Canopy by Hilton (née Haymarket Hotel) | Blackstone St | Parcel 9 | Greenway

Re: Parcel 9 - The Greenway

You would think that Normandy was actually tearing down the Blackstone block. Geeez!
 
Re: Parcel 9 - The Greenway

I don't like the massing of this as it currently stands. I think if they cut down the massing closest to the Blackstone block and then step up away from it, the MHC's concerns could be placated and the design would be improved overall. It's about having a dialogue to get something built rather than all or nothing.
 
Last edited:
Re: Parcel 9 - The Greenway

stellarfun said:
Your opinion matters not even a whit, and neither does mine. What matters is the language in the stipulations of the Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement for the Big Dig.
Click to expand...

My post wasn't aimed at you stellar but you're right my opinion is just my opinion and carries neither more nor less weight than anyone else's. The issue is what I consider to be the outsized influence preservationists have on proposals near their sacred objects.

It's almost gotten to the point where they say "If I set up a 200 foot ladder on the roof of this landmarked outhouse, put on stilts, climb to the top of the ladder and jump up and down, I would be able to see the top 2 feet of the abomination they want to construct a mile away. Therefore it cannot be built." I'm not knocking preservation at all—it's important—just the inability of many preservationists (and nimbys and activists) to know when to stop. The emo drama would be amusing to watch if there weren't real world consequences to this extremism but there are—scaled back offices/housing or outright cancellations.

I don't see anything at all adverse happening to the Blackstone Block with this project. Taller contemporary buildings are constructed next to historical buildings all the time (Jacob Wirth is a good example) and the world moves along just fine.
 
Re: Parcel 9 - The Greenway

The Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement was signed in 1984, and I can't cut and paste text from it. The Memorandum of Agreement was signed by the Federal Highway Administration, The Advisory Council on Historic preservation, the State Historic Preservation Officer, the Massachusetts Department of Public Works, and the Boston Landmarks Commission. There were two signatories for ACHP, including the then chairman, Alexander Aldrich.

The design guidelines for buildings on the Greenway parcels were published in 2002. THese guidelines were required by the MOA. Excerpts relevant to Parcel 9 are set out below.

Each of the historic districts neighboring the Central Area has a particular character that should be reflected in the designs for buildings on individual parcels. Throughout the Central Area, the design of all new buildings and landscape features should contribute to the quality of surrounding historic districts by their compatibility with heights, scale, materials, colors, textures, façade treatments, architectural detailing, and the relationship of buildings/features to the street. New development should reinforce the historic pattern of strong street edges, with buildings set on the sidewalk line. The continuation of active ground floor edges and pedestrian-oriented design is encouraged throughout the corridor, reflecting the first floor storefronts prevalent in adjacent historic neighborhoods.

Design principles for joint development projects adjacent to historic resources were developed prior to the parcel specific guidelines, and follow the Section 106 regulations and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Preservation Projects. These Standards encourage new design to take existing architectural themes into account, and to interpret rather than imitate historic architecture. The Standards specify that new construction should preserve the spatial relationships that characterize historic resources, and that “new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.”

The Guidelines for Applying the Standards further direct that “new work should be compatible with the historic character of the district or neighborhood in terms of size, scale, design, material, color, and texture.” The Guidelines strongly recommend avoiding the duplication or imitation of historic styles or periods of architecture.

[Specific to Parcel 9]
Massing of any new development on this parcel should reflect the low buildings and irregular street pattern of the adjacent Blackstone Block. This historic district, which has been designated as a Boston Landmark, is composed of a variety of architectural styles that are related by their small scale and similar materials, and feature both pitched and flat roofs. The irregular street pattern in this district creates unusual building shapes and massing. Hanover and North streets are intended to be major pedestrian connections between the North End and Government Center, facilitated by the removal of the elevated Central Artery structure. Building facades along all four perimeter streets should reflect the historic pattern of first floor storefronts throughout this area. The design of this site should respond to the historic scale, character, and development patterns of the parcel, and to the early industrial history related to Mill Creek, which ran along the west side of the site. Recent archaeological discoveries at the site of Mill Creek provide significant new insights to the history of this area.
Click to expand...
The Guidelines were signed by the Federal Highway Administration, the State Historic Preservation Officer, the Boston Landmarks Commission, and the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority. (Menino and the BRA were left out.)
 
Re: Parcel 9 - The Greenway

stellarfun said:
The Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement was signed in 1984, and I can't cut and paste text from it. The Memorandum of Agreement was signed by the Federal Highway Administration, The Advisory Council on Historic preservation, the State Historic Preservation Officer, the Massachusetts Department of Public Works, and the Boston Landmarks Commission. There were two signatories for ACHP, including the then chairman, Alexander Aldrich.

The design guidelines for buildings on the Greenway parcels were published in 2002. THese guidelines were required by the MOA. Excerpts relevant to Parcel 9 are set out below.


The Guidelines were signed by the Federal Highway Administration, the State Historic Preservation Officer, the Boston Landmarks Commission, and the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority. (Menino and the BRA were left out.)
Click to expand...

Golden Rule effect -- where did the money for the Big Dig come from:
  • a) the taxpayers of the City of Boston
  • b) the taxpayers of Springfield [surrogate for the rest of the Commonwealth]
  • c) the taxpayers of Missoula Montana [surrogate for the rest of the US]

answer all of the above -- but the precedence is c then b finally a

Just wondering if One Boston Place could be built today - - seeing as it looms over the Old Statehouse
 
Re: Parcel 9 - The Greenway

whighlander said:
Golden Rule effect -- where did the money for the Big Dig come from:
  • a) the taxpayers of the City of Boston
  • b) the taxpayers of Springfield [surrogate for the rest of the Commonwealth]
  • c) the taxpayers of Missoula Montana [surrogate for the rest of the US]

answer all of the above -- but the precedence is c then b finally a

Just wondering if One Boston Place could be built today - - seeing as it looms over the Old Statehouse
Click to expand...

