11-21 Bromfield Street | DTX | Downtown

Bromfield St. is grimey and underutilized but it has it's charm. It's probably one of the most 'East Village' kind of streets we have in Boston. It doesn't need demolition, it needs more activity going on.
 
Coyote137 said:
This conversation keeps going around in the same circles. Let me state it as clearly as I can: There is nothing happening on Bromfield Street that requires demolition of multiple buildings. Period.
Click to expand...

The key words are "nothing happening".

Yep, that's right. Many stores have been out of business for a months-years and nothing new is moving in. So yes, nothing is happening on Bromfield. Definitely the most boring street in DTX.
 
dotdude78 said:
The key words are "nothing happening".

Yep, that's right. Many stores have been out of business for a months-years and nothing new is moving in. So yes, nothing is happening on Bromfield. Definitely the most boring street in DTX.
Click to expand...

And you continue to leave the issue of landlords unaddressed. There is not a magical fairy in the sky who is keeping new tenants from moving in.

You also have not provided a reason why demolition of multiple buildings would be necessary.
 
The argument from the 45 Province residents sounds like this:

"The area is going to be a nightmare during construction. The construction will hit 45 Province St like an A-bomb.

"After the tower is built; delivery trucks, loading, sanitation, will be its aftermath, and render the area virtually uninhabitable...."

At the BCDC it was a contentious topic.
 
That's NIMBY crap, and the typical "it was OK when my building was built, but now it's not OK." Of course those issues need to be discussed, but they're simply using them in bad faith.
 
I walked up it yesterday. I counted six empty storefronts out of a total of (I think) 29 storefronts.
 
29 storefronts is the operative word here. 29 storefronts in a one block stretch (or two block stretch depending on how you view bromfield). They ain't making new streets downtown, like Bromfield, which are ideal for small local retail/commercial use these days. Boston should be doing everything it can to preserve the pockets of intimate scale that remains in DTX/Financial District while encouraging more development/density where it is most appropriate.
 
commuter guy said:
29 storefronts is the operative word here. 29 storefronts in a one block stretch (or two block stretch depending on how you view bromfield). They ain't making new streets downtown, like Bromfield, which are ideal for small local retail/commercial use these days. Boston should be doing everything it can to preserve the pockets of intimate scale that remains in DTX/Financial District while encouraging more development/density where it is most appropriate.
Click to expand...

This is such an excellent point. Thank you.
 
While I'd like to see the curb removed and the street (from Province) repaved to match the Washington corner, even just pouring concrete sidewalks would make a huge difference. There is not much keeping this from being a really great street. The issue with landlords has already been addressed.

Though I understand some people would miss the grit.

dotdude78 said:
That's showing the nice, new part out front of Millennium Tower. Not Bromfield Street.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I should have used an outdated photo of Payless with a crumbling brick street. !!THE PRECEDING SENTENCE WAS SARCASTIC!!
 
I'm all about the small storefronts in general, but I find Bromfield to be an unpleasant street to walk down. It's dark, has bumpy asphalt sidewalks, and just feels like a pass through.
 
Not sure how many of you get the weekly email blast from the Downtown Boston BID, but there's a chunk on Bromfield St. in today's update. The former City Sports is showcasing photos (in the windows) of business owners on Bromfield at their places of work. The BID also claims to be working with property owners of vacant spaces to find tenants, although they don't quantify how - or how many owners are taking them up on the offer.
 
Justin7 said:
even just pouring concrete sidewalks would make a huge difference.
Click to expand...

And that's likely going to happen precisely never, because of a fiendishly simple/complex paradox involving many of Boston's older commercial districts that are filled-up with pre-WWII mercantile-style buildings:

1.) The area beneath the sidewalks is hollow vaulting (former storage space for the goods--furs, cotton, you name it--that the merchants stored). Go into the nightclub basements of 49 Social on Temple Pl. or Stoddard's across the street and you'll be able to walk into hollow vaulting--you'll be stepping underneath what is clearly sidewalk.

2.) Thus, "All that has to happen" for the paving to take place is for the property owner to make the necessary stabilization measures to fill-in the hollow vaulting, then a City engineer has to certify that, then the property owner can convey the sidewalk to the City so the City can pave it.

3.) That presumably costs a lot of $ in hiring engineers and doing the work.

4.) Oh yeah, and every single property owner along a sidewalk frontage with consecutive hollow vaults has to agree to it.

5.) Thus: precisely never.

