Lyrik Back Bay | 1001 Boylston Street (Parcel 12) | Back Bay
- Thread starter Equilibria
- Start date
dhawkins
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2014
- Messages
- 862
- Reaction score
- 3,009
Does anyone know what that little round thingy is down there with the blue top? A glass elevator shaft, maybe?
An elevator was proposed for that location. Pretty fancy if its an all glass cylinder shaft and glass elevator. You can see the MBTA shaft is getting the purple sheathing as well at the right side of the photo.
Is it? I thought CarGurus was only leasing the south tower. The last renders I saw didn't have any signage, just a blank wall and indicated the north tower would be hotel/res. The footprint of the north tower is really narrow.
But that was all before CarGurus signed.
Jahvon09
Senior Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2011
- Messages
- 3,316
- Reaction score
- 803
Yeah, that's what i thought!! It would be good if it's put there. I wonder when Hynes Station will start being worked on. It's one of the few stations left that's still not ADA compliant yet!!
Jahvon09
Senior Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2011
- Messages
- 3,316
- Reaction score
- 803
It shows the future entrance to the MBTA subway, which in all probability is Hynes Station. Supposedly, the T was waiting for this work to take place, which would give it the opportunity to give Hynes the facelift that it needs, but as far as I can tell, there hasn't even been any renderings posted of the supposed work that is allegedly in place. Guess that we'll just have to wait & see.
It shows the future entrance to the MBTA subway, which in all probability is Hynes Station. Supposedly, the T was waiting for this work to take place, which would give it the opportunity to give Hynes the facelift that it needs, but as far as I can tell, there hasn't even been any renderings posted of the supposed work that is allegedly in place. Guess that we'll just have to wait & see.
Over the last 15 years, the MBTA has, by my best reckoning, outsourced nearly the entirety of the Hynes head-house renovations and ADA conformance/compliance over to Parcel’s 12 and 13—under the auspices of Article 80 project mitigation, cause, “we’re poor.”
In short: Samuels does the west head-house, tunnel restoration, and south-bound busway. Peebles does a new head-house (on their site, connecting into a reconfigured Transportation Building lobby), north-bound busway, and reconfiguration/reopening of the Boylston east entrance.
After that’s complete, the T will finally then create ADA connections from the Mass Ave mezzanine/fare gates to the platforms. (I do think the Peebles folks “pre-designed” the Boylston east scheme, pro bono, all the way down to track, given the structural impacts on Parcel 13).
I mean, I get it: the T is an agency in a deficit crisis on several fronts (financial, staffing, maintenance, leadership, legislative support). That said, it’s nearly criminal they’ve deferred legally-required capital improvements off onto abutters because of … reasons?
Suffolk 83
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 2,976
- Reaction score
- 2,319
I'm not sure about the legality of the capital improvements but why should developers, who obviously plan on and benefit from the T, not throw in money to fund station improvements? For example, Dorchester Bayshore or whatever they are calling themselves over at harbor point, make it a huge feature of their massive project that the T is next door and that will magically cut down on traffic... yet the station is falling apart and they offer no capital to improve it?? I get that they didnt create the problem but they dont get to weigh massively on a broken system, thats just not right. Pony up
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 6,959
- Reaction score
- 8,036
In both the Parcel 12 and Parcel 13 cases, the MBTA couldn't really re-open the headhouses without the development, and in both cases the new headhouses are fully integrated into new buildings and plazas.
That doesn't account for platform-level improvements at Hynes, but I can see the logic behind waiting to do the whole project (and disrupt the function of the station) all at once. It wasn't the MBTA's choice to select Peebles or Samuels, and they're paying for MassDOT's mistakes with Peebles.
These 2 pictures actually illustrate the worst aspect of this building, which is that it manages to single-handedly wreck 2 iconic views. The first shot on the Pike briefly had the triumvirate of the Hancock, Pru, and 1 Dalton showing up in a row to create the most awe-inspiring vista in the city. Now the Pru is mostly blocked by the larger building, while your shot shows the Hancock also being blocked near the end by the smaller one. The second shot from Fenway used to be the Pru and Hancock, then 1 Dalton got added to the mix, but now.... Where's the Hancock?
So basically a barely 350' fatty blocks out our tallest and most iconic towers, obscuring the 790' Hancock from multiple postcard views and the 750' Pru from the Pike heading into that tunnel. It's just kind of lame. At street level it's an incredible development, but the blocky form doesn't integrate well with respect to the rest of our city. Imagine this at about 25% thinner and 50% taller and it would have slotted in much more gracefully.
Charlie_mta
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2006
- Messages
- 4,334
- Reaction score
- 5,972
My take on it is, as a city builds up, views change. I'd rather have this project reconnecting the urban fabric over the Mass Pike,, even though it does impact views from the Pike.
Hell, I'd even like to see the entire Turnpike decked over from Allston to I-93.
