Fort Point Infill and Small Developments

[whighlander]

The roofdeck dining may face a few hurdles.

The BRA recently approved a change from retail use to private residential for the ENTIRE ground floor of the building facing Ming Tsai's roofdeck (63 Melcher).

Then the BRA approved a proposed private use for the building next to 63 Melcher (51 Melcher). That makes two inactive ground floors, one residential.

Couple that with the entire dead block the BRA approved around the corner (288-300 A St.), once bustling with civic and cultural uses on the ground floor, now completely walled off with a main entrance around the corner.

The BRA gaveled in each of these ridiculous approvals in the face of a torrent of comment letters from residents and organizations calling for active ground floor uses at each of these buildings. To no avail.

The fun never ends.

Sicil -- not every building needs to be full of retail activity -- this seems like an ideal site for a nice restaurant being surrounded by hundreds of residents

But like the CAT parcels in the Bulfinch Triangle and a number of underdevelped spots on the edge of civitas -- the key is what happens to the acres of parking to the immediate SW? of Melcher / A St. corner

 

[Sicilian]

Not "every" building needs to be full of retail activity?

How about naming one building approved for retail activity.

Yes, there is one.

One.

This reminds me of the argument when I say, "Seaport architecture is subpar," the typical response is:

"Not every building needs to be a gem. It's really the ground floor activation that matters."

So let's look at the ground floors. Up and down Melcher St ground floors are being approved for private uses.

"Not every ground floor needs to be active."

 

[whighlander]

Not "every" building needs to be full of retail activity?

How about naming one building approved for retail activity.

Yes, there is one.

One.

This reminds me of the argument when I say, "Seaport architecture is subpar," the typical response is:

"Not every building needs to be a gem. It's really the ground floor activation that matters."

So let's look at the ground floors. Up and down Melcher St ground floors are being approved for private uses.

"Not every ground floor needs to be active."

Well -- not every street needs to be commercial

Even in the Back Bay you have Beacon, Commonwealth, Marlboro, mostly residential with very few publicly accessible doorways

Yet, we seldom hear anyone complaining about retail not being included in a re-do of a building on Marlboro or even most of the B-G cross streets between Commonwealth and Beacon


How about Summer St?. -- I'm guessing that it's the likely retail / food street for the area between the BCEC and Fort Point Channel

 

[Sicilian]

Whighlander, either your an optimist that ALWAYS finds the silver lining in life, or you work at the BRA. I can't ever bring up a systemic problem without you working around it.

So, let's go with your line of thinking.

Do you want to name some recent BRA approvals for retail on Summer Street?

Let's look at the most recent approvals.

At 311 Summer (Add Inc.) the BRA approved office space on Summer Street ground level.

At 316 Summer (LogMeIn #1) the BRA approved private office space on Summer ground level, no retail. They approved a retail space below, on A Street.

At 322 Summer (LogMeIn #2), same thing. The BRA approved private office use at grade on Summer.

Prior to this approval, BOTH buildings had been approved for active uses including a proposed cultural non-profit that was looking for space. In fact, both buildings won approval as a condo after a year of meetings, then flipped for office space with the filing of an NPC and a 30-day comment period.

Let's look at 245 Summer, BRA-approved ground floor renovated within recent past years:

Is that entire ground floor top notch, whighlander?

The only BRA-approved retail use on Summer in Fort Point in the past 10 years that I'm aware of is at 281 (Papagayo).

That's one.

"Not every building..."
"Not every ground floor..."
"Not every street..."

Please don't respond with another fictional argument i.e. "there aren't any retailers looking to open down there." I'm aware of a number of retailers who've had a hard time finding space on Melcher or Summer.

You can't begin to fix a problem until you believe there is one. Do you at least agree there's room for improvement here?

 

[SeamusMcFly]

Without reading the back and forth above. Melcher is a great small interesting street that should be as pedestrian friendly as possible. Great place for little neighborhood shops. Summer street as the big boulevard is more suited to office lobbies, and bigger retail and restaurant joints. Melcher is a beautiful little street that has great potential to be an actual neighborhood feeling street. With the old style bridge over head, the adjacent A street underpass that looks great when they deck it out at holiday seasons.

No not every street and building street level needs to be retail, but here it should strive for it.

 

[SeamusMcFly]

There is also the Channel cafe on the opposite side of Summer street from Papagayo. May not be wihtin the last 10 years, but I'm pretty sure it was fairly new 7 years ago when I started here.

