Fenway Infill and Small Developments

Re: the Muddy River project (I don't think we ever made a thread just for this):

1. They really managed to mess up traffic in front of the landmark. The worst part is the lane division of Park Drive north where it splits to the Riverway or continue as Park Drive: not enough lanes for Riverway exit, and people just blatantly ignore the cordoned-off area of pavement to make lanes of their own. They really need to take another look at this. Does anyone know if the Army Corps or DCR is responsible for the roadway redesign disaster?

2. Anyone aware of any updates on the bike path connection underneath the Park Drive Bridge? I haven't heard anything lately.

3. I've been assuming that the chain link fences around the Muddy River parks are temporary to allow protection for the new plantings. Can anyone confirm that they are (hopefully) going to come down?
 
I've been told a number of times that the black chain link is temporary landscape fencing that will come down in 2 years once the plantings have matured. I have to admit though, the fencing does keep people away and prevents it from getting crapped up like it was before.
 
FK4 said:
This is pretty awful. Looks like standard fare, bland, boring infill. I'm actually surprised they allowed such mediocrity on this corridor.
Click to expand...

I'm torn about this one, FK.

While I agree with you on some points - I hated to see the distinct Elephant Walk Restaurant and its colonial bank architecture go - and further, the color of the brick of this new building would have blended in better if it were darker like its neighbors.

On the other hand, we are talking 32 new apartments added to a plot that had none and that street level looks great with the big windows for another restaurant to go in there. Pedestrian-wise, that is much more friendly than what was before which was quaint, but not inviting with smaller windows. On top of that, the new building is recessed more from the street, opening up more of a sidewalk plaza (possible outdoor seating for a restaurant? - I know the ad sign says "store" but their website has a restaurant in the mock ups ) space. That sidewalk is now wider, and is about to become much more urban-lively and I think that is a good thing.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/9...6656!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x2dcccb0bc75f8147!6m1!1e1
 
Last edited:
shmessy said:
I'm torn about this one, FK.

While I agree with you on some points - I hated to see the distinct Elephant Walk Restaurant and its colonial bank architecture - and further about the color of the brick (would have blended in better if it were darker like its neighbors).

On the other hand, we are talking 32 new apartments added to a plot that had none and that street level looks great with the big windows for another restaurant to go in there. Pedestrian-wise, that is much more friendly than what was before which was quaint, but not inviting with smaller windows. On top of that, the new building is recessed more from the street, opening up more of a sidewalk plaza (possible outdoor seating for a restaurant? - I know the ad sign says "store" but their website has a restaurant in the mock ups ) space. That sidewalk is now wider, and is about to become much more urban-lively and I think that is a good thing.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/9...6656!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x2dcccb0bc75f8147!6m1!1e1
Click to expand...

Agreed, even though it's architecturally very blah, from an urban standpoint this is a huge upgrade. The lack of retail at Audubon Circle always surprised me for such a busy intersection.
 
Its a lot better than most of the cardboard bullshit littered all over the southie infill thread
 
shmessy said:
I'm torn about this one, FK.

While I agree with you on some points - I hated to see the distinct Elephant Walk Restaurant and its colonial bank architecture - and further about the color of the brick (would have blended in better if it were darker like its neighbors).

On the other hand, we are talking 32 new apartments added to a plot that had none and that street level looks great with the big windows for another restaurant to go in there. Pedestrian-wise, that is much more friendly than what was before which was quaint, but not inviting with smaller windows. On top of that, the new building is recessed more from the street, opening up more of a sidewalk plaza (possible outdoor seating for a restaurant? - I know the ad sign says "store" but their website has a restaurant in the mock ups ) space. That sidewalk is now wider, and is about to become much more urban-lively and I think that is a good thing.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/9...6656!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x2dcccb0bc75f8147!6m1!1e1
Click to expand...

