Copley Place Expansion and Tower | Back Bay
- Thread starter Mike
- Start date
- Status
Suffolk 83
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 2,975
- Reaction score
- 2,300
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower
I'm curious as to how many people showed and if the shadow/wind/glare/height/traffic arguments were made and how strongly.
I'm curious as to how many people showed and if the shadow/wind/glare/height/traffic arguments were made and how strongly.
atlantaden
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 31, 2006
- Messages
- 2,594
- Reaction score
- 2,691
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower
The two major entrances to the project look dramatic, lots of glass and light, and then you have a residential entrance. The rest of the street level looks like they have large picture windows advertising Neiman's products. No loading docks, back entrances to speak of. This building seems to use lots of glass on the street level, in some places, two levels of glass. I don't get the Fort Apache mentality you speak of Toby unless you're talking about what's there now on street level at Copley Place. If that's the case, yup, agreed!
The two major entrances to the project look dramatic, lots of glass and light, and then you have a residential entrance. The rest of the street level looks like they have large picture windows advertising Neiman's products. No loading docks, back entrances to speak of. This building seems to use lots of glass on the street level, in some places, two levels of glass. I don't get the Fort Apache mentality you speak of Toby unless you're talking about what's there now on street level at Copley Place. If that's the case, yup, agreed!
tobyjug
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2007
- Messages
- 3,401
- Reaction score
- 446
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower
^^^^ That's it exactly. Copley Place was designed to turn its back on the neighborhood, an understandable but misguided approach. Anything they can do to eliminate those big slab walls would be a tremendous improvement.
^^^^ That's it exactly. Copley Place was designed to turn its back on the neighborhood, an understandable but misguided approach. Anything they can do to eliminate those big slab walls would be a tremendous improvement.
Ron Newman
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2006
- Messages
- 8,395
- Reaction score
- 10
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower
They really should square off the loop ramp exit from the Turnpike so that it meets Huntington Avenue at a sudden, hard 90-degree angle. That would allow restoring the sidewalk on that part of Huntington.
They really should square off the loop ramp exit from the Turnpike so that it meets Huntington Avenue at a sudden, hard 90-degree angle. That would allow restoring the sidewalk on that part of Huntington.
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower
They should do the same on Stuart Street under the footbridge on the Copley Place side too.
They should do the same on Stuart Street under the footbridge on the Copley Place side too.
Ron Newman
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2006
- Messages
- 8,395
- Reaction score
- 10
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower
We may be both talking about the same place. It's a closed off sidewalk area near an Au Bon Pain.
We may be both talking about the same place. It's a closed off sidewalk area near an Au Bon Pain.
kz1000ps
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2006
- Messages
- 8,804
- Reaction score
- 10,059
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower
So the thrust of this project comes from the fact that Nieman Marcus (the mall's sole anchor tenant) needs to expand. Howard Elkus gave an overview of the site's history, and spoke in depth about the complexities of building over active local and regional transportation networks, while then speaking of how he's delighted to work on this job, as it gives him a chance to revisit and fine tune his earlier work.
He described the tower as a "found opportunity" -- meaning it rectifies a current deficiency (underutilized plaza), it fulfills an original program for the site (to have a residential component), and it doesn't need much in the way of support spaces: no new services, parking spaces or public transportation capacity will be needed.
Mr. Elkus then went on to talk about the design language, and how the idea was to use lots of glass as to open Copley Place up to the street more, fully acknowledging its current fortress-like walls. As can be seen in the street-level renderings, an entirely new facade will go up from the Southwest Corridor Park all the way over to the Stuart St. on-ramp, which is as far as they could go due to there being an exisiting fire lane/access zone that cannot be moved.
The winter garden will be 42 feet high, which Mr. Elkus described as being of a "generous" size, saying he went to NYC to check out all the atria down there to get a sense for what would be an appropriately grand scale. And as can be seen in the floor plans, there would be space for a couple restaurants on the Stuart St. side of the winter garden so as to activate that street's sidewalk. Also visible in the floor plans, the tower's entry would be midblock on Dartmouth St.
