Hancock Plaza: the future Glass Garden

I walk past this open space every day and suffer the Siberian blasts as much as anyone, but I was never enthusiatic about the proposal to begin with. My thought was that it would not be open to anyone who walked by. (I'm sure it would have been open to anyone in a legal sense, but would likely be viewed as an enclosed space dedicated to Hancock tenants and, therefore, unwelcoming to passersby.)

A better use of that space, IMO, would be to place some cafe tables and a small zen-like garden with bubbling fountains around the base of the building and permit a few small food carts at the sidewalk's edge.
 
Cafe tables won't work if the wind problem isn't solved. It sounded like the winter garden would operate as an entrance to some new restaurants, which would have been fine by me.
 
I heard the same exact crazy people who oppose all progress in this city - you know exactly who they are - are the ones who voiced their displeasure.

Poor Broadway Partners, they're from New York and actually took these people seriously. I believe a Boston-based developer would have listened to the criticism, nodded their heads, thanked the 'activists' for their input, and then gone to the BRA and said "yeah, the nuts are against it, but haven't heard from anybody who matters" and it would have gotten built. I think Broadway is treading carefully because they aren't on their turf here, and they are a little unsure of how the political process in Boston.

The plan that I had seen left the Hancock Tower exactly as it looks now - the "Garden under glass" was not attached in any way to the building, it was a separate building out on the plaza, I was given the impression that this was done to placate the architect. That backfired too!

They should have been stronger with their argument that this is a horrible, miserable, terrible place and it is time to fix it. They were a little mousy with their PR approach - should have taken a stronger stand.
 
New presentation last week; according to the Back Bay Sun: I haven't seen the renderings, but it sounds like most of the changes will be inside, to the lobby.



Developers Want To Add Retail To Hancock Tower
By Dan Salerno

The John Hancock Tower is considered by many to be the pinnacle of Boston high rise architecture. However, the gleaming glass skyscraper has always stood at a remove from the public community, with little reason for those other than its corporate tenants to ever enter.
Now, a developer wants to change that, connecting the tower to the neighborhoods of Back Bay and the South End by building retail and restaurants in the towers lower levels.
Broadway Partners, a national development company, presented their plans for the tower to the public last week as part of the city?s article 80 project review process. According to Alan Rubenstein, a representative from Broadway Partners, the hope is to make better use of an underutilized space.
?We want to enliven the area by brining the public to the tower,? said Rubenstein. ?This [plan] transforms the tower from a foreboding corporate structure to something with a more mixed-use feel.?
The plan in its current, tentative state calls for two restaurants with entrances in the ground floor lobby of the tower, though not inside of the tower?s security. The entrances would lead downward to the first basement level where the restaurants would have their dining rooms. The kitchens/prep areas would be on the second basement level.
The restaurants will be of the upscale, white tablecloth variety, and Rubenstein pointed to nearby Grill 23 and Davio?s as good examples of the type of establishment that might find a home in the Hancock. In all, there will be about 50,000 square feet of restaurant space, with approximately 2500 of that to be at grade. The developers hope the build signage on the outside of the tower to alert pedestrians to the presence of the restaurants, but no specific design for such signage has yet been decided upon.
In addition to the restaurants, Broadway also wants to put a high end retail store on the North End of the lobby level.
The lobby-accessed restaurants plan replaces more ambitious early ideas from the developers, which included enclosing the entire Hancock plaza in a winter garden, or building detached entrances to the lower levels in the plaza. Neither idea was favorably received by the public.
Eliot Laffer, a member of the Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay and the Boston Groundwater Trust, said that the new designs showed a good willingness by the developers to address the concerns of the public.
?I?m thrilled that you listened [to problems people had],? said Laffer. ?It?s nice to have a developer who listens to public concerns.?
According to a representative from architects Elkus Manfredi, the construction is expected to take approximately 12-14 months, and the developers hope to get started in Spring of 2009. The project will require approval from the Boston Redevelopment Authority, but not the Zoning Board of Appeal, as restaurant use is already allowed by the site?s zoning (the area to be renovated currently houses the tower?s cafeteria).
 
This just shows what a bullshit response it was when Hancock's owners closed the observation deck for security reasons after 9/11. If their fear is terrorism, a bomb on the top floor of the building would blow out the roof and damage a few of the top floors (and possibly the counter-weight floor, I suppose).

But bombs in the basement or ground level (where these restaurant/retail options will be) would do MUCH more structural damage and potentially block the exits for office workers evacuating from upper levels. These restaurant/retail proposals make the building less secure than the observation deck did. At least with the observation deck they could have had visitors go through metal detectors (if they had them). I highly doubt they'll have dinner guests and retail shoppers go through metal detectors (nor should they).

I'm thrilled they're interested in developing the ground level and making it more pedestrian friendly...it's about time. But this pretty much proves their reasoning for closing the observation deck was NOT for the reasons they claimed. They just wanted the rental income.
 
Broadway is a new owner, the previous owners are the ones who closed the public observation deck.

I admire Broadway for bring some life and some energy to this building. For too long it has stood as a glass and steel sculpture for our viewing pleasure rather than a good public building. Which is fine, it's a private office building after all, but I like the changes that are coming.
 
Didn't people make the same argument about the Prudential arcades back in the day, that closing off the (windy, disgusting) gardens was an elitist move that would close off the plazas to the public?

The opposite happened ...
 
ShakeShack, did you retype that article, they don't have it on their website...

If you did, then thank you in advance.
 
Didn't people make the same argument about the Prudential arcades back in the day, that closing off the (windy, disgusting) gardens was an elitist move that would close off the plazas to the public?

The opposite happened ...

I never considered this option.... any way to link it to the Copley Mall? (Why is the Shaws not part of the skywalk system in the area? seems like a missed opportunity...) Put a hallway through the new Copley tower and then in front of the parking garage and link it all together...
 
I never considered this option.... any way to link it to the Copley Mall? (Why is the Shaws not part of the skywalk system in the area? seems like a missed opportunity...) Put a hallway through the new Copley tower and then in front of the parking garage and link it all together...

Take the elevator by Huntington down to the Orange level, walk across, and back up the elevator by CPK to connect without going outside. I do it all the time in the winter.

There was a rumble a few years ago (as the Shaw's was being planned) to remove the skywalk things. It never went anywhere, but I imagine that's why it was never designed with a connection.
 
Tim Jackson;59834]ShakeShack, did you retype that article, they don't have it on their website...

If you did, then thank you in advance.

Yeah, I typed it. That explains some of the errors not in the print version.
 

Back
Top