MassDOT Pike Parcels 12 - 15 | Boylston St. and Mass. Ave | Back Bay

I got the timetable from the Building Dept last winter.

They'll be going for final approval, shortly after Marty takes down Tito.

Marty II: no more nimby lunatics running the asylum.
 
Odurandina, given the time line provided, why wouldn't the developers have simply waited until after the election to get something closer to their original proposal approved (rather than giving up an entire building plus 20%?). I'm not questioning your information -- I just don't understand the logic/rationale.
 
^^"Let me put 75' more height into the tower and i'll remove the second building for a nice park/plaza–like 'someone' suggested at one of the meetings last winter...."


Walsh II is a lock.....

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...-walsh-same/UjdUp1wsd5PA3Aqwof1JOL/story.html

Agreed Adam gave up wayyy too much.

Millennium would have fought longer and harder and taken the nimby's for 700' with the whole rotten lot of them thinking they'd won.
 
Ugh. Any cutbacks in the number of apartments coming online in Boston can only be seen as a negative .. and worrying, if we see more of it.

Boston has a (new) condo supply deficit; rentals, on the other hand, are reaching saturation (but only for 2-3 years, until demand reaches supply). Developers aren't stupid, though. They either fill the empty buildings with short-term rentals (Airbnb, blah) or delay breaking ground.

Also, when will everyone admit, you can't build over a highway without public subsidies.

We'll all be dead before Fenway Center will happen, for example.
 
That parcel on the west side of Boylston is cursed in my opinion. I remember a developer proposed a fantastic, gleaming 50 story tower there in 1999 or something and there was a pitchfork mob a mile long fighting that one with every NIMBY argument in their training manual.
 
Czervik.Construction said:
That parcel on the west side of Boylston is cursed in my opinion. I remember a developer proposed a fantastic, gleaming 50 story tower there in 1999 or something and there was a pitchfork mob a mile long fighting that one with every NIMBY argument in their training manual.
Click to expand...

That was Millennium Partners. I think they've contributed anyway :)
 
What's your guess as to % of forum members (active / overall) who do live in the city / are residents?

My estimate is 30% are residents; 20-25% are registered to vote.

Too high? Too low?

Reznor said:
I wouldn't be so sure. Anything can happen with elections especially when you get 12% turnout. I urge all pro-development people on this board who live in Boston to vote in November.
Click to expand...
 
JohnAKeith said:
What's your guess as to % of forum members (active / overall) who do live in the city / are residents?

My estimate is 30% are residents; 20-25% are registered to vote.

Too high? Too low?
Click to expand...

Too high, especially for the active contingent.

As for who's registered to vote... hard to say, that number is probably more reasonable but the real question is, who votes in the local elections... cuz nobody does... and that's how all these horrible pols get started, winning elections with 10% of the electorate voting for 'em.
 
FK4 said:
Too high, especially for the active contingent.

As for who's registered to vote... hard to say, that number is probably more reasonable but the real question is, who votes in the local elections... cuz nobody does... and that's how all these horrible pols get started, winning elections with 10% of the electorate voting for 'em.
Click to expand...

Hey, some of us vote in every election! I voted Tuesday!.
 
JeffDowntown said:
Hey, some of us vote in every election! I voted Tuesday!.
Click to expand...

Me too.

There's a funny thing about generalizations; like a broken clock, they're right a couple of times a day.

But why does everyone need to live in the city? "Boston" is a lot more than Boston proper. I guess the point, maybe, is that if the commentary on this forum were all about architecture we wouldn't care where people were from...but when it comes to whining about mayors, different story. I have an idea, let's just not talk about politics on here and have people participate from all over the world.
 
bigpicture7 said:
Me too.

There's a funny thing about generalizations; like a broken clock, they're right a couple of times a day.

But why does everyone need to live in the city? "Boston" is a lot more than Boston proper. I guess the point, maybe, is that if the commentary on this forum were all about architecture we wouldn't care where people were from...but when it comes to whining about mayors, different story. I have an idea, let's just not talk about politics on here and have people participate from all over the world.
Click to expand...

Boston doesn't have enough projects and activity to sustain more than a couple posts per day. If we only talked about architecture this forum would be dead most of the time with spurts of discussion when there are project announcements or pictures. Without regular activity I think many of the users would leave.
 
My God, at one time Boston politics WAS the topic.

OK if i say more, i'll sound super-extra old.
 
bigpicture7 said:
Me too.

There's a funny thing about generalizations; like a broken clock, they're right a couple of times a day.

But why does everyone need to live in the city? "Boston" is a lot more than Boston proper. I guess the point, maybe, is that if the commentary on this forum were all about architecture we wouldn't care where people were from...but when it comes to whining about mayors, different story. I have an idea, let's just not talk about politics on here and have people participate from all over the world.
Click to expand...

I still find it weird how the neighborhoods north of downtown aren't part of Boston (except for Charlestown) while most of the neighborhoods south of downtown are.

Malden is closer and more convenient to the center of Boston then roslindale, despite not even bordering Boston.
 
Wouldnt removing an entire tower and chopping half off ther other make it a lot harder for them to recoup the extremely high costs of decking and building over the pike? Seems like it makes this a lot more likely to be scrapped like copley now.
 
stick n move said:
Wouldnt removing an entire tower and chopping half off ther other make it a lot harder for them to recoup the extremely high costs of decking and building over the pike? Seems like it makes this a lot more likely to be scrapped like copley now.
Click to expand...

I had the impression that the decking west of Mass Ave was more severe than the decking in the corner by Dalton Street. So maybe this is cheaping out on the decking. But maybe that is just my imagination.
 
Actually, looking at the site and the shape of the tower it looks like there is room to build the condo tower completely in ground, and only have to build the podium over the pike if you get rid of the second tower. I think this actually makes a lot more sense.
 
odurandina said:
i assume 75-93% of the decking is cancelled.
Click to expand...

So essentially we are retaining a hole in the urban fabric that will never be filled, on top of eliminating 2/3 of the originally proposed units? I still love the look of the tower, but maybe the city should go ahead and reject this proposal. Then they can try again after the election, bringing back the larger scale project with more units and public benefits.
 
^ if the podium covers the hole, as mentioned above, I'd still take this proposal. I think it's just the tower portion over terra firma...but the hole is still getting covered
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top