Copley Place Expansion and Tower | Back Bay

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

pelhamhall said:
a celebration of great architecture and strong development in the City of Boston for the past 20 years, accompanied with the "troubles" the developer had to go through to get his vision built. A "triumph over despotism" theme and the citizens of the city reap the rewards.

The repetition of it all, building after building, the same exact people, over and over, year after year, with the same exact complaints would suddenly illustrate the utter silliness of the arguments against all growth and all civic progress.
Click to expand...

No. They will see themselves as 'part of the process' and claim responsiblilty for the quality of the development.

"You see! If it wasn't for us, who knows what abomination would have been built!"
 
Last edited:
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

That's certainly true - but like all PR campaigns, the truth would be processed and we would show their comments on the final as-built designs.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

If Marty is concerned about shadow on Commonwealth Avenue and Copley Square, does that mean she opposes trees being planted? Why do buildings cast shadow and trees provide shade?
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

By her own standards she's not even allowed to walk outside during daylight hours in fear that she may cast a shadow and ruin someones lunch break. Such a pity.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Good heavens, am I the only one who's noticed the terrible shadows cast on Copley Sq. by....Trinity Church??? Quick, tear down that ugly square tower lest we all shrivel up from Vitamin D deprivation! What was H.H. Richardson thinking???
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Luxury Condo Tower to Rise Near Boston Landmarks?

By Ted Smalley Bowen, Architectural Record

The revival of a scenario first envisioned some 30 years ago could yield Boston?s tallest residential building. Simon Property Group has unveiled plans for a 47-story luxury condo tower atop its Copley Place Mall, an upscale shopping hub in the historic Back Bay neighborhood. The proposed project, designed by Elkus Manfredi Architects, would also add more than 100,000 square feet of commercial space to the retail center.

The site, adjacent to Copley Square?which boasts H.H. Richardson?s Trinity Church (1877), McKim, Mead and White?s Boston Public Library (1895), and I.M. Pei and Henry Cobb?s John Hancock Tower (1976)?calls for an architectural balancing act, the creation of a signature high-rise that doesn?t overwhelm its august forerunners or the surrounding low-rise residential blocks. ?We?re trying to create a neighbor that is extremely sensitive," says Howard Elkus, principal of Elkus Manfredi Architects.

While considerably smaller than the 60-story, 790-foot Hancock Tower, the new 570-foot-tall building would be a commanding presence. The curvilinear glass and steel tower, with setbacks on the upper floors, would rise from a glass and masonry base. It would contain 660,000 square feet of residential space, with roughly 280 condominiums, plus an additional 60,000 square feet for shops, restaurants, and an enclosed garden, according to Carl Dieterle, Simon Property's executive vice president of development. The plan also calls for adding 54,000 square feet to the mall?s 115,000-square-foot anchor store, Neiman Marcus. Construction could begin in late 2009 and wrap up by 2012.

Elkus, the projects? lead designer, is no stranger to the Back Bay neighborhood. He was principal in charge for The Architects Collaborative?a defunct Cambridge-based firm that counted Walter Gropius among its founders?when it designed the Copley Place Mall in the early 1980s. It was ?a paradigm of smart growth for its time,? Elkus says, adding that the project included residential units when it was first imagined in the mid-1970s.

The proposed tower, while different in scope, is a resurrection of that initial concept. Elkus says it will help densify ?Boston?s urban fabric,? noting that the location is ideal given its close proximity to Back Bay Station and existing parking lots. So far, the expansion plans have provoked little debate. "There's not enough information yet to really respond to the project,? says Jackie Yessian, chairwoman of the Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay. ?But we will be looking very carefully at its environmental impact, including shadows, wind, solar glare, and traffic.?
Click to expand...

Elkus Manfredi Architects is designing a slender, 47-story luxury condo tower (pictured left of center in top image) that will sit atop Copley Place Mall, an upscale shopping hub in Boston?s Back Bay neighborhood. The project also calls for adding more than 100,000 square feet of commercial space to the retail center, including 54,000 square feet to its anchor store, Neiman Marcus.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

?But we will be looking very carefully at its environmental impact, including shadows, wind, solar glare, and traffic.?
Solar glare? Next to a 790 foot GLASS tower. Anyone else find that funny!?
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Some rare lichen, which in this state only grows on the roof of the Westin Hotel, might be threatened. If that lichen dies, the Commonwealth will loose .0000000000001% of naturally retained humidity and a precious resource in our urban ecosystem will have been executed at the expense of corporate greed!

LICHEN NOT LEASES!
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Don't laugh! The lichen argument has been used by anti-progress yahoos in the past.