So 2 retail spaces between SS and BCEC. What's that a half mile, 3/4?

Forgot Metro on the corner of Melcher. 3.

 

[ParkerChris]

The roofdeck dining may face a few hurdles.

The BRA recently approved a change from retail use to private residential for the ENTIRE ground floor of the building facing Ming Tsai's roofdeck (63 Melcher).

Then the BRA approved a proposed private use for the building next to 63 Melcher (51 Melcher). That makes two inactive ground floors, one residential.

Couple that with the entire dead block the BRA approved around the corner (288-300 A St.), once bustling with civic and cultural uses on the ground floor, now completely walled off with a main entrance around the corner.

The BRA gaveled in each of these ridiculous approvals in the face of a torrent of comment letters from residents and organizations calling for active ground floor uses at each of these buildings. To no avail.

The fun never ends.

I thought that the original plans for 63 and 51 were private and residential, with 49 being the final phase that includes retail.

Found an article from March that backs this up - http://articles.boston.com/2012-03-...l-project-senior-project-manager-office-space

What changed?

 

[Sicilian]

Without reading the back and forth above. Melcher is a great small interesting street that should be as pedestrian friendly as possible. Great place for little neighborhood shops. Summer street as the big boulevard is more suited to office lobbies, and bigger retail and restaurant joints. Melcher is a beautiful little street that has great potential to be an actual neighborhood feeling street. With the old style bridge over head, the adjacent A street underpass that looks great when they deck it out at holiday seasons.

No not every street and building street level needs to be retail, but here it should strive for it.

Couldn't agree more.

Melcher St is, in my view, the most beautiful street in Boston.

What I've made clear is a succession of BRA approvals up and down Melcher, with 49 Melcher as a single exception, have privatized every ground floor on the south side (the curve side.

Why? Because property owners are tapped like aphids to contribute to the BRA, and in exchange they do whatever they want. A lobby makes more sense to them, so the BRA approves a lobby.

I'd have no problem if they were building lobbies and walling off blocks as of right. But the BRA has been granting new development rights which should arrive with some basic requirements for ground floor activation.

There is also the Channel cafe on the opposite side of Summer street from Papagayo. May not be wihtin the last 10 years, but I'm pretty sure it was fairly new 7 years ago when I started here.

So 2 retail spaces between SS and BCEC. What's that a half mile, 3/4?

Forgot Metro on the corner of Melcher. 3.

Channel Cafe opened as-of-right within the pre-existing artists co-op. Metro opened as-of-right in 253 Summer.

I'm talking about ground floors that required a visit to the BRA for BRA approval as a result of proposed new construction or substantial rehabilitation.

I thought that the original plans for 63 and 51 were private and residential, with 49 being the final phase that includes retail.

Found an article from March that backs this up - http://articles.boston.com/2012-03-...l-project-senior-project-manager-office-space

What changed?

First off, these buildings have been approved multiple times since 2007.

63 Melcher was retail for the past decade, until the project came before the BRA starting in 2007.

The entire ground floor of 51 Melcher was approved for retail use in a public process that took a period of years. It was privatized (approved for office space/lobby) only in the final NPC with 30-day comment period and one public meeting.

49 Melcher is the only building of recent and near recent approvals on or near Melcher for retail use. I made that one exception clear in my post to whighandler here:

Not "every" building needs to be full of retail activity?

How about naming one building approved for retail activity.

Yes, there is one.

One.

Lastly, the block-long 288-300 A Street was retail, civic and cultural use for 15-20 years until it came before the BRA about 10 years ago. Now it is a complete dead block with one locked door on A Street with a sign posted "Use Entrance around Corner" pointing to main entrance on Garage Access Road. Home of Elkus Manfredi among other companies.

EDIT: Address correction, last paragraph.

 

[ParkerChris]

Thanks for clarifying.

When you said recent, I thought you meant within the last month or so.

Totally agree with your frustrations.. I remain hopeful that the burst of residential will boost retail demand in the area forcing new zoning and build-outs to suit them. I know it's not ideal, but residential is still weak in the area and in this market it really needs to be booming for retail.

To the original point of Ming's rooftop plans -- will the dead-walls or residential developments really affect this plan?.. it is still a rather small space that shouldn't attract too much noise. Barlow's has outdoor space and is in a residential heavy (for Fort Point) area.

