Fenway Center (One Kenmore) | Turnpike Parcel 7, Beacon Street | Fenway

Albeit smaller, it has a much greater chance of being built now with the red sox on board.
 
This is great. Other teams are investing in players, the Sox are investing in players AND real estate. I love it.
 
Telling words

"It is truly a joint venture."

Then:

"With me as lead developer."

Which really means:

"I basically have to do whatever the Red Sox want."
 
Since the clout of the Red Sox seems to be the only force in this city powerful enough to keep NIMBYism at bay, I elect they be put in charge of all Pike air rights development.
 
Why, they would limit the height of buildings so people can't see the games for free (free = +$4,000 a year in rent).
 
But lo: if the Sox were partners in the developments, they could just build season ticket prices into the cost of rent. Brings a whole new meaning to "luxury suite".
 
Yea but how much are season tickets? I think it'd be a sweet perk to just get to watch the games for free....in exchange for this, the Red Sox would get ownership of the roof and could put bleachers on top of the building and sell tickets for very cheap. They do it for Cubs games, why not here? Although I don't think the Cubs sell the rooftop tickets, I think it's just the people that own the building.
 
I don't see why that should be a major issue with the sox? I mean it's not like the demand for tickets isn't there, and how many, at most would these fenway view apartments have? Maybe i am missing something, but it just seems like the red sox are overreacting when it comes to height around fenway.

Don't get me wrong though, I am happy they have partnered because this definetly gives the project the push it will need against nimbys.
 
It's good that the Red Sox are on board, but are they really fighting against the height because of the free games reason, or did someone on the forum just suggest that as a reason. I just find it hard to believe they'd feel so threatened. Maybe it's that they don't want some developer ruining their supremacy in the area? Maybe they have plans of their own, so they want in to push the project in a way that would favor future plans? Maybe they just really like us fans and want us to be able to have a clear view of the night sky...
 
Haven't read much detail on this, and I also have not had a chance to read much of the response from the archboston community as i am in a hurry. So i'm sorry if this is redundant or off the mark.

However, I believe the height issue lies in wind currents throughout the stadium. The Sox were unhappy with the towers being built behind home plate because it could cause the wind to swirl and reduce the home run number. Face it, home runs draw crowds. Not that the Sox need more now, but in a few years, who knows? I'm willing to bet some hack did a study of what the maximum height a building over left field could be and not affect wind. As a result of said hack's study, the Sox want in on the development.

Also, partial profits won't hurt either.
 
I heard the apartments that will overlook Fenway Park are going to have a special film inside the glass that will black out the glass at a flip of a switch. Tenants will have to pay the Red Sox $25 per game ($50 for yankees games) to prevent the Red Sox from blacking out there window during Red Sox Games.

In addition they will be installing special locking devices on the doors from the apartments to the balconies. Unless the tenant pays $50 per game ($100 for Yankee games) the door will lock and the tenant will not be able to access their balcony during the games.

Tenants will not be allowed to bring their own beer into the new buildings. All Beer must be purchased from the Red Sox at $7.50 each plus a $2.00 delivery charge. Beer Sizes will also be reduced from 12oz to 10oz, this is part of the Red Sox master plan to bring back prohibition and increase profits on spring water sales.
 
You really, really had me going there. The film in the glass, wow. That was smooth.
 
Should we rename this thread "One Kenmore"?

OneKenmoreYawkey.jpg

One Kenmore is a planned $400 million residential and retail
development over the Massachusetts Turnpike between Kenmore Square
and Fenway Park in Boston.
Banker & Tradesman said:
Revised One Kenmore Earns ?Significant Amount of Praise?
Developer?s Scaled-Back Kenmore Square Project Includes Fewer Housing Units, Smaller Buildings
By Thomas Grillo
Reporter

Developer John Rosenthal?s hope that good things come in smaller packages seems to have paid off.

Last week, members of the Citizens Advisory Committee applauded the Newton developer?s latest revisions to One Kenmore, the $500 million mixed-use development proposal for Kenmore Square.

?Everyone loves the developer and the architect,? said George Thrush, a CAC member and director of Northeastern University?s School of Architecture. ?It gets better every time.?

The revised 1.2 million-square-foot development now features fewer residential units, about half the parking spaces, shorter buildings, more retail space and the addition of offices. If approved, construction would include several underused parcels as well as 85,000 square feet of air rights above the Massachusetts Turnpike between Beacon and Maitland streets, Yawkey Station and Brookline Avenue.

Upon completion, the mini-city will house 353 apartments, 1,344 parking spaces and 300,000 square feet of retail and offices in three buildings with 7, 13 and 17 floors. A 6-story garage that would be wrapped around one of the buildings also is planned.

Banker & Tradesman was the first to report the downsized project in July. And last month, Mayor Thomas M. Menino signaled his support for One Kenmore in an interview with Banker & Tradesman when he said, ?I?ve looked at it and there?s been considerable improvement on the design since the last iteration. It?s a little smaller and it?s moving forward.?

The latest version follows six months of meetings between Rosenthal?s Meredith Management Inc. and abutters in the Fenway neighborhood including the Audubon Circle Neighborhood Association, the Boston Red Sox and Boston University. In February, the plan included 668 residential units in a pair of towers and 2,300 parking spaces ? contentious issues for neighbors.

