Gillette leaving Southie.

Jeremi said:
There needs to be a sizeable park somewhere around here. Somewhere to throw a ball around or hold a concert or a summer movie. These little pocket parks and nooks are great, but there needs to be something bigger. Additionally, this will probably be designed to serve as flood mitigation.
Click to expand...
I was thinking one reason for the large park would be flood mitigation, although that could be addressed other ways, such as a canal and some wetlands reestablished in smaller area(s).
But still, a park of that large of a size will serve that entire part of town, not jut the development itself, so it seems a bit unfair to saddle this one moderately small development with that task, plus the large park would use up a lot of land that could go for housing.
 
Justbuildit said:
First substantive filings for redevelopment of the Gillette site just hit BPDA! There's a lot in here, so I'm sure folks will be posting updates frequently, but here's the link to the filing

Gillette Redevelopment PDA | Bostonplans.org

Development Projects and Planned Development Areas (PDAs) that the Development Review division is coordinating.
www.bostonplans.org www.bostonplans.org

Mods, per search there are at least 3 threads covering this site redevelopment. This was most recent, so I'm posting here but not sure if it's the right long-term home.

EDIT: Some initial details below. 2:1 commercial to housing (worse if you include hotel), with >1,800 new housing units. Looks like the channel front will be committed public space, likely with climate mitigation included. Most of the rest of the corridor is office/lab.

All existing buildings slated for demolition. I love the historic sign, really wish they could use the base of the factory for new residential construction.
View attachment 61892


View attachment 61893


View attachment 61894
Click to expand...
It's really too bad that Boston has nowhere restored any actual tidal ecosystems. It's literally redeveloped the entire shoreline of the Seaport, and most of East Boston, and nearly without exception, seawalls are maintained. How about some shallows, tidal flats, estuaries here? They can still have their precious sea wall protecting everything from storms but further back. Or, shallow up the water itself, below the seawall. Every construction project on the coast is an opportunity to do this, and they always fail.
 
FK4 said:
It's really too bad that Boston has nowhere restored any actual tidal ecosystems. It's literally redeveloped the entire shoreline of the Seaport, and most of East Boston, and nearly without exception, seawalls are maintained. How about some shallows, tidal flats, estuaries here? They can still have their precious sea wall protecting everything from storms but further back. Or, shallow up the water itself, below the seawall. Every construction project on the coast is an opportunity to do this, and they always fail.
Click to expand...
I'm a big fan of re-establishing wetland areas in these types of developments that are on land which was originally wetlands many decades ago. The new wetland areas can be scattered around a development, and have elevated boardwalks providing multi-use paths across and along them, creating attractive and useful open space interspersed among the buildings. Cambridge Crossing and the Seaport district are lost opportunities that should have had something like this..
 
I think you'd need to get the Army Corps of Engineers onboard since these are still classified as navigable coastal waterways. It's one of the hang up talking points whenever a bridge or other feature on the Channel gets mentioned. Changing the navigability would almost certainly require federal input. Love the idea though!
 
Jeremi said:
There needs to be a sizeable park somewhere around here. Somewhere to throw a ball around or hold a concert or a summer movie. These little pocket parks and nooks are great, but there needs to be something bigger. Additionally, this will probably be designed to serve as flood mitigation.
Click to expand...

Looks like a pretty big park in the first renders next to Dot Ave on the bottom right of this image. Of course nothing here can be taken literally but all schematics show that as public space not for development. Agree a big open green waterfront park would be a killer addition.
1744586011127.png
 
Charlie_mta said:
It could be worse. At least they propose a street grid on much of the site, and the streets don't look overly wide. But why such a large park at the south end of Forth Point Channel? A parkway along the shoreline, plus two or three pocket parks scattered around the interior of the development would give the area more of a human scale, with ground floor retail around the shoreline parkway and the pocket parks. Plus more residential of course, and a canal from/to Fort Point Channel looping around in the interior of the site. But as it's presented, it looks like boxy buildings of uniform height squished together in a sterile mass.
Click to expand...
I've read that the park at the end of the channel is specifically part of the sea rise/storm surge mitigation strategy. But it's also nice to get a good sized park, so I'd say this is definitely win-win.
 
I note that this plan also calls for a complete clearout along W 2nd Street. This means demolishing the very large, stately handsome brick building on Broadway and W2nd.
 
I'm fine with everything but the demolition of that building on W2nd. Surely that can be repurposed!
 
