Dorchester Bay City (nee Bayside Expo Ctr.) | Columbia Point

JumboBuc said:
I hear you, but #1 in the front of mind for anybody proposing a new building in Boston is "what will get approved?" That's the opposite of capitalism.

How much of our copy-and-paste architecture is the result of BCDC "What we heard" responses?
Click to expand...
People protecting their own capital interests IS capitalism :p
 
Why does a developer need to replace K circle? The City and State have long abdicated responsibility there. The fact that someone is building badly needed housing and commercial + lab space next to transit, replacing outmoded car-centric buildings seems to be a win for everyone. Why penalize them with replacing K-Circle? It's not even like they're building on green or brownfield.
 
They could have called it Bayside or, if they really needed to satisfy the territoriality of the locals, Dorchester Bayside. Only us old folks would associate Bayside with the sad convention center.
 
I kinda love "Dorchester Bay City" as a name, in large part because it's different from the naming convention most projects use. Otherwise it'd be like "The Morrissey" or "Mount Vernon Row" or "The Expo Exchange."
 
Sometimes, you just want time to slow down to a halt, and other times, you want it to be 2040...
  • Phase 1 (Completion c. 2027) – 1,262,700+ GFA - Buildings H1, H2, and E/F
  • Phase 2 (Completion c. 2031) – 454,100 GFA+ (1,716,800+ GFA Total) - Buildings A, B, and C
  • Phase 3 (Completion c. 2033) – 982,200+ GFA (2,699,000+ GFA Total) - Buildings D, K, L, and M
  • Phase 4 (Completion c. 2035) – 1,382,200+ GFA (4,081,200+ GFA Total) - Buildings I, J, and G
  • Phase 5 (Completion c. 2040) – 2,400,000+ GFA (6,481,200+ GFA Total) - Buildings P, Q, R, S, T, U, V1, and V2
Click to expand...
I'm really interested in the Phase 5 area, hopefully I and the project stick out that long...
 
JumboBuc said:
I kinda love "Dorchester Bay City" as a name, in large part because it's different from the naming convention most projects use. Otherwise it'd be like "The Morrissey" or "Mount Vernon Row" or "The Expo Exchange."
Click to expand...


You're giving them too much credit. Those examples would've actually had grains of context.

I was cringe/expecting "South Point Crossing".
 
stefal said:
Sometimes, you just want time to slow down to a halt, and other times, you want it to be 2040...
Click to expand...

Hahaha, not me, 2040 will put me at a young 89! And if the past is any indication, 2040 will happen in the blink of an eye so I'm all about slowing things waaaaaaaaay down! :ROFLMAO:
 
Czervik.Construction said:
Why do all these proposals look the same. This looks just like the Emerson dorm land proposal.
Click to expand...

On a hunch, I wondered after your remark whether Epsilon Associates prepared the DPIR for this project. The answer is yes.

I've noticed a common thread among many (all?) large projects submitted to BPDA that the documents themselves are almost universally prepared by Epsilon Associates, which would explain why the proposals all look the same. Obviously there will be differences among architecture firms, developers, project scopes/designs, etc., but the same team preparing the project submission documents will certainly make them all look similar. Fortunately, it probably simplifies the review timeline, too. Is it equitable? Probably not... but until another consultant swoops in that delivers the same kind of consistency with project permitting preparation, Epsilon will likely continue to be the preparer of choice.
 
Suffolk 83 said:
I listened in to a decent amount of the zoom last night and while no one here is going to agree, this proposal is an absolute joke. They acknowledge K circle needs to be replaced and they acknowledge JFK station needs to be replaced yet they themselves offer basically zero funding to jumpstart those projects and instead tout redline upgrades that have nothing to do with them and say they will push feds/state and city entities to to their bidding for K circle upgrades. They want to plop a "city"- their words, on top of a completely non functional traffic rotary and T station and contribute a whopping $11 mill for those. Not sure who's buying that.
Click to expand...

Low hanging fruit:

1642079410972.png
 
Suffolk 83 said:
ahhh because they are going to exacerbate the issues in a major way maybe? I cant tell if youre being facetious or not
Click to expand...