Next are the questions raised by the audience:
First up -- SHADOWS. As I said earlier, there will be no shadows on Copley Square from April to September, and from September to November it would only sweep across the bottom of the park, covering about 10% of it. On the Comm Ave Mall, shadows will sweep across it during the winter, starting at the far western end of it at 7-8 in the morning. And there will be no new shadows in the Public Library's courtyard.
Next -- someone did not like how the tower was a sheer rise up from Dartmouth Street, to which Mr. Elkus said that while that is true, the curvilinear form worked to diffuse and make ambiguous the shape.
The next person asked about the crown -- what's the rationale behind it? Elkus said the idea was to have it dematerialize, and that the top would be transparent. He also noted that the top of both the crown and the setbacks would all curve/vary in height so as to continue the curvilinear theme, and in turn giving the balconies walls varied heights. He then spoke of how these curves and setbacks were designed to a) keep shadows on the important sites to a minimum and b) to break down its mass, creating many "silhouettes."
Next, Representative Byron Rushing spoke, and all I wrote for him was "seemed to be supportive." I don't really remember what exactly it was he said (he stuttered a lot and my ears kind of turned off), but I know he didn't have any pointed criticism.
NABB's current president then spoke, saying that people would be very concerned about any new shadows being created "even it was only for an hour."
The next person asked about the project's finances, and whether they would be asking for any public money. The developers of course said no they wouldn't.
Shirley Kressel was next, and she had three questions. First was do they have any renderings showing the full tower from street level, to which they said no they didn't. Next, she pointedly asked whether the current plaza was originally agreed upon to be public space, citing her concern about the winter garden eliminating what is essentially a public space with one that is private. The developers said no, there was no binding agreement, and told her that the proposed atrium would be a public space just like any other in the Copley Place or Prudential Center, closing down only for a few hours in the early morning for the normal reasons (security, cleaning). Lastly, she asked what zoning regulations will apply to this site, since its being an air rights development means it's not subject to city laws. The BRA rep said it hadn't been decided on yet, though it will go through a typical route -- either a PDA (planned development area, like what Columbus Center went through) or the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Next, a resident of Tent City (the development just south of Copley Place) asked whether they would use the Southwest Corridor Park as a construction staging area, to which they replied with a rather resounding "no."
The next man spoke at length (he was eloquent but long-winded) about the aesthetics of the new part, and how he was concerned about the change from open space, warm brick and stone to a tight streetwall, glass and grey stone. Mr. Elkus thanked him for his thoughtful question and spoke of how the glass would allow one to see inside (and vice versa), and also of how the winter garden would be made "warm" through the filling of it with plants.
Lastly, Ken from Tent City spoke lucidly of the current plaza and how it's used, saying that from what he's observed, most people using it have bags with them, and more often than expected they are bags from shops other than those at Copley Place, say from the farmer's market at Copley Square. He then went on, saying (without condemning the winter garden) that people in the described situation--those who are bogged down and might just need a little break from walking up the highway hump--would probably be reluctant to go inside, especially if they have to go through a revolving door only to sit at a table that's been unofficially claimed as being for a restaurant. He also spoke about the Dartmouth Street sidewalk needing a lot of work.
I don't have anything else written down, but going by memory there was also a developer (self-described as "pro growth") who said he questioned the need for a tower built exclusively for the super rich, to which the audience responded with thunderous clapping (I think I let out a groan haha). Another man asked exactly what height the tower could rise to without creating any shadows on Copley Square (his question was asked in a matter-of-fact manner, only hinting at any criticism towards the proposed height). The exact number was 290 feet, which they said was much lower than the Westin or Hyatt and thus not worth regarding. Also, the point was raised several times as to where the affordable housing component would go, to which all the developers said was "we haven't figured that out yet."
-------------------------------------------------------
Overall, the meeting was one of the least contentious ones I've been to. Nobody was raising their voice, and only a few got overly pointed in their questioning. Talking to various people afterwards, most were keen on the design, and nobody I spoke to said anything about it needing to be shorter.
Round 1: so far, so good.
So the thrust of this project comes from the fact that Nieman Marcus (the mall's sole anchor tenant) needs to expand. Howard Elkus gave an overview of the site's history, and spoke in depth about the complexities of building over active local and regional transportation networks, while then speaking of how he's delighted to work on this job, as it gives him a chance to revisit and fine tune his earlier work.
