L Street Station Redevelopment (née Old Edison Plant)| 776 Summer Street | South Boston

That site plan render looks pretty great to me.

It also makes sense to keep the residential along E 1st (blocks A, B, and C) and the commercial along the Channel (especially blocks H, F, and the low-rise part of D). Block E and the taller portion of D could probably go either way.

BarbaricManchurian said:
Wow. That's like the DC Navy Yard of Boston.
Click to expand...

The DC Navy Yard and Boston Seaport certainly have their similarities, but on the whole I think Boston is doing it better. I spent last week in the Navy Yard for work. It's fine, but it I thought it generally felt like a less-lively, shorter, fatter, and architecturally inferior version of the Seaport. But it's also way cheaper, so it's got that going for it.
 
I was not referring to the existing Boston seaport in its entirety. I agree that it is superior to the DC Navy Yard. I'm talking about only this development specifically based on the rendering*. DC is oddly dead for a dense city, but so is Baltimore. Really only Boston, NYC, and Philly on the East Coast are super bustling.

*The adaptive reuse of older buildings and use of brick on lower floors is very DC Navy Yard-esque.
 
^ Understood - no disagreement from me. The Navy Yard feels to me like what people from the Boston suburbs (who haven't been to the Seaport in forever) think the Seaport feels like.

I also think that this render specifically also looks much denser and more likely to lead to a lively experience than anything in the Navy Yard. As far as build quality / finish, that's hard to tell now, but it'll probably be similar to what's in the Navy Yard.
 
Well yeah, the buildings are taller. But it'll be similar, trust me. The corporate urban development template doesn't exactly vary that much from city to city. This corner https://www.google.com/maps/@38.874...4!1s2SlF4g80VdqYvaMn709RnQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 has adaptive reuse for a brewery, a supermarket, several large apartment complexes, several fast-casual restaurants, and a gym. A great park a block away. The thing is, the public amenities in the Boston seaport are more front and center, Navy Yard only has 1 good park so far (but it is good).
 
Just to be clear, the developers are officiallly going with the partially residential plan and not the all office space version? Or is that still on the table as well?
 
With this, washington village near andrew, the broadway additions, then future dot ave development, along with all the new condos in between, southie is going to be an entirely new place.
 
re; Stick ^^like a dozen and a half other projects (2 included in your post):
i'll believe it the moment hell freezes over.
 
Last edited:
Anyone know if this is going with the 1700 unit, 770 unit or another unit design? Im assuming they eliminated the no housing pan judging by the render.

It looks like the 1700 unit render. But overall very impressive, if they can pull this one off.
 
From Bldup:
In a supplemental information filing, Redgate and Hilco Global have revealed updated plans for the South Boston Power Plant redevelopment. The overall project has been reduced in size by 150,000 square feet and the mix of uses has been re-balanced with a focus on commercial uses. The number of proposed housing units is reduced by almost half from 1,344 units to 750. Office space has been increased from 368,000 to 470,000 square feet and 330,000 square feet of R&D space has also been added to plans.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing this doesn't bode well for anyone expecting anything more than cheap builds and high prices.

The updated plans also address the community concerns about parking, by providing an increased residential parking ratio on-site of one space per unit. The Project will also provide 120 parking spaces to neighborhood residents on nights and weekends at a discounted rate within the parking garages in the commercial buildings.
Click to expand...

Wow.. so I wonder how this would work. It specifies neighborhood residents here and not everyone (discounted or lower flat rates in garages for everyone during nights and weekends are fairly typical). If true as stated, then I'm honestly pretty surprised that the residents were able to get this perk.
 
jl326 said:
Wow.. so I wonder how this would work. It specifies neighborhood residents here and not everyone (discounted or lower flat rates in garages for everyone during nights and weekends are fairly typical). If true as stated, then I'm honestly pretty surprised that the residents were able to get this perk.
Click to expand...

