Quincy Center Redevelopment

Hufer said:
So Quincy has opted for the most ambitious master plan!

Awesome!!
Click to expand...

Don't really agree. The station would be just as ugly as it is now, with an apartment building next to it. I realize that both proposals include the remaining garage and that there's a possibility to wrap the TOD Partners one in glass like JAG has done, but the TOD Partners proposal looks like it's going to be an eyesore, while JAG actually put some work into the headhouse and visitors center and townhouses fronting Burgin Parkway.

I'd have hoped that the MBTA had learned its lesson from the Alewife and Quincy Center experiences that parking garage-based stations don't age well, especially if the garage is decades old to begin with.

The FMCB seemed to get that and asked for fly-throughs and renderings of the station before any vote. Hopefully, that's a wake-up call.
 
Equilibria said:
Don't really agree. The station would be just as ugly as it is now, with an apartment building next to it. I realize that both proposals include the remaining garage and that there's a possibility to wrap the TOD Partners one in glass like JAG has done, but the TOD Partners proposal looks like it's going to be an eyesore, while JAG actually put some work into the headhouse and visitors center and townhouses fronting Burgin Parkway.

I'd have hoped that the MBTA had learned its lesson from the Alewife and Quincy Center experiences that parking garage-based stations don't age well, especially if the garage is decades old to begin with.

The FMCB seemed to get that and asked for fly-throughs and renderings of the station before any vote. Hopefully, that's a wake-up call.
Click to expand...

the reason why the TOD proposal is more appealing is because- at least to me- it is more conceptual than the JAG by showing "boxes" - IOW their approach has more potential for a broader program, whereas the JAG has already framed its work.

Nonetheless I fully agree with your observation on the need for creating an appealing facade/development/treatment facing Burgin Parkway, as I personally have to deal with the BS driving by it in a daily basis, going from the stop sign, the pedestrians, the MBTA buses, the people picking up/dropping off - etc.

The parking structure observation is a must- they could well work out a clever system that is fully covered from the public's view, by taking advantage of the steep change in grade going from Burgin Parkway to the parking behind Hancock St.
 
Last edited:
I’ll have to take a closer look, but it seems to me that the TOD proposal gives you a little walkable area on the side facing Quincy Center. That sounds nice to me, I consider that to be the front that needs the most attention. Not to say that Burgin should look shitty, but if I had to choose... Burgin loses.
 
DominusNovus said:
I’ll have to take a closer look, but it seems to me that the TOD proposal gives you a little walkable area on the side facing Quincy Center. That sounds nice to me, I consider that to be the front that needs the most attention. Not to say that Burgin should look shitty, but if I had to choose... Burgin loses.
Click to expand...

For the common good the Burgin side should lose but there's a lot of neighbors in single family's across the street that I'm sure dont give a shit about the common good
 
DominusNovus said:
I’ll have to take a closer look, but it seems to me that the TOD proposal gives you a little walkable area on the side facing Quincy Center. That sounds nice to me, I consider that to be the front that needs the most attention. Not to say that Burgin should look shitty, but if I had to choose... Burgin loses.
Click to expand...

but why Burgin has to lose? The minimum standard ought to make it work properly- nor to make it uglier, neither to diminish/degrade it for the "greater good" of an already congested & problematic Hancock St.
 
Wooo TOD where there are more new parking spots than residential units....
Duuurrrrr!!!!!

Keep swinging and missing Quincy.
 
^Almost positive that TOD means transit oriented development and is not a developer who was selected to build this project
 
Jrubbs said:
^Almost positive that TOD means transit oriented development and is not a developer who was selected to build this project
Click to expand...

The developer is indeed called Quincy Center TOD Partners. It's a joint venture of Bozzuto. Joint ventures often get silly generic names that are project specific, like the GLX winning team being called GLX Constructors.
 
# of units cut in half to 300. WTF?


Council approves Quincy Center T development


http://www.patriotledger.com/news/20171219/council-approves-quincy-center-t-development

QUINCY – The project to build a large mixed use development on the Quincy Center T station will advance with a promise from its developer to cut the original proposed number of apartments in half.

