AmericanFolkLegend
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2009
- Messages
- 2,204
- Reaction score
- 220
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high
I think the Body Snatchers took Van.
I think the Body Snatchers took Van.
Quaker Lane + Congress Square | Downtown
- Thread starter 12345
- Start date
commuter guy
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2007
- Messages
- 859
- Reaction score
- 80
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high
Van,
I understand your points. However, situations such as this remind me why we should have a better planning dept. proactively trying to preserve boston's unique advantages i.e., it's historic fabric, while incentivizing large new developments in areas that could use redevelopment, for example areas like Briv identified.
Van,
I understand your points. However, situations such as this remind me why we should have a better planning dept. proactively trying to preserve boston's unique advantages i.e., it's historic fabric, while incentivizing large new developments in areas that could use redevelopment, for example areas like Briv identified.
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,965
- Reaction score
- 1,586
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high
I wholeheartedly agree. I'd much rather see half of the Greenway developed with modern office/hotel/residential buildings than beautiful older structures get torn down.
I wholeheartedly agree. I'd much rather see half of the Greenway developed with modern office/hotel/residential buildings than beautiful older structures get torn down.
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,965
- Reaction score
- 1,586
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high
You'd be surprised how much more profitable parking lots are than new construction in many places. The market has to be right. It's the same reason there are so many "Tax payers", the small 1 story buildings throughout Brighton, Allston, Cambridge, etc. A speculator buys the property and puts on it a business that generates enough income to cover the taxes until the market shifts.
The truth is the downtown office market demands large floor plates and there are few places where you can develop such large buildings in Boston's notorious downtown street grid.
You'd be surprised how much more profitable parking lots are than new construction in many places. The market has to be right. It's the same reason there are so many "Tax payers", the small 1 story buildings throughout Brighton, Allston, Cambridge, etc. A speculator buys the property and puts on it a business that generates enough income to cover the taxes until the market shifts.
The truth is the downtown office market demands large floor plates and there are few places where you can develop such large buildings in Boston's notorious downtown street grid.
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high
Not surprised. We subsidized the highway infrastructure that directs a river of cars into the area, creating massive demand for parking. That's why the parking cap exists, to offset the highway subsidies.
How many decades are they waiting? Most of those buildings have been around since the early 20th century. I get what you're saying but I think there's more to this story. Different thread probably, though.
It's not notorious -- it's a traditional walkable city. Everything we know about such cities says that small block sizes are critically important, and it's a feature that developed naturally all over the world before automobiles and "city planning" took hold.
Combining these four won't make a notorious "superblock", it's not as bad as other cases, but it's still a bit sad.
I'm guessing by "large floor plate" you mean cubical farms. That reminds me of visiting a friend working at a bank in Pittsburgh in his cube. Next door to his tower they were demolishing a beautiful theater to build another "large floor plate" tower.
Not surprised. We subsidized the highway infrastructure that directs a river of cars into the area, creating massive demand for parking. That's why the parking cap exists, to offset the highway subsidies.
How many decades are they waiting? Most of those buildings have been around since the early 20th century. I get what you're saying but I think there's more to this story. Different thread probably, though.
It's not notorious -- it's a traditional walkable city. Everything we know about such cities says that small block sizes are critically important, and it's a feature that developed naturally all over the world before automobiles and "city planning" took hold.
Combining these four won't make a notorious "superblock", it's not as bad as other cases, but it's still a bit sad.
I'm guessing by "large floor plate" you mean cubical farms. That reminds me of visiting a friend working at a bank in Pittsburgh in his cube. Next door to his tower they were demolishing a beautiful theater to build another "large floor plate" tower.
BostonUrbEx
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2010
- Messages
- 4,340
- Reaction score
- 127
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high
I wouldn't mind if Quaker Lane becomes the next Pie Alley decked over and lined with retail. I would call the loss of the buildings pretty significant though. Hopefully some facadectomies occur.
I wouldn't mind if Quaker Lane becomes the next Pie Alley decked over and lined with retail. I would call the loss of the buildings pretty significant though. Hopefully some facadectomies occur.
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,965
- Reaction score
- 1,586
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high
This is going to sound way more vindictive than I mean to sound given the medium of an internet message board but: traditional walkability doesn't mean dick here. You are in the center of the city not somewhere in a greenfield development. Small block sizes are good for small residential neighborhoods but we are talking about a city block surrounded by some of the tallest buildings in the city. It isn't a traditional city, it's a modern city and we have to deal with that or suffer.
