Fenway Infill and Small Developments

Yeah, but you can't just excuse something from the ADA or IBC/ICC because it's cool.

I wasn't advocating that Puma be except from ADA or IBC, just trying to reconcile why the City of Boston at one time approved their installation, after which the Commonwealth formally adopted IBC/ICC, and subsequently Puma couldn't work out approvals with ISD on the relocated installation at Fenway.

For the record, I'm 100% for full compliance to the letter of the law, even though 99% of the time I think the regs are utter bullshit that's not based in anything resembling reality.
 
She's a-coming down:

5636403097_cf42b1a8b0_b.jpg


5636982556_d434116b3c_b.jpg
 
This is nothing. Last semester in studio, we had to put ADA showers and bathroom facilities in a bike pavilion designed for showering/changing before work after you ride and park your bike there.
 
Now time for my obligatory "thank god there are two cops on site" sarcastic comment.
 
Why shouldn't PUMA need to be accessible? Don't they sell things other than running shoes? I'm sure the world class athletes that competed in the wheelchair class in the marathon on Monday might find something worth purchasing at this store. Not to mention someone with a disability wanting to buy a gift for someone.
 
This is nothing. Last semester in studio, we had to put ADA showers and bathroom facilities in a bike pavilion designed for showering/changing before work after you ride and park your bike there.

In the article a few months ago about the Oak Square firehouse renovation(a two million dollar project for one of the slowest firehouses in town I might add), one of the primary motivations was ADA compliance - for a FIREHOUSE - are we going to have firefighters in wheelchairs now?
 
In the article a few months ago about the Oak Square firehouse renovation(a two million dollar project for one of the slowest firehouses in town I might add), one of the primary motivations was ADA compliance - for a FIREHOUSE - are we going to have firefighters in wheelchairs now?

Yes. Not firefighters in the truck, but they have to accommodate office staff who may have accessibility needs. Both regular staff for the typical job discrimination protected against by the ADA, but also for firefighters who get injured in the field because it's dangerous work. Lot of them are repurposed in desk jobs when they can't temporarily/permanently go out to the scene. Cops, too, which is why Police Dept. secondary facilities that aren't really open to the public need building accessibility. This is ultimately a pretty necessary upgrade.

Plus all gov't buildings regardless of type need to meet the ADA no matter what. Might be slight inefficiencies of the law in cases like this or other facilities, but if there's no exceptions to seek then cities/states are a lot more diligent about making the upgrades to all their buildings within all feasibility instead of fishing for excuses not to. So the law actually "works" better overall this way by leveling the playing field on facility upgrade requirements.
 
That's a bunch of horseshit. The only people working in the firehouses and having any legitimate business inside the firehouse at all are the firefighters themselves. Other than showing the occasional boy scout troop around the firetrucks they don't have visitors, they don't have office staff, nor are injured firefighters re-assigned to desk jobs in the firehouses. The only reason they do this is to make the asshat "progressives" and "activists" feel good. Frankly, if the city had any stones they'd shut the firehouse down entirely and re-align the response areas so that the Chestnut Hill Ave firehouse covers this area. Virtually every other city's been cutting redundancies within their fire departments, it's time Boston does the same.
 
That's a bunch of horseshit. The only people working in the firehouses and having any legitimate business inside the firehouse at all are the firefighters themselves. Other than showing the occasional boy scout troop around the firetrucks they don't have visitors, they don't have office staff, nor are injured firefighters re-assigned to desk jobs in the firehouses. The only reason they do this is to make the asshat "progressives" and "activists" feel good. Frankly, if the city had any stones they'd shut the firehouse down entirely and re-align the response areas so that the Chestnut Hill Ave firehouse covers this area. Virtually every other city's been cutting redundancies within their fire departments, it's time Boston does the same.

Really. Every single firehouse in the U.S.? You can prove that?
 
Really. Every single firehouse in the U.S.? You can prove that?

I'm talking solely about Boston, not the rest of the country but your question demonstrates perfectly the absurdity of ADA codes and their rigidity with regards to all public buildings even when it forces cities and towns to lay out such a large amount of money for minimal or in this case, no public benefit at all.
 
That's a bunch of horseshit. The only people working in the firehouses and having any legitimate business inside the firehouse at all are the firefighters themselves. Other than showing the occasional boy scout troop around the firetrucks they don't have visitors, they don't have office staff, nor are injured firefighters re-assigned to desk jobs in the firehouses.

The only reason they do this is to make the asshat "progressives" and "activists" feel good.

Gus the Fireman would disagree with you.

wallybeavlarrygus.jpg
 
I'm talking solely about Boston, not the rest of the country but your question demonstrates perfectly the absurdity of ADA codes and their rigidity with regards to all public buildings even when it forces cities and towns to lay out such a large amount of money for minimal or in this case, no public benefit at all.

So why cite Boston when it's a Federal law applicable equally to every municipality in the country? Your rant isn't a local issue.
 
