TomOfBoston
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2007
- Messages
- 1,226
- Reaction score
- 443
When I heard that Lord & Taylor was closing, I had hoped that Nordstrom would lease the building for a Boston store. Alas, it was not to be.
They never have. I remember when Jordan Marsh proposed its ne building on Washington St. It was 2 stories! The city persuaded them to add a third story which is just a facade.Too bad the city's zoning doesn't require a minimum height for specific parcels such as this one.
Too bad the city's zoning doesn't require a minimum height for specific parcels such as this one.
Or sell it to someone who was willing and able to develop a taller building.So you think Boston Properties should have been forced to sit on a completely vacant building? Would that really be better for Boylston Street? This is a placeholder until demand picks up and lending conditions improve.
Or sell it to someone who was willing and able to develop a taller building.
If it's any consolation, the city sets a kinda low maximum height.... sighToo bad the city's zoning doesn't require a minimum height for specific parcels such as this one.
Not a requirement for a supertall, but a zoning minimum height of 10 stories. At least that height would fit the surrounding buildings, and not look like the sunken hole it does now.Highly doubtful that entity exists.
Those entities exist but why would one developer who is well capitalized and has the luxury of time, BP, sell such a prime site in a weak market to a competitor? Especially because BP controls much of the class A office in Backbay.Highly doubtful that entity exists.
100%So you think Boston Properties should have been forced to sit on a completely vacant building? Would that really be better for Boylston Street? This is a placeholder until demand picks up and lending conditions improve.
Not a requirement for a supertall, but a zoning minimum height of 10 stories. At least that height would fit the surrounding buildings, and not look like the sunken hole it does now.
You're right. I'm just wishful thinking. Eventually it will be redeveloped, hopefully in the next building cycle.No one expects or wants a super tall here. It was always going to be something of the scale of the Mandarin. So what do you put on those ten floors(besides two of retail) in a market where there’s still a lot of uncertainty, significant inventory in all sectors and high interest rates?
If the city said to BXP that you can only improve this property if you build to ten floors those execs would have laughed in the faces of the BPDA and they would have put giant chains and padlocks on the doors and let it rot.
No one expects or wants a super tall here. It was always going to be something of the scale of the Mandarin.
Would shadow law apply to Copley? I feel like that could be a major constraint but otherwise agreed. It would nice to have something break up the height different between the existing residential buildings and the Pru, like 600' range.The plot is huge enough that there is room for 2 buildings. The shorter Mandarin-scaled one would obviously front Boylston. Behind that I don't see why ~500' wouldn't be doable by the inner plaza. That half of the parcel should be considered "high spine."
Good points. Contact the owners, make a bid, and go build us something supertall!The plot is huge enough that there is room for 2 buildings. The shorter Mandarin-scaled one would obviously front Boylston. Behind that I don't see why ~500' wouldn't be doable by the inner plaza. That half of the parcel should be considered "high spine."