One Canal (formerly Greenway Center) | Bullfinch Triangle | West End

Re: Greenway Center (Bulfinch Triangle)

Another comparison:

Tesco, the UK supermarket chain, in 2008 launched a brand called Fresh and Easy in California, Nevada and Arizona. They have over 150 stores now.

Sizes vary from 10,000 to 15,000 square feet.

This year, they launched their first "express" store...at a tiny 3,000 square feet.


Note: Thats selling space. Supermarkets need additional stock room, so a 3,000 square foot store may need a 4,000 sqft space.
 
Re: Greenway Center (Bulfinch Triangle)

The architecture is fairly horrific on this. Both the original and the revised version, though the original seemed slightly better. Without excusing the poor architecture that they've come up with, this is a challenging parcel given the multiple vent buildings to build around and the highway ramps at the front door.

What is the call here, if you had to rank the most important measure for success on this parcel, is it:
keeping the terra cotta building on Canal St?
adding a grocery store to serve the adjoining neighborhoods?
making exciting architecture?
getting something built to fill in the hole in the urban fabric?
 
Re: Greenway Center (Bulfinch Triangle)

Adding a grocery store. The North Enders have been demanding one for over a decade, and it could attract public transit riders from all over the city.

Right now there are no supermarkets anywhere between Johnnie's Foodmaster in Charlestown and Shaw's in the Prudential Center, except for Whole Foods at Charles River Plaza.
 
Re: Greenway Center (Bulfinch Triangle)

1. Ensuring good (doesn't have to be exciting) architecture, which would almost certainly mean...
2. Keeping the terra cotta building on Canal St., since any improvement on this would be near-impossible today
3. Adding a grocery store to serve the adjoining neighborhoods
4. Getting something built to fill in the hole in the urban fabric

I think the best way to ensure (1), in addition to (2), would be to break up the parcel. It seems the BRA only acknowledges superblocks, a time-honored tradition for the group that oversaw the worst depradations of Boston, ever, throughout the '50s, '60s and '70s.

It really is amazing that, given the tabula rasa of wasteland around the Garden as well as the Seaport, the BRA's solution is just to fill it all with superblocks and block-size buildings. Was there ever any consideration given to breaking up the parcels, setting forth some basic zoning rules, and letting smaller landowners simply build? Why is the block-size lot the default for the BRA, other than for the fact that it simply makes their jobs easier for them to do? (And why does the city of Boston have an agency determining what can/can't be built in the city if its primary modus operandi is to make its employees' jobs as easy as possible?)
 
Last edited:
Re: Greenway Center (Bulfinch Triangle)

I think the best way to ensure (1), in addition to (2), would be to break up the parcel. It seems the BRA only acknowledges superblocks, a time-honored tradition for the group that oversaw the worst depradations of Boston, ever, throughout the '50s, '60s and '70s.

It really is amazing that, given the tabula rasa of wasteland around the Garden as well as the Seaport, the BRA's solution is just to fill it all with superblocks and block-size buildings. Was there ever any consideration given to breaking up the parcels, setting forth some basic zoning rules, and letting smaller landowners simply build? Why is the block-size lot the default for the BRA, other than for the fact that it simply makes their jobs easier for them to do? (And why does the city of Boston have an agency determining what can/can't be built in the city if its primary modus operandi is to make its employees' jobs as easy as possible?)

Once again, the developer gets a free pass.

The BRA is not building this parcel. The BRA isn't demanding the developer build a superblock.

As far as we know the BRA might actually prefer smaller blocks, but is afraid the developer will walk away (the BRA's biggest fear) if they demand it.

I lay at least 90% of the blame of recent shitty development in this city at the feet of developers. I'm sure if the proposed actual decent urban developments, the BRA would be overjoyed.
 
Re: Greenway Center (Bulfinch Triangle)

the state Department of Transportation owns, or owned, this parcel. They are the ones who should have sold it off piecemeal, instead of all at once, once the elevated Central Artery and Green Line came down.
 
Re: Greenway Center (Bulfinch Triangle)

the state Department of Transportation owns, or owned, this parcel. They are the ones who should have sold it off piecemeal, instead of all at once, once the elevated Central Artery and Green Line came down.

Given that Mass DOT is not a planning agency (like the BRA), what would be DOT's motivation to tackle a piecemeal sale?

Statler said:
As far as we know the BRA might actually prefer smaller blocks, but is afraid the developer will walk away (the BRA's biggest fear) if they demand it.

This statement seems to contradict your point that the problem does not lie with the BRA. If the BRA prefers smaller blocks, and has leverage in an upzoning negotiation, it should be amending the zoning accordingly.
 
Re: Greenway Center (Bulfinch Triangle)

what would be DOT's motivation to tackle a piecemeal sale?

Making more money? Selling large numbers of a small quantity yields more revenue than small numbers of a large quantity. (Any trip to the supermarket will tell you this.)
 
Re: Greenway Center (Bulfinch Triangle)

There is a big difference between trips to the supermarket and the development of real estate, although given that the latest round of posts had to do with the lack of a supermarket tenant for this site, perhaps it was a clever analogy.