So why cite Boston when it's a Federal law applicable equally to every municipality in the country? Your rant isn't a local issue.

I think that's what he's saying. It should not be a federal cover-all. It should be broken down based upon where it makes sense and where it doesn't.
 
I think that's what he's saying. It should not be a federal cover-all. It should be broken down based upon where it makes sense and where it doesn't.

Basically. In other words it's too logical of an idea for the slugs on Capitol Hill to embrace.
 
From Boston.com

For rendering of hotel see link:
http://www.boston.com/business/arti...on_deck_for_developer/?p1=Well_Business_links

Hotel near Fenway Park is on deck for developer
McQuillan gave up on lab space plans

By Casey Ross
Globe Staff / May 7, 2011
E-mail this article To: Invalid E-mail address Add a personal message:(80 character limit) Your E-mail: Invalid E-mail address Sending your articleYour article has been sent.
E-mail|Print|Reprints|Text size ? + A Boston developer will build an eight-story hotel near Fenway Park after a proposal for a laboratory and office building fell victim to the economic downturn.
Tweet Be the first to Tweet this!.ShareThis .
William P. McQuillan, principal of Boylston Properties, said he will begin construction this fall on a 175-room hotel and retail building at 121 Brookline Ave., between the ballpark and the Longwood Medical Area.

Marriott Residence Inn has agreed to operate an extended-stay hotel on the property, hoping to cater to families visiting nearby hospitals and colleges. McQuillan said he has yet to secure tenants for 6,000 square feet of retail space planned for the building, but noted the neighborhood has attracted many new restaurants and stores in recent years, from Guitar Center to the Japanese eatery Basho.

?It?s a different use in the neighborhood, but it?s a natural evolution away from surface parking lots and one-story garages,?? said McQuillan, who previously teamed up with developer Steve Samuels to build Trilogy, the large residential and retail building near the corner of Brookline Avenue and Boylston Street.

McQuillan had sought to build lab space at 121 Brookline Ave., which now houses an Ace Ticket location, but demand from biotechnology and medical tenants dried up as the economy tanked in late 2007. He said he began talking to hotel companies in 2009.

?I would have preferred to build on the momentum of Trilogy, but the world slowed down a little and we were treading water for a few years,?? McQuillan said. ?I?m excited to see the next wave of projects in the neighborhood.??

The $60 million hotel will fill a dead spot along Brookline Avenue, adding new street activity in an area that lacks foot traffic when the Red Sox are out of town. A rendering of the building, designed by Group One Partners Inc. of Boston, shows a red brick facade with a series of colorful retail awnings along the street.

The hotel, with rooms for around $200 a night, will offer large suite-style rooms with kitchenettes for long-term guests. It will also feature an enclosed rooftop pool and a balcony framed by a large pergola. McQuillan, who has received city zoning approvals, said he hopes to begin construction by November and open the hotel in mid 2013.

City officials said the project is one of many moving forward in the neighborhood as economic conditions improve following the recession. Samuels & Associates is pursuing a plan to build residences, offices, and stores at 1325 Boylston St., and construction is moving forward on the first stage of developer John Rosenthal?s Fenway Center project over the Massachusetts Turnpike.

Kairos Shen, chief planner for the Boston Redevelopment Authority, said McQuillan?s hotel ? the first Marriott Residence Inn in Boston?s core ? will help fill a need for mid-priced hotel rooms in an area that mostly features more expensive brands. He said the project also creates an opportunity to open service-oriented retail stores in demand from hundreds of new residents in the Fenway.

?This project helps build on what we?ve been trying to do in the neighborhood for many years now,?? he said.

Casey Ross can be reached at cross@globe.com.
 
From Boston.com:

City approves new Fenway condos

By Sara Brown, Town Correspondent

The city redevelopment authority last week approved the construction of 48 new loft condominiums in what is now a parking garage in the East Fenway neighborhood.

The $15 million project at 41 Westland Avenue that will convert the Symphony Parking Garage, a 262-space, six-story building, to a seven-story condominium building, was approved at the Boston Redevelopment Authority's board meeting last week.

Backers of the project noted that the building will offer one of the few home-ownership opportunities in the Fenway neighborhood. The Fenway Civic Association and other organizations have noted that the Fenway has the lowest rates of home ownership in the city.

An additional story will be added to the building for four penthouse apartments and an accessible rooftop, and the ground floor of the building will house 31 parking spaces for residents.

The apartments, one- and two-bedroom "loft style" spaces, will range from 750 to 1400 square feet and sell for between $400,000 and $700,000, said Christopher Kaneb, representing the developer, Catamount Management Corporation, at a community meeting in April.

According to Kaneb, the year-long construction phase is expected to begin in the next year.

The developer has opted to buy-out the seven required affordable units required by the city, paying $200,000 for each of the units to Inclusionary Development Fund.

Email Sara Brown at yourtownsara@gmail.com
 
I drive by fenway on the mass pike every morning at about 5:45 and there's been dump trucks staging on Ipswich, anybody know what that's about?
 

Back
Top