Oxford Office Bldg. | 125 Lincoln St | Leather District

HarvardP

Active Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2018
Messages
278
Reaction score
167
They could build 100 of these right across the Fort Point Channel. Why stick a Seaport sized building in a place that doesn't actually force you to cap the height that low? Aesthetically, mixing Seaport blocks into the main skyline is not a good look. Even if you think the building by itself looks nice enough, the placement and proportions drag down the overall aesthetic of the city as a whole.

Considering we have a housing crunch in this city and this is right across from South Station, if anything it should be a 600' residential. Frankly, as soon as Covid passes we'd have enough demand in Boston to fill 20 new 600' residentials.
If you still think the city will need 20 60-floor res buildings, at market rate, after vaccinations become more prevalent (end of summer '21 earliest), you have officially checked out. Now if MassHousing announces a few thousand new (not earmarked for displaced current renters) units, those will fill up in a flash.

Pre-Covid height and density fetishes always made me scratch my head, but to keep the fantasy alive in the face of enormous changes in occupancy and location value, that's clinical delusion.
 

shmessy

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
2,830
Reaction score
2,584
If you still think the city will need 20 60-floor res buildings, at market rate, after vaccinations become more prevalent (end of summer '21 earliest), you have officially checked out. Now if MassHousing announces a few thousand new (not earmarked for displaced current renters) units, those will fill up in a flash.

Pre-Covid height and density fetishes always made me scratch my head, but to keep the fantasy alive in the face of enormous changes in occupancy and location value, that's clinical delusion.

Seems as if you are thinking in a still-photograph, 6-12 month window. Developers/planners think in 5- 50 year windows.

No one has "checked out".

This is an historic turning point in human history. The demographic explosion of 65+ year old retirees looking at 20-30+ year semi-active life retirements will put a huge demand on urban centers. These people will want restaturants/medical centers/culture and to be free of the responsibilites of vehicle ownership and yardwork.

Over the next decade, Boston could easily build 20, 60 story res buildings and not put a dent in the $/sq footage rate. You do realize it is a MOVING target?
 
Last edited:

Equilibria

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
6,002
Reaction score
5,275
BCDC:


I don't miss the height. I do miss the original design. I appreciate that they did something other than Colossal Order, but the "contextual podium" should be brick, not brick-colored paneling.

That said, this looks like it will be pleasant at street level. The "office park" look doesn't kick in until a few stories up.
 

Bananarama

Active Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
485
Reaction score
884
The podium detail image calls out "Terracotta Panel" so at least it will have more solidity/character than just painted metal.
 

found5dollar

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2007
Messages
1,120
Reaction score
340
I'm interested din the play between the "terracotta panel" and "metal panel" textures. The research images of the green patinated metal are kind of exciting, specifically as a sort of trompe l'oeil shadow on the upper section around the windows.
 

shmessy

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
2,830
Reaction score
2,584
It's not a low landscraper.

It's a medium height landscraper.

They worked very hard to hide it's true nature, but then slipped up and inserted slide #9.
 

JeffDowntown

Senior Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
3,769
Reaction score
1,392
It's not a low landscraper.

It's a medium height landscraper.

They worked very hard to hide it's true nature, but then slipped up and inserted slide #9.
But so is the current parking garage, and it is hideous by comparison. This is a vast improvement for the neighborhood, and works pretty hard to play nice with the surroundings.
 

DZH22

Superstar
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
10,531
Reaction score
23,683
The new building is too wide. The parking garage is just as wide, but isn't quite tall enough to overwhelm the area. This building epitomizes the true boogey man, which is width*height. Really, anything over 10-12 floors is going to create the same wall-effect as a 50 floor building at the same width. That's part of why I push for height so much; it's in exchange for slimming the footprint. As is, this is an impermeable blob and the only place it belongs is in the Seaport.
 

bigpicture7

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2016
Messages
2,837
Reaction score
4,533
The new building is too wide. The parking garage is just as wide, but isn't quite tall enough to overwhelm the area. This building epitomizes the true boogey man, which is width*height. Really, anything over 10-12 floors is going to create the same wall-effect as a 50 floor building at the same width. That's part of why I push for height so much; it's in exchange for slimming the footprint. As is, this is an impermeable blob and the only place it belongs is in the Seaport.
Our architect friends can correct me, but I am pretty sure that aspect ratio, within legitimate constraints (which is a whole other topic), is almost entirely dictated by the customer, which, in turn, is entirely dictated by the market-driven end-use of the building. I agree that aspect ratio is an aesthetic quality, but you would literally need a non-profit/purely benevolent developer with cash to burn to build aspect ratio for aspect ratio's sake (again, within constraints).