A single large parcel is more valuable to a developer. Simple as that; as a consequence it usually means that the city will suffer another superblock.
 
Re: Greenway Center (Bulfinch Triangle)

A single large parcel is valuable to a developer, but is it more valuable than the aggregate value of many small parcels to many separate developers?

Seems like we could test this by comparing, say, the value of South Bay Plaza to the total value of an equivalent acreage of residential+commercial property in adjoining Southie or Dorchester.
 
Re: Greenway Center (Bulfinch Triangle)

You may be right on paper, but wouldn't the complicated number of transactions be a factor, particularly for a bureaucracy like MassDOT, where the #1 objective might have been disposing of a parcel in one uncomplicated transaction? Just a guess.
 
Re: Greenway Center (Bulfinch Triangle)

I don't know exactly how the Back Bay got developed and parcelled out, but presumably it started out as publicly-owned land as it was filled, and then was sold off as many tiny lots?

(Not that this worked out nearly so well on the Cambridge side; most of the land stayed empty until MIT bought it all up)
 
Re: Greenway Center (Bulfinch Triangle)

A single large parcel is valuable to a developer, but is it more valuable than the aggregate value of many small parcels to many separate developers?

I wonder. If it were more valuable broken into multiple and separately owned parcels, wouldn't the first owner turn around and sell it as small lots to several other developers? Also, I am no expert, but it makes sense to me that constructing one large building would be less expensive than an equivalent square footage in several small buildings.
 
Re: Greenway Center (Bulfinch Triangle)

What are we talking about? Cutting up the three parcels into smaller parts? So, one parcel already has a building on it - Archstone / Avenir. There are two left, right? Then there's the parcel closest to Haymarket, right?

Is this an academic question or a real-life question? They've already sold off the parcels, correct?

If it's academic, then what is the question - would smaller parcels make more money for the DOT and would development happen faster?

How small would you make the parcels and for what purpose? So that you could have mixed-use projects, a supermarket, retail, restaurants, offices, and hotel?

Yes, the Back Bay was filled in over time and the profits from early sales used to go forward with the project, and prices on parcels increased as you went down the alphabet from A to H.

It certainly didn't speed things up by any means - it took like 30 years of in-fighting between the different interests before the project was approved. Not comparable to what's happening here b/c it's owned by one entity, I guess.

And, the roll-out of the Back Bay did not proceed without problem - the original parcels were bought and built-out by owner-occupants while those further to the west were purchased by speculators who skimped on construction. Plus, with the changing economy (if memory serves, the 1870's and the 1890's?), it took half a century for it to be completed.
 
Re: Greenway Center (Bulfinch Triangle)

I don't know exactly how the Back Bay got developed and parcelled out, but presumably it started out as publicly-owned land as it was filled, and then was sold off as many tiny lots?

(Not that this worked out nearly so well on the Cambridge side; most of the land stayed empty until MIT bought it all up)

Ron, -- Look at the Book by Nancy Seaholes about the filling and building history of Boston or stuff on the web about the history of the Back Bay

e.g. from City of Boston:

"The Back Bay was planned as a fashionable residential district, and was laid out as such by the architect Arthur Gilman in 1856. Having travelled to Paris, Gilman was familiar with Baron Haussmann’s plan for the new layout of that city and this inspiration reflected a growing American interest in French architecture and city planning.

As the tidal flats were slowly filled in, beginning at edge of the Public Garden and extending westward, residential construction followed. Because the land filling efforts proceeded slowly, construction advanced concurrently on filled-in lots as they became available. As a result, most blocks in the Back Bay date from approximately the same era and, when viewed in sequence, illustrate the changing tastes in and stylistic evolution of American architecture over the course of the mid- to late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Commercial buildings were erected alongside these residential structures, primarily on Newbury and Boylston Streets. Commercial development began on Boylston Street around 1880 and on Newbury Street in the early 20th century. While new structures were built for some of these commercial ventures, others adapted existing row houses for their purposes. This early example of adaptive reuse helped to maintain the Back Bay’s uniform appearance.

The Back Bay has been home to a number of important artists, writers, and philosophers. Oliver Wendell Holmes, George Santayana, John Singer Sargent, and William Morris Hunt are among the many notable figures that lived in the Back Bay. As the site of the original Museum of Fine Arts, the Boston Public Library, the Museum of Natural History, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Back Bay has been an important center for American culture.

Noted architects whose work is represented in the Back Bay include H.H. Richardson, McKim, Mead, and White, Peabody and Stearns, and Richard Morris Hunt, among others. A number of architectural styles are represented in the Back Bay, including Italianate, Gothic, Ruskinian Gothic (also known as High Victorian Gothic), French Academic, Queen Anne, and Panel Brick, along with many of the revival styles, including Italian Renaissance, German Renaissance, Beaux Arts, Chateauesque, Georgian, Federal, and Adamesque."

