One Bromfield | 1 Bromfield Street | Downtown

DZH22

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
6,286
Reaction score
3,951
BPDA hasn't posted the NPC yet, but the render looks like timber. I know you like height, but that would make this cool.
I don't like timber either for a tall building. Makes me think it's an inferno waiting to happen. Bad height, bad material, still annihilates the Payless building on the corner. What's to like? BPDA never should have said "too tall" as part of their criticism. BPDA should be disbanded.
 

DBM

Active Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
Messages
807
Reaction score
115
BPDA should be disbanded.

On the long long long litany of grievances Bostonians collectively harbor vs. the BPDA--many of which are surely totally justified--the BPDA's role in the ongoing morph of the One Bromfield St. development scheme is so utterly trivial and insignificant as to not even register with a scanning electron microscope.
 

reverend_paco

Active Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
375
Reaction score
59
I don't like timber either for a tall building. Makes me think it's an inferno waiting to happen. Bad height, bad material, still annihilates the Payless building on the corner. What's to like? BPDA never should have said "too tall" as part of their criticism. BPDA should be disbanded.
Manufactured timber has been making inroads. I'm hoping that this is Boston's first. Glulam, etc. have been certified by various code organizations as perfectly fire safe. I've been following the overseas developments and hope to see one make its way here.

 

Suffolk 83

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2007
Messages
2,330
Reaction score
161
I'll be willing to go fight against this current iteration. You don't lose pre war buildings over projects like this. The BPDA needs to start realizing this and not just listen to NIMBYS
 

Blackbird

Active Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
223
Reaction score
158
Manufactured timber has been making inroads. I'm hoping that this is Boston's first. Glulam, etc. have been certified by various code organizations as perfectly fire safe. I've been following the overseas developments and hope to see one make its way here.
This building would be awesome in Andrew or Union Squares. But a stone’s throw from DTX? Surely we can do better.
 

HarvardP

Active Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2018
Messages
205
Reaction score
85
Hey, no parking. That's a plus.

What's the logic in saving the existing structures? The building with Payless is nice enough, but not of any great architectural significance or historical value, and it would just be a facade after the gut if incorporated. The cheap, low-slung neighboring structures are rather sad relics of an era when DTX was on a serious downswing and thus seriously scaled down. Redevelopment of the combined lots absolutely shouldn't be held up by a preservation crusade.
 

JeffDowntown

Senior Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
3,163
Reaction score
344
Hey, no parking. That's a plus.

What's the logic in saving the existing structures? The building with Payless is nice enough, but not of any great architectural significance or historical value, and it would just be a facade after the gut if incorporated. The cheap, low-slung neighboring structures are rather sad relics of an era when DTX was on a serious downswing and thus seriously scaled down. Redevelopment of the combined lots absolutely shouldn't be held up by a preservation crusade.
One reason to save the Payless facade is to get the architect to think a bit about street wall and context (something the rendering shows zero regard for). This design really does not try to fit into DTX context at all.

I agree wholeheartedly about the other buildings though.
 

Top