The basic problem with historic preservation is that it tries to be two things at once. You save historic buildings from being demolished because they add a certain value to the city but by doing so you remove another value, that of having enough modern spaces to keep the city viable enough to even appreciate historic buildings. In a vacuum it works but a few buildings downtown which aren't even historically significant skew the balance to that of hindering progress.
(once again, don't mean to sound like a dick)
This is going to sound way more vindictive than I mean to sound given the medium of an internet message board but: traditional walkability doesn't mean dick here. You are in the center of the city not somewhere in a greenfield development. Small block sizes are good for small residential neighborhoods but we are talking about a city block surrounded by some of the tallest buildings in the city. It isn't a traditional city, it's a modern city and we have to deal with that or suffer.
The basic problem with historic preservation is that it tries to be two things at once. You save historic buildings from being demolished because they add a certain value to the city but by doing so you remove another value, that of having enough modern spaces to keep the city viable enough to even appreciate historic buildings. In a vacuum it works but a few buildings downtown which aren't even historically significant skew the balance to that of hindering progress.
(once again, don't mean to sound like a dick)
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high
I disagree. It's where walkability is the most important of all, because it's the focal point of everyone else in the region. There's so many dead downtowns, including part of ours, because the powers that be don't care. And that's a shame. We dedicate too many resources to making it the hub of the Hub to let it fall into disuse.
When I say that cities have traditionally had small block sizes, and that modern cities based around the automobile do not, I am saying that modernists do it wrong. Modern cities should look more like traditional cities that were built around and for people, and we're lucky that we already have that in many ways. In my opinion, we should reject the post-war design standards for streets and blocks. They are modern, but not good for cities. I'm a traditionalist in this regard.
I agree that we shouldn't freeze the city into a museum. But a lot of that impulse comes from the fact that modernist architecture has been such a horrible disaster that we cling to the old as long as possible.
The other issue is that these rich developers can be a bit snobby. It's more than possible to retrofit these sites. "Large floor plate" is just another fad. Unless there's some problem hiding on-site, I'm sure a potential buyer could reuse and renovate the buildings into something useful. That's how so much activity in the city proceeds: adaptation of existing stock.
They just happen to have a lot of money, and they want to show off by throwing it into some ego-stroking mega-project. I get it. It's their money. They'll probably do it and I probably won't complain; there's far worse things out there. I just think we should describe it for what it really is.
I disagree. It's where walkability is the most important of all, because it's the focal point of everyone else in the region. There's so many dead downtowns, including part of ours, because the powers that be don't care. And that's a shame. We dedicate too many resources to making it the hub of the Hub to let it fall into disuse.
When I say that cities have traditionally had small block sizes, and that modern cities based around the automobile do not, I am saying that modernists do it wrong. Modern cities should look more like traditional cities that were built around and for people, and we're lucky that we already have that in many ways. In my opinion, we should reject the post-war design standards for streets and blocks. They are modern, but not good for cities. I'm a traditionalist in this regard.
I agree that we shouldn't freeze the city into a museum. But a lot of that impulse comes from the fact that modernist architecture has been such a horrible disaster that we cling to the old as long as possible.
The other issue is that these rich developers can be a bit snobby. It's more than possible to retrofit these sites. "Large floor plate" is just another fad. Unless there's some problem hiding on-site, I'm sure a potential buyer could reuse and renovate the buildings into something useful. That's how so much activity in the city proceeds: adaptation of existing stock.
They just happen to have a lot of money, and they want to show off by throwing it into some ego-stroking mega-project. I get it. It's their money. They'll probably do it and I probably won't complain; there's far worse things out there. I just think we should describe it for what it really is.
No worries. I'm probably way worse anyway.
tmac9wr
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 1,444
- Reaction score
- 63
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high
I totally understand what you mean Van, and I don't think you come off as a dick...while we all would love to have small, intimate blocks all over the city, it just doesn't work when trying to attract a large tenant.
It's also far more convenient to have large-plated buildings when dealing with a corporate environment. Here in SP, I work in a building that has small plates...so small that the large engineering firm in our building takes up 3 floors and basically makes it so the all of the elevators move between floors 4, 6, and 9. It's enough to drive someone insane. It can take 5-10 minutes to catch an elevator in an 11 story building. I want to punch every engineer I see now.
I totally understand what you mean Van, and I don't think you come off as a dick...while we all would love to have small, intimate blocks all over the city, it just doesn't work when trying to attract a large tenant.
