Bulfinch Triangle Infill & Small Projects

The Government Center garage cannot get torn down fast enough. This will allow the "point" of the Bulfinch Triangle to be re-conceived.
 
north station & gc garage

The government center garage may be there for a while, look at the rental availability date on this:
http://www.m-g.com/pdfs/one congress street flyer.pdf

I know the north station parcels are a separate project. I attended a BRA meeting years ago and the head of the BRA said this project would not happen till the next development cycle. I think they will have to wait again for yet another development cycle and this may work in their favor because by then this area, Bulfinch/North Station, will be an established residential area.
 
Bankers & Tradesman said:
Developer?s Triangle Plans Are All Square With Mayor

Menino Voices Support for Proposed Hub Project; Neighborhood Group Also Among Its Supporters
By Thomas Grillo
Reporter

SimpsonHousingParcel.jpg

B&T staff photo by Thomas Grillo
Simpson Housing, which is based in Denver, has proposed
a mixed-use development at the vacant site created by
the demise of the elevated Green Line and Central Artery
near Boston?s North Station.

One of the last projects to be built overlooking the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway has the support of Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino and the adjoining neighborhoods.

Simpson Housing, a Denver-based developer, has proposed a 360,000-square-foot, mixed-use development that would feature 283 apartments, 15,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space, and 142 parking spots. The vacant lot is located near the Bulfinch Triangle on land where the Southeast Expressway once stood bounded by Causeway, Beverly and Haverhill streets, as well as Valenti Way.

If approved by the Boston Redevelopment Authority, the $141 million, transit-oriented proposal would be built within steps of North Station. It would complete a transformation of land that became available with the demolition of the elevated Green Line and Central Artery near North Station.

The Simpson Housing plan is one component of Boston?s Crossroads Initiative. The program would connect a dozen streets that cross the Greenway and link pedestrians to neighborhoods once isolated by the highway, including the North and West ends, South Boston, Fort Point Channel, the Leather District and Chinatown.

?Lots of benefits will come from this project,? said Jay Rourke, the BRA?s senior project manager. ?Not only will it be the city?s newest neighborhood, but it will truly be a mixed-use development and achieve the goals we have set for these parcels. It will make this a livelier and more beautiful district with connections through and around neighborhoods in an area that lacks identity.?

The Simpson Housing plan is the latest proposal that was presented to abutters at a recent public hearing. While there were questions about parking, a controversial issue in the downtown neighborhoods, and affordable housing, more than three-dozen community activists welcomed the latest piece of the puzzle that would unite neighborhoods divided by the congested Central Artery since the 1950s.

There are several other nearby projects in the BRA pipeline:

? Boston Development has proposed a 500,000-square-foot project that initially would include a 250-unit Marriott hotel, 214 parking spaces and street-level retail. A second phase would add 500,000 square feet of office space.

? Raymond Properties Co. has planned a 247,200-square-foot development with up to 180 condominiums, 15,000 square feet of retail space, a 50,000-square-foot supermarket and 233 parking spaces.

? Trinity Financial has commenced construction on Avenir, which will consist of 248 condominiums, residential parking and retail shops. It will include 33 units of affordable housing for income-eligible families

?I like the idea of transit-oriented development,? Menino told Banker & Tradesman. ?These projects have all the elements that we like to see. They capitalize on creating more housing in our city and already offer amenities within walking distance ? new residents are sure to flock to this new neighborhood.?

?Very Productive?

Spencer Welton, Simpson Housing?s senior vice president for development, said his company first looked at the parcel in 2003, when the city was formulating a vision for the area. Welton responded to the Request for Proposals in 2006 and commenced conversations with the North End and West End neighborhoods, as well as the Downtown North Association, to reach consensus for the site. The neighborhoods and business groups supported a mix of housing, office and retail in the Bulfinch Triangle area.

Robert O?Brien, executive director of the Downtown North Association, a group that represents businesses, condominium associations and community organizations, said the fact that Simpson Housing got involved early on made the path to approval a smooth one.

