Bulfinch Crossing | Congress Street Garage | West End

Re: Congress Street Garage Development

Why does the parcel in the second draft look so much bigger than in the third draft? It can't just be the angle can it?

Also, it's hard to compare 2 and 3, since 2 goes for photo realism, and 3 doesn't.
 
Re: Congress Street Garage Development

vanshnookenraggen said:
I'll admit I was wrong, I thought it was earlier. But my point stands, many things change in 5 years and I think people freaking out that the plan evolved with the market needs and community input is ridiculous especially given how much of an improvement this plan is over current conditions.
Click to expand...

Most forumers are upset that there was a compromise due to fallac-fearing wannabes, not because market conditions killed anything. Whatever "community" exists should have no input.

I will say this, I'm happy to see that the residential tower got a boost in height to an overall ~500 feet. The NIMBYs were probably too stupid to even notice. That's a wash.

I do hope there is a 72 foot mechanical roof on the taller building.

And yes, I do care about height for this development.
 
Re: Congress Street Garage Development

This is one of the last areas of downtown where we can get a "statement" building. It's not like Boston is some southern city and we can just build on the next patch of dirt. Something needs to come down in order for something to be built, and in this case it's a massive, highly used structure. The developer shouldn't have to compromise here at all. Instead the only statement is "we caved to a vocal minority and here's a shorter, value engineered reminder of what might have been" and once again, our city (and skyline) gets shortchanged because of it. The worst thing is the zoning actually allowed them to build higher! Most developers have to fight for the extra height, and yet this one caved with barely a whimper, and with no real reason to do so.

I spoke about precedent in another post. It looked like we were turning the corner with many of these proposals, but they're still just that, proposals. What's next to be chopped down? CSC?

What if NIMBY's had been able to cut the Hancock to 400'? Would our city still look as beautiful?
 
Re: Congress Street Garage Development

DZH22 said:
What if NIMBY's had been able to cut the Hancock to 400'? Would our city still look as beautiful?
Click to expand...


That is the best thing I've read on here!
 
Re: Congress Street Garage Development

This project never sold me based on height. It could have been fifteen stories all around and I would still cheer the destruction of the garage, the renewal of Congress Street and its numb urban renewal side streets, the addition of residential into the heart of the city, a real Haymarket headhouse, a really fantastic plan to make the most of a pedestrian Canal Street extension, and... oh, did I mention the destruction of the garage?

If you're looking for height, just be thankful the proposal is as tall as it is. If you're looking for the things that actually matter to the city (as opposed to those who view the city from a cruise ship) then just be thankful full-stop.
 
Re: Congress Street Garage Development

Shepard said:
This project never sold me based on height. It could have been fifteen stories all around and I would still cheer the destruction of the garage, the renewal of Congress Street and its numb urban renewal side streets, the addition of residential into the heart of the city, a real Haymarket headhouse, a really fantastic plan to make the most of a pedestrian Canal Street extension, and... oh, did I mention the destruction of the garage?

If you're looking for height, just be thankful the proposal is as tall as it is. If you're looking for the things that actually matter to the city (as opposed to those who view the city from a cruise ship) then just be thankful full-stop.
Click to expand...

+1
 
Re: Congress Street Garage Development

Shepard said:
This project never sold me based on height. It could have been fifteen stories all around and I would still cheer the destruction of the garage, the renewal of Congress Street and its numb urban renewal side streets, the addition of residential into the heart of the city, a real Haymarket headhouse, a really fantastic plan to make the most of a pedestrian Canal Street extension, and... oh, did I mention the destruction of the garage?

If you're looking for height, just be thankful the proposal is as tall as it is. If you're looking for the things that actually matter to the city (as opposed to those who view the city from a cruise ship) then just be thankful full-stop.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more.

Urbanism = paramount

Skyline = nice to have

(and we do have a nice skyline, which this building will add to significantly without being obnoxious)
 
Re: Congress Street Garage Development

The current garage is one of the very few buildings in Boston that are NOT "better than a parking lot". I favor anything at all that would replace it.
 
Re: Congress Street Garage Development

Sorry, but I am still pissed that they *literally* chopped off floors, thus making it boxier.

DZH22's comments are best, because they consider the long term effects. The more that can be built now on limited footprints is going to help keep the city's GDP in the top 12 many years from now.

But I suppose as Boston starts becoming more irrelevant financially because of sackless developers and self-righeous community members, we can just say that the urban fabric is the most important thing.
 
Re: Congress Street Garage Development

Shepard said:
This project never sold me based on height. It could have been fifteen stories all around and I would still cheer the destruction of the garage, the renewal of Congress Street and its numb urban renewal side streets, the addition of residential into the heart of the city, a real Haymarket headhouse, a really fantastic plan to make the most of a pedestrian Canal Street extension, and... oh, did I mention the destruction of the garage?

