Future Plans for Hynes Convention Center | 900 Boylston St | Back Bay

[Charlie_mta]

It would seem that the portion directly over the Pike and railroad would be limited to 4 stories, but the part NOT over the Pike or railroad could go taller.

 

[stellarfun]

Can they go tall on this plot, given it's over the highway?

No, the construction cost would be prohibitive.

The land owned by MCCA is about 248,000 square feet. The Pike and the railroad bisect this land, pretty much down the middle, so perhaps 3/4 of the land cannot be used as a site for a tall building. However, there is a part of the Hynes, at the southeast corner near where Scotia meets Dalton, where one might be able to go high. No idea what the subsurface geology is like at Scotia & Dalton.
---------
Edit to add, bedrock at the First Church of Christ, Scientist is 172 feet. Bedrock appears to drop from east to west as one proceeds from Copley Square toward the Fens.

 

[DZH22]

However, there is a part of the Hynes, at the southeast corner near where Scotia meets Dalton, where one might be able to go high.

Then this is where they should go for broke. 950', mixed use, mainly residential, maybe with a nice taper/crown/spire towards the top. It could be our best/only true opportunity to get a new tallest in the next quarter century and I think a 50 year reign for the Hancock as the city's tallest is more than enough.

 

[stellarfun]

Then this is where they should go for broke. 950', mixed use, mainly residential, maybe with a nice taper/crown/spire towards the top. It could be our best/only true opportunity to get a new tallest in the next quarter century and I think a 50 year reign for the Hancock as the city's tallest is more than enough.

And 20 percent affordable, and no parking, and developer to rebuild Bowker.

This aspirational building is never going to happen because the MCCA would first need to go before the City of Boston for zoning relief, secure such relief, and then sell the Hynes as a property with a permittable building height of 950 feet. No developer will buy the Hynes on the speculative hope he/she might be able to go much higher than what zoning currently allows.

 

[gac108]

That’s not on Wu’s agenda. That’s also why the NIMBY’s elected her. Because they’re killjoys and she’s another sh*tlib.

If things went our way, the city limits of Boston would stretch down from Maine to Providence. Worcester to Cape Cod and the Islands.

I’m not being cute. I truly hope that this becomes a reality it should’ve been years ago. But, back on topic, 950 ain’t happening. Maybe under Walsh it could’ve. Not now though. Not for the foreseeable future.

I'm also a "lib" as you say, as are probably most of the people on here, but we all share a similar vision of growth for our city, so please don't cast these huge blankets implying that liberal, progressive people are all somehow anti-growth, because that's extremely false.

 

[Vivanna]

And 20 percent affordable, and no parking, and developer to rebuild Bowker.

This aspirational building is never going to happen because the MCCA would first need to go before the City of Boston for zoning relief, secure such relief, and then sell the Hynes as a property with a permittable building height of 950 feet. No developer will buy the Hynes on the speculative hope he/she might be able to go much higher than what zoning currently allows.

I believe the MCCA as a State entity, like Massport, does not have to go through the City zoning process (Article 80) but typically does it anyway as a courtesy. I don't think the State would tell the City where to go, especially as this won't get done under Baker, probably Healy. Also, I read that the asking price for this was around $350 - 400M pre-covid, probably less than that now.

 

[stellarfun]

I believe the MCCA as a State entity, like Massport, does not have to go through the City zoning process (Article 80) but typically does it anyway as a courtesy. I don't think the State would tell the City where to go, especially as this won't get done under Baker, probably Healy. Also, I read that the asking price for this was around $350 - 400M pre-covid, probably less than that now.

The MCCA study, as I understand the reporting in the Globe, sought to maximize the square footage of any buildout of the Hynes property under existing zoning. On that basis, there is no need for the MCCA to seek zoning relief And the bids for the property will reflect what can be built there under current zoning..

However, in a very hypothetical scenario in which the MCCA agreed with aB posters who want the Hynes to be the site of a super-tall, perhaps the tallest building ever built in Boston, an iconic skyscraper, etc. etc., then the MCCA might be well-advised to go before zoning and seek a re-zoning of the Hynes site to allow such. This presumably would greatly increase the value of the land before it was sold, and the MCCA is ostensibly trying to obtain the max value it can out of the Hynes property.

Two real world examples. A Federally-owned property was declared excess and put up for auction sale. The property was unzoned, because the Federal government, as the sovereign, is not subject to zoning. Before the auction began, a prospective bidder went before zoning and asked for a determination on what the zoning would be for the property once the Federal government sold it. Zoning gave the prospective bidder a determination, and the bidder bid accordingly. (In this particular instance, the question was what would be the maximum permissible height.)

The second example may have involved Prudential Real Estate (the same folks who own the Harbor Garage). (I can't recall whether it was Prudential or a successor owner of this property.) In any event, the owner of this property went before the Zoning Commission to get a determination on the max build-out of a portion of the property which had remained open-space. The owner had no intention of building on this open space, but when it came to appraising the land value prior to a potential sale, the value increased significantly if a sizable building could be constructed on what currently was greenspace.

