Bay Village Apartment Tower | 212 Stuart St. | Bay Village

Is there a plan to reverse the Church Street one-way between Motor Mart and Statler Park? Interesting that the Site Circulation plan conflicts with the direction of the rendered parked vehicles.
 
Re: Bay Village Apartment Tower | 212-222 Stuart St. | Bay Village

tysmith95 said:
Ugly
Click to expand...

Looks like someone took the Treehouse and ran it through Photoshop
Click to expand...

This is the kind of thoughtful dialogue this board deserves.

btw, H&Y are the kinds of designers that will make you proud to live in Boston. Give it a chance. You will like the results.

cca
 
I will call most buildings with mismatched windows/siding ugly until that fad is out of style. Sure this looks better than some other examples like One Canal but it's still not easy on the eyes. I consider this to be the brutalism of the early 21st century (both shitty archetcture that won't age well).
 
FourBuildingsDown said:
Is there a plan to reverse the Church Street one-way between Motor Mart and Statler Park? Interesting that the Site Circulation plan conflicts with the direction of the rendered parked vehicles.
Click to expand...

Good observation -- perhaps just a mistake? Not clear it creates much benefit to reverse that small piece of Church Street -- you can loop onto Stuart just one block further down at the other end of Stadtler Park.
 
Toby,

It's not Billy...he got paid handsomely. These developers have taken an uncommon and very risky approach to this project. They closed on the land for $13.5 million for two tiny parcels. The zoning here is terrible. They can only do this with massive variances...incredibly risky with so much hard money at risk.
 
cca, do you have some other examples of the architect's Boston work?

Tangentially, it's too bad that there is near zero chance that the Revere will ever be demolished.
 
tysmith95 said:
I will call most buildings with mismatched windows/siding ugly until that fad is out of style.... I consider this to be the brutalism of the early 21st century (both shitty archetcture that won't age well).
Click to expand...

i'm not digging the odd grouping of the floors to make these >200' apts look extra cheap and lousy. People can express their disapproval for building 14-20 floors on a few sites by moving up a few railway stops.
 
Last edited:
Cortes said:
To the point: The Church St. side of this building should be only 3-4 stories, or maybe 6 at Stuart going back to 4 along Church. This is the entrance to Bay village and the building should respect that. That said, the missing square footage should be added to the top of the the building next to the Revere parking garage. Is anyone going to miss the view of a concrete parking structure? There is no imagination in regards to this proposal.
Click to expand...

The Revere has a rooftop pool and bar on top of the garage (open to the public). I assume they're going to be upset about the tower blocking some of the best views of the Back Bay, but I'm fine with that.
 
Equilibria said:
More renders in the PPT:

http://www.bostonplans.org/getattachment/d8bbf62b-30fc-469b-95f4-f4008231a597

Street level looks nice on this one, and interestingly the renders include the new John Hancock building.
Click to expand...

I was liking the street level until I noticed the plan with the loading garage door at the Revere Hotel end of the Stuart Street frontage. That kills a lot of the ground floor frontage.

The renders make a big deal about the Bay Village Plaza end of the Stuart Street frontage, with the retail component, so it looks active. They are trying hard not to show the big garage door also on Stuart Street.
 
Really liking this for the most part. The mid section of the presentation shows a lot of nicely imagined massing designs considered before settling on the one chosen. And the curved panels apparently will be made of limestone, vastly superior to the precast hemorrhoids that go up here with such frequency.
 
I'll be trying to attend the meetings whenever they happen as this is a very relevant to me project. The supply dock on Stuart is clearly done to appease neighbors by not turning Shawmut and Cocoanut Grove Ln into access roads for building traffic but I think it's the wrong decision considering how little actual service traffic I would expect this building to actually generate.
 
Also man looking at the side views and I'm realizing how much space is on that Revere garage site. You could build a whole new hotel tower their at some point if the hotel ownership were inclined to do so.
 
I would like some narrative on how Jacques provided context.
 
JeffDowntown said:
I was liking the street level until I noticed the plan with the loading garage door at the Revere Hotel end of the Stuart Street frontage. That kills a lot of the ground floor frontage.
Click to expand...

Taking a look at the site, there is simply no other place for the loading dock. Similar in many ways to AVA Theatre district and 30 Dalton, this site is so constrained by geography that something has to give. Just take a look at the plans for 150 Seaport Blvd, whose loading dock is basically the front door.
 
The nighttime rendering on the last slide seems very promising; looks to be some nice lighting on this.
 
Too bad the Revere cannot be imploded and an expanded project could happen in its place.
 
Cortes said:
Taking a look at the site, there is simply no other place for the loading dock. Similar in many ways to AVA Theatre district and 30 Dalton, this site is so constrained by geography that something has to give. Just take a look at the plans for 150 Seaport Blvd, whose loading dock is basically the front door.
Click to expand...

Understood. Unfortunate, but sometimes constraints win.

I do like the Ava pass through corridor better than a big garage door though. And it is not like anyone is thrilled with the 150 Seaport loading dock treatment. I don't mind 30 Dalton as much, because Belvidere Street is dead anyway due to the Verizon switch building next door.

Somewhere along the way we lost the concept of alleys in our urban planning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top