He described the tower as a "found opportunity" -- meaning it rectifies a current deficiency (underutilized plaza), it fulfills an original program for the site (to have a residential component), and it doesn't need much in the way of support spaces: no new services, parking spaces or public transportation capacity will be needed.
Mr. Elkus then went on to talk about the design language, and how the idea was to use lots of glass as to open Copley Place up to the street more, fully acknowledging its current fortress-like walls. As can be seen in the street-level renderings, an entirely new facade will go up from the Southwest Corridor Park all the way over to the Stuart St. on-ramp, which is as far as they could go due to there being an exisiting fire lane/access zone that cannot be moved.
The winter garden will be 42 feet high, which Mr. Elkus described as being of a "generous" size, saying he went to NYC to check out all the atria down there to get a sense for what would be an appropriately grand scale. And as can be seen in the floor plans, there would be space for a couple restaurants on the Stuart St. side of the winter garden so as to activate that street's sidewalk. Also visible in the floor plans, the tower's entry would be midblock on Dartmouth St.
Next are the questions raised by the audience:
First up -- SHADOWS. As I said earlier, there will be no shadows on Copley Square from April to September, and from September to November it would only sweep across the bottom of the park, covering about 10% of it. On the Comm Ave Mall, shadows will sweep across it during the winter, starting at the far western end of it at 7-8 in the morning. And there will be no new shadows in the Public Library's courtyard.
Next -- someone did not like how the tower was a sheer rise up from Dartmouth Street, to which Mr. Elkus said that while that is true, the curvilinear form worked to diffuse and make ambiguous the shape.
The next person asked about the crown -- what's the rationale behind it? Elkus said the idea was to have it dematerialize, and that the top would be transparent. He also noted that the top of both the crown and the setbacks would all curve/vary in height so as to continue the curvilinear theme, and in turn giving the balconies walls varied heights. He then spoke of how these curves and setbacks were designed to a) keep shadows on the important sites to a minimum and b) to break down its mass, creating many "silhouettes."
Next, Representative Byron Rushing spoke, and all I wrote for him was "seemed to be supportive." I don't really remember what exactly it was he said (he stuttered a lot and my ears kind of turned off), but I know he didn't have any pointed criticism.
NABB's current president then spoke, saying that people would be very concerned about any new shadows being created "even it was only for an hour."
The next person asked about the project's finances, and whether they would be asking for any public money. The developers of course said no they wouldn't.
Shirley Kressel was next, and she had three questions. First was do they have any renderings showing the full tower from street level, to which they said no they didn't. Next, she pointedly asked whether the current plaza was originally agreed upon to be public space, citing her concern about the winter garden eliminating what is essentially a public space with one that is private. The developers said no, there was no binding agreement, and told her that the proposed atrium would be a public space just like any other in the Copley Place or Prudential Center, closing down only for a few hours in the early morning for the normal reasons (security, cleaning). Lastly, she asked what zoning regulations will apply to this site, since its being an air rights development means it's not subject to city laws. The BRA rep said it hadn't been decided on yet, though it will go through a typical route -- either a PDA (planned development area, like what Columbus Center went through) or the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Next, a resident of Tent City (the development just south of Copley Place) asked whether they would use the Southwest Corridor Park as a construction staging area, to which they replied with a rather resounding "no."
The next man spoke at length (he was eloquent but long-winded) about the aesthetics of the new part, and how he was concerned about the change from open space, warm brick and stone to a tight streetwall, glass and grey stone. Mr. Elkus thanked him for his thoughtful question and spoke of how the glass would allow one to see inside (and vice versa), and also of how the winter garden would be made "warm" through the filling of it with plants.
Lastly, Ken from Tent City spoke lucidly of the current plaza and how it's used, saying that from what he's observed, most people using it have bags with them, and more often than expected they are bags from shops other than those at Copley Place, say from the farmer's market at Copley Square. He then went on, saying (without condemning the winter garden) that people in the described situation--those who are bogged down and might just need a little break from walking up the highway hump--would probably be reluctant to go inside, especially if they have to go through a revolving door only to sit at a table that's been unofficially claimed as being for a restaurant. He also spoke about the Dartmouth Street sidewalk needing a lot of work.
