Downtown Crossing/Financial District | Discussion

Hard to tell for sure, since most of its façade is hidden by advertisements that are unrelated to anything in the building. OK for Times Square-ish Theatre District, or perhaps next to TD Garden; doesn't belong anywhere else.
 
Ron Newman said:
Also, what's wrong with having a PayLess shoe store around? I shop at this chain (though not usually at the one in Downtown Crossing). It may be sort of boring but it's also useful.
Click to expand...

It's not that there is anything wrong with PayLess. Rather, some, myself included, would rather see a large apartment project at that site to further push downtown crossing into an area with life after 6-7pm. If that PayLess is even open past 8pm, I highly doubt it generates much foot traffic after 6-7pm. IMO, we should be welcoming new residential projects in this part of town even if it means the demolition of an old "background building."
 
^+1 - Couldn't the facade or perhaps the Payless bldg. itself be saved and integrated into the new building. A mid-rise fill in of residential plus new groundfloor retail seems ideal.
 
BosDevelop said:
It's not that there is anything wrong with PayLess. Rather, some, myself included, would rather see a large apartment project at that site to further push downtown crossing into an area with life after 6-7pm. If that PayLess is even open past 8pm, I highly doubt it generates much foot traffic after 6-7pm. IMO, we should be welcoming new residential projects in this part of town even if it means the demolition of an old "background building."
Click to expand...

I'm inclined to agree with you, but with hesitation because it could end up as another Kensington. I prefer to be optimistic though, unlike a swath of other members on this board. It would be great to see an apartment tower rise here, but given such a prominent location I would hope that it is of architectural merit/quality.
 
Can you name a building built in the last 20 years in Boston that would be high enough quality that would at least match the streetscape currently provided by the 'old, background building.'
 
statler said:
Can you name a building built in the last 20 years in Boston that would be high enough quality that would at least match the streetscape currently provided by the 'old, background building.'
Click to expand...

I guess that is the root of Boston's issue. The historical nature of Boston is both a blessing and a curse. It's easy for Vancouver or Toronto to put up new 30-story glass towers because there was little context to begin with.

This is the great challenge of architecture though and what makes our city so rich.
 
Those "new 30-story glass towers" tend to have shit for streetscape.
 
Matthew said:
Those "new 30-story glass towers" tend to have shit for streetscape.
Click to expand...

Exactly. So they get the density and height, but not the historic and urban atmosphere. We get the historic urban atmosphere but end up having to sacrifice height and density.

I'm always reminded of Vienna because there's essentially a 7-story height plateau, yet the city is so rich with density and history. I still believe that DTX could become the next Stephansplatz retail district with proper planning too.
 
The goal is the urban atmosphere (historic or not). If height and density (two different things, mind you) help achieve that, great. If not, what's the point?
 
Mandarin? Not really that tall but it's new and has a nice street scape.
 
The best this spot could hope for would be a repetition of 45 Province St, as compared to a Kensington.

The 45 Province streetscape gets a "free pass" because it replaced the hideous mechanical parking garage. It needs the "free pass" because it is pretty much a carport gussied up with terracotta, bamboo and soft lights.

A tower on Bromfield would wreck the streetscape because, to be successful, it will depend on vehicular access ways for car storage. Thus the streetscape potential of the tower will never exceed that of the current buildings, Payless Shoes or not.

The scale of Bromfield is charming; this project would make it more like Avery Street.
 
Is there anyway for vehicles to enter 1 bromfield from province st?
 
There is a street/alley across from 45 that theoretically connects to something called Ordway Court. Don't know how that lines up with the proposed footprint.

Absent that, you'd have to demo some more buildings.
 
statler said:
Can you name a building built in the last 20 years in Boston that would be high enough quality that would at least match the streetscape currently provided by the 'old, background building.'
Click to expand...

would it really ruin the streetscape if an apartment building was built with a restaurant on the ground floor that had outdoor seating in the warmer months? I rather an active street with residents and diners coming and going at all hours as opposed to a run down discount shoe store that few shop at if it is not 9:00am-5:00pm Monday through Friday. It will be interesting to see how Millennium looks at the street level once the Legal Seafood goes into the ground floor.
 
Do we really need to keep demolishing perfectly fine contextual buildings that only need rehabilitation? Whatever is next door to 1 Bromfield looks like a far better candidate for demolition. Just have whatever's built there renovate 1 bromfield and then use its roof as a deck. Alternatively, you could also add a floor or two and give it a classic tripartite facade. I would much rather see the height concentrated on part of the city that is not currently occupied with solid, historic masonry buildings (south of chinatown, the industrial part of southie, etc). Allston, JP and the North End manage to have tons of life to them despite rarely cresting six stories.

Perhaps the real issue here is that these tall towers that are built are owned/rented by 1) people who are only in Boston for a fraction of the year and 2) rich people who take a limo service or drive straight from their garage to their destination, doing squat for street life. I would venture a guess that simply renovating the upper stories of the existing building into something remotely affordable to the average joe would do far more for adding activity then another 30 something floors of luxury.

Also whats up with all the hate for payless? Its the only shoe store that sells good, cheap shoes for restaurant staff, and probably brings more customers to the area then many of the nearby stores. I go to a "real" shoe store for running/dress shoes. Everything else has been payless for the past 20 years, and I'm more than happy with that.
 
davem said:
Do we really need to keep demolishing perfectly fine contextual buildings that only need rehabilitation?
Click to expand...

What if: (a) no one is willing to pay for the rehabilitation you say is needed; and (b) someone IS willing to put 200 residential units in a new building.

In a perfect world, perhaps this building shouldn't be torn down and should be rehabbed. Now in a realistic world (and maybe I am wrong) I don't see anyone putting in millions of dollars to rehab this building. So now what? We should keep the old building forever in the hope that one day someone buys the building and is willing to rehab it? Seems silly to me especially when the building that everyone is trying to save from demolition is, at best, a background/contextual building.

Are we really that negative that we can never realistically envision something better than this building? No need to answer, I know the answer. :)
 
Didn't someone say awhile back that the old Finagle space at the corner of Winter and Tremont streets was under construction as a Capital One bank/cafe? I have been by 4 times in the last 2 weeks and have not seen the slightest bit of activity at the site and I even looked inside the space (you can peek through the panels they put up). I don't think anything is going on in this very prominent space and if it is, it is the slowest bank build out this city has ever seen. I really think that space would be perfect for a restaurant/bar with windows/doors opening up to the street (sort of like what Sonsie is to Newbury while fully appreciating that Winter is no Newbury). All of Winter Street from Tremont to Washington is among the most disappointing stretches in the downtown area especially given the activity/foot traffic on that stretch.
 
BosDevelop said:
Didn't someone say awhile back that the old Finagle space at the corner of Winter and Tremont streets was under construction as a Capital One bank/cafe? .... (sort of like what Sonsie is to Newbury while fully appreciating that Winter is no Newbury). All of Winter Street from Tremont to Washington is among the most disappointing stretches in the downtown area especially given the activity/foot traffic on that stretch.
Click to expand...

It's still under review with the city because no one's attempted this bank/cafe concept in Boston before. Landlord doesn't mind--after all, they're still getting paid rent from Capital One/ING from when the lease signed years ago! [And remember, much of the delay involved the merger between the two banks]

By the way, you completely contradict yourself in saying "Winter Street is so disappointing" while at the same time acknowledging it's "no Newbury." Winter St. will stay the way it is until its demographic becomes more affluent. Period. The new apartments at 8 Winter St. and condos in development above former Locke-Ober and of course at Filene's should help. But until then, the retail reflects the average clientele. Why is that difficult to comprehend?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top