The Quincy city council on Monday night gave its approval for the MBTA to enter into a development agreement with Atlantic Development and the Bozzuto Group. The developers and T will use the next six months as a due-diligence phase, and the developers hope to bring their project to the city’s permitting bodies in about half a year, said Atlantic president D.J. MacKinnon.

Responding to questions from at-large city councilor Noel DiBona, MacKinnon promised to cap the number of apartments at 300, rather than the 600 in a preliminary plan the T has approved.

“We’d be happy to put that in writing,” MacKinnon said of the lower number.

The Hingham-based Atlantic Development is partnering with the Bozzuto Group out of Washington, D.C., to propose to build on the 6.3-acre Quincy Center station land. The two companies will break ground in May on a similarly large project at the North Quincy station.

The two companies have proposed the Quincy Center development to happen in three phases, ideally starting in 2019 and finishing in 2031. The first stage would involve building 300 apartments plus some parking and a little commercial space on top of what’s now the parking lot in front of the station. That is unlikely to change dramatically.

The developers had proposed then to build another 300 apartments on top of the current station, but backed off that idea in the face of opposition from the council and other residents.

MacKinnon on Monday night told council he and the other developers would move in the direction of some sort of commercial use. Then final stage, to be completed around 2031, would be another 225,000 square feet of commercial use in the form of an office building suspended over the T tracks just south of the station.

Thanks to a couple of 50-year-old state laws, the city retains the “air rights” over T land, so the state agency needs city council approval in order to move forward with leasing anything for development. The council on Monday gave its blessing by a 6-3 vote, with At-large councilor Nina Liang, Ward 2 councilor Brad Croall and Ward 3 councilor Ian Cain voting against it.

Liang noted that this is the only direct vote the city council will have on this project and said it’s too early to do it.

“If we consented to the air rights before the before the feasibility study, we’ve given away an asset we don’t know the value of,” she said, suggested the city instead draw up a memorandum of understanding to allow the project to go forward on a temporary basis.

But other councilors said the time was now to act. Margaret Laforest, the Ward 1 councilor in her final meeting serving on the body, advocated for passage, noting that anything built at the station will have to follow the urban redevelopment plan that council has approved and amended several times over the past decade.

“We share a vision of a revitalized downtown,” she said.
 
HalcyonEra said:
# of units cut in half to 300. WTF?
Click to expand...

I think I'm reading that the building would still go up, but as office/retail as opposed to residential. Still, cutting units in TOD kind of defeats the purpose...

Also, I have a hard time seeing how it's okay to get approval from the MassDOT board for one thing, then go to the City of Quincy and say "ha ha, just kidding. This is the REAL plan" and have that stand up, especially since the higher square footage was one reason for recommending this plan over the competitor. MassDOT should reconsider whether this team was the right choice. If they knew this change was coming, they should be held accountable for misleading the public.
 
odurandina said:
Quincy and Milton should get vaporized by Boston.
Click to expand...

The burbs are pushing back. Exhibit A to the parochialism of greater Boston. If you can't build dense housing around a subway stop then stagnation is closer than imagined.

Not to derail this thread, but another case in point, Framingham just rejected a 210 unit project nears Staples HQ which will soon have 325K sq ft of the 400K office park (other than the Staples HQ) vacant come April:

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/n...board-nixes-housing-near-staples-headquarters

The developer of the high rise apartments near the Natick Mall wants to add a 4th tower. I think we know where that will end up, although there is a 40B element at play there.
 
The Framingham denial is the sort of thing that Baker's bill before the legislature would have fixed.

I find the Quincy news very depressing, though - this is the type of project you would have thought would sailed through - on top of heavy rail transit, in a downtown that everyone agrees needs development, an inner ring suburb that isn't particularly wealthy and with rising rents, and a heavily minority population, which generally implies more pro development attitudes.
 
Maybe I'm crazy but I acutally like the tower.

And the thing about Quincy is that much of it is pretty suburban. It's more of a drive to the train and take it in suburb rather then a coheasive city.
 
Yea it's a toss up whether this thing sucks or not. Still, I prefer this going up to an alucobond lego tower.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top