Dick’s House of Sports | Prudential Center | Back Bay

meddlepal said:
There's a lot of potential for transformative development along this stretch of Boylston... basically everything from the Pike parcels to L&T is up for redevelopment.

I'm skeptical well see anything bold or interesting however, this is Boston after all.
Click to expand...

With the exception of the Hynes, this is one of the best stretches of urban streetscape in the whole city. Why the hell would we want anything "transformative"?
 
Last edited:
BronsonShore said:
With the exception of the Hynes, this is one of the best stretches of urban streetscapes in the whole city. Why the hell would we want anything "transformative"?
Click to expand...
I think meddlepal means 'Jacobs' transformative. I.e., if the urbanism works, preserve it; if something doesn't work, then fix it.

Basically everything on the north side of Boylston from Copley Square to Hereford Street works... I think there's consensus on that. With the exception of the Crate & Barrel portfolio recently announced for redevelopment and a preserved facadectomy, that side of Boylston Street and it's exemplary urbanism are in no danger. The south side, however, continues to evolve. Mandarin Oriental is an improvement from what was there before; 888 Boylston and the modernized, activated plaza was transformative and arguably improved the urbanism of Boylston. The Johnson wing of BPL debuted its renovations this past decade to acclaim; transformative is the most appropriate descriptor to compare how BPL interacts with Boylston at Exeter Street today vs. before.

Lord & Taylor? Weak stretch of urban streetscape. Hynes Convention Center? Weak stretch of urban streetscape. Dalton Street to Mass Ave? Windswept, noisy, polluted dead zone. These are components of Boylston Street begging for transformation. And among the proposed/disputed air rights parcels, MCCA's prospective sale of Hynes Convention Center, and the shuttered Lord & Taylor parcel, I agree that transformation by addition is in order. Make a great place better. It's what cities do.
 
Per FAA airspace map, L&T site could go as high as 950 feet, I believe. Hynes site is mostly 975 feet, with a tiny corner that might be 1000 feet.
 
dshoost88 said:
If you look at the quoted text in my post, it features links to quotes I’ve made on different AB threads for 8 years saying the Lord & Taylor site is ripe for redevelopment and Boston’s first supertall.
Click to expand...

If even China admitted supertalls are vanity-fueled, environment-fisting boondoggles, I can't see anyone ponying up the money for a supertall here. I mean, Gensler designed a revolutionary exoskeleton around Shanghai Tower - ostensibly so tenants could breath clean air and gaze a few meters out their windows - to mitigate wind noise and vibrations, and it only marginally worked. Central Park Tower's ballyhooed pass-through floors may reduce sway, but wind noise is such that many units have been retrofitted to sit independent of the superstructure, but you can't brick up and isolate units from those huge square windows, so it's a finger in the dyke sort of situation.

Something will be built here, but bank on a vanilla glass-wrapped mid-rise, with some PR blather about 'plaza activation' or my favorite, 'knitting the urban fabric together', used to assuage detractors' fears.
 
HarvardP said:
If even China admitted supertalls are vanity-fueled, environment-fisting boondoggles, I can't see anyone ponying up the money for a supertall here. I mean, Gensler designed a revolutionary exoskeleton around Shanghai Tower - ostensibly so tenants could breath clean air and gaze a few meters out their windows - to mitigate wind noise and vibrations, and it only marginally worked. Central Park Tower's ballyhooed pass-through floors may reduce sway, but wind noise is such that many units have been retrofitted to sit independent of the superstructure, but you can't brick up and isolate units from those huge square windows, so it's a finger in the dyke sort of situation.

Something will be built here, but bank on a vanilla glass-wrapped mid-rise, with some PR blather about 'plaza activation' or my favorite, 'knitting the urban fabric together', used to assuage detractors' fears.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure

Boston Properties is after all a Boston Company with a Global Footprint -- they just might want to take the Pru complex the last step as the original permitting gives the Pru great freedom which very few other sites in Boston have
Specifically:
There is nothing about filled land along Boylston that far from the Public Garden -- its all "Terra-really-firma" underneath -- hence the original "High Spine"
Its far enough from Logan and any FAA restrictions
its far enough from the Public Garden and Common so shadows are a minimal concern
and its the Pru -- aka the "City Under Glass" -- arguably Boston's first major development in the 2nd half of the 20th C - -which has morphed well into the 21st C

Capping the Pru Complex with a new "Pru" for the 50th anniversary
from the wikipedia
Completed in 1964, the building is 749 feet (228 m) tall, with 52 floors, and (as of January 2021) is tied with others as the 114th-tallest in the United States. It contains 1.2 million sq ft (110,000 m2) of commercial and retail space. Including its radio mast, the tower stands as the tallest building in Boston, rising to 907 feet (276 m) in height.
Click to expand...

A legitimate 300m for the world [984.25 ft for the US] in the form of a slim tower on the Lord and Taylor footprint with the tower on a 2 or 3 story pedestal [connected to the rest of the Pru complex]
The whole tower and pedestal set back from Boylston to give a nice pedestrian gift to the city
That would be a nice 50th anniversary for the complex and a first building to open in aura surrounding the upcoming 400th anniversary of the founding of Boston
 
Supertall means 300m or 984', as Whighlander mentions above. Since the FAA limits are based against sea level and not ground level, there are approximately 0 places available in Boston/Cambridge/Somerville to build an actual supertall. I hate the way many of you throw around the term, because it's impossible here.

