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

meddlepal said:
How are either of these turning out better than expected? They're turning out more or less as expected.
Click to expand...

MT was originally a random stack of boxes that was like 400’. 1 dalton was originally like 300’.
 
Originally Posted by DZH22 View Post
While it's exceedingly rare, Millennium Tower + 1 Dalton would like a word with you.
Click to expand...

I think you're right on Millennium Tower. Should 1 Dalton be an exception since it's outside of some of the review process?

And yes, Love Joy Wharf def got better. The recent news on Winthrop Sq has had such a negative impact on my perspective.
 
meddlepal said:
It was a completely different developer. That doesn't count.
Click to expand...

Even when MT originally got taller, it went from 606' to 625' to 685'. It also had a different glass pattern and a hideous mechanical top. One thing it DID do is retain the older building's facade, but the tower itself wasn't good.

MT old by David Z, on Flickr


1 Dalton was originally proposed at 512'. With what we know now, that wouldn't have included mech, so it was probably about 550'. Now it's about 750'. With a tower of this quality, it's a massive difference getting another 111 Huntington vs getting another Pru.
 
Even when MT originally got taller, it went from 606' to 625' to 685'. It also had a different glass pattern and a hideous mechanical top. One thing it DID do is retain the older building's facade, but the tower itself wasn't good.
Click to expand...

You folks aren't talking about the same thing. Someone complained the approved renders always seem to be better than what we get. What you just showed was not an approved render. It was an early concept. What we got was pretty much what was approved in the end. Seems to be the same thing playing out with 1 Dalton in its approved form. An example of the reverse would be Waterside Place Phase 1. An example of getting better would be 1 Lovejoy.

I'd also argue that losing the other chunk of the Filene's face was a small crime. I'd have taken that tower if it meant keeping the original brick facade at street level. What is there now is a sterile glass curtain.
 
mcus29 said:
Is it possible for a development to get better than proposed in this city? Is that even a thing? Are there any cities where that happens? Or is it just normal that developments are cut back and get VE'd to shit, at least to shit compared to the original proposal?
Click to expand...

meddlepal said:
You folks aren't talking about the same thing. Someone complained the approved renders always seem to be better than what we get. What you just showed was not an approved render. It was an early concept. What we got was pretty much what was approved in the end. Seems to be the same thing playing out with 1 Dalton in its approved form.
Click to expand...

Read the last line of the first quote again. He is complaining that the final-product towers that get built in Boston go downhill from the original renders, or at least go downhill at some point in the process.

Most buildings get VE'ed and/or floors lopped off. Sleek becomes squat. It is rare for buildings to grow nearly 200' with improved designs and attractive cladding to match.
 
So how did the Hotel Commonwealth end up being reclad shortly after it opened? What made them do that aside from the original finished product being straight out of Disney World?

I was always told it was because what they built looked much cheaper than the renderings showed.
 
idk what u guys are arguing about but this was 1 Daltons original plan.


148464121.XhFNV1qs.bos1.JPG


Which if they built copley as you can see above it would have actually created a nice line of towers off to the right because it lined up with copley and the huntington tower nicely with all 3 in a row off to the side of the high spine and would have kept our tallest as the high spine essentially keeping the Boston spine but still adding towers to the back bay. Either way now its going to be interesting to see what an off center tower taller than the pru does to the spine but height is height so im not complaining. I just think that if this was built like in the render and they built copley it would have created a nice side spine while keeping the true high spine in tact, but as I said not complaining 1 Dalton looks great and this city is allergic to height so were lucky were getting it so Im happy with how were going about it now.
 
odurandina said:
Up for approval March 15th......
Click to expand...

http://boston.siretechnologies.com/sirepubbra/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=409&doctype=AGENDA

5:50 p.m.: Request authorization to approve the Development Plan for Planned Development Area No.116, 1000 Boylston Street in the Back Bay pursuant to Section 80C of the Zoning Code; to petition the Zoning Commission for approval of the Development Plan and the accompanying map amendment pursuant to Sections 3-1A.a and 80C of the Zoning Code; to approve a minor modification to the Fenway Urban Renewal Plan creating Parcel 27 and to allow for the proposed project; to issue a Preliminary Adequacy Determination waiving further review pursuant to Section 80B-5.4(c)(iv) of the Zoning Code, Large Project Review for the construction of 108 condominium unit, 45,500 square feet of first and second floor retail and restaurant space, 175 parking spaces; and, to take all related actions.
 