I'd like to put stress on the part of your quote, "as a city builds UP" because in this case, it's the "NOT UP" that consistently wrecks views. Instead of "UP" we build "OUT" so that all these fat 300' buildings end up blocking what used to be views of 590'-790' buildings. That one blocking the Pru on Boylston is the worst of them. I honestly feel like the city feels less like a "big city" every time we block our most iconic buildings with schlock that's half their height. I'm not saying this is necessarily schlock, but it's certainly schlocky proportioned.
Taller/thinner buildings join the crowd around them. Shorter/fatter buildings obscure what's around them. We have seen it play out time and time again in this city. The taller building here would have looked great if it was pushing 500' and a bit thinner so we could see around it better. Then it would slot in with the rest of the Back Bay, instead of obscuring/hiding/denying the existence of our most iconic modern buildings.
Justbuildit
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2022
- Messages
- 695
- Reaction score
- 2,445
I don’t know man, it’s hard to balance having both a walkable and dynamic city where a paucity of land is ameliorated by building over generationally-immiserating car-centric scars and then providing public amenities to the community WHILE ALSO making sure people driving from Albany to Stoneham have a good view of several tall buildings that themselves have accessible ground floors and public plazas. If I had to choose I’d have it so no one on the pike could see the sun from 95 to the entrance of Terminal A and actually make useful things for people.
The irony is, I fully agree—as I have so often do agree with you, even when we’re Devil advocating positions.
What grips my ass is that I lived by Hynes/ICA 25 years ago for a few years, and accessibility was clearly an issue then. I’m no doubt biased (loved ones who can’t use Hynes due to stair limitations), but ADA was enacted in 1990! Do it, already, even if it gets modified/redone due to Parcel 12/13!
(Aside, let’s be real: Peebles is 2034, at best, if it ever even gets built as they proposed: another 11 years of the shite Mass Ave entrance just ain’t fair. In my opinion.)
This is the point where the owner’s rep in me can’t justify spending money on a disruptive temp solution. Argh.
So, now we’re in this infinity loop of hell: the T is poor, poor at planning, Commonwealth staff and pols completely face-planted on the air rights process, and legislature is a limp noodle of flaccid indifference. The result is people with mobility issues are burdened by this non-conforming, non-compliant station in the heart of a vital business/residential/tourist district. #sad
Right. I’m off to Solas for a Guinness now.
Well yeah, I'd want the Pike covered too. But would it really kill them to push for more of this:
And less of this? (yet which is still taller and "soars" compared to Parcel 12)
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 6,959
- Reaction score
- 8,036
The irony is, I fully agree—as I have so often do agree with you, even when we’re Devil advocating positions.
What grips my ass is that I lived by Hynes/ICA 25 years ago for a few years, and accessibility was clearly an issue then. I’m no doubt biased (loved ones who can’t use Hynes due to stair limitations), but ADA was enacted in 1990! Do it, already, even if it gets modified/redone due to Parcel 12/13!
(Aside, let’s be real: Peebles is 2034, at best, if it ever even gets built as they proposed: another 11 years of the shite Mass Ave entrance just ain’t fair. In my opinion.)
This is the point where the owner’s rep in me can’t justify spending money on a disruptive temp solution. Argh.
So, now we’re in this infinity loop of hell: the T is poor, poor at planning, Commonwealth staff and pols completely face-planted on the air rights process, and legislature is a limp noodle of flaccid indifference. The result is people with mobility issues are burdened by this non-conforming, non-compliant station in the heart of a vital business/residential/tourist district. #sad
Right. I’m off to Solas for a Guinness now.
I don't disagree with the frustration, but I do think we can remember that this is the Parcel 12 thread, and Parcel 12 is indeed nearly complete and looks great. Parcel 13 is a failure (and Parcel 15 was too), but so was every prior effort at air rights, and at this moment we have two large decking projects actively under construction.
Folks, Parcel 12 consists of two slivers of land separated by eight lanes of highway, two surface rail lines, and a subway tube. There are maybe a couple dozen places in the entire world where this "land" would even be worth developing at all. I do not lament for one moment the lack of a true skyscraper on this particular site. Besides, we will eventually see a tower at Parcel 15 (the BPDA approved a 484' building there previously).
Justbuildit
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2022
- Messages
- 695
- Reaction score
- 2,445
I do not love the architecture at Parcel 12, but I really am happy with how Mass Ave no longer feels like the edge of the Sarlacc pit. I've seen some opinions on this board and a few places in the wild, and my only take is that the absolute last thing any city should consider is pleasing the views of cars that are passing through on their way somewhere else. Boston is an absolutely beautiful city and there are tons of great vistas on the ground (hell, even in cars on surface streets!). I'm guessing the steps at the top of the new Parcel 12 plaza will be a splendid place to catch a glimpse of the Pru/Hancock/Dalton.