Quaker Lane + Congress Square | Downtown
- Thread starter 12345
- Start date
BostonObserver
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 556
- Reaction score
- 84
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high
Again, this is where it would be nice to have just a "like" option.
Again, this is where it would be nice to have just a "like" option.
tobyjug
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2007
- Messages
- 3,392
- Reaction score
- 413
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high
I agree. If you removed every height restriction in the city, is there a market and financing for anything over 500 feet? Exhibit A: TommyTower.
I agree. If you removed every height restriction in the city, is there a market and financing for anything over 500 feet? Exhibit A: TommyTower.
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high
Fidelity selling four buildings in the Financial District
http://m.bizjournals.com/boston/real_estate/2013/03/fidelity-selling-four-hub-buildings.html
Fidelity selling four buildings in the Financial District
http://m.bizjournals.com/boston/real_estate/2013/03/fidelity-selling-four-hub-buildings.html
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high
There's some decently sized buildings already on that site, and even a nice alley that could be spruced up.
Putting them together, I fear another horrible starchitect megaproject. We should be encouraging smaller parcels, not larger ones that leave big holes.
There's some decently sized buildings already on that site, and even a nice alley that could be spruced up.
Putting them together, I fear another horrible starchitect megaproject. We should be encouraging smaller parcels, not larger ones that leave big holes.
commuter guy
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2007
- Messages
- 859
- Reaction score
- 80
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high
All of the existing buildings are fairly sizeable attractive pre-war office buildings. Another tower with a massive footprint would not be a welcome development IMO.
Fidelity demolished a similar vintage 10 or so story building at the corner of Devonshire and Quaker Ln in the mid 90's. It's been a private parking lot since then. For years I would walk by and see the same two honking SUVs parked there - probably some door step parking for two Fidelity higher ups. Here is the location:
https://maps.google.com/?ll=42.3583...ij9-hJLyQY2xrodQ2MFSPg&cbp=12,133.24,,0,-0.14
All of the existing buildings are fairly sizeable attractive pre-war office buildings. Another tower with a massive footprint would not be a welcome development IMO.
Fidelity demolished a similar vintage 10 or so story building at the corner of Devonshire and Quaker Ln in the mid 90's. It's been a private parking lot since then. For years I would walk by and see the same two honking SUVs parked there - probably some door step parking for two Fidelity higher ups. Here is the location:
https://maps.google.com/?ll=42.3583...ij9-hJLyQY2xrodQ2MFSPg&cbp=12,133.24,,0,-0.14
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,963
- Reaction score
- 1,585
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high
Clearly y'all don't know nothing about the modern office real estate market. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to build a state-of-the-art office building with all the work of combining parcels (which can take decades) DONE. You want to know why Fan Pier is blowing up? Because it has the large open floor plates that modern offices want. These pre-war buildings are nice but they are gone. So it Quaker Ln probably.
Downtown Boston doesn't have that much modern office space. Most of it dates from the 70s and 80s and if you think that is a problem just imagine if you had to use a computer from 1984 to operate in the global financial marketplace today.
Since I don't really follow the office market in downtown Boston I can't speak to the need for space right now but this spot is way too sexy for a developer to pass up.
Edit: In fact this site allows for so much square footage that I don't know if Boston could even handle all the space coming available. It might be better used for two slender residential towers instead!
Clearly y'all don't know nothing about the modern office real estate market. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to build a state-of-the-art office building with all the work of combining parcels (which can take decades) DONE. You want to know why Fan Pier is blowing up? Because it has the large open floor plates that modern offices want. These pre-war buildings are nice but they are gone. So it Quaker Ln probably.
Downtown Boston doesn't have that much modern office space. Most of it dates from the 70s and 80s and if you think that is a problem just imagine if you had to use a computer from 1984 to operate in the global financial marketplace today.
Since I don't really follow the office market in downtown Boston I can't speak to the need for space right now but this spot is way too sexy for a developer to pass up.
Edit: In fact this site allows for so much square footage that I don't know if Boston could even handle all the space coming available. It might be better used for two slender residential towers instead!
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high
Despite the fact that finance is perhaps the most city-dependent industry on the planet, it's continually astonishing just how terrible financial companies are at urbanism.
edit:
That's a bit silly. Humans are humans still. We haven't changed radically since 1984, and pre-war designers certainly knew how to create spaces for humans.
Actually, I would argue that designers of the past were much wiser than designers of the present who seem to have lost all of that wisdom in the pursuit of monuments to ego.
Despite the fact that finance is perhaps the most city-dependent industry on the planet, it's continually astonishing just how terrible financial companies are at urbanism.
edit:
That's a bit silly. Humans are humans still. We haven't changed radically since 1984, and pre-war designers certainly knew how to create spaces for humans.
