Copley Place Expansion and Tower | Back Bay

[Boston02124]

Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

I hope not! I take the red-line over it twice a day!

 

[nm88]

Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

What a great skyline. You can't mistake that for any other city. Bos77, thanks.

 

[riffgo]

Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

After seeing that photoshopped rendering I am much more impressed than before. Let it happen!

 

[tmac9wr]

Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

God I love that tower. If it doesn't get built, I'll....be upset.

 

[dshoost88]

Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

This week's Back Bay Sun has a story on the recent community meeting regarding this proposal and features a new rendering on its cover.

The headline may seem a bit alarmist, but I found the reporting itself to be quite fair and objective. The Sun's site hasn't been updated for this week, so the article isn't online yet.

I didn't realize it until now, but this tower looks a lot like the Las Olas Riverhouse in Fort Lauderdale:

Hopefully I'm wrong... and I'm sure they won't have a pool. But it doesn't surprise me. The River House is very high-end, much like this is proposed to be.

 

[Tim Jackson]

Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Here's the text for the article on the front cover:

Copley tower offers tradeoffs: new shadows, improved skyline

by Dan Salerno

The latest design renderings and shadow studies on the proposed 47 story mixed use tower over Neiman Marcus showed that the structure would cast a new shadow on Copley Square in the winter, though an advisory panel reacted favorably to the tower?s place in the Boston skyline.

According to representatives from Simon properties, the tower as currently constructed would cast a new shadow on Copley Square for up to approximately two hours a day from September to March. Two hours is exactly the cutoff point beyond which the BRA considers a shadow to be a negative impact.

State Representative Martha Walz, who has generally been opposed to excessive new shadows in all developments, pointed out that the Boston parks department did not share the BRA?s view about what constitutes a negative impact, though the BRA has said that the two hours figure is codified in zoning.

Walz asked if it were possible for the developers to further reduce shadows by reducing the size of the building footprint at the upper levels. Currently, the upper levels have a footprint of 9.000 square feet, while the base of the building below the fifth story has a 16,000 square foot footprint. Walz questioned what the shadow impact would be if the upper stories footprint were reduced to 8500.

?Through creative thinking and computer models we can do a lot of different things that might make improvements,? said Walz. ?Let?s try to make the building as good as it could be.?

However, representatives from Simon Properties pointed out that the footprint was already incredibly small for a building of its height, and said that it was unlikely that it could be reduced.

Instead, the developers have offered to consider ?rotating? the building, so that the corners of the tower are pulled back from the corner of Dartmouth and Stuart Street. The rotation, if undertaken, would create a fifteen foot setback from the corner, something the citizens advisory panel had asked the developers to consider.

Preliminary response to the possibility was positive, but panelists agreed that before weighing in on the rotation they would need to see more renderings (they were shown only one), as well as new shadow studies to reflect the change in position.

?I think this is a move in the right direction,? said panelist Dave Berarducci.
Opinion was much more universally favorable about new skyline views incorporating the tower. In particular, a view from the Cambridge side of the Charles River showed the tower neatly filling a gap between the Hancock tower and the rest of the ?high spine? to the west.

?I think this is a great improvement to the skyline,? said Meg Mainzer-Cohen of the Back Bay Association.

The tower will have approximately 660,000 square feet of residential space stretching into the sky over the shopping mall. In total, the tower will have about 280 residential units. The most striking feature of the redesign will be addition of an enclosed wintergarden in the area of the current outdoor plaza that will be open to the public. There will also be new retail and restaurant frontage on Stuart Street. The developers hope to begin construction in 2010, aiming for completion of the development by fourth quarter 2012.

LINK

 

[type001]

Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

?Through creative thinking and computer models we can do a lot of different things that might make improvements,? said Walz.

Um, you?

?Let?s try to make the building as good as it could be.?

Then keep your damn pie-hole shut!

What I don't get is that the BRA has already stated that the shadow does not cast a negative impact. So I am not even sure why the developers even have to feel any obligation to cater to these ludicrous tests.

The developers hope to begin construction in 2010, aiming for completion of the development by fourth quarter 2012.

You gotta love the speedy process around here.

 

[SeamusMcFly]

Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

You gotta love the speedy process around here.

That speed sounds about right. As far as I understand it, this project has only reached the SD phase architecturally and struturally.

MEP has not begun beyond simple write ups. A year to go thru the entire process SD thru CD's sounds reasonable for a project of this size. A couple weeks for the drawings to hit the streets, another month to solicit bids and select contractors, etc. This all sounds like it would put you on track to begin construction in early 2010. In a warmer climate you could start earlier, but unless you wanna pay for ground thaw equipment, it'll wait a couple months. And, that's if this thing actually moved along at a proper pace (read: not at Boston's typical pace.)

2 year construction time, sounds just about right as well.

 

[KentXie]

Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

I have to say the article was actually pretty positive. Instead of having a NIMBY who is unwilling to compromise with anything unless the tower is chopped off multiple stories, this Walz guy seems to be actually looking for a compromise and more willingly allow the tower to go through without much complaint.

 

[tobyjug]

Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

I have to say the article was actually pretty positive...this Walz guy seems to be actually looking for a compromise

Invasion of the body snatchers type thing here. Smarter aliens with powers of imagination and spacial relationship superior to that of Back Bay host bodies. Some replicant errors, though.

 

[briv]

Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

...Instead of having a NIMBY who is unwilling to compromise with anything unless the tower is chopped off multiple stories, this Walz guy seems to be actually looking for a compromise and more willingly allow the tower to go through without much complaint.

For future reference: This Walz guy...is actually a woman.