 

[ParkerChris]

Not to break up the discussion, but while on this topic I have one related question to ask:

Why was Channel Center built with it's retail away from A street? I've walked down A every day for the last year, and had no idea that Channel Center Street was as nice as it is. It's no wonder why most of the retail spots took so long to start filling-up.. they are completely hidden from the majority of pedestrian traffic. Is there a plan to open-up these units to A street?

 

[Sicilian]

To the original point of Ming's rooftop plans -- will the dead-walls or residential developments really affect this plan?.. it is still a rather small space that shouldn't attract too much noise. Barlow's has outdoor space and is in a residential heavy (for Fort Point) area.

I think based on the timing Ming may encounter some reasonable concerns from Mondo Condo residents but 63 Melcher ground floor tenancies are probably a year away. My guess is he'll get the approval, with some restrictions on hours and entertainment.

Why was Channel Center built with it's retail away from A street? I've walked down A every day for the last year, and had no idea that Channel Center Street was as nice as it is. It's no wonder why most of the retail spots took so long to start filling-up.. they are completely hidden from the majority of pedestrian traffic. Is there a plan to open-up these units to A street?

At lower A Street, the BRA is pretty much a wholly owned subsidiary of Gillette. Gillette called for Channel Center retail to be turned inwards, away from the manufacturing facility. And they sued Beacon to prevent residential in that area, but settled and Fort Point Place moved forward. There are a number of odd deed restrictions on Channel Center, some amended over the years.

 

[BeeLine]

Sicil:
Are they planning to keep the sky bridge over Melcher? It seems to be in very poor condition.

 

[Sicilian]

Sicil:
Are they planning to keep the sky bridge over Melcher? It seems to be in very poor condition.

Good question.

As you might expect, rehabilitation of the Melcher St overpass is possible at a price. I don't have any idea what that price is.

But let me give you some background, as best I can recall.

The overpass connects 51 Melcher to 281 Summer.

Responsibility of the overpass has always been in the hands of a single owner, originally Boston Wharf and then an owner who bought a portfolio of properties in 2006. After that owner secured development rights across the entire portfolio from the BRA, the two buildings were sold in 2010 or 2011 to the current owner.

The BRA had leverage to call for rehabilitation of the overpass during the lengthy approval process for upzoning of the portfolio in 2006, which granted around 300,000 square feet of new development rights to that owner.

But the BRA refused to call for any work on the overpass, or even an evaluation of its condition, despite a constant stream of letters from the community calling for its consideration in the approval process.

If you look at project filings for 51 Melcher, my recollection is that the overpass wasn't even mentioned. I recall drawings filed for the project that showed a square window where the overpass connected to the building.

So the approvals were all gaveled in, including a host of infills and additions and new construction, with no mention of the overpass.

Fortunately, the new owner needed to file another Notice of Project Change in 2010/2011, calling for some changes to the prior project.

By 2010, Fort Point had been designated a landmark district by the Boston Landmarks Commission (BLC). In the BLC designation, the Melcher St overpass was highlighted, called out as a highly significant feature of the district along with a few other features (i.e. Wormwood smokestack, etc.). As a matter of record, the BRA and proponent knew the overpass was significant years before (during all approvals), because the BLC Study Report had already been completed.

So, in 2010 (or maybe 2011), when 51 Melcher was presented to the Landmarks Commission, one of the BLC Commissioners remembered that the proponent owned the overpass and asked for it to be considered with approvals. The Commission unanimously agreed to include the overpass for consideration.

I don't know the current status of the overpass in terms of how the Landmarks Commission will be evaluating it as 51 Melcher moves forward.

So, the short answer is -- the future of the overpass and assessment of its condition is currently in the hands of the Landmarks Commission. No project filings I'm aware of indicate that the owner intends to do any more than the Landmark Commission requires, but on the bright side the owner does not call for its demolition. I'll try to get a better answer asap.

 

[whighlander]

Whighlander, either your an optimist that ALWAYS finds the silver lining in life, or you work at the BRA. I can't ever bring up a systemic problem without you working around it.

So, let's go with your line of thinking.

Do you want to name some recent BRA approvals for retail on Summer Street?

...

You can't begin to fix a problem until you believe there is one. Do you at least agree there's room for improvement here?

Sicil -- Absolutely -- I agree that there is always room for improvement in general and in particular there are many city street / sidewalk whose general ethos and the retail / restaurant impact on sidewalk life could be improved. I also think that contrary to some views on this forum that the professionals at the BRA are aware of these issues.