Shouldn't the infrastructure already be primed for growth? Something large was bound to be built here eventually what with the growth around Andrew and UMass right there. I wonder too if the Mary Ellen McCormack will eventually get the Bromley-Heath/Bunker Hill treatment, which will add more bodies into the area as well.

I guess UMBA can sit on the land a little while longer, but I don't think it's any private entity's responsibility to fix the local roads and subway system.
 
Last edited:
Blackbird said:
Shouldn't the infrastructure already be primed for growth? Something large was bound to be built here eventually what with the growth around Andrew and UMass right there.
Click to expand...
This what? A multi BILLION dollar development and they cant contribute anything to rebuilding broken infrastructure? They admit its broken and they also admit to planning on heavily relying on the T (which they overstate to confuse people about the incoming traffic their development will lead to).... and they dont have to pull their weight at all? I dont get this mentality. We arent Gary Indiana. None of the close by neighborhoods need this development in any way shape or form.
 
Blackbird said:
I guess UMBA can sit on the land a little while longer, but I don't think it's any private entity's responsibility to fix the local roads and subway system.
Click to expand...
Not only that, but if we want to do more than just lip service to the idea that neighborhoods abutting transit should not be designed for car dependency, why would we want to make it more accessible by car?
 
Suffolk 83 said:
This what? A multi BILLION dollar development and they cant contribute anything to rebuilding broken infrastructure?
Click to expand...

They didn't break it!

I'm all for getting as much money from developers as possible to help improve parks, add some extra funding for schools, etc. But asking these people to rebuild whole intersections and train stations seems a bit over-the-top to me.
 
Blackbird said:
They didn't break it!

I'm all for getting as much money from developers as possible to help improve parks, add some extra funding for schools, etc. But asking these people to rebuild whole intersections and train stations seems a bit over-the-top to me.
Click to expand...
Im not saying they need to rebuild it themselves, I'm just saying 26 million is basically nothing. Say this is a $2 billion build out- 26 million is 1.3% of the budget for transit infrastructure. Thats nothing. Im saying they should be giving more like 100 million, that would be 5% of $2 billion. Its really not asking alot. They are going to be putting a ton of pressure on nearby roads and jfk station, it shouldnt be given away for free. This is waterfront property in maybe the hottest market in the country, the city should get some things in return. This small minded mentality is why we have crumbling infrastructure to begin with.
 
Last edited:
Seems to me that if you're going to charge the dev to fix the state's issues, it needs to be focused on improvements that i) benefit the growth and ii) build for the future. Pedestrian/Cycling/Transit improvements are key. The Commonwealth needs to fix K circle proper.
 
The problems with the traffic circle and the physical state of the former Columbia Station long predate the desirability of this parcel. As recently as September 2021 a BU professor died falling off a dilapidated staircase next to the station.
 
Why wouldn't we expect a developer creating a brand new self entitled 'City' pay to upgrade the infrastructure in the area? When a new IKEA moves in they generally shell out for intersections and traffic mitigations along with other businesses - this is orders of magnitude greater than that. Also, getting new delopers to pitch in for Transit improvements for the MBTA (like say Assembly Square) is a step towards the successful public transit models found in Asia where public transit agencies can value capture the developer land around stations to fund expansion and maintenance.
 
Equilibria said:
Because this region employs 2 architecture firms.
Click to expand...

I appreciate how depressing it is a tiny handful of firms--CBT, Elkus Manfredi, etc.--seem to monopolize all of the gaudy, attention-grabbing tower proposals.

But why let that distract us from the underlying reality--that Boston is a hotbed and global mecca for architecture/design?

There's a reason Sasaki decided to move from the boonies of Watertown to the heart of the city. I could list 20 architecture/design firms in DTX alone. Add up whatever architecture/design clusters there must be in Back Bay, North Station, Cambridge--the list must be massive.

And think about how uniquely conducive the Boston ecosystem is to all of the engineering firms that architects must partner with. Add it all together, and it's a much more compelling narrative than the cynical and *intellectually impoverished* hot take that only a handful of firms can flourish here.

(Also remember: big change coming any minute now! ;))
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top