Oxford Office Bldg. | 125 Lincoln St | Leather District

datadyne007 said:
Gensler gonna Gensler... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Why design a new building when you can stretch one you've already designed a short distance away? If this were a spectacular tower I think it would have a much better chance with the Leather District residents. As is, it is rewarmed Hub on Causeway.
 
DZH22 said:
...the proportions stink. In the above diagram, chop off 20% of the width from the right side, then make it ~550'. That's what should be encouraged.....
Click to expand...

The irony; after the Harbor Garage, i can't see single parcel in the city including the Midtown Hotel, Lord & Taylor etc, where we'll see anything taller than this (370') proposed for the next few decades. There's nothing. The cement garbage Downtown doesn't seem to be going anywhere anytime soon. Most of what's left in the West End is too close to Beacon Hill. Then, we've seen; everything outside Downtown, West End, Midtown area is 200~300'.
 
estyle said:
Why design a new building when you can stretch one you've already designed a short distance away? If this were a spectacular tower I think it would have a much better chance with the Leather District residents. As is, it is rewarmed Hub on Causeway.
Click to expand...

They might as well refresh an existing one they worked on, as they know there is no way this thing will be approved, as currently proportioned. Why waste money? They will redesign once they figure out how much over 100' the neighborhood will give them.

Curbed article today:

https://boston.curbed.com/boston-de...0/leather-district-tower-plans-lincoln-street


​
"Opponents, however, point to the city’s 2010 Greenway Planning Study, which specifically mandates a much shorter project on the site, which includes a block-long garage, retail, and restaurants. (Oxford Properties bought 125 Lincoln in 2017 for $39.5 million.) From the study:

Because of the length of its frontage on the Greenway, the Lincoln Street Garage Site, if redeveloped, could profoundly affect the character of the Chinatown Park and the adja- cent Beach Street Crossroad. The southwest corner of the property, in particular, presents a significant challenge to the legibility of the Beach Street corridor, as the active uses on Beach and Lincoln Streets are segregated from the intersection by a very active garage entry.

Future additions or redevelopment of this site will be limited to 100’ by the high potential for shadows cast on the park. Development here should align with the 80’/100’ heights of the existing Leather District fabric and should reinforce the existing character and scale of the neighborhood.

Or, as Christopher Betke, chairman of the Leather District Neighborhood Associaton, put it more succinctly in an email, there is no law or other regulation “that supports such a massive, out-of-proportion building on this site. To build this here, one has to literally disregard every law or urban planning that came before. ...This building will effectively block the sky to our residents, build a wall between us and our neighbors, and bury the Chinatown Greenway Park in shadow."
 
This City is very confused about its zoning--especially in the context of long term planning where ancient neighborhoods abut its somewhat congested core. This lot is 400' from Dewey Square's 600' tower. America's cities' downtown's will tend to expand after a given number of years. It's just the order of things. This Downtown hasn't expanded an inch in 100 years. 370' is a compromise step up that respects (well) the scale of Chinatown and the Leather District where it meets Downtown.

The splendor of having a green patch here in the middle of the dense core is that it rests at the base of a deep steel and glass canyon. That's as much the point. It's situated perfectly to be a Downtown canyon park like Post Office Square.

i know there's people in this Town who want to keep re-setting 'stupid.' But, making that the Greenway precludes building height for hundreds of feet in all directions--takes the cake. It's idiotic groups such as this that caused no takers for the DOT parcels.
 
Last edited:
This is proposed as-of-right, correct? These people need to calm the fuck down.
 
The parking garage had more of a swinging 60’s feel before the facade panels were stripped off and other “improvements” made. It wasn’t awful!
 
HalcyonEra said:
According to the LOI, it has to go to before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Not sure for what.
Click to expand...

Oh, never mind then, opponents will have their way with this proposal and I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that the BPDA requires it to adhere to the 2010 Greenway Planning Study, as cited in the Curbed article above. Sucks for Oxford, although I am sure they factored these variables into the price they agreed to pay to acquire the parcel.
 
