AmericanFolkLegend
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2009
- Messages
- 2,210
- Reaction score
- 243
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high
I think the Body Snatchers took Van.
I think the Body Snatchers took Van.
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.
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.
You'd be surprised how much more profitable parking lots are than new construction in many places
It's the same reason there are so many "Tax payers", the small 1 story buildings throughout Brighton, Allston, Cambridge
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.
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.
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.
No worries. I'm probably way worse anyway.(once again, don't mean to sound like 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.
"Large floor plate" is just another fad.
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.
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?
You'd be surprised how much more profitable parking lots are than new construction in many places