Last edited:
odurandina said:
http://boston.siretechnologies.com/sirepubbra/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=409&doctype=AGENDA

5:40 p.m.: Request authorization to approve the Fourth Amendment for Planned Development Area No. 11, One Post Office Square pursuant to Section 80C of the Zoning Code for the improvements and upgrades to the existing office building, the demolition of the 371 parking garage, the construction of a 15 story addition to the existing office building above the garage and 300 parking spaces; to petition the Zoning Commission for approval of the Fourth Amendment and the accompanying map amendment; to approve the proposed project as a Development Impact Project; to issue a Scoping Determination waiving further review pursuant to Article 80, Large Project Review; and, to take all related actions.
Click to expand...

Wrong thread?
 
Approved;

544' highrise added to the Back Bay at Mass Ave.

Decking to begin as early as the fall.
 
odurandina said:
Approved;

544' highrise added to the Back Bay at Mass Ave.

Decking to begin as early as the fall.
Click to expand...


Great news although unfortunate slash to the overall project scale. Odurandina, any info on whether or not there is room/plan for future development on this parcel?
 
i walked to the podium to speak in support of 1 Post Office Sq redo. Then slipped out of the room to chat with Adam Weiner. i was going to ask him that question, but procrastinated. Then the group was called in to present. What i did learn; is when the 2nd tower was cancelled and main tower reduced, it forced a change in the way the decking was to be done. With the small Pru parcel no longer crucial to the project, it was left off. Adam was referring to the 2nd (320') tower as "The Pru tower..."

i'm not sure if this means Prudential is totally out of the deal as a development partner, financial partner.

The iag group was very active in eliminating the 2nd tower. Ironic, that i had suggested eliminating the "Pru Tower"–but only as a parlay to get a concession for adding height on the main, Mass Ave tower. ....But then, the main tower gets reduced by 83 feet!

i asked Adam, how does that math work? :)

Interesting i think this project creates a net positive of open and low-rise space over the footprint of the Mass Ave tower. Safe to assume the open area effectively becomes permanent space in the public realm as part of the process to approve construction. i think you'll have to wait a long time before the natives give up that space. 50, 60 years?

What you have to do to put up a 500' tower in Boston on a parcel that can easily handle 700' :)

*Ted Landsmark remarked, "perhaps this tower should have gone well taller."

Jeeze.
 
odurandina said:
Approved;

544' highrise added to the Back Bay at Mass Ave.

Decking to begin as early as the fall.
Click to expand...

So is that 544' to the highest occupied floor? Or 544' to mechanical space top? Or 544' FAA? Or 544' from mean sea level? Or 544' with antenna? 544' to the top of an excited recumbent gnat?
 
tobyjug said:
So is that 544' to the highest occupied floor? Or 544' to mechanical space top? Or 544' FAA? Or 544' from mean sea level? Or 544' with antenna? 544' to the top of an excited recumbent gnat?
Click to expand...

Whatever the answer is, let's ask it a dozen times every two pages. ;)
 
The shorter version is much better than the previous version in my opinion.
 
stick n move said:
The right-side up triangle and the upside down triangle leading into the triangular slanted roof are very nice.




zQgeI7I.png




I love how it also changes shape depending on which side you view it from. It looks different from every side- each side is completely unique.





You will now be able to see the back bay skyline when you are in the south end and it gives a nice stair stepper/step down..... from the back bay skyline.






Finally those above are massing models. The renders that show what the glass looks like looks incredible. The base is also very dynamic and uses the same sort of triangles as the tower.


Click to expand...


Replying to stick's September post to bump up the renders to show us what was approved.
 
Not trying to open a can of worms but how come the second pic has a height listed of 484 feet?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top