It's also far more convenient to have large-plated buildings when dealing with a corporate environment. Here in SP, I work in a building that has small plates...so small that the large engineering firm in our building takes up 3 floors and basically makes it so the all of the elevators move between floors 4, 6, and 9. It's enough to drive someone insane. It can take 5-10 minutes to catch an elevator in an 11 story building. I want to punch every engineer I see now.
commuter guy
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2007
- Messages
- 859
- Reaction score
- 80
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high
It's a double edged sword, the modern highrise towers in the financial district employ and bring large numbers of people into the city probably helping the overall metro grow and adapt. On the other hand the financial district workers seem to gravitate like lemmings to the pockets of prewar Boston for lunch or drinks after work. It's the older buildings that keep a flicker of activity alive in the financial district, places like the older block of buildings off Pearl and High St. or toward the area around Broad and Batterymarch Streets. These older buildings host most of the restaurants and bars etc., while the high rises host bank branches etc.
It's a double edged sword, the modern highrise towers in the financial district employ and bring large numbers of people into the city probably helping the overall metro grow and adapt. On the other hand the financial district workers seem to gravitate like lemmings to the pockets of prewar Boston for lunch or drinks after work. It's the older buildings that keep a flicker of activity alive in the financial district, places like the older block of buildings off Pearl and High St. or toward the area around Broad and Batterymarch Streets. These older buildings host most of the restaurants and bars etc., while the high rises host bank branches etc.
AmericanFolkLegend
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2009
- Messages
- 2,204
- Reaction score
- 220
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high
Regarding the discussion of modern offices needing big floorplates:
Hines Interests built an iconic skyscraper in Midtown Atlanta in 2006 (1180 Peachtree). They grabbed two law firms from downtown Atlanta as their anchor tenants. Both were law firms that left Downtown Atlanta because the floorplates in the 1970s & 1980s buildings were TOO large. Both firms were looking to downsize floor plates because they didn't need a large, physical library for each practice specialty (i.e,. apparently the practice specialties were organized by floor and each one had a big library). They'd migrated most of their library to digital space so they wanted smaller floorplates by which to organize their practice specialties.
Not saying that's where office space is headed in general, but it's an example of when modern needs required smaller floorplates.
Regarding the discussion of modern offices needing big floorplates:
Hines Interests built an iconic skyscraper in Midtown Atlanta in 2006 (1180 Peachtree). They grabbed two law firms from downtown Atlanta as their anchor tenants. Both were law firms that left Downtown Atlanta because the floorplates in the 1970s & 1980s buildings were TOO large. Both firms were looking to downsize floor plates because they didn't need a large, physical library for each practice specialty (i.e,. apparently the practice specialties were organized by floor and each one had a big library). They'd migrated most of their library to digital space so they wanted smaller floorplates by which to organize their practice specialties.
Not saying that's where office space is headed in general, but it's an example of when modern needs required smaller floorplates.
commuter guy
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2007
- Messages
- 859
- Reaction score
- 80
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high
Large firms like the large floor plates. However, I work in a suite of 8 professionals in a class B prewar building near the Parker House Hotel. Our suite is 2500 sq. feet. Recently, Class B rents have been increasing, maybe faster than Class A rents. Our lease is up and the owner is proposing very significant rent increases. We've hit the pavement with commercial real estate brokers and there is very little availability for these types of smaller office suites downtown. Generally, the only viable options are these Class B older buildings with small floor plates and they are in very high demand from smaller firms/businesses. If these fidelity buildings remain and were leased as is they would be filled in relatively short order with small and mid size firms. Downtown can use all types of space and buildings to remain healthy.
Large firms like the large floor plates. However, I work in a suite of 8 professionals in a class B prewar building near the Parker House Hotel. Our suite is 2500 sq. feet. Recently, Class B rents have been increasing, maybe faster than Class A rents. Our lease is up and the owner is proposing very significant rent increases. We've hit the pavement with commercial real estate brokers and there is very little availability for these types of smaller office suites downtown. Generally, the only viable options are these Class B older buildings with small floor plates and they are in very high demand from smaller firms/businesses. If these fidelity buildings remain and were leased as is they would be filled in relatively short order with small and mid size firms. Downtown can use all types of space and buildings to remain healthy.
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high
^ I do think you are onto something though... with the advent of cloud computing and open-concept office layouts becoming ever more popular, there won't be as much of a need for massive floor plates.
^ I do think you are onto something though... with the advent of cloud computing and open-concept office layouts becoming ever more popular, there won't be as much of a need for massive floor plates.
kz1000ps
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2006
- Messages
- 8,726
- Reaction score
- 9,517
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high
What? Trading floors for major brokerage firms are only getting larger, not smaller, to the point where they want 2++ acres of column-less space per floor, and this has been the trend since florescent lights and air conditioning made these kind of spaces feasible. Obviously we're not going to land a Merrill Lynch or RBS trading operation for this site, but I don't see any signs of those massive floors going away.