I don't have anything else written down, but going by memory there was also a developer (self-described as "pro growth") who said he questioned the need for a tower built exclusively for the super rich, to which the audience responded with thunderous clapping (I think I let out a groan haha). Another man asked exactly what height the tower could rise to without creating any shadows on Copley Square (his question was asked in a matter-of-fact manner, only hinting at any criticism towards the proposed height). The exact number was 290 feet, which they said was much lower than the Westin or Hyatt and thus not worth regarding. Also, the point was raised several times as to where the affordable housing component would go, to which all the developers said was "we haven't figured that out yet."
-------------------------------------------------------
Overall, the meeting was one of the least contentious ones I've been to. Nobody was raising their voice, and only a few got overly pointed in their questioning. Talking to various people afterwards, most were keen on the design, and nobody I spoke to said anything about it needing to be shorter.
Round 1: so far, so good.
Last edited:
blade_bltz
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2006
- Messages
- 808
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower
My hopes are way, way up.
D'oh!
My hopes are way, way up.
D'oh!
Suffolk 83
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 2,975
- Reaction score
- 2,300
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower
Does anyone have a local (to this locale) address? if so can you bring your significant other to the party at the next meeting? I'm saying this because we actually could make a difference if we can make intelligent arguments. If we have two or three users here from the area, and dont happen to have a girlfriend or wife, we can pretend we're "partners" and try to counterbalance the locals. Lack of girls is killing us here, but MA does happen to be the capital of alternative marriage and relationships and as a Democrat, I'll use it to every advantage we can get.Just thinking outside the box because I don;t see any reason why this shouldnt get built.
Does anyone have a local (to this locale) address? if so can you bring your significant other to the party at the next meeting? I'm saying this because we actually could make a difference if we can make intelligent arguments. If we have two or three users here from the area, and dont happen to have a girlfriend or wife, we can pretend we're "partners" and try to counterbalance the locals. Lack of girls is killing us here, but MA does happen to be the capital of alternative marriage and relationships and as a Democrat, I'll use it to every advantage we can get.Just thinking outside the box because I don;t see any reason why this shouldnt get built.
atlantaden
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 31, 2006
- Messages
- 2,594
- Reaction score
- 2,691
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower
kz, many thanks for taking the time to write up for us a very descriptive, very complete review/analysis of the meeting. You're the man!!
kz, many thanks for taking the time to write up for us a very descriptive, very complete review/analysis of the meeting. You're the man!!
B
BostonSkyGuy
Guest
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower
HAHA! You're right, they always say "bigger is better" and how much bigger can you get than a phallic piece of steel rising out of the ground? The women are missing their boat.
On a serious note, I second AtlantaDen with his thanks to KZ for posting an overview of the meeting for those of us unable to attend. Very well written and gave me a good feel of how the overall meeting went. My hopes for this project went up a little bit hearing that the people at the meeting weren't obnoxious or trying to shoot this thing down from the get-go.
HAHA! You're right, they always say "bigger is better" and how much bigger can you get than a phallic piece of steel rising out of the ground? The women are missing their boat.
On a serious note, I second AtlantaDen with his thanks to KZ for posting an overview of the meeting for those of us unable to attend. Very well written and gave me a good feel of how the overall meeting went. My hopes for this project went up a little bit hearing that the people at the meeting weren't obnoxious or trying to shoot this thing down from the get-go.
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower
The pru is open 24 hours (except the food court and restrooms)
The pru is open 24 hours (except the food court and restrooms)
Patriots_1228
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2007
- Messages
- 368
- Reaction score
- 1
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower
^^ most buildings like this look kind of silvery grey in the renderings...once they get in reallife and the glass starts reflecting the sky and the sunlight and all that shit, it will probably be bluer.
For example, this is a preview of SST:
Obviously, it won't be that digusting silver in real life.
Speaking of phallic skyscrapers
coincendentally in our sister city barcelona.
^^ most buildings like this look kind of silvery grey in the renderings...once they get in reallife and the glass starts reflecting the sky and the sunlight and all that shit, it will probably be bluer.
For example, this is a preview of SST:
Obviously, it won't be that digusting silver in real life.
Speaking of phallic skyscrapers
coincendentally in our sister city barcelona.
Ron Newman
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2006
- Messages
- 8,395
- Reaction score
- 10
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower
Is that you? ;-)
Is that you? ;-)
- Status