Boston's pre-WWII infrastructure is glorious in many ways. In many other ways, it continues to haunt us. I'd nominate this as an exquisite example.
 
Thank you for the explanation. I've seen photos of this type of arrangement (I think from NYC), but didn't know this was the reason for the asphalt here.

It still seems there are ways these sidewalks to could be aesthetically improved. Not a high bar.

I'd love to see some photos from under these sidewalks if anyone has access.
 
DBM said:
And that's likely going to happen precisely never, because of a fiendishly simple/complex paradox involving many of Boston's older commercial districts that are filled-up with pre-WWII mercantile-style buildings:

1.) The area beneath the sidewalks is hollow vaulting (former storage space for the goods--furs, cotton, you name it--that the merchants stored). Go into the nightclub basements of 49 Social on Temple Pl. or Stoddard's across the street and you'll be able to walk into hollow vaulting--you'll be stepping underneath what is clearly sidewalk.

2.) Thus, "All that has to happen" for the paving to take place is for the property owner to make the necessary stabilization measures to fill-in the hollow vaulting, then a City engineer has to certify that, then the property owner can convey the sidewalk to the City so the City can pave it.

3.) That presumably costs a lot of $ in hiring engineers and doing the work.

4.) Oh yeah, and every single property owner along a sidewalk frontage with consecutive hollow vaults has to agree to it.

5.) Thus: precisely never.

Boston's pre-WWII infrastructure is glorious in many ways. In many other ways, it continues to haunt us. I'd nominate this as an exquisite example.
Click to expand...

I am hoping that this is somewhere on the BID's to-do list. These sort of cooperative engineering challenges are, I hope, one of the reason the BID exists.
 
It takes forever, I seem to recall them filling some in or shoring them up around the DTX area. It's easier for them to just put up the "No Parking, Hollow Sidewalk" signs and keep it moving.
 
i can't be sure, but it seems the BCDC really screwed the developer here by giving a far too negative, if not vague response and lacking the proper guidance such that the right changes would come in a relatively short time frame.

Looking from where this has evolved, or the lack thereof, it would take a lot to change this opinion.

No way the design was so flawed that the only reaction was to kill the whole tower.

Boston development really took a step back to Flynn/Menino era thinking with this fiasco.
 
odurandina said:
i can't be sure, but it seems the BCDC really screwed the developer here by giving a far too negative, if not vague response and lacking the proper guidance such that the right changes would come in a relatively short time frame.

Looking from where this has evolved, or the lack thereof, it would take a lot to change this opinion.

No way the design was so flawed that the only reaction was to kill the whole tower.

Boston development really took a step back to Flynn/Menino era thinking with this fiasco.
Click to expand...

One Bromfield is a "next cycle" project so I won't get too worked up over it. As Winthrop Square ponied up 150-160M to put a morning shadow in January on the drug dealers and pot smokers in the Common, I'd use that as a starting point and go from there for this project. In the meantime lets see if we can get Harbor Towers Garage across the finish line and then we can declare total victory for this cycle over the forces of NIMBYism! :D
 
^^Yes.... Not jacking off to skyscrapers. Not suggesting to build 10 or 10 more 420' condo towers where we shouldn't, let alone a skyscraper pushing 710'. But the the lack of scale of perspective and obtuse thinking really pisses me off. i don't know if the BPDA is having trouble finding the right moment to drop the hammer on a few seriously loud and unreasonable Nimby's, or can't find a creative solution to bring about the return of Columbus Center (the urban equivalent of a no-brainer). Seems more can be done to get some of the harder to do projects like Columbus Ctr (with 425' that scarcely expands the High Spine), J Hook and Harbor Garage rolling (that once built, will tax the infrastructure only minimally).

Take the Green Line disaster from just this past morning..... a lot of people could have been walking to their Downtown offices across from the far side of Bay Village -- instead of jammed up on those shuttle buses, incredibly late for work.....

mhays25 said:
Seattle has underway in greater Downtown:
--one at 849'
--three around 520'
--two just under their block's 484' limit
--nine just under their blocks' (pre-upzone) 440' limit

So let's say 15 buildings underway at about 420' or taller.

That's nothing compared to New York, but we're 20% their size by CSA, and a smaller percentage of our construction is tall buildings.

What's remarkable is that we've been booming at this pace for a while. Another 14 buildings of 398' to 660' have completed during the current.... Projects (shorter ones) started breaking ground in mid-2010.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top