Capsule history from several sources (Googel filling of Back Bay):

1852 Commissioners on Public Lands establihed
1856 Tripartite Agreement of 1856 between the State of Mass, Boston, and the Boston and Roxbury Mill Corporation-dividing up the lands.
1857 Part of the city land went to develop the Public Garden.
1857 September--Filling of the Back Bay began-average depth of fill 20 feet;
more than 450 acres filled;
streets were filled to grade 17 (17 ft above mean low tide), lots filled to grade 12, so basements would be below street level.
1859 Arlington Street Church built
1860 Filling of Back Bay reached Clarendon Street
1861 State granted a block of Back Bay (Boylston and Berkeley) to the Boston Society of Natural History and MIT
1862 152 Beacon Street-Isabella Stewart Gardner moved in
1862 Emmanuel Church completed (Newbury Street)
1863 MIT located on Boylston-current site of New England Life building
1864 Society of Natural History building completed (Berkeley between Boylston and Newbury)
1865 First statue erected on the Commonwealth Avenue Mall (also see Mall statues)
1868 First Church of 1630 (Unitarian) moved from Chauncey Place to newly completed church designed by Ware and Van Brunt (Berkeley and Marlborough) -- after fire -- now the Paul Rudolph-ed 1st and 2nd Church
1869 Temporary coliseum built in Copley Square. It held the National Peace Jubilee that year, which was attended by President Ulysses Grant
1870 Filling of Back Bay reached Exeter Street
1871 160 Commonwealth, Hotel Vendome, built-first hotel in city with electric lighting, it had an independent lighting plant designed by Edison in 1882
1871 Brattle Square Church (Unitarian) moved to newly built church designed by H.H. Richardson (Commonwealth and Clarendon) aka-"church of the holy bean blowers." Statues on the tower designed by Frederic August Bartholdi, designer of the Statue of Liberty.
1876 Museum of Fine Arts opened in Copley Square
1877 Trinity Church completed, designed by H.H. Richardson
1880 150 Beacon Street-Isabella Stewart Gardner bought to expand her home at 152
1880 Land for the current site of Boston Public Library purchased
1883 Triangle lot bounded by Huntington, Dartmouth, Boylston purchased and named Copley Square
1884 Triangle lot bounded by Huntington, Trinity Place, St. James added to Copley Square to make it a square
1887 Bridge from West Chester park in Boston to Mass Ave in Cambridge authorized
1889 Bay State Road created by dredging the river and filling the Charles Rivers
1890 Filling of Back Bay reached Kenmore Square
1891 Bridge from West Chester Park in Boston to Mass Ave in Cambridge opened to travel, and renamed the John Harvard bridge
1894 West Chester Park renamed Massachusetts Avenue
1895 Boston Public Library opened in Copley Square
1895 Christian Science Church dedicated
1899 Mass Historical society moved from 30 Tremont Street to the newly built 1154 Boylston Street
1900 Filling of Back Bay completed with last few acres of the Fens

The gist was the Commwealth by borrowing money from investors in 1857 began filling the Back Bay paying contractors to:
1) build a rail line from Needham
1) dig the gravel in Needham,
2) transport it by train
3) fill the streets leaving basement holes already made for the houses
4) Then block by block the lots were auctioned to the highest bidder and the proceeds reinvested in doing more filling
5) and so it continued both day and night for decades -- last filling occured in 1900 in the Fens

see for example the original report written for the National Register (circa 1973);
http://www.architecturaltrust.org/images/documents/reports/Report_NR_Back_Bay.pdf

The filling was guided by an overall master grid plan by Gilman with Comm Ave at its core (modeled on the new Paris)

and deed restrictictions:
3 story building cornice line (typically 3 and 4 story buildings reulted as a result of no elevators)
20 and 25 foot setback from the curb,
(+ some French Parisian academic sylistic trends):
sidewalks,
exterior facade materials -- brick or masonry
window (bays, orierls, bows), raised stoops with steps and front or side entry
roof materials (slate) -- gnerally mansard style

The rest was left to the whims of the developers or in many cases owner / developers such as the Gardners who moved from Beacon St on the Hill to the Back Bay

no NIMBYs needed to apply
no Shirley Kressels
no unNM's, etc.
 
Re: Greenway Center (Bulfinch Triangle)

Wasn't the TD Garden Stop & Shop originally supposed to be on one of these Greenway/Bullfinch parcels?
 
Re: Greenway Center (Bulfinch Triangle)

Wasn't the TD Garden Stop & Shop originally supposed to be on one of these Greenway/Bullfinch parcels?

Yes, in the blank space south of The Victor and running up to Canal Street. Somehow Shaw's was to be the lead tenant though. No developer would touch a Shaw's / Star over the past few years without some kind of massive rent guaranty, which Shaw's parent company, SuperValu could not. Hence, one of the factors, along with 2008-2010 and really nothing getting built, put any supermarket here off for a while.
 
Re: Greenway Center (Bulfinch Triangle)

Sorry to stay off topic, but as a piece of trivia relating to the Back Bay post above, Dartmouth Street was originally envisioned for the function Mass Ave (nee Chester Park) fills today. It was supposed to have a bridge across the Charles to connect up with Main and Broadway in Cambridge. This is also the reason the sidewalks are so wide on Dartmouth was planned to be double its current width.

I do not recall why this didn't happen.
 

Back
Top