Mission Hill Infill and Small Developments

Shepard said:
Anyone want to venture why there seems to be so many retail vacancies right now on the Roxbury Crossing side of Tremont Street?
Click to expand...

Probably because it's a sketchy area, especially behind/next to Fuentes where a lot of people "hang out". I was so happy when the Dunkins opened last year in that long vacant corner spot. It pretty much coincided with the closing of the check cashing place a building or two over, which I thought was a win for the area.
 
14365699031_4a3b12b89c_b.jpg
 
sm89 said:
Any thoughts on this proposed 395-unit 35 story building in Mission Hill? http://www.bostonherald.com/busines...ty_proposes_395_unit_building_in_mission_hill
Click to expand...

WOW. I used to live next door at 49 Worthington. That "empty" lot always bothered me. It's right at the end of the Smith St. stub and there's no way at this point to restore Smith St., so the best thing to do is build up onto the Worthington streetwall. 35 stories is really dramatic and I assume everyone will scream bloody murder, but a building there of significantly-reduced height would definitely liven what is just a fenced off parking lot for the tower behind it. Personally, I don't think 35 stories is appropriate for mid-Worthington St, which has a gorgeous South End feel lined with 3 story brownstones. It is definitely appropriate on the corner of Tremont, but not in that location. I'd like to see a contextual 5-8 story building instead of 35.
 
Last edited:
datadyne007 said:
WOW. I used to live next door at 49 Worthington. That "empty" lot always bothered me. It's right at the end of the Smith St. stub and there's no way at this point to restore Smith St., so the best thing to do is build up onto the Worthington streetwall. 35 stories is really dramatic and I assume everyone will scream bloody murder, but a building there of significantly-reduced height would definitely liven what is just a fenced off parking lot for the tower behind it. Personally, I don't think 35 stories is appropriate for mid-Worthington St, which has a gorgeous South End feel lined with 5 story brownstones. It is definitely appropriate on the corner of Tremont, but not in that location. I'd like to see a contextual 5-8 story building instead of 35.
Click to expand...


I believe it would be this existing parking lot:

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.334...!1e1!3m2!1svjxAUCkFiT6EGcNuc5ku8g!2e0!6m1!1e1
 
datadyne007 said:
WOW. I used to live next door at 49 Worthington. That "empty" lot always bothered me. It's right at the end of the Smith St. stub and there's no way at this point to restore Smith St., so the best thing to do is build up onto the Worthington streetwall. 35 stories is really dramatic and I assume everyone will scream bloody murder, but a building there of significantly-reduced height would definitely liven what is just a fenced off parking lot for the tower behind it. Personally, I don't think 35 stories is appropriate for mid-Worthington St, which has a gorgeous South End feel lined with 5 story brownstones. It is definitely appropriate on the corner of Tremont, but not in that location. I'd like to see a contextual 5-8 story building instead of 35.
Click to expand...

There is a 20+ story building behind that lot. If this gets chopped to 25 plus/minus a few it won't stand out much.

The location is excellent to absorb a ton of people though. It is hard to say no to density next to an employment center on top of a transit line.
 
sm89 said:
Any thoughts on this proposed 395-unit 35 story building in Mission Hill? http://www.bostonherald.com/busines...ty_proposes_395_unit_building_in_mission_hill
Click to expand...

Sounds like a fantastic project, but it's right on the boundary of the Mission Hill Triangle Architectural Conservation District, so there will likely be a lot of opposition to something that tall.

Over the years the Mission Hill activists have been pretty successful in stopping Longwood expansion onto the hill side of Huntington Ave (and I'm sure this will be characterized as housing for the doctors and such). But if there's a significant affordable housing component and the usual promise not to rent to students, it may have a chance.
 
fattony said:
There is a 20+ story building behind that lot. If this gets chopped to 25 plus/minus a few it won't stand out much.

The location is excellent to absorb a ton of people though. It is hard to say no to density next to an employment center on top of a transit line.
Click to expand...

Like I said. Put it on the corner of Tremont & Worthington. It is absolutely inappropriate and an insult to Mission Hill to plop a tower over 10 stories in the proposed location without a setback. Worthington St & Wigglesworth St are the ONLY survivors of the Whitney Redevelopment Project. They are the last remnants of the neighborhood that once was.

EDIT: I would support this project if it provided a 3-5 story podium on Worthington. We do not yet know the design details.
 
Last edited:
I think it all depends on the massing. If there is a 4 story podium facing out onto Worthington (a step up between the 3 story rowhouses and 5 story apartment building) with a 20' or so setback before the tower portion, it will look perfectly contextual.

If they slam the full 35 floors right against the streetwall, then yeah, it will be oppressive.
 
