Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown
It is odd how taking off a floor or two automatically results in a totally different -- and cheaper -- design. I don't know much about Ron, but financing and building a structure that is made of high-quality materials and isn't pre-cast is extremely expensive these days. Given that Ron's company is known to have developed two sites previous to this, and both of those in the mid-90s, who knows what sort of money he has. Maybe he never did intend to build anything but the cheap-o tower he's now planning. IF that's the case, this sure was one big act of deceit from the get-go.
And I don't think the BRA or most community groups in Boston are in the business of bartering with a developer to demand a higher-quality building that would actually raise their property values. First and foremost, "naturally," is height.
Regarding claims that this area is "filthy" and needs any kind of development it can get: That's a very dangerous line to toe.
The original 120 Kingston design was OK, but I'd personally make the argument that, living in New York, one quickly gets over the (comparatively cheap) new glass-wall mid-rises and finds much more charm in the more-permanent stone-masonry structures. That juxtaposition of new glass vs. old stone is found all over Manhattan, and a cleaned-up brick or stone building looks much better than its newer, glass-wall contemporaries -- and almost always has better retail. The swarm of banks and Duane Reades in New York certainly prefer the Modernist and contemporary buildings, and higher-end boutiques and cafes migrate toward the classier, older buildings IF they're cleaned up and well-maintained.
If the Dainty Dot building were taken care of and given a decent window treatment on the first floor, it'd be an infinitely classier joint than any all-glass tower that isn't built by Jean Nouvel at the cost of a small fortune. I could imagine a posh nightclub, decent restaurant or a nice boutique in there. A glass building might attract an H&M, Au Bon Pain or Dunkin Donuts. Of course, renovating the Dot wouldn't present as lucrative an opportunity for Ron, so who cares what the city gets...
In defense of the Dainty Dot: Yes, this building is somewhat unfortunately sited on the Greenway, but a mural or video screen on its back wall, or a cafe put in the awkwardly large park next to it, would enliven the public area as much as any new structure. I'd argue that the park's size and emptiness -- courtesy of Big Dig planners -- is a much greater drag on this (otherwise beautiful and successful) part of the Greenway than the Dot. Put a cafe in there!
A MUCH better way to make the Greenway nice would be to allow a sleek, 15-story all-glass building
right here, in the cruddy parking lot across the street from the Dot and the Greenway park. THIS is the true eyesore of the area, not the Dainty Dot. Given the sign on the building, the lot may belong to Druker. Why doesn't he build some infill, maybe with a cafe on the first floor? That'd solve many more Greenway woes than the death of the Dot.