The taxpayers of Boston paid very little, comparatively, for the Big Dig, and of course, were never obliged to accept a single Federal penny. However once Boston and the Commonwealth sold their architectural 'independence' for Federal bullion, then all manner of Federal regulations and rules came into play. One such regulation meant that the design of whatever was/is built on Parcel 9 would be dictated by (1) the Federal government, and (2) the Commonwealth, by virtue of the terms of the MOA.

The 1984 Memorandum of Agreement was very specific about two structures, the old Stop & Shop bakery building on Causeway St. and that granite blocks were to be used along the quais of Fort Point Channel. The MOA was also specific about archeological digs, and doing these sort of surveys/recordation on certain buildings/structures (e.g., old Summer St. bridge). http://www.nps.gov/hdp/

226-causeway-st-front.jpg


226 Causeway today


I believe Parcel 9 will continue to be owned by the Commonwealth, so income from land rents will go to the state treasury.
_________
The requirements of Section 106 would not apply to any construction near the Old State House, unless Federal largesse was helping build it.
 
Re: Parcel 9 - The Greenway

Sure the Feds were a party to the MOU with some vague guidelines on compatibility. But, I highly doubt the Federal Highway Administration has any concerns what goes up here. It is ultimately up to the state run-groups to interpret how these highly subjective guidelines are enforced. In many people's mind a 10 story building right next to a 5 story building is perfectly compatible (see any number of examples in Boston/NY/London/SF). Even modern architecture if done right can be compatible with older architecture (see Tribeca/Meatpacking District/High Line in NYC).

Ultimately, it is the subjective "expert" opinion of the people currently at the MHC that this is inappropriate, not some carved in stone rules.
 
Re: Parcel 9 - The Greenway

jpdivola said:
Sure the Feds were a party to the MOU with some vague guidelines on compatibility. But, I highly doubt the Federal Highway Administration has any concerns what goes up here. It is ultimately up to the state run-groups to interpret how these highly subjective guidelines are enforced. In many people's mind a 10 story building right next to a 5 story building is perfectly compatible (see any number of examples in Boston/NY/London/SF). Even modern architecture if done right can be compatible with older architecture (see Tribeca/Meatpacking District/High Line in NYC).

Ultimately, it is the subjective "expert" opinion of the people currently at the MHC that this is inappropriate, not some carved in stone rules.
Click to expand...

Simple fix for Normandy

Build a brick 17th early 18th C style streetwall up to the highest roof lines in the Blackstone Block -- which might be Hancock's old office --
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.361...m4!1e1!3m2!1sObw7BtfYwVpKO7JyMtVQBQ!2e0?hl=en

You could leave it blank as if it was the back of a warehouse or you could even throw in some period-ish windows the way Gund fauxed-up One Faneuil Hall Square

Then about 3 stories up -- Step the wall inward toward the Greenway by about one street width --

From that cornice line the building would then go up with glass curtain wall to however high is needed to make-up for the lost sq. ft.

Everything on the Greenway side would be all glass curtain wall and very exuberant -- the effect would be to buffer the modern Greenway from the Blackstone Block

In those narrow streets unless you are setting-up to photograph the glass facade, the modern would truly be invisible
 
Re: Parcel 9 - The Greenway

timsox6 said:
http://northendwaterfront.com/2015/04/235147/ The proposal is getting some additional community support, though the Historical Commission's decision still stands.
Click to expand...

Wow, the people of the North End approving anything is big news, especially in regards to their precious Greenway. The fact that all 3 not only support, but want the project so much they wrote a letter hopefully encourages the Historical Commission to bend a bit.
 
Re: Parcel 9 - The Greenway

Wonderful, contextual elegantly massed project. Definitely compliments the Greenway. This is a project I have been looking forward to.
 
Re: Parcel 9 - The Greenway

datadyne007 said:
Wonderful, contextual elegantly massed project. Definitely compliments the Greenway. This is a project I have been looking forward to.
Click to expand...

Yes, all that and finally a giant red sign I can follow in order to get some hay for my horse.
 
Re: Parcel 9 - The Greenway

It is so stupid that this has not been built yet.
 
Re: Parcel 9 - The Greenway

datadyne007 said:
Wonderful, contextual elegantly massed project. Definitely compliments the Greenway. This is a project I have been looking forward to.
Click to expand...

Data -- there is now going to be a bona fide "Market District" located right between Gov't Center, State, Aquarium, Haymarket T stops -- direct access to all but Red Line
complete with:
Boston Public Market,
Hay Market,
Quincy Market / Faneuil Hall
and whatever they are calling it -- New Boston Market?
 
Re: Parcel 9 - The Greenway

There isn't a parcel in Boston where they're talking about +55m that can't go straight to 120m.

except in the Seaport.

The bureaucracy dragging on for years is insane.
 
Re: Parcel 9 - The Greenway

On it's own terms this is a perfectly fine building. But when compared to the previous proposal it's a sad letdown. A candyass, middling downgrade from the boldness of before. And the silliness of the trellises "dialoguing to" one another... yes quite a scintillating conversation it is.
 
Re: Parcel 9 - The Greenway

This looks great your crazy. Regardless of anything this is a ridiculous improvement for the greenway/Boston and is going to be a welcome addition for years to come.

Sidenote: I hate when they put renders sideways in the pdf.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top