DOT Parcels | 25-28 Kneeland Street | Chinatown

Jouhou said:
....it's already open space!
Click to expand...

Imagine if they decked the entire area (and the rest of the Pike to the Pru) then build a park on top! Clearly that would never happen in a million years, but it's fun to think about.
 
"Some of the proceeds of this deal will be to find a new HQ for this [MassDOT] location."

"Looking to even take a look at relocating to our Backup Highway Operations Building in South Boston."

-Pollack
 
datadyne007 said:
Baker openly criticized State assets being "open space," so whatever is developed there won't be open space. The Globe story came out before the press conference even happened.
Click to expand...

... does he read this forum?
 
FWIW - A reasonable set of footprints on the site (excluding the current steam plant and D6 building) is 108K SQF. For 2 million GSF, that would translate to 18 stories, on average.
 
Equilibria said:
FWIW - A reasonable set of footprints on the site (excluding the current steam plant and D6 building) is 108K SQF. For 2 million GSF, that would translate to 18 stories, on average.
Click to expand...

I expect the Veolia plant will be relocated.

Developer will throw a little bit of money toward Veolia, and they will get to build a new compact high efficiency steam plant somewhere else in the interchange spaghetti -- on one of the roadway blocked parcels.
 
datadyne007 said:
Gotta give Baker credit for his comments about State & City-owned "assets" not really being an asset when they are just "open space, tall grass, beer cans, and burned out automobiles" and that he would rather see affordable housing & TOD on these sites. "This will not be the last."
Click to expand...

The term "Open Space" is used in public planning circles to describe a variety of land uses that include parks, conservation areas etc. "Open Space" does not mean a vacant lot. So it is an incorrect use of the term by the Governor and people on this forum
 
^ Yeah. Baker is saying that he thinks state assets should not be "vacant lots". He's not making any judgement call on what the space should be once it's sold off; other than they they're hoping for 1000+ units of housing. It's Baker's typical efficiency and streamlining modus operandi.
 
tangent said:
The term "Open Space" is used in public planning circles to describe a variety of land uses that include parks, conservation areas etc. "Open Space" does not mean a vacant lot. So it is an incorrect use of the term by the Governor and people on this forum
Click to expand...

Tangent -- the Gov is using the term in the "popular vernacular" as in there's a lot of open space that could be developed around here -- this could include: empty wind-swept garbage filled lots, surface parking lots, Monsanto site, as well as an open field once someone's farm

Or in this case land surrounded by highway ramps
 
Whatever gets built there, I'd be curious to see their construction management report as it relates to traffic mitigation.

My commute takes me on the T bus on the Pike every morning to the corner of Lincoln & Beach.

Somehow, miraculously, the offramp from I-90 to Kneeland St./South Station/Leather District does NOT get terribly clogged each morning. Perhaps because the unzippering from I-90 and I-93 is relatively easy with relatively little pass-through commuters to Logan/E. Boston area, perhaps because the center-of-gravity is more the PO Sq. Area than down there... who knows.

But on days that offramp backs up, it's bad. And I wonder if any kind of mistakes with the construction management could exacerbate it... not that it won't be wonderful to build something here in what is a true industrial badlands and to complement One Greenway across the street...
 
I just got done reading the globe article and surprisingly everybody in the comments section is overwhelmingly calling for height and also quality design as this is the southern gateway to the city and NIMBY's kind of just ruined the northern one very recently. I was sort of surprised seeing that most times when I read about other proposals on the globe (esp aquarium garage) most people are unanimously anti height. Not sure if this is a good sign, but the globe definitely has the pulse of the Boston area and the commenters are not biased one way or another. Its one thing to hear the drum beat for height on an architectural forum seeing that we know how precious little space is left for big developments, but on the globe....it was refreshing. Maybe the general public is coming around? One of the very very few against height here was stating that it will displace residents and someone quickly shut her up with "please tell me exactly who is being displaced from this site". I don't know... but it gave me a good feeling seeing overwhelming support for height from the general public this early on.
 
Last edited:
There are no NIMBYs there, not that you couldn't find some, I suppose.

In the scheme of things, though, what the hell is happening? How does this proposal fit in to those for the other parcels there, and with plans for an expanded South Station, and moving the USPS, and, for that matter, Widett Circle and the Flower Exchange??

Should they move separately from one another or should a master plan encompass them all.

(Oh, and also the Dot Ave corridor from W Broadway to Andrew, currently in the midst of a planning phase.)
 
JohnAKeith said:
There are no NIMBYs there, not that you couldn't find some, I suppose.