Bottom line is most of the class A office space is aging to the point that pretty soon buildings will start getting knocked down to class B unless they see serious renovations. I like the buildings here and think they give this pocket of downtown a cohesive and dignified air, but I also think this would be a killer spot for a big-ass corporate beast that *fingers crossed* could break the skyline plateau.
What? Trading floors for major brokerage firms are only getting larger, not smaller, to the point where they want 2++ acres of column-less space per floor, and this has been the trend since florescent lights and air conditioning made these kind of spaces feasible. Obviously we're not going to land a Merrill Lynch or RBS trading operation for this site, but I don't see any signs of those massive floors going away.
Bottom line is most of the class A office space is aging to the point that pretty soon buildings will start getting knocked down to class B unless they see serious renovations. I like the buildings here and think they give this pocket of downtown a cohesive and dignified air, but I also think this would be a killer spot for a big-ass corporate beast that *fingers crossed* could break the skyline plateau.
BostonUrbEx
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2010
- Messages
- 4,340
- Reaction score
- 127
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high
[Movie theatre voice over guy's voice] In a world where apartments keep getting smaller and office floors keep growing bigger . . .
[Movie theatre voice over guy's voice] In a world where apartments keep getting smaller and office floors keep growing bigger . . .
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,965
- Reaction score
- 1,586
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high
And honestly that's probably what will happen. I was only talking hypothetically that a modern tower could go in here because combining the lots has already been done. I don't know the Boston office market well enough but it's entirely possible that there isn't even a demand for Class A or AA space yet. My point is once there is...
And honestly that's probably what will happen. I was only talking hypothetically that a modern tower could go in here because combining the lots has already been done. I don't know the Boston office market well enough but it's entirely possible that there isn't even a demand for Class A or AA space yet. My point is once there is...
kz1000ps
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2006
- Messages
- 8,726
- Reaction score
- 9,517
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high
Also, downtown is starting to feel a lot like (brace yourself for a NYC comparison) Lower Manhattan 5-10 years ago in the sense that minimal investment is occurring in the office market while there are articles coming out regularly proclaiming new residential and food/retail activity. Now we're a ways off from seeing any of those 1920s-era office buildings turn residential, but it's an important question to ask: do we want the financial district to stay financial? And if so, how do we encourage investment without wanton demolition?
Also, downtown is starting to feel a lot like (brace yourself for a NYC comparison) Lower Manhattan 5-10 years ago in the sense that minimal investment is occurring in the office market while there are articles coming out regularly proclaiming new residential and food/retail activity. Now we're a ways off from seeing any of those 1920s-era office buildings turn residential, but it's an important question to ask: do we want the financial district to stay financial? And if so, how do we encourage investment without wanton demolition?
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,965
- Reaction score
- 1,586
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high
Even with the transition from primarily office to almost half residential Lower Manhattan is still very dead at night and on weekends. Converting the Financial District in Boston to residential probably won't work too well unless Downtown Crossing starts to explode with conversions and new residential construction (like I said lets see how Millennium does) and there is overflow to the east.
Even with the transition from primarily office to almost half residential Lower Manhattan is still very dead at night and on weekends. Converting the Financial District in Boston to residential probably won't work too well unless Downtown Crossing starts to explode with conversions and new residential construction (like I said lets see how Millennium does) and there is overflow to the east.
commuter guy
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2007
- Messages
- 859
- Reaction score
- 80
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high
Yes, not a trend yet. Outside of the financial district but close is the building on the corner of Winter and Washington. They kicked out all the small office firms and are converting to residential. Cant think of any other conversions in the last few years off the top of my head. Most of the residential development is on the outskirts of the financial district; leather district, ladder district, area bordering chinatown. Probably because the highest and best use in the financial district remains office use.
Yes, not a trend yet. Outside of the financial district but close is the building on the corner of Winter and Washington. They kicked out all the small office firms and are converting to residential. Cant think of any other conversions in the last few years off the top of my head. Most of the residential development is on the outskirts of the financial district; leather district, ladder district, area bordering chinatown. Probably because the highest and best use in the financial district remains office use.
Ron Newman
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2006
- Messages
- 8,395
- Reaction score
- 9
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high
Sure, if they're pay lots. But this one isn't.
Sure, if they're pay lots. But this one isn't.