However, I also hate the way that everybody seems to assume that the only option to eclipse the 790' Hancock is with a supertall. Like, ummm, what about the 194' between 984' and 790'? No reason we can't get 1-2 low-to-mid 900's in the Back Bay, 1-2 low 800's around North Station, and 1-2 800'-975' towers in the area of Kendall or Lechmere (Somerville). It should absolutely be possible to eclipse the Hancock without the need of presenting it as a supertall. In fact, I think it's detrimental because it's easier to show a 1000'+ tower looking out of place (like the 1100' tower Menino wanted at Winthrop Square) than to show an 800'-900' looking out of place in this city. We can absolutely hit those heights without it dwarfing or wrecking the rest of the skyline effect.
 
Last edited:
I always thought there was a big skyline void between the Pru and the JHT when viewing from the Charles / Cambridge. This site would be the perfect location to fill in that void. It' doesn't have to be a supertall but admittedly I would like to see something eclipse 790' in Boston.
 
stoweker said:
i don't recall how old that quote was from but i spoke with someone really senior at BXP pre-covid and they were guns blazing to buy out the lease and get the space back. my understanding is that they had plans ready to go on it once the space came back to them
Click to expand...
That sounds like good news concerning something big being built here...right?
 
They really need to activate the street wall if they want to go to tall here. It has to have as little pushback as possible. Lots of residential too.
 
All this talk of 1000 feet...not here. Anything wide here will kill the Gloucesters views north, and will not happen. There IS room along Ring Rd to slide a narrow taller building in that would not do TOO much damage to view corridors.

As for a super tall on the property, it goes where Saks is directly east of the pru, and could feature a skybridge connection to the Pru somewhere way up. But that is way in the future.

For now, a building similar to Trinity Place (yes a terrible building) will work very well here.
 
Cortes said:
All this talk of 1000 feet...not here. Anything wide here will kill the Gloucesters views north, and will not happen. There IS room along Ring Rd to slide a narrow taller building in that would not do TOO much damage to view corridors.

As for a super tall on the property, it goes where Saks is directly east of the pru, and could feature a skybridge connection to the Pru somewhere way up. But that is way in the future.

For now, a building similar to Trinity Place (yes a terrible building) will work very well here.
Click to expand...

Yeah good point. Not really expecting anything over 750ft.
 
Not exactly a high density project, but a interesting new tenant. I do wonder tho…the ceilings would seem a little short for a big box sports store, maybe they will cut out some of the floor plates and make double-height spaces?

9868B077-EFEF-4DF2-8299-8FEA988196FD.jpeg


“ Dick’s Sporting Goods Inc. plans to open one of its “House of Sport” stores at the Prudential Center in Boston's Back Bay, giving the new concept its highest-profile location yet.
The Business Journal reported last summer that Dick’s (NYSE: DKS) was then in advanced talks with Boston Properties Inc. (NYSE: BXP) to lease the former Lord & Taylor building at 760 Boylston St. The real estate firm revealed in the fall that it had signed a retail lease at the building, which is part of the Pru shopping center, without naming the tenant.
The Dick’s website shows, however, that the chain recently began accepting job applications for a House of Sport at the Pru, telling prospective employees that “we’re building a new experience in Boston.”
A Dick’s spokesperson declined to comment on the location. A Boston Properties representative also declined to comment.
Boston Properties securities filings show the 118,000-square-foot building is expected to be occupied again in the second quarter of 2024. It lists an estimated $43.8 million investment in the property, only a fraction of which had been spent as of the end of December. The Lord & Taylor there closed in 2020.
A construction permit last month for the address is for upgrades to the building’s core and shell, including mechanical, electrical and plumbing work.
The House of Sport concept is heavy on what is known as experiential retail. In addition to the sports equipment and athletic apparel for which Dick’s is known, the stores offer activities like a running track, rock wall and batting cage, as well as sports clinics and workout classes.
Dick’s has just three House of Sport stores right now: in Victor, New York; Minnetonka, Minnesota; and Knoxville, Tennessee. It has another planned for Johnson City, New York.
The Boylston Street store is poised be the first in a major city, located on the final stretch of the Boston Marathon course.”
 
1. I think this would be best for a demo and a rebuild as residential or mixed residential/commercial. However, I have no idea what is underneath this site and whatever other zoning BS or shadow laws would prevent from putting something vertical here.

2. With the above said, I was at the Minnetonka, MN House of Sport a couple of weeks ago and it was bumping - very busy, people shopping and buying things, lots of inventory, and like the description, they have rock walls, and experiential stuff with staff providing advice, etc.. Of course, it is MN and I think ours has an ice skating rink outside. A store in this location could get quite busy.

A counterpoint to #2 is that the MN store is attached to a mall, with a parking lot, so you can put your haul of things in a car. I am not sure why people would schlep all the way into Boston to buy stuff. I think this would be better suited to Burlington or Natick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top