Limited-service Hotel Project | 73 Essex St | Chinatown

Ah, I see, none built for the express purpose of trying to lease out to a tenant other than the owner, right? OK, understood... I think that's an important omission to have glossed over, thanks for the clarification!
 
DBM said:
Ah, I see, none built for the express purpose of trying to lease out to a tenant other than the owner, right? OK, understood... I think that's an important omission to have glossed over, thanks for the clarification!
Click to expand...

Pretty much; end of the day, that no such office buildings were built wasn't really the point in and of itself, it was just to underline that the early twentieth-century inspired a new phase of architecture, but one that never really came to fruition due to economic contraction - something the dearth of commercial office buildings (normally a good harbinger for the health of a building market) might represent. I think the Essex wool warehouse building is a good-looking structure, has an interesting facade, represents an interesting example of the transition to a more "modern" city, and that particular style is most common amongst early 20th garages and warehouses, some of which in other neighborhoods have been rehabbed and look fucking sharp (Kenmore for example, which wasn't that different from this stretch of Essex - lot of warehouses, lot of garages). What's proposed doesn't seem, to me, to be an improvement and not the only option available in theory for the site, rather just the one that'll make the developers the most money. I'm not going to picket the development meetings or anything, I just don't have to like it. That's it.

You can tl;dr all my posts on this project as "I like the old building more than the proposed one"
 
CantabAmager said:
Pretty much; end of the day, that no such office buildings were built wasn't really the point in and of itself, it was just to underline that the early twentieth-century inspired a new phase of architecture, but one that never really came to fruition due to economic contraction - something the dearth of commercial office buildings (normally a good harbinger for the health of a building market) might represent. I think the Essex wool warehouse building is a good-looking structure, has an interesting facade, represents an interesting example of the transition to a more "modern" city, and that particular style is most common amongst early 20th garages and warehouses, some of which in other neighborhoods have been rehabbed and look fucking sharp (Kenmore for example, which wasn't that different from this stretch of Essex - lot of warehouses, lot of garages). What's proposed doesn't seem, to me, to be an improvement and not the only option available in theory for the site, rather just the one that'll make the developers the most money. I'm not going to picket the development meetings or anything, I just don't have to like it. That's it.

You can tl;dr all my posts on this project as "I like the old building more than the proposed one"
Click to expand...

I echo this point, with the added note that I would not particularly object to this building, where it proposed as infill on the parking lot, literally one building down from this proposed demolition. What I object to is that our urban planning incentives are so misaligned, that the developer finds it attractive to purchase an decent existing structure and demolish it, rather than purchase an equivalent footprint parking lot in the same block.
 
The proposed 2 Oxford Street project in Chinatown (also known as 73-79 Essex Street) will be going before the Boston Landmarks Commission (BLC) on Wed. October 12, 2016 for their demolition delay hearing. The meeting begins at 6:00 pm and will be held in the Piemonte Room located on the 5th floor of Boston City Hall.

It is a public hearing so I encourage those that are available to attend and share your comments relative to the proposed demolition of the building at this hearing.

After 5:30 pm, enter and exit City Hall at Dock Square entrance (on Congress Street, across from Faneuil Hall).

The Demolition Delay hearing item is number 3 on the agenda, nominally at 6:40 PM.
 
JeffDowntown said:
I echo this point, with the added note that I would not particularly object to this building, where it proposed as infill on the parking lot, literally one building down from this proposed demolition. What I object to is that our urban planning incentives are so misaligned, that the developer finds it attractive to purchase an decent existing structure and demolish it, rather than purchase an equivalent footprint parking lot in the same block.
Click to expand...


JeffDowntown -- A developer who comes up with a plan for X -- sells it to himself /herself [minimizing the up and maximizing the downside] -- and then tries to execute it as best as possible. This applies to a technology entrepreneur trying to launch a new technology-based product just as well as the developer of a new or renovated building. The first step in execution is to develop a budget based on accessible resources and include in addition to the prime plan at least a Plan B and maybe even a Plan C. -- the final result if successful is likely to be Plan A/B^2

We don't always know what is involved in one of these deals and so some of us seem to always take the view that the developer just wants to tear down a building when a perfectly good parking lot was available.

