Marriott Moxy Hotel | 240 Tremont Street (Parcel P-7A) | Theater District

blitzen13 said:
Well, I guess the shade-throwers have helped me see the light of day (at least until all that pesky sunlight is blocked!). Hopefully someday ALL sidewalks and outdoor public areas in Boston will be free from the annoyance and harmful effects of sunlight! Maybe then we can stop being distracted by frivolous comments about "bullshit reasons to oppose new development" and focus on the REAL issue in my reply: that we are allowing commercial property to occupy public space....
Click to expand...
Halting it about there...... There are many reasons why Boston is a particular case,
Consigning what's already been developed and turned over again in recent decades--added to our antiquities.... burnouts and dead stumps filled, people sleeping soundly in their beds, and the glance through tomorrow's Globe........ So much (land) is spoken for, and it ain't about to change anytime soon. We survived Urban Renewal, and the renewing of the Renewal (if we're honest) continues to at a modest pace. We're not bringing the dozers to this cherished built environment. Overall, Boston is fine. It's going to stay that way. There's probably no moderating your crusade. But play 'debunk the parcel,' and good things can happen.
 
Last edited:
The sidewalk (and even the street) is technically private property for which the city has a variance for right of passage. I'm not sure it's accurate to describe an overhang as occupying public space. Is there an ordinance claiming the right of passage extends upward in perpetuity?
 
blitzen13 said:
Well, I guess the shade-throwers have helped me see the light of day (at least until all that pesky sunlight is blocked!). Hopefully someday ALL sidewalks and outdoor public areas in Boston will be free from the annoyance and harmful effects of sunlight! Maybe then we can stop being distracted by frivolous comments about "bullshit reasons to oppose new development" and focus on the REAL issue in my reply: that we are allowing commercial property to occupy public space. I realize that given this site's size it makes development difficult, and I hate to use the slippery-slope argument, but one day its paying to allow shadows on the Commons, then its building over public property, and next maybe some more eminent domain to clear "blight"? There's no need for snark, but maybe there's a need for this community to be a bit more circumspect about all development being good development.
Click to expand...

Care to explain a little? Are you a neighbor? Why is sunlight so important to you?
 
HenryAlan said:
The sidewalk (and even the street) is technically private property for which the city has a variance for right of passage. I'm not sure it's accurate to describe an overhang as occupying public space. Is there an ordinance claiming the right of passage extends upward in perpetuity?
Click to expand...

The public rights do extend upward in perpetuity. In order to build over a public way (sidewalk or street), you must discontinue the public rights that you intend to occupy by obtaining approval from the Public Improvement Commission. And of course you must pay for the privilege.
 
So there is an established process, then. I don't see a problem with developers using that process for results such as we see with this building.
 
HenryAlan said:
So there is an established process, then. I don't see a problem with developers using that process for results such as we see with this building.
Click to expand...
I also want to point out (living in the neighborhood) that that sidewalk has been closed for construction (specifically Stuart) for upwards of three years, and nobody cares. I have walked that block of Stuart almost daily for more than 12 years, and I have never (to my memory) used the south side sidewalk (because there was never any reason to access that side of Stuart.

This has to be one of the most innocuous places in the city to build a sidewalk overhang.
 
blitzen13 said:
Well, I guess the shade-throwers have helped me see the light of day (at least until all that pesky sunlight is blocked!). Hopefully someday ALL sidewalks and outdoor public areas in Boston will be free from the annoyance and harmful effects of sunlight! Maybe then we can stop being distracted by frivolous comments about "bullshit reasons to oppose new development" and focus on the REAL issue in my reply: that we are allowing commercial property to occupy public space. I realize that given this site's size it makes development difficult, and I hate to use the slippery-slope argument, but one day its paying to allow shadows on the Commons, then its building over public property, and next maybe some more eminent domain to clear "blight"? There's no need for snark, but maybe there's a need for this community to be a bit more circumspect about all development being good development.
Click to expand...

damn. i like me some daylight, too, but damn, son.
 
JeffDowntown said:
I also want to point out (living in the neighborhood) that that sidewalk has been closed for construction (specifically Stuart) for upwards of three years, and nobody cares. I have walked that block of Stuart almost daily for more than 12 years, and I have never (to my memory) used the south side sidewalk (because there was never any reason to access that side of Stuart.

This has to be one of the most innocuous places in the city to build a sidewalk overhang.
Click to expand...

Yup, having finally seen it in person, it's great. It's unobtrusive, looks fine from street level, and IMO a high quality result for a tough parcel. It's a huge win.
 
I often get annoyed that when they redid the Filene's building, they didn't include overhangs along the entire facade. (They only included them at building entrances.) Unlike the Macy's building, which has a continuous overhang on two sides, and is a GREAT place to walk when it's raining or snowing.
 
cden4 said:
I often get annoyed that when they redid the Filene's building, they didn't include overhangs along the entire facade. (They only included them at building entrances.) Unlike the Macy's building, which has a continuous overhang on two sides, and is a GREAT place to walk when it's raining or snowing.
Click to expand...
I was annoyed also until I dug up an old photo and realized that they simply restored the facade to its original configuration....with only a partial overhang.
 
Remember when I commented on how bright the ad board is? Well I was back there tonight and not only does the Moxy board seem to have been dimmed, but the one accross the road is now just looks insanely blinding to the point of being a genuine road safety hazard. As I'm pondering this, are there any rules on such things like bright signs though?
20191019_190738.jpg
 
JeffDowntown said:
I also want to point out (living in the neighborhood) that that sidewalk has been closed for construction (specifically Stuart) for upwards of three years, and nobody cares.
Click to expand...

Actually a sizable cohort cared quite deeply. The abutting nightclub owners/operators were exasperated/intensely anxious for that whole duration. They worried that at 2 am closing, the surge of clubgoers spilling out onto the sidewalk, being thwarted by the sidewalks barricades, and deciding (quite understandably) to walk in the streets, would lead to a motor vehicle/pedestrian accident. I don't know if there was a specific mitigation strategy deployed (additional police detail at 2 am to play glorified crossing guard?).

Of course the whole scenario in the Theater District at 2 am on weekends is frequently problematic for a variety of reasons, and this issue took care of itself when the barricades went away. But again, a sizable group cared quite deeply, on behalf of their (frequently reviled) patronage, who were certainly exposed to substantial risk for some time.
 
HelloBostonHi said:
Remember when I commented on how bright the ad board is? Well I was back there tonight and not only does the Moxy board seem to have been dimmed, but the one accross the road is now just looks insanely blinding to the point of being a genuine road safety hazard. As I'm pondering this, are there any rules on such things like bright signs though?
View attachment 768
Click to expand...
That intersection is more patches than pavement.
 
as graffiti goes, it's not awful, but still kind of a bummer to see on such a new building.
 
chrisbrat said:
as graffiti goes, it's not awful, but still kind of a bummer to see on such a new building.
Click to expand...
Gee, I took it as something the hotel commissioned. It goes along with their funky decor vib.
 
I think it works well. I was skeptical, but it's perfectly fine in person.
 
BeeLine said:
Gee, I took it as something the hotel commissioned. It goes along with their funky decor vib.
Click to expand...
i initially wondered about that and i suppose you're entirely correct. kinda hokey, if so, but - hey, tastes differ.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top