Back Bay Garage Tower | Dartmouth and Stuart | Back Bay

agreed. that 3 left turn route is pretty tedious just to force a connection at Back Bay--articulated or not.

CBCArch61 said:
From the looks of the graphic on page 126, the 39 route would terminate at the Copley Green Line entrance and then loop around Copley Square. Essentially its the same route minus the Back Bay stop. Why they wouldn't show it stopping in front of the Copley Fairmont is beyond me. Maybe they are trying to graphically get some brownie points by saying this route terminate at a Subway connection.
Click to expand...
The graphic before shows they would continue to use the existing stop on St James between the Fairmont and Trinity Church.
Its just as easy/quick to walk from the orange line to the St James stop. why sit on a bus that makes 3 left turns when there is a stop 1 block away and maybe catch a bus further along its route.
The only loss of connection is simplicity for people with disabilities (which could be a legit concern).
 
The reason why the 39 connects to Back Bay Station today is because they needed an ADA-accessible transfer to the subway. Up until fairly recently, Copley Station did not have elevators, so that would not have done the trick.
 
Isn't this the one that Trinity Church objected to due to shadows on their stain glass windows? Would the new laws of no new shadows on Copley due to Winthrop Square have any affects on this, I wonder. While I actually think Trinity kind of has a point, after they started charging entrance fees I no longer really have any sympathy for them.
 
^^Regardless of the appearance of planning as a response to what's happening w/ Winthrop Square, thoughtful shadow planning for Trinity and Old South Church came down after Copley Tower approval, and went into this project. i highly doubt the BBS towers will come under any further restrictions from the new Shadow Law.

*Yes, there's some shadow during a few of the shortest days of the year.
 
The station does say South End in it numerous places already. Notably at the Clarendon St Entrance and on the signs within.
 
Definitely the wrong thread for this, but has there ever been talk of creating a Back Bay - Copley "superstation" via underground connection?
 
Shepard said:
Definitely the wrong thread for this, but has there ever been talk of creating a Back Bay - Copley "superstation" via underground connection?
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that be pretty challenging with the Turnpike and rail line between the two at the platform level?
 
curcuas said:
The station does say South End in it numerous places already. Notably at the Clarendon St Entrance and on the signs within.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that Back Bay/South End is actually the official new name of the station that the T adopted a few years back. It's not written as such on line maps or the spider map yet, but it's popping up on other official T maps/diagrams.

Shepard said:
Definitely the wrong thread for this, but has there ever been talk of creating a Back Bay - Copley "superstation" via underground connection?
Click to expand...
Inbound & Outbound aren't even connected at Copley! Just doing that would be a nightmare, let alone tunneling all the way down Dartmouth, dodging/relocating utilities along the way, to BBY. Haha. Fun crayons idea though.
 
datadyne007 said:
I'm pretty sure that Back Bay/South End is actually the official new name of the station that the T adopted a few years back. It's not written as such on line maps or the spider map yet, but it's popping up on other official T maps/diagrams.
Click to expand...
It's really nothing new though. It's etched into the station's concrete since opening and is shown on the following older map:
http://www.universalhub.com/images/2008/oldtmap.jpg
 
atlantaden said:
Wow! Impressive and hope it get's built as shown. Sad that they included renderings of the Copley Place Tower (I had such high hopes for this project) since it seems to be a no go for the immediate future. Other than shadows, wind, and increased traffic, any other objections that the neighbors might have to this project? Thanks for the update, Equilibria.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the Copley Tower combined with this would have been quite amazing. Imagine if Columbus Center had been built! Okay, back to reality, this project on its own will radically change what is somewhat of a dead space on Stuart St. And I like the way it updates but leaves in place the essential elements in the current train station, with buildings appropriately designed to fit in with what is already there.
 
Which existing historical structure would we be losing in order to get these built? I'm under the impression that this, the Trinity Hotel, and the bubble Hancock would all get rid of nice historical buildings on Stuart Street. Goodbye old-school Boston street wall, and hello to anywhere, USA!

My only problems with this one are the designs/massing of the towers, and potential destruction of an existing non-parking garage structure. (YWCA building?)

Personally, I hope this project, the Trinity Hotel, and the bubble Hancock all fail. Stuart Street could use better activation but I'm as much of a preservationist as I am a shill for taller buildings. Frankly, I think it's imperative that we go as high as we can in places where we do NOT lose existing historical structures, in order to stem the demand and prevent more losses. The Dainty Dot and Times Building demolitions were painful enough!
 
DZH22 said:
Which existing historical structure would we be losing in order to get these built? I'm under the impression that this, the Trinity Hotel, and the bubble Hancock would all get rid of nice historical buildings on Stuart Street. Goodbye old-school Boston street wall, and hello to anywhere, USA!

My only problems with this one are the designs/massing of the towers, and potential destruction of an existing non-parking garage structure. (YWCA building?)

Personally, I hope this project, the Trinity Hotel, and the bubble Hancock all fail. Stuart Street could use better activation but I'm as much of a preservationist as I am a shill for taller buildings. Frankly, I think it's imperative that we go as high as we can in places where we do NOT lose existing historical structures, in order to stem the demand and prevent more losses. The Dainty Dot and Times Building demolitions were painful enough!
Click to expand...

Huh???

This project is replacing this thing. This is the street wall we'd lose.The only building at stake here is the mid-century concrete parking garage, and air rights over the existing station. The YWCA won't be touched.

Look at this document (pdf), starting around page 50. This is the most basic of research... Is it too much to ask for people to look this stuff up before opining?

I am 100% all for protecting historic buildings that can never be replaced (probably more so than most on this board) but that's not an issue here. This site is, precisely, a location where we can and should build without losing anything of value.
 
The new Hancock III project will be a net negative.

The existing structure is measurably better than it's proposed replacement.
 
Pardon, i'm weak on Article 80 language.
Is this (item #4) on the next month's agenda for BPDA-approval?

http://boston.siretechnologies.com/sirepubbra/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=384&doctype=AGENDA

http://boston.siretechnologies.com/sirepubbra/agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=24484

"Request authorization to advertise a Public Hearing on October 12, 2017 at 5:50 p.m., or at a date and time to be determined by the Director, to consider the Amended and Restated Development Plan for Planned Development Area No. 2, The Back Bay/South End Gateway Project and 200 Clarendon Street and to consider the Project as a Development Impact Project."
 
Well Trinity Church was being dragged underground by the JHT when it was being built so I guess they were there but didn't say anything. Not saying that the shadow argument is warranted though because it isn't and I doubt the church can prove anything. Just saying that the JHT did impact one nearby church during construction.
 
KentXie said:
Well Trinity Church was being dragged underground by the JHT when it was being built so I guess they were there but didn't say anything. Not saying that the shadow argument is warranted though because it isn't and I doubt the church can prove anything. Just saying that the JHT did impact one nearby church during construction.
Click to expand...

I mean the JHT is literally on top of the Trinity Church. The Old South Church is over two blocks away from this proposed site. Construction of a mid-rise tower will not affect the Old South Church in any meaningful way.

Plus this development is a lot shorter then the JHT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top