If one goes to a car dealership to look for a cargo van with a certain capacity, you are not going to see vehicles with the aspect ratio of a corvette, regardless of how much more attractive the latter is.
 

DZH22

Superstar
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
10,531
Reaction score
23,683
Our architect friends can correct me, but I am pretty sure that aspect ratio, within legitimate constraints (which is a whole other topic), is almost entirely dictated by the customer, which, in turn, is entirely dictated by the market-driven end-use of the building. I agree that aspect ratio is an aesthetic quality, but you would literally need a non-profit/purely benevolent developer with cash to burn to build aspect ratio for aspect ratio's sake (again, within constraints).

If one goes to a car dealership to look for a cargo van with a certain capacity, you are not going to see vehicles with the aspect ratio of a corvette, regardless of how much more attractive the latter is.
Maybe they need to be looking at a different use then. Aren't we in a housing crisis? Office didn't work, and we can/should leave the 250' labs to the Seaport and Kendall (which itself should be thinking bigger). The best use of this parcel would be mainly residential, 500'-600', right by the 503' State Street building, 590' 1 Financial, 614' Fed, and soon to be 677' South Station Tower.
 

gac108

Active Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2020
Messages
180
Reaction score
348
Absolutely no reason this shouldn't be 200-250' taller with a combo of affordable housing and an affordable hotel. With that location?? Steps from South Station?? This is an absurd waste of a prime spot.
 

estyle

Active Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
313
Reaction score
41
Absolutely no reason this shouldn't be 200-250' taller with a combo of affordable housing and an affordable hotel. With that location?? Steps from South Station?? This is an absurd waste of a prime spot.
Except that there is recent community planning that calls for 100' feet here--that's obviously not a hard cap but they've blown so far past it. Height could potentially be good here with a residential footprint, which would be slimmer, and the right orientation. Throw in a decent podium that relates to the context and it's a solid project. But we know that no one is financing residential these days so they are trying to get something big a blocky through a community that is really not buying it.
 

stellarfun

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
5,416
Reaction score
966
Oxford Properties, one of Boston’s largest traditional-office landlords, had been planning a 24-story office building on the site of a parking garage at 125 Lincoln St., on the edge of the Leather District. In December, Oxford went back to the Boston Planning & Development Agency with a new idea: Build a shorter building, with 14 stories, aimed at technology and life-sciences companies. That would cut the square footage by a third, and probably reduce the building’s daytime population by even more.

The plan was inspired partly by neighborhood feedback, said Oxford executive vice president Chad Remis. Residents of the Leather District and Chinatown had objected to the idea of a 340-foot tower on the site, which is surrounded by much shorter buildings. But the revision was also inspired by a change in the market for commercial space, he said.

We build buildings that we believe will meet the demands of society for 30 years from now, not demand two years ago,” Remis said. “And we believe that research and innovation space will always be in demand.”

Buildings that house labs and tech space have different design requirements than traditional office buildings. For instance, the new plan for 125 Lincoln includes higher ceilings and vast open floors; the lower floors would jut out over an onramp to the Thomas P. O’Neill Jr. Tunnel. Heating, cooling, and power systems would be more sophisticated, to handle the demands of tech and research companies.

“This building, per square foot, will cost us significantly more to build,” Remis said, though he noted the rents it would command would be higher than for office space..

The other building discussed at length in the Globe article is 601 Congress.
 

Equilibria

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
6,002
Reaction score
5,275
BCDC:


By removing the cornice they've taken out key contextual element linking the building to its neighbors. The upper floors look like an air conditioning unit.

I will give them that the material of the facade on the podium looks better than before. Put the cornice back and we can discuss letting you build that space-age crap up top.

1619636421867.png
 

theSil

Active Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2016
Messages
277
Reaction score
401
Embarrassing. Abolish the BCDC. Seriously, the majority of the time it worsens outcomes.
 

Massachoicetts

Active Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2019
Messages
537
Reaction score
652
I like the base, Im not a fan of the top.

However, everything is white. In and around it. Would prefer the brown/first iteration.. but this isnt terrible. It went from a 7/10 to a 5/10.
 

Top