys.
Click to expand...

I think if the building is built looking similar to the renders it'll be a great addition to the neighborhood. Its architecturally more interesting than most of the towers in this city. Height isn't everything. I agree that Avalon North Station could have been much better though. Hopefully the other proposed towers will be better than Avalon but seeing the renders I have little hope.
 
tysmith95 said:
Height isn't everything.
Click to expand...

Take away height and you have to add width. It's a spot zoned for the tallest building in the city, on a site that could actually handle such a tower. Instead we have a gigantic glass wall, none of the buildings cracking Boston's Top 30 in height. The complex has very similar proportions to Tremont Crossing. This would be an excellent set of buildings to build at, say, Fort Point. They just aren't appropriate HERE.

This SHOULD be built, only in Longwood, or Kendall, or Northpoint..... Instead we are all applauding a gigantic WALL in the heart of the HIGH SPINE. That site could be better, and frankly it should be better.
 
DZH22 said:
It's a spot zoned for the tallest building in the city, on a site that could actually handle such a tower.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. It's FAA approved to the tallest structural height in Boston. I suspect that it's zoned for something like 400', though I'd have to look up the latest area plan to be sure, if one's even been done.

The BRA approved of the shorter building, on the basis that a taller one would detract from the Hancock.
 
No, this should not be considered a blight area. They could have the most amazing project proposed here and they should still not get any tax break because this is just abusing the system.
 
Equilibria said:
The BRA approved of the shorter building, on the basis that a taller one would detract from the Hancock.
Click to expand...

You're right I used the wrong wording. I meant according to the FAA map, (first and foremost) plus the lack of "shadows on the common", as well as common sense.

I think it is BP themselves who didn't want to detract. But they are! They are building a wall to block off their trophy! It's not that great. Frankly, it looks like it was designed by a 3 year old. Like, ohhhhhh, daddy, my blocks, my blocks, they's tipping over!!!!! Only the daddy happens to be the decision maker for BP. Junk.

Although, when you see what BP helps develop when they DO go tall..... (see SF Salesforce supertall penis) They should sell. For the love of God. Get them out of here!!!!
 
DZH22 said:
I think it's time for Boston Properties to sell the site. I'm sure another developer can eventually build something worthy of being there, and not just a gigantic glass stump wall. Because that's what this is, a big fatty and it doesn't matter if it's 200' or 900' when the ground experience is just going to be an overbearing wall. (kind of like the way Aquarium garage blocks everything even though it's just a short garage)

BP already has its hands full with its mediocre treatment of the North Station Towers. (solid podium notwithstanding) If they need a tax break to build in the heart of the high spine, they are not the right developer for the job. These guys are blowing 2 of the most prime sites in the entire city with completely inappropriate massing. For instance, EVEN MENINO would have let them build 600'+ for the NS residential tower. They really left something (iconic) on the table with that one. Now we have a mediocre, fat stack of blocks for a site that should be another Hancock sized tower. Another 1 Liberty, another Key Tower, another BOA (Charlotte).... Yet instead we get Kendall-sized boxes in the heart of the "high" spine. I really really hate these guys.
Click to expand...


You've outdone yourself this time. Height and SUPERHEIGHT!!

i was going to post in the Globe this morning about how i'd be shocked if BP didn't get closer and closer to the real numbers and start JERKING us around on the final render a barf station with mor crap ventilation... THEN TELL US "We took another look at this and....."

bringing back memories of the Big Dig.

Except that i thought i'd dished out enough gloom for one day.

in 5 years what will we be batting on these big station projects + Back Bay/Mass Pike mega??
 
I'm just going to blame the outburst from you two as being attributed to daydrinking while watching the marathon.
 
Extremely hot day in LA... Hollywood (91F) so, we're on the Beach in Malibu (75F) watching boobs and longboards.

Waves are thigh/waist high with an occasional sweetie with nice curves shooting third point Dora style...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top