 

[urbanmansprawler]

It’s the complaining about complaining that gets stale and annoying. This is an architecture/urban planning forum isn’t it? Let people discuss height without throwing a fit every other post.

What about a dedicated thread for height discussions? If mods are flexing on anyone who veers off-topic, wouldn't it be fair to let height howlers have their own safe space, and clean up so many bloated threads?

 

[BeeLine]

What about a dedicated thread for height discussions? If mods are flexing on anyone who veers off-topic, wouldn't it be fair to let height howlers have their own safe space, and clean up so many bloated threads?

Thought what you are requesting was this thread which is currently very active.

How Tall Are Boston's Buildings and Should They Be Taller?

Can the political discussion be moved to the appropriate section of aB? Sometimes politics and development go hand in hand. Especially considering this is a board on urban planning. I think that the people who don’t want tall should go live out in the knowledge corridor and take up refuge...

archboston.com

 

[navigator4]

The MCCA study, as I understand the reporting in the Globe, sought to maximize the square footage of any buildout of the Hynes property under existing zoning. On that basis, there is no need for the MCCA to seek zoning relief And the bids for the property will reflect what can be built there under current zoning..

However, in a very hypothetical scenario in which the MCCA agreed with aB posters who want the Hynes to be the site of a super-tall, perhaps the tallest building ever built in Boston, an iconic skyscraper, etc. etc., then the MCCA might be well-advised to go before zoning and seek a re-zoning of the Hynes site to allow such. This presumably would greatly increase the value of the land before it was sold, and the MCCA is ostensibly trying to obtain the max value it can out of the Hynes property.

Two real world examples. A Federally-owned property was declared excess and put up for auction sale. The property was unzoned, because the Federal government, as the sovereign, is not subject to zoning. Before the auction began, a prospective bidder went before zoning and asked for a determination on what the zoning would be for the property once the Federal government sold it. Zoning gave the prospective bidder a determination, and the bidder bid accordingly. (In this particular instance, the question was what would be the maximum permissible height.)

The second example may have involved Prudential Real Estate (the same folks who own the Harbor Garage). (I can't recall whether it was Prudential or a successor owner of this property.) In any event, the owner of this property went before the Zoning Commission to get a determination on the max build-out of a portion of the property which had remained open-space. The owner had no intention of building on this open space, but when it came to appraising the land value prior to a potential sale, the value increased significantly if a sizable building could be constructed on what currently was greenspace.

This is never going to happen. The nimby's are already crying about shadows on the Commons. The Wu-ers will never allow anything over 300 feet - and the Back Bay hoteliers will demand they basically rebuild the Hynes to protect their business.

 

[Cortes]

This was the logical place to put a casino, but they f'd that up. The problem for redev I think has less to do with air rights than the sheer footprint of the existing building. What do you put in there that doesn't need windows? Conceivably a movie theatre, or something like Kings? Those wouldn't justify the purchase price. I actually can't think of much.

 

[BeeLine]

In the past people have floated a preforming arts center with connections to all the entertainment schools in the area or tuning into an arena for the Celtics.

 

[DZH22]

This was the logical place to put a casino, but they f'd that up. The problem for redev I think has less to do with air rights than the sheer footprint of the existing building. What do you put in there that doesn't need windows? Conceivably a movie theatre, or something like Kings? Those wouldn't justify the purchase price. I actually can't think of much.

I would think they could build a tower on one specific corner, and connect the lower floors of the tower back into the convention center space itself. Then the tower would have a much smaller footprint once it rises above the convention center portion, maybe with a few floors of office then 50+ floors of residential. While I dread cantilevers, it might make sense here to make the tower's upper-floors footprint a bit larger in order to help fit the whopping 2.3 million square feet being discussed by the project.

In the past people have floated a preforming arts center with connections to all the entertainment schools in the area or tuning into an arena for the Celtics.

Isn't the Garden already a bigger arena than this would be? Now that they have their practice courts at New Balance too, the Celtics position should be a nonstarter. Performing arts might work for a portion of it.

 

[kingofsheeba]

This is never going to happen. The nimby's are already crying about shadows on the Commons. The Wu-ers will never allow anything over 300 feet - and the Back Bay hoteliers will demand they basically rebuild the Hynes to protect their business.

Someone else said this before. I forget who?

 

[Arenacale]

Isn't the Garden already a bigger arena than this would be? Now that they have their practice courts at New Balance too, the Celtics position should be a nonstarter. Performing arts might work for a portion of it.

The Garden is likely bigger but I'm sure the Celtics wouldn't mind not having Jeremy Jacobs get a cut of everything, and there's probably some sightline and other benefits to a basketball-exclusive venue.

That being said, that's not what I would want for that site. You could probably maintain and upgrade the existing auditorium and still do some cool stuff around it.