Oxford Office Bldg. | 125 Lincoln St | Leather District

Perhaps a silly question - is there a reason why this parcel isn't approved for an "overbuild" above the adjacent southbound onramp, similar to some parcels in the Seaport? I don't like the massing of the current proposal as-is and far be it from me to propose something that would create more of a canyon feel in that area, but it seems like a great way to get a ton more square footage for floors 2+.

EDIT: New page so I'll at least throw in a pic or two.
S4VH04ch.png

zHuM6QAh.png

ZJ5hq7Mh.png
 
MjolnirMan said:
Perhaps a silly question - is there a reason why this parcel isn't approved for an "overbuild" above the adjacent southbound onramp, similar to some parcels in the Seaport? I don't like the massing of the current proposal as-is and far be it from me to propose something that would create more of a canyon feel in that area, but it seems like a great way to get a ton more square footage for floors 2+.

EDIT: New page so I'll at least throw in a pic or two.
S4VH04ch.png

zHuM6QAh.png

ZJ5hq7Mh.png
Click to expand...

The issues is likely the tunnel structure. The tunnel by Lincoln Street is reconditioned from the old Dewey Square Tunnel from the original 1950's Central Artery. I doubt it has foundation underpinning needed to allow overbuilding the ramp.

The ramps in the Seaport are new construction during the Big Dig, and were designed for overbuilding.
 
JeffDowntown said:
The issues is likely the tunnel structure. The tunnel by Lincoln Street is reconditioned from the old Dewey Square Tunnel from the original 1950's Central Artery. I doubt it has foundation underpinning needed to allow overbuilding the ramp.

The ramps in the Seaport are new construction during the Big Dig, and were designed for overbuilding.
Click to expand...

What about just decking it wider side/walk pedestrian use?
 
They should be happy its not a 42 or 50 story building there.. which it very much could be. I think this is a conservative design given its location, yet a great add to the neighborhood.


People should complain less and see the good in this design. Because as much as I would like this design being taller... I know that it could also be shorter.. so I am content with this building's design. These yappers shouldn't complain and see it as 'well im glad its not 42 stories!!!'.

-Im sending in a good letter to show Im pleased with the design.
 
We gotta take 'tower' out of the description, its just embarrassing.
 
So it's right by South Station, able to hit at least 600' per the FAA, and they're proposing something even shorter than the typical Seaport building. What a joke.

Width is the real boogeyman, not height. This is so much worse than something 2-3 times as tall but with only 60-70% of the footprint. Proportions matter, especially in the heart of downtown.

Last thing, what the hell is the deal with the bottom right corner?

EDIT: "What a joke" isn't a strong enough slam for this disgrace of a project. It's complete f***ing garbage, period.
 
DZH22 said:
So it's right by South Station, able to hit at least 600' per the FAA, and they're proposing something even shorter than the typical Seaport building. What a joke.

Width is the real boogeyman, not height. This is so much worse than something 2-3 times as tall but with only 60-70% of the footprint. Proportions matter, especially in the heart of downtown.

Last thing, what the hell is the deal with the bottom right corner?

EDIT: "What a joke" isn't a strong enough slam for this disgrace of a project. It's complete f***ing garbage, period.
Click to expand...
This project is screwed by its location. It needs to "try to fit in" with the Leather District, the Greenway and the Financial District.

Maybe an Atlantic Wharf type look would work here. A Leather District traditional base structure on the full footprint, with a slender modern tower on a portion of the footprint?
 
stefal said:
I've been noticing this being said a lot recently across a number of threads.. kind of depressing...
Click to expand...

OK, it's a huge upgrade over what is there right now. Build it. Happy?
 
meddlepal said:
OK, it's a huge upgrade over what is there right now. Build it. Happy?
Click to expand...

Not really happy, no. I get where you're coming from, but I'd hate to think Boston is fully reduced to just always taking whatever it can get. I don't involve myself with the "more height" arguments here, but this is one spot where more height seems not just appropriate but practically necessary.
 
shawn said:
one spot where more height seems not just appropriate but practically necessary.
Click to expand...

While I certainly appreciate the "appropriate" sentiment, the "necessary" aspect is downright bizarre--"necessary" to appease your and like-minded urbanists' philosophical/ideological principles? Or "necessary" in response to market signals?

Here's what I see as "necessary" here: the developer finding a way to negotiate the usual convoluted matrix of community/BPDA pressures, mandates, conflicts, and politics, while also responding to the following:

--the rapid deterioration of the office market with the devastation wrought by the pandemic
--the 2.4 million plus sf of office coming online over the next few years in Downtown with South Station Tower, Winthrop Ctr Tower, and Bulfinch Tower rising (granted, .5 million of that 2.4 million will be absorbed by State Street Corp moving to Bulfinch Tower--but in the larger market, that's just musical chairs).

Once folks start, well... dictating... that a tower should be X height, in total alienation from market realities, well, that sounds like Pyongyang to me. No thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top