Kenmore Square North (WHOOP) | 533-541 Commonwealth Ave | Fenway

Bos77 said:
It's the hazy summer nights that you, your parents, their parents, spent at Fenway. It's your signpost when drunk wandering the Kenmore area after the clubs closed. It's a rare bit of color on an otherwise austere night skyline, reflecting in all directions on the Charles. .
Click to expand...

Sure but you can do that with any other sign.

No one is going to cry if it gets replaced with the red sox logo.
 
Maybe they should asks the residents of the neighborhood what they think instead of catering to suburbanites who come into the city once per year to watch a baseball game.
 
FenwayResident said:
Maybe they should asks the residents of the neighborhood what they think instead of catering to suburbanites who come into the city once per year to watch a baseball game.
Click to expand...

As I said above, because of BU’s being allowed to buy up everything on bay state road, there ARE no neighbors to protest this. I not only think something should be done immediately to put a stop to any further land purchases by any local educational institutions, but I also think there should be a campaign by the city to take back private ownership of what these schools have bought.
 
The corner building should have a facadectomy. Then the office building should go about twice as tall, around 15 floors instead of 8. Plop the sign on top of the new building and call it a day.
 
FK4 said:
As I said above, because of BU’s being allowed to buy up everything on bay state road, there ARE no neighbors to protest this. I not only think something should be done immediately to put a stop to any further land purchases by any local educational institutions, but I also think there should be a campaign by the city to take back private ownership of what these schools have bought.
Click to expand...

Very true and a good point, but I wasn't referring just to the immediate vicinity of the sign. There are plenty of people who live in Audubon Circle, Fenway and Western Back Bay (probably parts of Cambridge, too) that have to see the garish sign every day.
 
I hope everyone who possibly can goes against this abomination
 
DZH22 said:
The corner building should have a facadectomy. Then the office building should go about twice as tall, around 15 floors instead of 8. Plop the sign on top of the new building and call it a day.
Click to expand...

This is the correct answer.
 
Coyote137 said:
This is the correct answer.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is indeed the correct answer. I would just add that we retain the style/shape/color palette of the sign (nostalgia, yada yada) but have it say something other than "citgo"...especially since it would now be even more in everyone's face at further-reaching neighborhoods. How about just "Boston" with a red pair of sox where the triangle is.

And by taking this opportunity to move the sign, it will free up other developmental opportunities around fenway park to build things deservingly large/dense as parcels allow...such as here...because the sign would no longer be blocked.

#unblocktheblink
 
bigpicture7 said:
Yes, this is indeed the correct answer. I would just add that we retain the style/shape/color palette of the sign (nostalgia, yada yada) but have it say something other than "citgo"...especially since it would now be even more in everyone's face at further-reaching neighborhoods. How about just "Boston" with a red pair of sox where the triangle is.

And by taking this opportunity to move the sign, it will free up other developmental opportunities around fenway park to build things deservingly large/dense as parcels allow...such as here...because the sign would no longer be blocked.

#unblocktheblink
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more, especially since this Citgo Corp is not your parent's Citgo Corp.
 
FK4 said:
As I said above, because of BU’s being allowed to buy up everything on bay state road, there ARE no neighbors to protest this.
Click to expand...

Calm down, BU doesn't even own 1/2 of the land between Deerfield and Charlesgate. There are plenty of non-BU residents in the area.

I not only think something should be done immediately to put a stop to any further land purchases by any local educational institutions, but I also think there should be a campaign by the city to take back private ownership of what these schools have bought.
Click to expand...

Because currently there aren't any restrictions on what land the educational institutions cam buy and private developers will always put their land to a better use.
 
Last edited:
Shepard said:
So, keep "a" neon sign there. It doesn't need to be a Citgo ad.
Click to expand...

In fact, it shouldn't be the Citgo sign. Do a facadectomy at this location, allow a taller building (since we won't have to worry about blocking the sign, either) to recoup the costs, and replace the sign with a new one on the new building which maybe has some actual relation to the city other than simply existing.
 
whittle said:
Calm down, BU doesn't even own 1/2 of the land between Deerfield and Charlesgate. There are plenty of non-BU residents in the area.



Because currently there aren't any restrictions on what land the educational institutions cam buy and private developers will always put their land to a better use.
Click to expand...

Dude, BU has ruined Bay State Rd. I’m well aware of private ownership because my friend’s late great aunt was one of the last owners there. Amazing place. BUT - just go to Bay State Rd and walk down the street and tell me your impression of whether it screams academic row or private, residential street. In case there’s any difficultly here, let me help you: there’s BU signs on almost every building. The remainder of the non-signed buildings are mostly owned by BU as well, for weird lease relationships for their employees (another of my friends who’s worked for them for years lives in this situation). Case closed.

Edit - just in case there’s any remaining ambiguity here, just look at the link https://www.cityofboston.gov/assessing/search/?q=Bay+state+road
 
Last edited:
For me, this is the best way to understand BU's holdings on Bay State

Hx859s0h.jpg
 
FK4 said:
Dude, BU has ruined Bay State Rd. I’m well aware of private ownership because my friend’s late great aunt was one of the last owners there. Amazing place. BUT - just go to Bay State Rd and walk down the street and tell me your impression of whether it screams academic row or private, residential street. In case there’s any difficultly here, let me help you: there’s BU signs on almost every building. The remainder of the non-signed buildings are mostly owned by BU as well, for weird lease relationships for their employees (another of my friends who’s worked for them for years lives in this situation). Case closed.

Edit - just in case there’s any remaining ambiguity here, just look at the link https://www.cityofboston.gov/assessing/search/?q=Bay+state+road
Click to expand...

Even if it was true that BU owned practically all of BSR, which is not true as there's dozens of buildings they don't own, my points would still stand that less than half of Kenmore between deerfield and charlesgate is owned by BU and that there's plenty of non-BU residents in the area.
 
One of the things that would help this entire area is the grounding of the Bowker and the downgrading of Storrow (or is it still SFR at this point - whatever). Actual riverfront would be a draw, for both visitors and real residents. The fact that on this stretch of riverfront the best that we have is the "BU Beach" (grassy hill high enough over Storrow you can somewhat ignore it) is an absolute shame.

Make this area livable and pleasant. People will follow. They'll share the space with BU just fine.
 
Shepard said:
One of the things that would help this entire area is the grounding of the Bowker and the downgrading of Storrow (or is it still SFR at this point - whatever). Actual riverfront would be a draw, for both visitors and real residents. The fact that on this stretch of riverfront the best that we have is the "BU Beach" (grassy hill high enough over Storrow you can somewhat ignore it) is an absolute shame.

Make this area livable and pleasant. People will follow. They'll share the space with BU just fine.
Click to expand...

In the 1920's BU purchased the land for the Charles River campus. They owned the land down to the river's edge. In the 1930's as campus construction began the state took half the land by eminent domain to build the Esplanade and then decided to build Storrow Drive.
Otherwise BU today would have a magnificent riverfront campus.
 
TomOfBoston said:
In the 1920's BU purchased the land for the Charles River campus. They owned the land down to the river's edge. In the 1930's as campus construction began the state took half the land by eminent domain to build the Esplanade and then decided to build Storrow Drive.
Otherwise BU today would have a magnificent riverfront campus.
Click to expand...

They also named Storrow Drive after James Storrow, who his wife campaigned to stop the construction of the highway. They waited until both died and named the highway after them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top