?Simpson was at the table from the beginning and it gave [everyone] a good idea of what the community was looking for,? O?Brien said. ?At every step of the way, the project was done in collaboration with the community and made for a very productive relationship.?

Jane Forristall, who lives near the proposed Simpson Housing project, raised a question at the public hearing about how the limited parking would be enforced by on-site restaurants. For example, she asked what would prevent restaurant customers from parking in one of those spaces and attending an event at the TD Banknorth Garden. Officials said the restaurant will be required to enforce the parking rules and said it would be in their interest to ?turn over? use of the space several times in an evening to make way for more dinner patrons.

Gary Hammer, a resident of nearby West End Place, stressed at the hearing that the new project should provide on-site affordable housing. The Menino administration requires that 15 percent of rental or condo units in such developments be affordable to low and moderate-income residents. But the mandate can be met within the development, at a location elsewhere or via a cash payment to the city?s Affordable Housing Trust Fund.

?Boston has such a lack of affordable housing and I believe it?s important the developer include a diversity of incomes in the complex,? he said. ?West End Place is a mixed-income community with about half market-rate and half affordable [units].?

Simpson Housing officials said they have not decided whether to include the units on-site.

Michael Breau, the project designer from ADD Inc., said the architects? goal for the Bulfinch Triangle project was to create a structure that fit the style of the surrounding buildings. He said the neighboring streets use a combination of building materials.

On Beacon Hill, there?s a healthy amount of red brick, while TD Banknorth Garden and Strada234, the 108-unit luxury condominium on North Washington Street, have a more contemporary look.

?We developed several different skins types: a red brick facade, pre-cast concrete panels, a more contemporary skin with glass,? Breau said. ?We see our project rooted in the neighborhood.?
Click to expand...
NLA
 
Ugh, the Simpsons monstrosity is a 6-story version of the Burlington Mall.

I don't understand how something like 120 Kingston's original design can be ravaged by the NIMBYs and the BRA for being too different and the same forces go around chopping down buildings' heights to make them squatter and less offensive, but these massive boxes of suburban hell are going up all over.

What is it that makes them acceptable in a city whose architectural heritage, in the NIMBYs' minds, is one of charming little brownstones and churches?

And what can be done to get architecture to replace stultifying garbage like the Simpsons building, the Avenir, the Mandarin Oriental, 120 Kingston's new design, the Bryant, etc. etc.?
 
You're calling Avenir, the Mandarin Oriental, 120 Kingston new design and the Bryant garbage? They may be mediocre but all of them fit in, hard to do in a city like Boston, and 120 Kingston redesign looks great, it fits in yet looks modern and will boost that portion of the greenway and Chinatown.
 
i would argue that they don't fit in: by building massive, squat monolithic hulks like those constructions, you crush a neighborhood's vitality. even if these buildings are made with the same, tired brick facades as their neighbors, they're hardly fitting in with anything other than the brutalist disasters that haunt downtown boston. they don't fit in with the city's architecturally successful neighborhoods, from the back bay to beacon hill to the south end.

the real problem with the newby-bruties is what they're indicative of: a long-entrenched and growing inability to build a building inspired by anything other than soviet ministries and a paralyzing fear of NIMBY opposition. for a city with so many smart students, boston builds lots of dumb buildings. more or them would probably stick around after graduation if developers didn't underestimate the population so often but took the occasional risk.
 
Does that neighborhood have any vitality to start with?

Seriously, though - this building isn't exactly that exciting, but if they follow through with their use of different colors & materials, then it looks like a decent residential/retail addition to the north station area. If we want to point fingers at ugly building in that area, the fleet center will be right down the street (and some lucky apartment owner will have the honor of watching drunk morons pour out of Wrestlemania from their bedroom window).
 
The neighborhood doesn't currently have any "vitality" because it is an array of vacant lots formerly occupied by the elevated Central Artery and Green Line! My impression is that the planned new buildings roughly match the height of those in the existing Bulfinch Triangle. Background buildings are just fine here.

