North Station Gateway | 251 Causeway St | Bulfinch Triangle

Seeing those elevations makes me chuckle. Can anyone point to a previous rendering with trees and dense vegetation on the roof or upper floors that ACTUALLY came to be implemented? There is the rooftop parking garage park at Kendall Square, but I can't think of any other examples. We aren't Singapore! :)
To be fair a couple trees did show up on hub on causeway, theyre just much harder to see in person than the renders. If you squint super hard theres 2 lil guys on the citizen m lol.

IMG_0901.jpeg
 
Yea I agree with the general sentiment that knocking down this nice existing building for a tower is kind of unnecessary, especially when theres still a few empty lots scattered around like this one:

View attachment 56115

Its directly next door to a 600’ tower so would be much easier to push through the planning process as well.

The Forecaster 121 renovation that left that wall blank would indicate a belief that the parking lot will get developed.
 
that glorified blog.

I myself have occasionally mused on what kind of profitable niche bldup could possibly occupy--who is in need of its, uh, "services"?
 
Big doubt this gets approved. Almost reads to me as the proposal you put forth first so that you can them come back with the real proposal which is shorter, stubbier, and cheaper to build and therefore more profitable.
 
So is anyone else wondering why a perfectly functional and nice-looking building needs to be demolished?

edit: NV - I see the questioning on page 2 and mention of the garage across the street.
 
So is anyone else wondering why a perfectly functional and nice-looking building needs to be demolished?

edit: NV - I see the questioning on page 2 and mention of the garage across the street.
I am wondering if an Atlantic Wharf-style tower-within-a-facadectomy could work here? I am guessing there is some characteristic of the existing structure like column placement or floor-to-ceiling height why they want to demo the existing building.

Ex:
at-wf-1.png

Google Maps
 
Since its going to be a mid rise base with one narrow high rise section anyway, why cant they leave the two existing historic structures on both ends and just demolish the middle one and make that the tower, maybe with a bit of cantilever. Doesnt even have to be a full facadectomy.
 
I skimmed the project notifation form hoping to find some justification for why they're doing a full demo of all three buildings. All I found was this weak semi-justification: the Central Artery cut the Triangle into two, and most of the remaining historic buildings are in the west part of the triangle, whereas this building is on the east part of the triangle.

I don't really buy that, but at the same time, I'd really like to see more high rise residential in the West End. So, not really sure how to feel about this one. I just hope it doesn't move forward with a significant height reduction... the worst of both worlds.
8.1 Historic Context
The Project Site consists of three contiguous parcels totaling approximately 0.69 acres at the northeast corner of the Bulfinch Triangle neighborhood. Prior to European settlement, the neighborhood existed as a marshy tidal area of the Charles River. First converted to a mill pond in the 17th century, the area was fully infilled in the early 19th century and streets were laid out in a triangular pattern according to a plan by Charles Bulfinch. The Bulfinch Triangle’s initial development after its infill included travel-related businesses such as hotels, stables, and bars. By the 1870s
development of buildings associated with furniture manufacturing and sales became predominant, including light manufacturing, storage, and office space. The historic character of the Bulfinch Triangle was significantly altered by the construction of the Central Artery which resulted in the demolition of all of the buildings on several blocks in the neighborhood. Today, surviving historic buildings dating to the late 19th and early 20th centuries are primarily concentrated in the portion of the Bulfinch Triangle to the west of the former Central Artery, with modern construction located on several blocks comprising the Central Artery’s former path through the neighborhood. The Project Site is located to the east of the former Central Artery in close proximity to this modern construction.

8.2 Historic Resources In the Vicinity of Site
There are no properties listed in the State or National Registers of Historic Places on the Project Site. Three existing buildings on the Project Site are included in the Massachusetts Historical Commission’s (“MHC”) Inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth (“the Inventory”): The Keany Square Building (251 Causeway Street), the Thomas Butler Metals and Paper Stock Company Building (100 North Washington Street), and the John McGaw Building (126 North Washington Street), all of which have been significantly altered since their original construction.
These buildings are described below. Note that a fourth building formerly located on the Project Site is also included in the Inventory but has since been demolished, the Haymarket Filling Station (98-100 North Washington Street).
As noted above, while the Project Site is historically associated with the original Bulfinch Triangle, this portion of the Triangle was physically separated from the core of the Triangle with the construction of the Central Artery. Despite the removal of the elevated Central Artery, this separation remains today with the recent construction of numerous high-rise developments on the former Central Artery parcels.
 
Not new. Those renderings came out almost a week ago. I can’t imagine being so uninformed as to the existence of the BPDA website to actually pay for that glorified blog.
Got it. Some of us don’t spend the day scanning the BPDA website so I guess that makes me uninformed. Whatever. Anyways, this came from my twitter feed. Agree, wouldn’t pay for a glorified blog.
 
Got it. Some of us don’t spend the day scanning the BPDA website so I guess that makes me uninformed. Whatever. Anyways, this came from my twitter feed. Agree, wouldn’t pay for a glorified blog.
If you're already using twitter/X you can follow the Boston Planning Department account. They usually post same-day. https://x.com/BostonPlans
 
I am wondering if an Atlantic Wharf-style tower-within-a-facadectomy could work here? I am guessing there is some characteristic of the existing structure like column placement or floor-to-ceiling height why they want to demo the existing building.
Google Maps
I agree with y'all that its a shame to waste the existing value on that block, but I'm not sure the facades are where that value is. They're not ugly, but they're not gorgeous either... That said, yes to keeping the height if it goes forward, and uh, could we get a more daring design?
 

Back
Top