Yes if the majority of the tower (if not all) is affordable housing. I'm pretty sure neighbors won't scream bloody murder if they know that this could help depress the housing prices with new rentals coming online, especially a 395 unit tower.
 
davem said:
I think it all depends on the massing. If there is a 4 story podium facing out onto Worthington (a step up between the 3 story rowhouses and 5 story apartment building) with a 20' or so setback before the tower portion, it will look perfectly contextual.

If they slam the full 35 floors right against the streetwall, then yeah, it will be oppressive.
Click to expand...

Dave, thanks for that reality check. I had neglected to consider the option of a podium on Worthington. I would support it if a 3-5 story podium was provided on Worthington with a setback for the tower. I was reacting to the notion of a 35 story wall on Worthington St.
 
datadyne007 said:
Like I said. Put it on the corner of Tremont & Worthington. It is absolutely inappropriate and an insult to Mission Hill to plop a tower over 10 stories in the proposed location. Worthington St & Wigglesworth St are the ONLY survivors of the Whitney Redevelopment Project. They are the last remnants of the neighborhood that once was.
Click to expand...

There are not 1 not 2 but 3 towers on that block another a block away and more planed down the street. It is completely appropriate. This is an area with easy access to transit (on one line and walking distance of another), right next to a bunch of colleges and hospitals (we need more student housing). If we allow NIMBYs to stop this here it completely undercuts Walsh's plan for more permissive zoning near transit especially for college students. Not allowing students would be idiotic.
 
Seems like this is a good test to find out if the city is actually serious about it's new housing initiative.
 
meddlepal said:
Seems like this is a good test to find out if the city is actually serious about it's new housing initiative.
Click to expand...

Yes, agreed. Bingo.

I've been thinking for years that everything bounded by Huntington, Tremont, SW Corridor, and Ruggles Streets should be 20+ to 30+ story buildings. Excellent transit connectivity, and the employment centers around here (Colleges of Fenway, NU, LMA, etc.) assure a very healthy stream of demand to rent in the neighborhood. Walsh could plop 53,000 units and the Urban Ring here, and the city would be just fine.
 
datadyne007 said:
Like I said. Put it on the corner of Tremont & Worthington. It is absolutely inappropriate and an insult to Mission Hill to plop a tower over 10 stories in the proposed location without a setback. Worthington St & Wigglesworth St are the ONLY survivors of the Whitney Redevelopment Project. They are the last remnants of the neighborhood that once was.

EDIT: I would support this project if it provided a 3-5 story podium on Worthington. We do not yet know the design details.
Click to expand...

Judging from the pictures in the 60s thread,Worthington and Wigglesworth were much nicer than any of the other streets in this area pre-demo. The rest of the roads were more typical Mission Hill-y, not that nice, old wood triple deckers and such. Not that Whittier was a good thing, but it did not replace an entire area of beautiful stone row houses. My guess is that Worh. & Wig. were spared BECAUSE they were nicer.

At any rate, I agree with datadyne and think that 35 stories, especially without a setback, is not appropriate. And to the commenter who pointed out the Whittier towers, remember that Boston is a city of teeny tiny neighborhoods, and just because there are towers on St Alphonsus doesn't mean towers belong one block over where things are totally different. If they set it back, maybe it could be OK, but just because the city has a housing crunch doesn't mean anything goes in any neighborhood and we should expect people to get every tall proposal rammed down their throats.

Personally, I wish they'd blow up all the Whittier towers and rebuild them on a restored street grid, reconnect Smith, draw Longwood straight through to Parker, and fill the vacant lots along the Orange Line with real towers. THAT is where tall development ought to be, since there isn't any neighborhood there at all. Instead we've got one low rise on Gurney so far, and a nice but not very tall proposal for another lot there, plus replacing the rest of the lots with Wentworth's field. It's shaping up to be a massive, massive waste in my opinion.
 
^The current Wentworth field will be replaced with a tower though so thats good.
Also the whittier towers are horrific looking and are not really urban but there are really simple ways you could improve their urbanity. Replacing the "parks" and garages around them other development and turning the ground floors into retail, a big podium on the corner of Huntington and Longwood would do wonders. Tearing them down would be a waste of density. Also they are not a block over they are on the same block (actually surrounding this development).
 
I was just fantasizing about tearing them down and rebuilding them so as to allow the reformation of the former street grid. Even running Smith diagonally through so it hits St Alphonsus further down would be ok. It's such a sad little stub now. Anyway, Id be much more in favor of a tower on the vacant lot at Huntington & Worthington... but I don't think there are any proposals for that one yet, as far as I know.

I must say I actually like the Wentworth field where it is. It showcases the NE building behind it, it's a pretty greenspace and it's nice to see the kids playing sports, lending the area a college atmosphere. Although it's good to see Huntington getting built up, this is one parcel I'd personally rather see left alone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top