Development in front of the Fleet, err, TDBankNorth Garden can't come soon enough. That facade was never intended to be exposed.
 
These modern day low rise megablocks are essentially bastardized modern versions of the fine grained low rise Victorian back bay and south end. The developers, NIMBYS, city planners and architects get the low rise concept but not the detailed creativity, big picture, or fine materials of the old days so we end up with squat, ugly, uncreative, and low quality buildings. A lot of the highrises these days are no better essentially for the same reasons. A belief that nothing modern can be as good as the past leads to what we are seeing.
 
They are just being cheap. Many of the fine buildings in the Back Bay were built for and by the wealthy elite so of course they sparred no expense. All the cheap buildings front Victorian times have fallen down or been replaced so we don't see them, we just see the good stuff that is left.

Since no on here is a developer (if you are please step forward) then I really don't see why we all jump down their throats when something gets proposed. If you want to build a Victorian mansion from the Back Bay then get some money and do it. If you do you'll see that economics and zoning have basically made it impossible to build all the stuff we think is great.
 
^^Well that's true Van. If we all took that attitude there would be no reason for this board to exist.

Let face it, all we are doing here is playing Sim City - Boston with words.
It's all fun 'what if' scenarios and woulda, coulda, shoulda type stuff.
Some may habor delusions that the head of the BRA and all sorts of local developers are reading our rants and photos essays and slapping their foreheads saying "Why didn't I think of that!"
But in reality their decisions are based on real world forces most of us here don't really understand.
 
statler said:
^^Well that's true Van. If we all took that attitude there would be no reason for this board to exist.

Let face it, all we are doing here is playing Sim City - Boston with words.
It's all fun 'what if' scenarios and woulda, coulda, shoulda type stuff.
Some may habor delusions that the head of the BRA and all sorts of local developers are reading our rants and photos essays and slapping their foreheads saying "Why didn't I think of that!"
But in reality their decisions are based on real world forces most of us here don't really understand.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Why is it that every major new building must be an architectural gem, preferably by a trophy architect. Is there no place for utilitarian, functional type buildings in the city anymore?

On one hand, you have numerous people complaining about how housing in Boston is unaffordable for most, and then you have others who assert that the new buildings look cheap, or bland, or whatever the disparaging term of the moment is. Well both appearance and structure can be changed, -- for a price. And if that happened, housing would become even less affordable. I looked at the cross-section for 120 Kingston, I think there are eight condos to a floor. Some are 800-1,000 sq ft. Do you think there is a market for condos in that building (reverting to its original design) with an asking price of $1,000 - $1,100 per sq ft? (BTW, I think they changed architects between renderings for 120 Kingston.)
 
I think I'll jump in here...The Bulfinch Triangle was never intended to be residential. It was an industrial zone designed to fill in a basin whose tides were previously used to power a grist mill located on Causeway St., which extended across the cove. The original buildings (late Federal in style replaced by some early Victorian) were almost all warehouses and manufacturing, and served as the primary entrance point from the north of goods manufactured as far away as the Merrimac Valley (which used the Middlesex Canal/Mystic River and later the railway, to bring in the stuff). That said, it is only in my lifetime that anyone actually wished to live in the area. Before the central artery, the Triangle was a direct extension of the North End and Haymarket Sq. After the artery, the area remained practically derelict, despite the development of the Garden and the Hotel Madison. As far as I'm concerned, almost any architecture that fits into the street pattern and is sensitive to scale is fine with me. No one likes mediocrity, but this district has existed for over 200 years as an architectually mediocre area; it's one of those districts that is interesting precisely for it's street grid, it's historical use and development and its (pardon me) grittiness. I'm much more interested in what goes into the storefronts as retail/restaurant opportunities than I am in reproducing late Federal/early Victorian warehousing.
 