In the scheme of things, though, what the hell is happening? How does this proposal fit in to those for the other parcels there, and with plans for an expanded South Station, and moving the USPS, and, for that matter, Widett Circle and the Flower Exchange??

Should they move separately from one another or should a master plan encompass them all.

(Oh, and also the Dot Ave corridor from W Broadway to Andrew, currently in the midst of a planning phase.)
Click to expand...

Old but sort of relevant. If this pans out we could eventually get a shit ton of development in this area. Honestly max height at the taller orange tower position would be extremely limited in impact in the surrounding area. I hope at least this parcel reaches its potential. Over 93 I never see happening but its still an older master plan to build from.
development.jpg

http://www.utiledesign.com/projects/south-bay/
 
I wonder if proceeds from selling off publicly owned land will be used to help pull the mbta out of its financial hole? Also I wonder when they will announce the relocation of city hall and the redevelopment of that parcel... :3
 
In the Utile diagram found in Post #53, just to be clear, the yellow buildings are situated on Parcels 25 (partially air rights), 26a, and 26c (the MassDOT building), with 26b (the power plant) becoming parkland that connects the neighborhood to the large, circular park on Parcel 27? Parcel 27 is considered un-developable because it is a pile of asbestos surrounded by highway ramps. So if that remains the district-wide plan, the fact that the power plant site is now up for redevelopment doesn't actually translate into a building, it just means that the neighboring parcels will become more attractive.
 
I expect the Veolia plant will be relocated.
Click to expand...

The Globe article says it will be rebuilt on site to be incorporated into the new building. The Globe says MassDOT will get some new facilities built in as well.
 
underground said:
The Globe article says it will be rebuilt on site to be incorporated into the new building. The Globe says MassDOT will get some new facilities built in as well.
Click to expand...

Makes sense as well. A modern steam plant is a fraction of the size of the current building.

I have heard proposals to move it to a far southern edge of the "site" (however the actual site is defined, there are parcels 25 through 31 in the mega site), away from the Kneeland Street frontage, but still reasonably close to the steam lines it feeds.
 
timsox6 said:
In the Utile diagram found in Post #53, just to be clear, the yellow buildings are situated on Parcels 25 (partially air rights), 26a, and 26c (the MassDOT building), with 26b (the power plant) becoming parkland that connects the neighborhood to the large, circular park on Parcel 27? Parcel 27 is considered un-developable because it is a pile of asbestos surrounded by highway ramps. So if that remains the district-wide plan, the fact that the power plant site is now up for redevelopment doesn't actually translate into a building, it just means that the neighboring parcels will become more attractive.
Click to expand...

That Utile diagram makes no sense, if I was going to build on that area I'd use parcel 27 as the foundation of a building. Anything can be abated.

Putting buildings to the sides of parcel 27 makes no sense. "We are going to build exclusively over tunnels and ramps, and not over any area that is actually solid ground"
 
Mongo said:
That Utile diagram makes no sense, if I was going to build on that area I'd use parcel 27 as the foundation of a building. Anything can be abated.

Putting buildings to the sides of parcel 27 makes no sense. "We are going to build exclusively over tunnels and ramps, and not over any area that is actually solid ground"
Click to expand...

Mitigation at parcel 27 cannot be a whole lot worse than what Wynn is going through in Everett for the casino site. At least someone probably has a map of what was buried in parcel 27!

There is also reasonable solid land throughout parcels 25, 26 a, b. Those are not all air rights. The Kneeland Street frontage is about 80% solid land, I believe.

One big cost factor not often discussed is the need to mitigate tunnel exhaust fumes from buildings on the site. Big exhaust stacks and careful HVAC design are needed to keep the buildings from sucking in all the pollution from the 93 tunnel. This was one of the cost issues that torpedoed the school proposal for parcel 25.
 
stick n move said:
I just got done reading the globe article and surprisingly everybody in the comments section is overwhelmingly calling for height and also quality design as this is the southern gateway to the city and NIMBY's kind of just ruined the northern one very recently. I was sort of surprised seeing that most times when I read about other proposals on the globe (esp aquarium garage) most people are unanimously anti height. Not sure if this is a good sign, but the globe definitely has the pulse of the Boston area and the commenters are not biased one way or another. Its one thing to hear the drum beat for height on an architectural forum seeing that we know how precious little space is left for big developments, but on the globe....it was refreshing. Maybe the general public is coming around? One of the very very few against height here was stating that it will displace residents and someone quickly shut her up with "please tell me exactly who is being displaced from this site". I don't know... but it gave me a good feeling seeing overwhelming support for height from the general public this early on.
Click to expand...

NIMBY's didn't get the height reduced at the Garden, they got approved for much higher. The developer just didn't think they could make it work financially to go higher.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top