For instance, I recently read some BRA docs about how the Cross-streets initiative is going to transform Broad Street and Causeway St. If the end result is as indicated -- the final product will be quite impressive -- enabling Newbury St-like sidewalk restaurant expansions. That's almost as active as a sidewalk can get without turning into a 3rd world street bazare.

More specifically to your points -- since I'm not a daily worker / walker of the SPID, I can't really comment on all of the streets and retail in the district. However, I do get there fairly frequently and I also read about quite a few new restaurants and how the place is becoming a restaurant destination.

Note that i don't work for the BRA and I don't always find silver linings -- sometimes they are only Bronze or even Copper linings.

However, I don't always find fault before I investigate or analyize something thoroughly.

I think that since I graduated from MIT in the 1970's that I've enough experience in the real-world with projects of many scales from my own small home projects to planning R&D in excess of $400 M to apprececiate the challenges and the need for Plan B, B', B", etc.

Currently, I am rebuilding a deck that was falling off the back of my house and am fully appreciating the difference between the architect's render (my own) and the final product as-built when all of the structural, geological and other realities are accomodated. -- But I digress

 

[Sicilian]

Sicil -- Absolutely -- I agree that there is always room for improvement in general and in particular there are many city street / sidewalk whose general ethos and the retail / restaurant impact on sidewalk life could be improved. I also think that contrary to some views on this forum that the professionals at the BRA are aware of these issues.

For instance, I recently read some BRA docs about how the Cross-streets initiative is going to transform Broad Street and Causeway St. If the end result is as indicated -- the final product will be quite impressive -- enabling Newbury St-like sidewalk restaurant expansions. That's almost as active as a sidewalk can get without turning into a 3rd world street bazare.

More specifically to your points -- since I'm not a daily worker / walker of the SPID, I can't really comment on all of the streets and retail in the district. However, I do get there fairly frequently and I also read about quite a few new restaurants and how the place is becoming a restaurant destination.

Note that i don't work for the BRA and I don't always find silver linings -- sometimes they are only Bronze or even Copper linings.

However, I don't always find fault before I investigate or analyize something thoroughly.

I think that since I graduated from MIT in the 1970's that I've enough experience in the real-world with projects of many scales from my own small home projects to planning R&D in excess of $400 M to apprececiate the challenges and the need for Plan B, B', B", etc.

Currently, I am rebuilding a deck that was falling off the back of my house and am fully appreciating the difference between the architect's render (my own) and the final product as-built when all of the structural, geological and other realities are accomodated. -- But I digress

Right on, whighlander. And I'll continue to read your posts, and assess each point you are making, with interest.

The initiative you are referring to is Crossroads. We went through many meetings to improve Summer and Congress a few years back, and some funds are set to arrive from City coffers and BCEC next year. The improvements will be substantive, including sidewalk repair, bumpouts, etc.

So there are some good things to look forward to, making ground level accommodation for retail/civic increasingly viable.

 

[whighlander]

Right on, whighlander. And I'll continue to read your posts, and assess each point you are making, with interest.

The initiative you are referring to is Crossroads. We went through many meetings to improve Summer and Congress a few years back, and some funds are set to arrive from City coffers and BCEC next year. The improvements will be substantive, including sidewalk repair, bumpouts, etc.

So there are some good things to look forward to, making ground level accommodation for retail/civic increasingly viable.

Sicil -- thanks for the link Crossroads and the positive comment. While I've a fairly robust and resilient ego -- it does no harm to have people appreciate some of my posts.

I think a lot of the forum members will find the Crossroads initiative instructive. It shows that the city's planners are aware of both the need and the opportunity to improve the street / sidewalk life near to the Greenway and they have defined a series of small changes (benches, trees, necking down the intersections and widening sidewalks) which cumulatively can significantly improve the character of a single key street. More people walking on the wider sidewalks, more people eating al fresco at cafes spilling out onto the sidewalk.

Once these are in place and functioning, they form the catalyst to expand outward to improve the pedestrian experience for the whole area of a neighborhood.

The key however, is to realize that to work and stick the process needs to be organic -- the City can facilitate, but it takes the individual entrepreneurs to invest and commit to really change things.