Agreed on all those points. Brookline is my hometown so I'm familiar with the Elephant Walk and all the ins and outs of the area. Good restaurant but was a dead patch along the corridor. To FenwayResident, Audobon's commercial stuff is mostly garden level or first floor establishments in the old townhomes... Sadly, allowing new conversions of residential buildings for first floor commercial space seems to never happen, partly, I'm sure, to more restrictive licensing and zoning (I love the little bars in the first floors of triple deckers that used to be all over Southie; the original City Feed on Boylston St in JP; places like that). It would be cool if they could take some of the other townhouse/brick apartments and convert the first levels into commercial space, but I think even if owners wanted to do that, the owners of most of the remaining buildings belong to the local cancer that is BU and will never contribute anything but more institutionalization to this area. Also, the fact that it's basically between nodes of Kenmore and the St Mary's stop doesn't help. For what it's worth, it's lost a few spots like An Tua Nua and Kilroy's over the years).

That being said, the new building just doesn't blend in, nor does it stand out in a good way. I'm totally OK with not making museum pieces that do Disneyland mimics of their historic neighbors, but I do think the townhomes on Beacon are architecturally significant and deserved better than what they got here. I was totally fine with replacing the old Elephant Walk and glad about the street level but still disappointed in the building itself.
 
Business as usual at Yawkey

IMG_9588_23962 by J Sinclair, on Flickr

IMG_9589_23963 by J Sinclair, on Flickr

IMG_9590_23964 by J Sinclair, on Flickr

That hotel thing

IMG_9593_23967 by J Sinclair, on Flickr

Why did they destroy a park to build a 1 story highway interchange building?

IMG_9594_23968 by J Sinclair, on Flickr

Well theres this at least

IMG_9600_23974 by J Sinclair, on Flickr

IMG_9605_23979 by J Sinclair, on Flickr

IMG_9607_23981 by J Sinclair, on Flickr

WHO APPROVED THIS WALL

IMG_9609_23983 by J Sinclair, on Flickr
 
Theres tons of examples, the most recent being in ny, where they hang glass panels directly over concrete and it looks fine. They definitely should have done that at 45 province. Here it seems the concrete panels match the glass so I wonder if they are hung the same and can still be swapped. They could just wait until the building next door is built and swap them out for glass where the podium ends. Its funny how theyre so worried about shadows on the common but what about a huge blank wall looming over it ruining the view? This one isnt nearly as bad but it still should be remedied after this tower is complete although Ive heard nonplans of that happening. Mural?
 
^ Better be something. Makes no sense at all to plan a party wall if the abutter isn't abutting...
 
BussesAin'tTrains said:
^ Better be something. Makes no sense at all to plan a party wall if the abutter isn't abutting...
Click to expand...

When the party wall was planned and built the abutter wasn't there yet.

Don't blame 1340 Boylston for its party wall, blame Skanska Burger King for its lack of a matching party wall.
 
BussesAin'tTrains said:
^ Better be something. Makes no sense at all to plan a party wall if the abutter isn't abutting...
Click to expand...

Code says you have to build a fireproof party wall on a property line like that.

You can decorate/clad your party wall -- but if you expect abutters, why do that?

The odd thing is the building next door not taking advantage of their entire footprint.
 
JeffDowntown said:
Code says you have to build a fireproof party wall on a property line like that.

You can decorate/clad your party wall -- but if you expect abutters, why do that?

The odd thing is the building next door not taking advantage of their entire footprint.
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly, this lot had a pretty low FAR so in order to get a tower they had to lower the rest of the footprint. That being said, I'm not sure why they didn't locate the tower on the other side of the building? My guess is if they put it too close to the wall it would impact the value of the units on the eastern side, since they would have reduced light and no/limited view.
 
FenwayResident said:
If I remember correctly, this lot had a pretty low FAR so in order to get a tower they had to lower the rest of the footprint. That being said, I'm not sure why they didn't locate the tower on the other side of the building? My guess is if they put it too close to the wall it would impact the value of the units on the eastern side, since they would have reduced light and no/limited view.
Click to expand...

Wow, sounds like odd spot zoning (although it happens in Boston). But the tower set away from the party wall does give that side windows.
 
The Queensberry Street Garage is probably going up on the market:

C1gHwAXXgAIYQwi.jpg


This is a big hole in the center of the neighborhood and would be a great place for some nice contextual 5-10 story brick apartments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top