Idyl Fenway | 60 Kilmarnock St | Fenway

Letter of Intent (emphasis mine):
Letter of Intent said:
The Project will include a total of approximately 400 residential units in two buildings separated by Kilmarnock Street, along with ground floor retail space fronting on Kilmarnock Street, and landscaped areas and other amenities and services for residents.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't a site this big call for more like 4 buildings? I get one building on the Western side of Kilmarnock (where Tapestry and its lot are now), but I'd think that the Eastern side would call for more like 3 buildings (especially considering that the alley splits that parcel up). That's a huge footprint for just one building...
 
For comparison:
- 1330 Boylston features 200 residential units + retail + 300 below-ground parking spots (+Fenway Health Clinic office tower)
- Viridian features 342 residences + retail + 295 below-ground parking spots
- Van Ness megablock (Target) includes 172 units + office + retail

Per the LOI, 400 units + retail + .75:1 parking to unit ratio is consistent with trajectory of new development in the neighborhood. It sounds only moderately denser than some of the 100+ year-old West Fens buildings along Queensbery, but I'd be surprised if any neighbors raised a stink about this kind of use here.

I'm excited!
 
JumboBuc said:
That's a huge footprint for just one building...
Click to expand...

If it's going to be a long cluster, i'd like to see a push for something done as well as this....

http://www.archboston.org/community/showthread.php?t=1470

and add this....

SeamusMcFly said:
I kind of prefer it that way. Breaks up the street wall properly by giving each building it's boundaries. Much like our famous fort point buildings. All very similar height wise, but little changes at the tops separate them nicely.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Looks nice. I'd buy here.


Screengrab1 by Derek Shooster, on Flickr

Screengrab2 by Derek Shooster, on Flickr

Screengrab3 by Derek Shooster, on Flickr

Screengrab4 by Derek Shooster, on Flickr

Screengrab5 by Derek Shooster, on Flickr

Screengrab6 by Derek Shooster, on Flickr

Screengrab7 by Derek Shooster, on Flickr

Screengrab8 by Derek Shooster, on Flickr

Screengrab9 by Derek Shooster, on Flickr

Screengrab10 by Derek Shooster, on Flickr

Screengrab11 by Derek Shooster, on Flickr

Screengrab12 by Derek Shooster, on Flickr

Screengrab13 by Derek Shooster, on Flickr

Screengrab14 by Derek Shooster, on Flickr

Screengrab15 by Derek Shooster, on Flickr

Screengrab16 by Derek Shooster, on Flickr

Screengrab17 by Derek Shooster, on Flickr

Screengrab18 by Derek Shooster, on Flickr
 
So if I'm seeing this correctly, we're losing about seven ground floor retail locations--including two places with sidewalk dining--and replacing them with. . . one?

No. No. Do better.
 
BronsonShore said:
So if I'm seeing this correctly, we're losing about seven ground floor retail locations--including two places with sidewalk dining--and replacing them with. . . one?

No. No. Do better.
Click to expand...

100% this.

I was hoping that this development would provide an opportunity for some smaller retail operations that couldn't afford the rent on Boylston Street. Ideally it could have been an extension of the restaurant row on Peterborough which would have helped balance out and provide contrast to the big boys on Boylston.

Instead we get a single enormous, awkwardly-shaped retail space from the whole development. Who would even fill that space? A mega restaurant or national retailer is all I can think of. It could also work for a small grocery store/bodega, but with Star Market and Target a few blocks away I don't see the need in this area for another grocery store.

Really disappointed.
 
When the city makes redeveloping residential properties essentially impossible, we get redevelopment of commercial (and industrial) properties.
 
The eastern half of this project should be three distinct buildings, not one mega building. In all of the Fenway's building-boom, zero recent projects stretch across streets and alleys. This would be the first.

They get the footprint 100% correct on the ground floor, then ruin it by connecting what should be three distinct masses just 1-2 floors up.

It'd be great if they could keep the current row of mature trees between the garage on Queensberry and the taxi lot. And also, more brick please.

BronsonShore said:
So if I'm seeing this correctly, we're losing about seven ground floor retail locations--including two places with sidewalk dining--and replacing them with. . . one?

No. No. Do better.
Click to expand...

Of those seven retail locations, only a couple (Tapestry, Hidyan, arguably the bodega) are at all active. So we're not losing that much... But I 100% agree that this should have more smaller scale retail. There's no reason restaurant row on Peterborough (which is one of my favorite little urban spots in the entire city) couldn't be wrapped around the corner and extended down Kilmarnock.