For example, even vaunted Newbury Street has significantly improved in the past 30 plus years -- mostly through the investment of the building owners and the contribuitiions of the individual entrepreneurs who create their places of business. When I was a student at MIT, only the blocks close to the Public Garden (around the Ritz) and some of the area near to Mass. Ave. were really pedestrian-activated. Gradually, the middle blocks began to change -- including the conversion of the monolith of the New England Mutual Life into a diversified block. After a few years of gradual change, "sotto voce," the restaurants began to expand into sidewalk cafes. Now from one end to the other for the 8 pleasant months things are "jumping" and the sidewalks are crowded.

If crossroads can acheive something like Newbury St., at a couple of the key streets intersecting the Greenway -- it will be a successful initiative.

Similarly, some of the parallel streets such as the block of Canal St. need to spread to create an activated belt where someone can stroll the Greenway and take a detour just about any block toward the FID, or toward the waterfront and find a nice place to sit and ein Bier trinken, or sorso del vino, and snacking. If in the next 10 years that happens -- then the Greenway as a whole will become a pleasant and active place -- irrespective of whether there are carousels or formal gardens or not.

The same thing can and should happen to the area around and along the Fort Point Channel on both banks, around the BCEC and along the waterfront from Fan Pier to the Harpoon Brewery. However, it will take time and investment by the pioneering entrepreneurs with encouragement from the public and the city planners.

 

[Shepard]

^ Westie's most on-point post to date. Put simply, good urbanity takes time, because good urbanity is often organic in its emergence and growth. I agree with this. But I'll also add the only game-changing developments we're seeing today are deep-pocket developer superblocks, and that's a result of BRA policy. City (and state and federal) government shapes the kind of organic growth that takes place - and here the BRA's record is decidedly mixed, I believe.

 

[ParkerChris]

I think based on the timing Ming may encounter some reasonable concerns from Mondo Condo residents but 63 Melcher ground floor tenancies are probably a year away. My guess is he'll get the approval, with some restrictions on hours and entertainment.

Looks like Ming's rooftop plans fell through, for now. Hopefully he decides to add it in the future, would give a nice buzz and life to this corner

http://news.bostonherald.com/entertainment/food_dining/general/view.bg?articleid=1061148019&srvc=home&position=alsol

 

[whighlander]

Looks like Ming's rooftop plans fell through, for now. Hopefully he decides to add it in the future, would give a nice buzz and life to this corner

http://news.bostonherald.com/entertainment/food_dining/general/view.bg?articleid=1061148019&srvc=home&position=alsol

Pasrker -- yes -- but he will let the Blue Dragon restaurant spill-out onto the Melcher St. sidewalk and serve his trademark east-west blend. The restaurant will also be able to open this fall -- much earlier than if they needed all kinds of approvals for the deck.

“I want to offer my style of food,” Tsai said of the 70-seat restaurant he hopes to open by year’s end at 324 A St. in the rapidly changing Fort Point neighborhood of South Boston. “What we do at Blue Ginger doesn’t quite exist yet in Boston.”

Tsai previewed a menu featuring $2 to $4 “snacks” such as roasted nuts, deviled tea eggs and sweet potato chips with wasabi salt; $4 to $8 “small plates” including Korean fried chicken wings, and beef cheek and Chinese celery dumplings; and $10 to $15 “large plates” such as house-hacked Peking duck and a grilled beef burger with umami glaze.

“The idea is value,” Tsai said at a community meeting held to float plans for Blue Dragon, which would serve lunch and dinner and likely stay open until 2 a.m. “This could be a great place to chill and have a great burger or dumplings or whatever we serve late night.”
.....

“It’s really cool there’s so much happening in the neighborhood,” said Tsai, adding later, “To be the small neighborhood spot in a sea of huge restaurants which are around here, we like that.”

Tsai is teaming with real estate investor Sean Gildea, a principal at Darmouth Co., on the project that will replace a long-shuttered diner. The single-story triangular building will be painted off-white and spruced up with blue awnings, a marble statue on the corner and patio seating along the Melcher Street sidewalk

I like Ming and his east-west mix which has been very successful in Welesly. I think his iidea of a low-to-medium priced place with no pretensions just might be a great addition to the local Melcher / Summer Fort Point Channel area and the whole evolving SPID food scene.

 

[Sicilian]

Although I also liked the roofdeck idea also, he was probably wise in his decision to nix it. That probably eased concerns of residential abutters at Mondo Condo.

I doubt the outdoor roofdeck proposal could survive concerns of future residents arriving at 63 Melcher (including ground floor residents) over the next year, in addition to the abutters. That said, I suppose an enclosed rooftop addition of some sort could be proposed in the future.