- rare birds threatened (including a disruption of migratory patterns)
- rare plants (including lichens)
- historic buildings threatened that aren't historic (but this is where President Coolidge ate a sandwich)

and the funniest, most bizarre one yet - "A toxic UFP zone will be created"

It doesn't matter what the argument is - people either have a history of supporting progress and growth in the city, or a history of fighting it.

The same people will reach into the magic grab-bag of complaints and pull something out for this project too.

However - I was thinking on my way into work tonight that the Hancock Tower will lose some of it's elegance and presence when it is flanked by the Clarendon, Columbus Center and this Copley Tower. I'm OK with it - just pointing it out - it'll no longer be that dramatic spire rising from the low-rise South End/Back Bay - it'll be a taller tower among a neighborhood of towers.

Nothing will ever be built on the north side though, the Copley Square side, so that will retain the integrity of the building as far as I'm concerned, regardless of how many towers you flank its other three sides with.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

To be honest I'm a bit of an anti-progress, eco-nut myself, but the way I see it is that cities are already fucked (ecologically speaking) so the more density we can pack into a city the more destruction of virgin land we can avoid.
Thus I'm a fan of really, really dense cities.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Densly populated cities are more environmentally friendly that spread out developments. Vertical development is much more efficient and has less environmental impact. NYC is much more energy efficient than less populated, but more sprawling cities.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

^^ Exactly.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

The Clarendon is going to be a 160 ft shorter than the original JHT which is listed at 495 ft. The new condo tower is only going to be a 100 ft taller than that, just for a little perspective. New JHT isn't really going to be diminished with these new buildings, if this condo tower actually gets built
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Can we give this thread a name, such as "Simon Tower" or something?

Not that it matters, I guess ...
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

aquaman said:
Densly populated cities are more environmentally friendly that spread out developments. Vertical development is much more efficient and has less environmental impact. NYC is much more energy efficient than less populated, but more sprawling cities.
Click to expand...

Not to nitpick, but absolutisms open themselves up to it. It would be easy to argue that a shorter, less dense development that ate up more space, but used that space efficiently to produce food and provide ecological connections, that worked with landscape processes of drainage and groundwater recharge, with buildings low enough that they could be nearly or completely be covered by tree canopy (like many older suburbs in the case of the latter) would have less environmental impact than a dense metropolis. NYC's footprint extends far beyond the city limits, and such a dense congregation of impervious surfaces is rather unreconcilable with concerns of local water tables, crucial but long vanished ecological patterns (especially in such a concentration of tidal shores), and urban heat island.

Is NYC more energy efficient than Phoenix? You could make that argument, but to just make a blanket statement that more density = less environmental impact is mistaken
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Pierce said:
Not to nitpick, but absolutisms open themselves up to it. It would be easy to argue that a shorter, less dense development that ate up more space, but used that space efficiently to produce food and provide ecological connections, that worked with landscape processes of drainage and groundwater recharge, with buildings low enough that they could be nearly or completely be covered by tree canopy (like many older suburbs in the case of the latter) would have less environmental impact than a dense metropolis. NYC's footprint extends far beyond the city limits, and such a dense congregation of impervious surfaces is rather unreconcilable with concerns of local water tables, crucial but long vanished ecological patterns (especially in such a concentration of tidal shores), and urban heat island.

Is NYC more energy efficient than Phoenix? You could make that argument, but to just make a blanket statement that more density = less environmental impact is mistaken
Click to expand...

Note that he specifically said a densely populated city. He is not comparing with the type of places you have mentioned. What you say is true if it was compared to that.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

DarkFenX said:
Note that he specifically said a densely populated city. He is not comparing with the type of places you have mentioned. What you say is true if it was compared to that.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I follow your clarification. He opposed "densely populated cities" to "spread out developments" and stated the former is more environmentally friendly, end of sentence. I pointed out that this isn't always true. The North End is probably less environmentally friendly than a swath of Brookline with the same population.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Pierce said:
I'm not sure I follow your clarification. He opposed "densely populated cities" to "spread out developments" and stated the former is more environmentally friendly, end of sentence. I pointed out that this isn't always true. The North End is probably less environmentally friendly than a swath of Brookline with the same population.
Click to expand...

Wait scratch that. What aquaman is saying is that he is for densely populated cities that built vertically rather than spreading out or sprawling out into the neighboring cities which is less efficient. He is also comparing large cities, not with lands that are used for farming (ie producing food), draining water, etc. as you have mentioned earlier.
 
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

DarkFenX said:
Wait scratch that. What aquaman is saying is that he is for densely populated cities that built vertically rather than spreading out or sprawling out into the neighboring cities which is less efficient. He is also comparing large cities, not with lands that are used for farming (ie producing food), draining water, etc. as you have mentioned earlier.
Click to expand...

ok its clear we both understand each other... i'm new here, and also for density and verticality, though i am against absolutist logics (and yes I'm aware of the self contradiction there)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top