By my eye, the proposed retail space in this project has greater square footage than the entirety of restaurant row, but while restaurant row has eight separate spaces this project only has one. And as proposed, the entire frontage of what is currently the Hidyan building is lobby. Come on...

I live on Queensberry Street, and I think of this little corner of the West Fens as the poster child for what an urban form should be. They could easily keep that going in this project. The current megablock form of this project doesn't do this street justice.
 
It would be a good meeting to attend if i could make it. At BCDC i might say; "the market will cause the retail space to be broken up. Do it now. You need way more frontage for food, drink, retail etc. Add a floor to one of the buildings."
 
Disappointing they're getting rid of the Tapestry space, OTOH, they're preserving the whole restaurant row.
 
curcuas said:
Disappointing they're getting rid of the Tapestry space, OTOH, they're preserving the whole restaurant row.
Click to expand...

Restaurant row is a different parcel. The developer doesn't control it.

I see no reason why all the residential lobbies can't be put on Queensberry, where the Tapestry lot and taxi lot are now. Then the ground floor footprints of the current Tapestry and Hidyan buildings could be maintained as retail.
 
Ground floor retail issues aside this has good density and is attractive to boot. Since nice things too rarely happen here though expect 2 floors to be sacrificed to angry nimbys.
 
I agree with you about crossing the alley. I'm sure they are making an argument about exit cores and saving money, but it would be a better project if it respected the context a bit more.

Otherwise, I think it makes a lot of sense. It's higher than I would expect, but Kilmarnock can probably support that.

JumboBuc said:
The eastern half of this project should be three distinct buildings, not one mega building. In all of the Fenway's building-boom, zero recent projects stretch across streets and alleys. This would be the first.

They get the footprint 100% correct on the ground floor, then ruin it by connecting what should be three distinct masses just 1-2 floors up.

It'd be great if they could keep the current row of mature trees between the garage on Queensberry and the taxi lot. And also, more brick please.



Of those seven retail locations, only a couple (Tapestry, Hidyan, arguably the bodega) are at all active. So we're not losing that much... But I 100% agree that this should have more smaller scale retail. There's no reason restaurant row on Peterborough (which is one of my favorite little urban spots in the entire city) couldn't be wrapped around the corner and extended down Kilmarnock.

By my eye, the proposed retail space in this project has greater square footage than the entirety of restaurant row, but while restaurant row has eight separate spaces this project only has one. And as proposed, the entire frontage of what is currently the Hidyan building is lobby. Come on...

I live on Queensberry Street, and I think of this little corner of the West Fens as the poster child for what an urban form should be. They could easily keep that going in this project. The current megablock form of this project doesn't do this street justice.
Click to expand...
 
JumboBuc said:
The eastern half of this project should be three distinct buildings, not one mega building. In all of the Fenway's building-boom, zero recent projects stretch across streets and alleys. This would be the first.

They get the footprint 100% correct on the ground floor, then ruin it by connecting what should be three distinct masses just 1-2 floors up.

It'd be great if they could keep the current row of mature trees between the garage on Queensberry and the taxi lot. And also, more brick please.

Of those seven retail locations, only a couple (Tapestry, Hidyan, arguably the bodega) are at all active. So we're not losing that much... But I 100% agree that this should have more smaller scale retail. There's no reason restaurant row on Peterborough (which is one of my favorite little urban spots in the entire city) couldn't be wrapped around the corner and extended down Kilmarnock.

By my eye, the proposed retail space in this project has greater square footage than the entirety of restaurant row, but while restaurant row has eight separate spaces this project only has one. And as proposed, the entire frontage of what is currently the Hidyan building is lobby. Come on...

I live on Queensberry Street, and I think of this little corner of the West Fens as the poster child for what an urban form should be. They could easily keep that going in this project. The current megablock form of this project doesn't do this street justice.
Click to expand...

You gotta do whatever you can as a neighbor to stop this, Jimbo. The West Fens is the most improved neighborhood in the city; this project doesn't destroy it, but it does move it backwards, and that shouldn't be acceptable.
 
BeeLine said:
I like the scale and design. It will be a great addition to the neighborhood. It reminds me of 451 Marlborough Street.
Click to expand...

The design is fine; but, as a rule, development that replaces existing buildings should never decrease the the number of street-facing retail spaces. Gleaming, empty lobbies do nothing for the built environment, whereas small-footprint restaurants and shops give it life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top