Actually, I would argue that designers of the past were much wiser than designers of the present who seem to have lost all of that wisdom in the pursuit of monuments to ego.
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high
some of those facades are worth saving. It would be cool if you had a big office building and an even bigger slender residential. Although with copley and filenes in the pipeline, would someone be willing to build another 600' plus luxury building?
Maybe Boston's own all in one Hancock building (Chicago, not back bay) is in order. With the height to boot!
Also, is this 1000' worthy?
some of those facades are worth saving. It would be cool if you had a big office building and an even bigger slender residential. Although with copley and filenes in the pipeline, would someone be willing to build another 600' plus luxury building?
Maybe Boston's own all in one Hancock building (Chicago, not back bay) is in order. With the height to boot!
Also, is this 1000' worthy?
underground
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 2,390
- Reaction score
- 3
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high
Liberty Wharf II? Could be cool. I agree that the old facades are solid.
Liberty Wharf II? Could be cool. I agree that the old facades are solid.
briv
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 2,083
- Reaction score
- 3
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high
There are plenty of parking garages and bad post-war developments located downtown where new towers can go. It would absolutely idiotic to knock down an intact block of handsome 19th-century/early 20th-century buildings for what I'm sure would be just be another fat-assed, stumpy tower added to the collection.
There are plenty of parking garages and bad post-war developments located downtown where new towers can go. It would absolutely idiotic to knock down an intact block of handsome 19th-century/early 20th-century buildings for what I'm sure would be just be another fat-assed, stumpy tower added to the collection.
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,963
- Reaction score
- 1,585
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high
It isn't humans, it's our technology. Whoever is faster wins. You just can't fit the technology into these old buildings that you need for modern offices.
Most of us on this board appreciate architecture and urbanism in a different context than someone who actually uses these spaces on an every day level. Why do you think developers build what they do? Because enough people want to buy it. If it would make more money to save these buildings for some reason then they'd stay but I'm sure every developer worth his salt just salivated when Fedelity put these on the market.
It isn't humans, it's our technology. Whoever is faster wins. You just can't fit the technology into these old buildings that you need for modern offices.
Most of us on this board appreciate architecture and urbanism in a different context than someone who actually uses these spaces on an every day level. Why do you think developers build what they do? Because enough people want to buy it. If it would make more money to save these buildings for some reason then they'd stay but I'm sure every developer worth his salt just salivated when Fedelity put these on the market.
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high
This is one of my favorite places to walk in the city. It's one of the few places (to me) that truly fees like/resembles a significant city.
Every pop-up city in America can have bland 600 footers, but they're not going back and erecting anything like these buildings today. Certainly not a cluster of them. Quaker Ln. just ads to it.
I'm all for them going tall here, but I hope they can save the facades and the street layout.
This is one of my favorite places to walk in the city. It's one of the few places (to me) that truly fees like/resembles a significant city.
Every pop-up city in America can have bland 600 footers, but they're not going back and erecting anything like these buildings today. Certainly not a cluster of them. Quaker Ln. just ads to it.
I'm all for them going tall here, but I hope they can save the facades and the street layout.
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,963
- Reaction score
- 1,585
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high
I want to make clear I'm not championing the destruction of what's there but rather looking at it through the prism of the office market. These are beautiful buildings that they just don't make anymore. But they don't make them anymore for a reason.
Boston seems ok with facade-ectomys and maybe this is a good place for it. I personally hate them since they are just paying lip service to actual historic preservation. Maybe a Zombie Ant building would suffice.
I want to make clear I'm not championing the destruction of what's there but rather looking at it through the prism of the office market. These are beautiful buildings that they just don't make anymore. But they don't make them anymore for a reason.
Boston seems ok with facade-ectomys and maybe this is a good place for it. I personally hate them since they are just paying lip service to actual historic preservation. Maybe a Zombie Ant building would suffice.
Ron Newman
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2006
- Messages
- 8,395
- Reaction score
- 9
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high
I'd much rather see floors added to these buildings than have them demolished.
I'd much rather see floors added to these buildings than have them demolished.
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high
Yes and no. As commuter guy cited, Fidelity left a perfectly buildable parcel as a surface parking lot. I'm pretty sure that just about everybody would have benefited from construction on that site, including Fidelity, except for the few people using it as a parking lot. But that's how it stayed, because those few called the shots, even to the detriment of their own company.
Yes and no. As commuter guy cited, Fidelity left a perfectly buildable parcel as a surface parking lot. I'm pretty sure that just about everybody would have benefited from construction on that site, including Fidelity, except for the few people using it as a parking lot. But that's how it stayed, because those few called the shots, even to the detriment of their own company.