Longfellow said:
I don't understand why the height has to step down to the waterfront. I'm confused what that does. There's always this talk of stepping down but it seems like just a gambit to limit height.
Click to expand...
It would make sense if the back buildings were residential and the intent was to provide some form of water views, but who really cares if the buildings are Office/R&D? If the Master plan is looking this far into the future for the build out, I would think they work with the city to redefine the Chapter 91 heights regulations to max out up against the FAA - to a certain extent. I do not want to see a replication of Seaport where all the buildings create a single flat plane, so maybe it just makes sense to push for housing between A Street and Necco Street and let the buildings step down toward the water to bring a better revenue product to the taller buildings. It also seems like the parcels between A and Necco do not fall under Chapter 91, so would they automatically be allowed up to the FAA height limits? If so, max out the housing there and create some awesome pedestrian type streets (or at worst woonerfs) connecting A all the way to the Channel.
1744646202612.png

Jeremi said:
I'm fine with everything but the demolition of that building on W2nd. Surely that can be repurposed!
Click to expand...
Are you referring to this building? I absolutely agree that this would be perfect for a tax credit conversion into at least some housing. Not sure what the overall floor plate looks like, but it appears to have a central atrium-like space that would provide natural light down the building.
1744646379058.png

Maybe do a jewelry-box type addition on top of the building to make it more profitable? They could spare this building and still re-establish w First Street's connection to Dot Ave.
1744646792410.png
 
According to the historic inventory, despite being architecturally matching that is actually 3 buildings mashed into one, dating from 1918-1926. Given the age, I suspect the floorplates are appropriate to residential conversion. I also personally assume that this building will likely stay without significant modifications because of the infrastructure challenges as the MBTA's Dorchester Tunnel runs right underneath it - in fact, there's a tunnel exit / vent built into the current Gillette building, and the MBTA owns a enclave parcel in the Gillette parcel for it. That silver low rise I suspect would be very hard to replace with anything taller as a result, and the master plan currently conspicuously leaves that and the tunnel RoW unbuilt upon.

1000038835.jpg

1000038837-jpg.61978
 

Attachments

  • 1000038837.jpg
    1000038837.jpg
    599.1 KB · Views: 598
Yeah, it'll be a real missed opportunity if they don't reuse some of the old industrial buildings. I'd love to see a creative reuse (including building on top) for the iconic low-rise "World Shaving Headquarters" building...

But even in the absence of that, the buildings on W 2nd St, btw Dot Ave and A St, feel eminently reusable. I'd imagine a somewhat poorer-man's version of the Carlsberg City District in Copenhagen - the site of the old brewery buildings, now one of the buzziest neighborhoods in the city... "Gillette Town"? "Gillette's Kingdom"?
 
Thats interesting that theyre showing a building on the triangular plot between dot ave and foundry st. I cant see how that would be included as a part of the gillette property. Wouldnt that be a city property because it contains the old tunnel entrance/exit and new training facility? It looks like the building only takes up the area where the parking lot is, so maybe the city will be willing to sell or lease that plot.

IMG_2245.jpeg

IMG_2252.jpeg
 
stick n move said:
Thats interesting that theyre showing a building on the triangular plot between dot ave and foundry st. I cant see how that would be included as a part of the gillette property. Wouldnt that be a city property because it contains the old tunnel entrance/exit and new training facility? It looks like the building only takes up the area where the parking lot is, so maybe the city will be willing to sell or lease that plot.

View attachment 61984
View attachment 61986
Click to expand...
There are 6 parcels in that triangular block. Per the Boston Assessing Database, the MBTA owns one parcel (the tunnel access through the middle of the block) but Gillette owns the rest.
 
stick n move said:
1744687188934.png
Click to expand...
I still think about some kind of LRV line using that abandoned tunnel and station, maybe as an extension of the Fairmont Line converted to LRV. I still remember seeing the abandoned Broadway (upper) station in the early 1960s. Oh well. don't want to derail the thread.
 
Justbuildit said:
I think you'd need to get the Army Corps of Engineers onboard since these are still classified as navigable coastal waterways. It's one of the hang up talking points whenever a bridge or other feature on the Channel gets mentioned. Changing the navigability would almost certainly require federal input. Love the idea though!
Click to expand...
True, but I think what I am suggesting would come down more to the specifics of those federal regulations. I don’t think it would be considered “changing navigability” if you removed the seawall and made a marsh—but I have no idea what I’m talking about so could be totally wrong. Do you happen to know how far this is an actual waterway? All the way to the end? Or does it stop at Dot Ave?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top