But isn't the freeing up of acres of land in downtown Boston supposed to give us hope that something new, something ambitious could be done? Given that a downtown area can find ways to attract money by building innovatively and impressively, wouldn't this have been a chance to finally make something great out of an area that has been rundown and dominated for centuries by light manufacturing? If places like Providence and Baltimore can create almost from scratch eye-catching new districts that draw business and tourists, then Boston surely can.

Padre Mike said:
No one likes mediocrity, but this district has existed for over 200 years as an architectually mediocre area
Click to expand...

I realize none of us is a developer or BRA director, but if NIMBYs took that attitude -- that the forces of nature represented by all-powerful developers, city government and hundreds of years of the status quo aren't worth challenging -- we'd all be a lot better off. Unfortunately, it's the NIMBYs who see opportunities to change every project for what they think is the better, while those of us whose ideas would probably actually be pretty palatable for developers/City Hall are afraid of playing "Sim City - Boston."

The question ultimately is one of time -- I think most people who would like to see Boston injected with groundbreaking architecture and economic stimuli are employed, whereas NIMBYs oftentimes give the impression they are not...
 
Every place can't be special; no place would be special. If all-of-a-sudden a new "BulTri" area pops up it will suck people away from other places in the city.

But maybe that will happen anyway, maybe a new building, even a bland one, will give the area the shot in the arm it needs to become the new hip place? Industrial? Yes. Centrally located? Yes. Near Green Line to funnel all the young kids out from the college areas? You bet. They just took down TWO elevated transit structures (Central Artery and Green Line) which will make people recognize the area. Don't be so pessimistic that a bland new building won't be good for the city.
 
Last edited:
statler said:
Let face it, all we are doing here is playing Sim City - Boston with words.

It's all fun 'what if' scenarios and woulda, coulda, shoulda type stuff.

Some may habor delusions that the head of the BRA and all sorts of local developers are reading our rants and photos essays and slapping their foreheads saying "Why didn't I think of that!"

But in reality their decisions are based on real world forces most of us here don't really understand.
Click to expand...
Hard to believe, but my experience tells me most forumers have a better grasp of at least the aesthetic and functional urban design issues than lots of developers actually building in the "real world."

I'm not a developer, but I work for developers. The ones I know are mostly clueless about building in cities; that's why they listen to me and end up making more money. (Oh, I know the Sunbelt is backward ... but I see plenty of backwardness in what's going down in Boston.)

Most forumers could teach them a thing or two --particularly if you find one with an open mind.
 
It's great to see some intelligent banter back and forth on here. I think everyone has made great points. I can't add much, but I believe the empty lot pictured is above the tunnel, so it's not like someone can build a 15 story "beautiful' building on top of it w/o excessive sacrafices.

Excuse the ignorance, I don't know the name of the street, but the street the Greatest Bar is on, not too far from Bullfinch seems like it could be ripe with possibilities. I remember a surface lot, and the entire street is very average at best. If someone wants a development in Boston, this area seems like the best area to do it. I can't imagine the NIMBY's having that much political clout or monetary power to fight much here.

Boston seems to have a problem with picking it's battles. Maybe there are zoning laws forbidding tall buildings, but in areas like this, it seems like it would be easier to get the area rezoned then fight with powerful back bay neighborhood associations. I think at times the problem is not thinking outside the box. Before the Prudential was built, how many people thought a tower would be built there? Maybe someone can enlighten me to the sentiments back then.... padre mike?
 
The non-Big Dig part of the Bulfinch Triangle is pockmarked with small parking lots -- some possibly too small to accommodate a new building unless you want to demolish its neighbor. I hope some infill eventually occurs here.
 
Ron Newman said:
The non-Big Dig part of the Bulfinch Triangle is pockmarked with small parking lots -- some possibly too small to accommodate a new building unless you want to demolish its neighbor. I hope some infill eventually occurs here.
Click to expand...
No lot is too small to accommodate a new building, Ron. In New York, they're building forty-story slivers on lots that used to host a single row house.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top