Mission Hill Infill and Small Developments

I noticed some earth moving activity at the old The Parker Terrace Street project site. Is this project active? BPDA site has something approved back in 2018. Have the legal issues been resolved?
IMG_5843 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr

IMG_5845 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
 
I think the suit was laughed out of court a couple years back but radio silence since?
 
Looking at the update ^^ Boston REALLY needs to work on expanding sidewalks where they can, that metal structure is practically in the street
 
iamdjmichael said:
Looking at the update ^^ Boston REALLY needs to work on expanding sidewalks where they can, that metal structure is practically in the street
Click to expand...

I lived at the corner of Terrace and Allegheny a few years ago... it's a tight fit at the best of times. This is a two-way street with on-street parking: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.330...4!1sQvJnTNNxabH1_S2XhXUccg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I think parking should be eliminated to expand the sidewalks at the bare minimum; you're less than 5 minutes from Roxbury Crossing on the OL and the street is surprisingly busy with pedestrians -- workers and students -- at rush hour.
 
dshoost88 said:
I had some friends in college that use to live next to this on Sewall Street--was objectively by all measures a dump. This is such a welcome contrast, and especially nice to see the developers incorporated/preserved the Sewall Street facade!
Click to expand...

This is some FINE work. My compliments to this development. This is beautiful and beautifully done in that context.
 
I want to first say I'm glad this project is going up and that it has all the right pieces to be a nice design. It's leagues better than most stuff going up of the same scale.
So, not to be a negative Nancy, but I think that brick building has terrible detailing. Everything is segmented with misaligned joints and strips of reveal that look like afterthoughts.

For example, look at the way the splayed out brick on the flat face is just a repeated module. There's nothing wrong with that alone, but the joints where is meets the standard bond to the left is just a gap. There's no system for where what joint lines up with the surrounding fenestration.

Then right below that module, there's a tiiiiny horizontal sliver of brick (below every module). Why? Why wouldn't they align the full panel with the bottom/top edges of the windows?

The splayed brick is panelized in a confusing order too. In the last shot it looks like it's expanding left on each floor up. But the other facade doesn't follow that rule in any way. Like they couldn't decide if they wanted to embrace a patch-work effect or some larger figure/movement implied through the panels.

There are some quality materials, material effects, and moment details here which I think are captivating to most people. But it's arranged in a really haphazard way.
 
Bananarama said:
I want to first say I'm glad this project is going up and that it has all the right pieces to be a nice design. It's leagues better than most stuff going up of the same scale.
So, not to be a negative Nancy, but I think that brick building has terrible detailing. Everything is segmented with misaligned joints and strips of reveal that look like afterthoughts.

For example, look at the way the splayed out brick on the flat face is just a repeated module. There's nothing wrong with that alone, but the joints where is meets the standard bond to the left is just a gap. There's no system for where what joint lines up with the surrounding fenestration.

Then right below that module, there's a tiiiiny horizontal sliver of brick (below every module). Why? Why wouldn't they align the full panel with the bottom/top edges of the windows?

The splayed brick is panelized in a confusing order too. In the last shot it looks like it's expanding left on each floor up. But the other facade doesn't follow that rule in any way. Like they couldn't decide if they wanted to embrace a patch-work effect or some larger figure/movement implied through the panels.

There are some quality materials, material effects, and moment details here which I think are captivating to most people. But it's arranged in a really haphazard way.
Click to expand...

I hear ya - - I like the project overall very much and love that they preserve the house facade at least. You do bring up great points about the detailing that layman like me tend to miss for the grand picture. Thanks for pointing them out - - I do see it in a different light now. I can say I like it very much overall while now understanding some of its imperfections.
 
Last edited:
dshoost88 said:
I had some friends in college that use to live next to this on Sewall Street--was objectively by all measures a dump. This is such a welcome contrast, and especially nice to see the developers incorporated/preserved the Sewall Street facade!
Click to expand...
As a reminder this is what the brick portion replaced.
IMG_5226 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
 
BeeLine said:
As a reminder this is what the brick portion replaced by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Oh... That looks totally nice and contextual... Just a normal triple decker is seemingly fine condition.
I appreciate the extra height and unit capacity of the new one, but the old one definitely didn't give such a middle finger to the neighbor...
 
I don’t like the project. It looks like they were saddled with the requirement to keep the stone buildings and decided to flip off the neighbors.
 
Bananarama said:
Oh... That looks totally nice and contextual... Just a normal triple decker is seemingly fine condition.
I appreciate the extra height and unit capacity of the new one, but the old one definitely didn't give such a middle finger to the neighbor...
Click to expand...

Actually, it was the handsome old stone building that originally gave the finger to the triple decker. Frankly, now, the stone building really shines in his handsomeness next to the funky new dude on the block.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top