 

[tobyjug]

Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

The next one of these they build should be kinda...melty and dissolving around the edges.

(The building, not the Walz.)

 

[den]

Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

This Globe commentary from over the weekend by the head of the Back Bay Association seems pretty relevant to this project. When the developer files their next "submission" to the BRA, supporters (especially people who live or work in Boston) should send in comment letters. It's the only way to prevent a relative minority of naysayers from preventing significant, and dare I say "appropriate" development.

Common goals for the common good in Boston
By Meg Mainzer-Cohen
October 25, 2008

AT A TIME when the economy has ground to a halt, Boston Mayor Thomas Menino is right to encourage the Boston Redevelopment Authority to expedite projects that are in the pipeline. The city may also want to reflect on the contentious public process that businesses must go through in order to build in Boston.

When it comes to development, the business community is often the underdog to anti-development zealots. The benefits of creating jobs, tax revenue, and new development get hidden in the shadow of invalid claims about environmental impacts and zoning.

Consider the Back Bay. Much of the Back Bay and South End is historically protected or is now parkland. Minimal new development will ever happen. Between them is an area called the "high spine," identified in the 1960s as a place for density connecting Back Bay with downtown. This makes perfect sense in the Back Bay where people want to live, work, stay at a hotel, shop, eat in a restaurant, or attend a convention at the Hynes. These activities are a catalyst for economic growth that supports the city and state. During boom times and bust, the economy of the Back Bay remains strong, which should be leveraged as a highly viable way to add to the tax coffers and create jobs.

With concern about the environment, the Back Bay is an ideal area to build density near public transportation. Menino created "green building" amendments to the Boston zoning code that encourages smart growth and environmentally friendly development. Back Bay benefits from having the commuter rail, MBTA Green and Orange lines, and soon the Silver Line. With a mix of housing, and office and retail space, people who live here don't need cars.

Zoning in Back Bay was written 20 years ago, before the concepts of smart growth, and should be rewritten to allow building for the future, incorporating smart growth in areas that are not historically protected.

Yet there has been opposition. The Neighborhood Association of Back Bay has opposed every building proposal as well as efforts to improve transportation for citizens. It opposed the MBTA adding articulated buses, and sued to stop handicapped-accessible stations. It said "no" to Columbus Center, 888 Boylston Street, the Exeter Residences, the Mandarin Oriental, 350 Boylston Street, and the Back Bay Restaurant Group's plan for TGIF's. The group wanted traffic signals on Storrow Drive, restricting traffic by 40 percent.

At a recent public meeting held as part of the Article 80 review process to inform the community about updated plans for 888 Boylston Street and the Exeter Street residences, presenters were cut off by the NIMBY crowd who wanted to comment on why the projects shouldn't happen.

Activists used buzzwords like "zoning," "shadow," and "wind." The public didn't learn that the "wind" improved in more areas than it worsened, "shadows" were not considered impactful because they were minimal during December, and "zoning" was created to allow changes in a planned development area, where the development is located. Instead, the meeting debased into a NIMBY-fest as one activist questioned the legal authority of the Boston Redevelopment Authority and advocated its dismantling.

The city must advocate for common goals for the common good, considering how to build Boston for the future. We must add housing and office space in areas that can support it, translating into the creation of jobs, housing, and increased taxes. We must advocate for transportation projects that ensure people can get where they need to go.

When it comes to creating jobs and homes, and increasing tax revenue, NIMBYers just say no. We must raise our voices in support of common goals for the common good.

 

[Beton Brut]

Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Interesting piece.

It should be noted that Meg Mainzer-Cohen is in favor of Druker's proposed abomination at Arlington.

 

[JimboJones]

Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

You gotta take some bad with the good, my beton friend.

Her column is something I wish I could write. It makes a strong argument in a very short space.

 

[palindrome]

Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

and sued to stop handicapped-accessible stations.

How frivolous.

 

[JimboJones]

Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

ADA has never had full funding. If you want to ensure it does, vote MCCAIN-PALIN next week!

 

[Beton Brut]

Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

I don't disagree with the sentiments Meg expressed in her piece in The Globe. I consider her "misunderstanding" of the really issues at Arlington Street an opportunity for education and a valuable exchange of ideas. Meg doesn't seem like a shill for Druker, only a local resident (and business owner) who wants to see the Arlington corner put to its best and highest use. If she could make the leap of logic that Druker has manufactured the "blight" at this location (with the full faith and backing of the Mayor and the BRA), so as to hasten his profits, perhaps we'd have another recruit to preserve Shreve's, through adaptive re-use, and denser but more sensitive new development.

Meg, are you listening?

 

[atlantaden]

Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Meg, are you listening?

Beton, let's be fair. Do you try to educate Shirley Kressel who is usually more in line with NABB's views, except for this one issue? One thing is certain, politics makes strange bedfellows and the Shreve building fight is no exception

 

[commuter guy]

Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower

Meg doesn't seem like a shill for Druker, only a local resident (and business owner) who wants to see the Arlington corner put to its best and highest use.

I am not so sure. Meg is the executive director of the Back Bay Association whose mission is to advocate for business interests in the Back Bay area. I am assuming she receives some kind of compensation for her serving as executive director to this organization. Regardless of whether she personally agrees with Druker's proposal or not, she probably has to tow the company line. Her purpose and role regarding Back Bay development issues is more akin to a hired gun, a lawyer or a lobbyist etc. Also, Druker himself is listed as a Director of the Back Bay Association, which probably has a direct or indirect effect on the official position of the Back Bay Association towards his Shreve proposal.