Gotta pay the vig before you get to build! Having said that this seems like a no-cost solution to the usual NIMBY extortion. This perk alone is probably enough for the neighborhood residents to start leaning on their local pols to switch from opposition to support of the project. ;)
 
Boston's fatal flaw: the neighborhoods having any significant say whatsoever.
Mayor White era [Because they loved Boston more than the nimby corruption schemes] is long gone.
Since the Winthrop Square approval, the future of Boston development has been remarkably degraded.
The only neighborhood not suffering from a terminal illness of future planning is the Seaport.
Until something changes.....
Overall, Boston is doomed.
 
Last edited:
odurandina said:
Boston's fatal flaw: the neighborhoods having any significant say whatsoever.
Mayor White era [Because they loved Boston more than the nimby corruption schemes] is long gone.
Since the Winthrop Square approval, the future of Boston development has been remarkably degraded.
The only neighborhood not suffering from a terminal illness of future planning is the Seaport.
Until something changes.....
Overall, Boston is doomed.
Click to expand...

Cities are made of, by and for people. That's why you and so many other skyscraper fanatics don't seem to get. Boston is just fine without a 1,000' tower. To say that neighborhoods have too much say and that the only neighborhood with any prospects is the Seaport is so demented I wonder why they let you out of the house. Although I guess you don't leave the house since if you did you would realize that there are people who actually live in these places and do so because they want to be a part of a greater whole. Your fatal flaw is you don't care about people and thus have to spout your insane ramblings online where the humanity of the person you are talking to, and your own, are masked.
 
Looks like it will turn out like assembly, except connected to the surrounding neighborhood
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
Cities are made of, by and for people. That's why you and so many other skyscraper fanatics don't seem to get. Boston is just fine without a 1,000' tower. To say that neighborhoods have too much say and that the only neighborhood with any prospects is the Seaport is so demented I wonder why they let you out of the house......
Click to expand...
i'll use part of my post from the 1000 Boylston thread to debunk your garbage.

Van and others who spew bullshit about height fetishism:
We're going to be transitioning to significantly smaller scale in the not too distant future. What's the rush? On these few places where height is appropriate, how about we do the height (right here, now, and in the coming years)?
It is those dense and tall projects that render an impactful ratio of affordable units and produce the revenue to breed thousands of affordable units in the future: 45 Worthington, 2 Charlesgate W and the original proposal for 1000 Boylston will now produce zero affordable units, and no future revenue. Add One Charlestown (originally to have included 3 towers of similar height and size as Eschelon), Tremont Crossing @ full height, the Edison Plant, and Harrison-Albany block..... what would have amounted to over 2 thousand affordable units in a relatively short time, have been lost. The Columbus Center debacle certainly inspired no takers in the DOT blocks in the Leather District.
Where do you make these up these disastrous losses? Just who is proposing an unlivable City? i have proposed tall towers for a few sites in the City, that are not already proposed.
They are:
1. 65 Martha Road ~865'
2. 1076-80 Boylston Street >700'
3. The Midtown Hotel 550~600'
4. 51-53 High Street ~670'
5-7. State Services, O'neill & JFK (low-rise sections) being set aside for skyscrapers is probably still many years away. But the potential exists to create a taller City here in the future. It would certainly be the correct outcome for Downtown Boston to grow to its full potential.
i have suggested 3 proposals (2 Charlesgate W, 1000 Boylston St and 125 Lincoln St) be built significantly taller.... and that proposals made heretofore including (45 Worthington St) get built at proposed height. ....Transit oriented developments need to be built--not endlessly cancelled or slashed to the bone.
Boston isn't set up to build out far and wide like Philadelphia (which will undoubtedly get much bigger & taller in just a few years). But, we're not Denver (either).
Observers who promote good urbanism including transit, have just as much of a right to propose a more bold, tall and dense built environment as those who endlessly wax on about the life at street level--when Boston can do better on urbanism, transit oriented development, and street level activation--why not build it?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top