The nearby parking lots might have been plan A -- but if the owners of the lots liked their income, or it was a Demoulas-style fractured family and hence were unwilling to sell for the price offered them -- then there was plan B. In this case it might be build on some older probably over taxed building whose owner was willing to sell for a price that would lead to a profitable development after tweaking the original plan.

As Exhibit A -- I bring up the issue of the Necco Buildings and parking lot being sold to GE by Gillette [P&G] for GE's global HQ [well even interplanetary apparently according to Jeff and his "Logo visible from Mars";)]. Note that the two Boards know each other quite well and the credit of GE is first rate -- yet its still taken months to finalize
 
Tonight's Landmarks Commission meeting on 2 Oxford/73 Essex hotel has been postponed. Developer pulled the demolition application.
 
JeffDowntown said:
Apparently just delayed upon further detail. They were not ready to make their case for the demolition tonight, so asked for a postponement. Still in the works.
Click to expand...

OK, now there is some background buzz in the email traffic that there may be a major project change in the works. We might be looking at a restructured proposal that includes adaptive reuse of the current early 20th century mercantile structure.

More to follow if we get real updates.
 
JeffDowntown said:
OK, now there is some background buzz in the email traffic that there may be a major project change in the works. We might be looking at a restructured proposal that includes adaptive reuse of the current early 20th century mercantile structure.

More to follow if we get real updates.
Click to expand...

That would be fantastic.
 
I agree as well. To lose this building to a mini-Kensington would only further diminish this part of downtown.
 
According to the bldup web site a $15m ground lease has been granted.
 
17 stories (shit, why not 28 +/- facadectomy),

or limp and wimpy?
 
I'm wondering about the difficulty in replacing a solid 8 story building with one only double the height. Is it a repeat of Quaker Lane?
 
odurandina said:
I'm wondering about the difficulty in replacing a solid 8 story building with one only double the height. Is it a repeat of Quaker Lane?
Click to expand...

Perhaps it's all that the market can support or all that the developer is willing to take the chance on. In the midst of all of your height wankery, have you ever stopped to consider the economics of a building?
 
If we end up with something like Quaker Lane here I would be elated. That's really the best we can hope for. On this site currently sits a solid pre-war building with great period detail that cannot and will not be replicated; it just needs a little TLC. If this is torn down, whatever replaces it may be taller but it will also certainly be of lesser quality.

kmp1284 said:
Perhaps it's all that the market can support or all that the developer is willing to take the chance on. In the midst of all of your height wankery, have you ever stopped to consider the economics of a building?
Click to expand...

I detest height wankery (great term!) as much as anyone else (if not more so) but it's very rare that building height is held back in the core of Boston due to economic reasons. It's practically always regulatory. At the heights we're talking about (where you're already building with steel and concrete) it almost always makes economic sense to keep going higher.
 
JumboBuc said:
If we end up with something like Quaker Lane here I would be elated. That's really the best we can hope for. On this site currently sits that cannot and will not be replicated; it just needs a little TLC. If this is torn down, whatever replaces it may be taller but it will also certainly be of lesser quality.

I detest height wankery (great term!) as much as anyone else (if not more so) but it's very rare that building height is held back in the core of Boston due to economic reasons. It's practically always regulatory. At the heights we're talking about (where you're already building with steel and concrete) it almost always makes economic sense to keep going higher.
Click to expand...

Of course save that building. You have a wide parcel that can probably support 28~30 stories. At 28 stories, there's still no unwanted shadow. Maybe go 18~20 floors on one side with a section going a bit higher.

It would also enhance the down-slope from downtown toward the Pike, but that's the bonus. You can get a some affordable housing in a taller tower. It's certainly planning in an extreme, Upper East Side NYC kind of way. But it's a unique opportunity for a bit more, future-minded planning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top