?Under the previous proposal, the two hot-button issues were building height and the number of parking spaces, so we?ve scaled back the number of parking spaces and reduced the height,? Rosenthal said. ?The reduction came as a way to satisfy key stakeholders who were concerned about the number of cars in the area and the height of some buildings.?

Rosenthal said he added more retail and offices because he had to find a way to make the project economically viable with shorter buildings. In light of the diminished condominium market, apartments have replaced the condo units, he noted.

?It?s a much better mix of uses,? he said. ?We added a third building, which then creates opportunity for more pedestrian connections and easier access to Yawkey station.?

The CAC working session at City Hall was the first time the 11-member committee has met since its last public meeting in February. The panel was appointed by Menino to advise the city on the development.

?Overall, people were pleased,? said Randy Lathrop, deputy director for community planning at the Boston Redevelopment Authority, the city?s planning agency.

?People Were Pleased?

Rosenthal, who has made headlines for the anti-handgun violence billboard he owns that faces the Massachusetts Turnpike, said he was happy that his revised plan was so well-received.

?The CAC was pleased that we reduced the height, density, massing and the number of parking spaces compared to previous plans,? said Rosenthal. ?This will be where the pebble drops for smart-growth, transit-oriented development. Our infill project will redevelop ugly surface lots into a regional commuter rail station and if that isn?t everyone?s idea of a great large project in an urban area, I don?t know what is.?

Despite an air of friendliness in the two-hour session, a number of concerns have been raised. Lathrop wants Rosenthal to have more open space as part of the development. ?We will ask him to move the buildings to get a couple of small parks built,? she said. ?There will be changes.?

In addition, while CAC members are supportive of Rosenthal?s project, some are troubled by the potential for a 1,800-space parking lot to serve the Red Sox and the Longwood Medical Area on a nearby parcel that is not part of his development.

?We don?t want Fenway to become a repository for regional parking,? said Thrush, the CAC member. ?The BRA has said they will do a traffic study, but you can get a traffic study to say anything you want.?

On the question of pubic financing ? an issue that has plagued Columbus Center, the planned $800 million air-rights project that straddles the Back Bay and South End neighborhoods ? Rosenthal said under its current incarnation, no public money would be needed for his project with the exception of a low-interest loan from MassHousing to support construction of the affordable apartments. But he said a final decision on public monies wouldn?t come until the BRA approves a final plan.

?Based on this plan, we are not projecting public financing,? Rosenthal said. ?If the scale and density is reduced and the number of public parks or public benefits are increased, public financing is a possibility.?

But it?s clear that Rosenthal has earned the support of those in attendance at the CAC meeting. State Rep. Martha M. Walz, whose district abuts the proposed project, raised questions about how construction of the project would be phased as well as parking. But following the session, she praised the developer.

?John Rosenthal has worked very hard to listen to the desires of the community and is proposing a good project,? Walz said. ?It continues to improve as he listens and the project evolves and I think what he heard was a significant amount of praise. There are questions and things that need to be refined. The CAC didn?t give the green light to build tomorrow. But it?s a good plan, and why not praise it??

Trush noted that Rosenthal could be the poster boy for smart development.

?If John Rosenthal is not a public-spirited enough person to do a development in Boston, then we should just stop doing them,? said Thrush. ?He?s like Mother Teresa ? and if that?s not good enough, let?s forget it. In this perennial search for decency and goodness, here?s this guy who spends his time housing the homesless and stopping gun violence.?
Click to expand...
(No link available - article is 'paid-content')
 
Sounds great. I am glad it sounds like it has a lot of support, hopefully this project will be one of those ones to move quickly, and not come into a bunch of complications. I can't wait to see some renderings of this. I am just a little disappointed that they scaled the towers down.
 
Yeah this new One Kenmore thing looks way better than the earlier renderings. Hope we see some more, and I hope this gets built. With a lot of support in the area, I'm thinking it will.
 
Bad photo (no scanner) from a Courant article showing the new 1K layout. Generally the same as before except the two tall buildings have been shifted closer to Kenmore. Going from left to right along Beacon the building heights are now 7, 13 and 17 stories. The uses, again left to right, appear to be commercial, residential, and mixed.
1K-v2-rend2003.jpg
 
I'd say that the space is ill defined but then it is being built over a highway/railroad so I'll give them some slack. Still, this is great.
 
Yay! Chalk up another potentially good Boston development eviscerated by our idiotic "public process".

Look at how this latest iteration completely disregards Beacon St. Building #2 now sits in a sea of green nothing, separated from Beacon by a very unnecessary wall of trees and pointless space. And compare the density of this plan to the one called for in the Turnpike Vision (lower right corner):

One_Kenmore_4.jpg



The public building process in Boston is hopelessly broken. It gives far too much power to a privileged few who are guided by two primary factors: 1. The desire to preserve their view; and 2. The belief that they are entitled to a life free of any perceived potential inconvenience.

Rosenthal also shares a good deal of blame here as well. It is clear that he never brought any real vision to the table and that he'll be content to build whatever the cranky neighbors allow him to -- just as long as it turns a profit.
 
^ Can't tell what's going on. Not much info in that model.

Doesn't look too good though.

Agree the process is broken.

Makes you wonder: why have a process at all?
 
No process = master builders who can do what they please.

What we need is a good balance, what we have is us vs. them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top