If you're looking for height, just be thankful the proposal is as tall as it is. If you're looking for the things that actually matter to the city (as opposed to those who view the city from a cruise ship) then just be thankful full-stop.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But I like the idea of some height here too.
 
Re: Congress Street Garage Development

type001 said:
DZH22's comments are best, because they consider the long term effects. The more that can be built now on limited footprints is going to help keep the city's GDP in the top 12 many years from now.

But I suppose as Boston starts becoming more irrelevant financially because of sackless developers and self-righeous community members, we can just say that the urban fabric is the most important thing.
Click to expand...

Hyperbole.

Re-read DZH22's comment. He is pining for a phallus, that is all. He presented no case whatsoever linking the size of this building with Boston's economic future and neither did you. The suggestion that the fate of Boston hangs on 72 feet of an office building is absolutely absurd. The notion that there is nowhere left in this city to build an iconic tower is equally absurd.
 
Re: Congress Street Garage Development

Arborway said:
None, but the entire plan was changed because of them.

They can forever look at the buildings and know that they're different because of their voice.

That's what NIMBYism is, a quest for validation and control. Nobody really believes an extra floor or two is going to hurt the city, the same way nobody at an HOA really believes the wrong color mailbox is going to hurt the sale price of a house down the road.

The Onion did a nice writeup about it.
Click to expand...

You are correct about Nimbyism. I think it is a mental disorder. I would love it there was some sort of recourse against these types, but there really isn't. I would love to know exactly what their ownership status is and what standing they actually have.

Sometimes this info does come out though. Here is a great story about one who got bagged and a snippit from it:

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/top_stories/x1155156471/Court-sides-with-Framingham-developer

"A land court judge has thrown out a resident’s appeal of the town’s decision to let a developer build 180 luxury apartments off Old Connecticut Path.

Judge Robert B. Foster ruled Deborah Butler, who lives three miles from the proposed Danforth Green, lacks standing to challenge the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Butler argued she believes the project will cause property taxes to rise - but she wouldn’t be aggrieved since she lives with her parents and brother on Doyle Circle and doesn’t pay taxes or rent, Foster said in his ruling last Thursday.

While Butler said Monday she may take the case to the state’s appellate court, developer Roy MacDowell Jr. called Foster’s ruling "the right decision."

3 miles away, pays no rent....If she appeals to the appellate court, her attorney should be sanctioned.
 
Re: Congress Street Garage Development

An awful lot of the more frivilous challenges are filed pro se in my experience, such as the lawsuit against the development of the church site in between Porter and Davis (which just got dismissed) on summary judgment.
 
Re: Congress Street Garage Development

Hutchison said:
An awful lot of the more frivilous challenges are filed pro se in my experience, such as the lawsuit against the development of the church site in between Porter and Davis (which just got dismissed) on summary judgment.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Rule 11 should never have been scaled back, imo.
 
Re: Congress Street Garage Development

What if NIMBY's had been able to cut the Hancock to 400'? Would our city still look as beautiful?[/QUOTE]

Whenever I see the pru and hancock I always go mannnn if those were 900 feet to 1000 feet the skyline really would have been great. We could have have many 500-700 footers around it and it really would have been badass. Not to mention the city would feel bigger because I can see it now all the way from close to worcester, if they were a few hundred feet taller they would have been seen from really far away like the new york skyline and it would be awesome. Also they woudlnt be as blocked from close to boston by the hills that they are just barely shorter than.
 
Re: Congress Street Garage Development

fattony said:
Hyperbole.

Re-read DZH22's comment. He is pining for a phallus, that is all. He presented no case whatsoever linking the size of this building with Boston's economic future and neither did you. The suggestion that the fate of Boston hangs on 72 feet of an office building is absolutely absurd. The notion that there is nowhere left in this city to build an iconic tower is equally absurd.
Click to expand...


Yea but 72 feet here 100 feet here 150 there, all adds up over time and you end up with entire buildings worth left on the table.
 
Re: Congress Street Garage Development

fattony said:
Re-read DZH22's comment. He is pining for a phallus, that is all.
Click to expand...

I'll tell you I don't appreciate that wording.

The point of my last comment is, space is at a premium downtown. If we have to knock something down to build, we shouldn't get stuck with half-assed value engineered crap. The extra height is what allows the higher quality materials. (not to mention more tax revenue, jobs, apts, hotel rooms, etc) If projects continue to be downsized, we will be forced to knock down more of the city to build when we run out of room.

Again, what if the Hancock was 400'? Would the Back Bay still be as beautiful?

What if IP was 300'? Would the harbor view look as good? What if Rowes Wharf was value engineered, and instead of an arch we got a wall? If developers always caved to NIMBY's we would never have anything nice. The Custom House would have been 200', and probably leveled by now to make way for something else.

Do we really need a city full of Kensingtons?
 
Last edited:
Re: Congress Street Garage Development

The latest proposal cuts total square footage by about 5 percent. Tall buildings got a bit shorter, shorter buildings got a bit taller.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top