Unfortunately, with a height reduction, this will end up as just another block gobbling ground hog.
 
^^Good. Maybe that's been the problem all along; too much pandering just to build G.D. Lowe Highrise Tower in Boston. There's already enough charity for 1.8 buildings for every one that goes up. How about Chinatown gets the first 4 floors.... after 12 more get added.
 
Funny how you have to get to the 21st page before you visually see that they want to put up a 370' tall (to top of mech.) building on that site. Like they are trying to hide it somehow. Even the cover page doesn't have the building on it.
 
There's a lot of sleight of hand in this presentation.

> Five levels of underground parking. How many spaces, if any, will be available for visitors to Chinatown?
> Significantly less retail space than current. (4100 sq ft planned) How does 4100 sq ft "maintain important neighborhood businesses"? The answer being with 1500-2000 office workers, most will flock to Asian-fare food trucks lining the curbs in all directions, for lunch
> A promise of a park where there is already a park.
> The pension fund behind Oxford is a fund exclusively for Canadian municipal employees. (They omit the Canadian.)

Are they proposing to pay for new affordable housing for Chinatown? Would be a plus, if true.
 
Currently at the urban renewal meeting for the district that encompasses this building (Boylston-Essex). One of the chief NIMBYs of the Leather District is present - probably the pain in the ass that has been extensively quoted in the media. His aim is to keep all development in the area to a maximum of 100 ft. in height, and he parrots a lot of typical tropes (he was here first so his opinion counts more, Millennials who are getting screwed in terms of acquiring housing are losers, the city is down on its knees fellating developers, etc.). He cites the usual “quality of life issues” and other vague notions that are trotted out in a pretend feign to progressivism.

I’ll report back after the meeting if anything interesting happens.
 
Commercial buildings are not required to contribute to the IDP affordable housing fund.

However, the city extorts money from commercial developers by forcing them to pay into a jobs and housing trust.

Proposed increase by the mayor: $9.03 per square foot for housing contributions, and $1.78 per square foot for jobs contribution, for a total of $10.81.

stellarfun said:
There's a lot of sleight of hand in this presentation.

> Five levels of underground parking. How many spaces, if any, will be available for visitors to Chinatown?
> Significantly less retail space than current. (4100 sq ft planned) How does 4100 sq ft "maintain important neighborhood businesses"? The answer being with 1500-2000 office workers, most will flock to Asian-fare food trucks lining the curbs in all directions, for lunch
> A promise of a park where there is already a park.
> The pension fund behind Oxford is a fund exclusively for Canadian municipal employees. (They omit the Canadian.)

Are they proposing to pay for new affordable housing for Chinatown? Would be a plus, if true.
Click to expand...
 
Please do! And hopefully provide a counternarrative by speaking up at the meeting!

Coyote137 said:
Currently at the urban renewal meeting for the district that encompasses this building (Boylston-Essex). One of the chief NIMBYs of the Leather District is present - probably the pain in the ass that has been extensively quoted in the media. His aim is to keep all development in the area to a maximum of 100 ft. in height, and he parrots a lot of typical tropes (he was here first so his opinion counts more, Millennials who are getting screwed in terms of acquiring housing are losers, the city is down on its knees fellating developers, etc.). He cites the usual “quality of life issues” and other vague notions that are trotted out in a pretend feign to progressivism.

I’ll report back after the meeting if anything interesting happens.
Click to expand...
 
We ended up having a bit of a...discussion. I made clear that I disagreed with him, and there was probably some discomfort, but he was badgering the presenter. There were lots of insinuations that the BPDA is nothing but a rubber stamp for whatever developers want, and he nonsensically claimed that the BPDA wants to eliminate urban renewal areas entirely to prevent citizen participation (which the presenter noted would significantly curb BPDA power).

Also, this development is actually not in the Boylston-Essex urban renewal area, which it turns out is incredibly small. The presentation didn't directly (or indirectly) relate to this development at all as a result. It was just an issue that the man in question brought up out of nowhere.
 
The only change required is replacing the first subterranean level of parking with a space to preserve Hei La Moon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top