Radian (Dainty Dot) | 120 Kingston Street | Chinatown

DarkFenX said:
The Chinese Progressive Association, however, which opposes the Hudson Group's high-rise, said the Dainty Dot should be saved because it represents an important part of Boston's history.
Click to expand...
What kind of joke is this? Since when did the CPA care about the fate of an historical building? I swear, all you need is put more affordable housing on the project and the CPA will be like "Dainty Dot what?"
Click to expand...

the focus on how historic the specific building is goes the wrong way. don't know if that building is historic, but it is a quality structure that helps define a historically / culturally / socially interesting neighborhood.

trade height for frontage.
 
And how many people actually stop there and look at the Dainty Dot building and go "wow what an interesting building." Maybe there will be more with the Greenway open but no, it isn't good enough to make a neighborhood that much interesting.
 
^^ To be fair, I have.

It is a really cool building. I've always hoped someone would come along and restore it. I hope they can at least save the fa?ade.
 
I remember reverently photographing the Dainty Dot and thinking what a hidden treasure it was when I first came across it. No, the Duck Tour does not stop at the building, to answer a quote from the aforeposted article. But since when has that been a criterion for saving a building that defines a neighborhood and streetscape? It's certainly not a standard applied to every building in Beacon Hill and the Back Bay, even though I'm sure few would be in favor of tearing down 19th century buildings in either. This street/area has even less architectural integrity; it needs the Dainty Dot (or at least its facade) to a greater extent than any wholy historic street in Boston needs one or two of its individual buildings.

To paraphrase Jane Holtz Kay, when 17th and 18th century buildings were demolished in the 19th century, it was to create a better city. When a 19th century building falls in the 20th (or 21st) it falls for naught. Can't we at least concentrate on filling all Boston's parking lots and air rights parcels first?
 
The Dainty Dot street facades would be saved in every rendering that I have seen on this thread. What the Dainty Dot does lose is its butt end, which as KZ's photo illustrates, is now simply a stage for billboards.

And for the preservation activist who is arguing that the Dainty Dot be preserved as a monument to the Central Artery and what it did to Boston neighborhoods, how shallow an argument is that. As the front facades are being preserved, have we now reached the point of preserving a ramshackle brick wall, billboards and all?
 
I thought the building's original fa?ades were all anyone wanted preserved, anyway.
 
Enough is enough

You know, I might even be willing to listen to people's arguments about saving buildings or parts of buildings, if they for once would allow ANY building to be torn down or modified.

Half the people on this board want the Rudolph building saved and half of you want the Dainty Dot building saved ... but not the same half.

So, neither are going to be torn down.

So we stay stuck where we are.

What a waste.
 
So we stay stuck where we are.
Click to expand...

Right, because there's no space for novelty in Boston except on top of century-old buildings...
 
What I'm still wondering is why it is the CPA who wants to preserve it. I understand that this is a historical building. However, why is the CPA the one trying to prevent its destruction when it doesn't contribute much to the Chinatown community itself nor does it satisfy its desire to create more affordable housing around chinatown if left standing.

Forgive me. I don't mean to sound like the Dainty Dot building should be demolish and I'm all for preserving the facade if the high-rise is built but it seems suspect for the CPA is opposing it because of this reason.
 
As the front facades are being preserved, have we now reached the point of preserving a ramshackle brick wall, billboards and all

As with many heated arguments where opponents are passionate about their side, what seems illogical suddenly is argued as passionately logical! Thus, people fight to save, at all costs, a ramshackle brick wall (which would be replaced by a beautiful building), sacrificing both affordable and high end housing, no matter how illogical that seems.
 
Did the people that are against this project even look at the renderings?

The developer is saving the majority of the facade and providing what could be the most architecturally interesting residential tower in the city.

On Kingston Street 3 out of 5 bays are being saved. On Essex Street there isn't an elevation. but with the tower set back (per the rendering) all 4 bays may remain.

Isn't this really a 'win-win'? And if 75% of this buildings facade is really being saved, what are people complaining about?
 
Neiborhood fabric -- not just a building

singbat said:
DarkFenX said:
The Chinese Progressive Association, however, which opposes the Hudson Group's high-rise, said the Dainty Dot should be saved because it represents an important part of Boston's history.
Click to expand...
What kind of joke is this? Since when did the CPA care about the fate of an historical building? I swear, all you need is put more affordable housing on the project and the CPA will be like "Dainty Dot what?"
Click to expand...

the focus on how historic the specific building is goes the wrong way. don't know if that building is historic, but it is a quality structure that helps define a historically / culturally / socially interesting neighborhood.

trade height for frontage.
Click to expand...

I have to agree that focusing on a single building merit misses the point of good urban design. Buildings -- plural -- and the street-scape they create help define the use and feel of a neighborhood.

I like the tower element to a point -- but a large portion of the Dainty Dot should be saved to blend any development on the edge of Chinatown into the smaller scale street-scape of the neighborhood.
 
czsz said:
I remember reverently photographing the Dainty Dot and thinking what a hidden treasure it was when I first came across it. No, the Duck Tour does not stop at the building, to answer a quote from the aforeposted article. But since when has that been a criterion for saving a building that defines a neighborhood and streetscape? It's certainly not a standard applied to every building in Beacon Hill and the Back Bay, even though I'm sure few would be in favor of tearing down 19th century buildings in either. This street/area has even less architectural integrity; it needs the Dainty Dot (or at least its facade) to a greater extent than any wholy historic street in Boston needs one or two of its individual buildings.

To paraphrase Jane Holtz Kay, when 17th and 18th century buildings were demolished in the 19th century, it was to create a better city. When a 19th century building falls in the 20th (or 21st) it falls for naught. Can't we at least concentrate on filling all Boston's parking lots and air rights parcels first?
Click to expand...

Bravo and well stated!
 
I really thought this would get built. What a shame...
 
Ya, me too. There really hasn't been an announcement about it being officially done, so I don't think we should think we heard the last of this project.
 
oh shit. My comment was supposed to be under Residences at Kensington Place....I swear I remember posting it there! Wtf is going on?
 
I posted on the wrong thread when I clicked Kensington but ended getting Kingston. My bad. Nothing has happened yet so this project isn't dead yet.
 
Chinatown tower plan may shrink
Park issue aired
By Scott Van Voorhis
Friday, October 5, 2007

The developer of a proposed Chinatown tower, which critics contend would overshadow a new Greenway park, is considering a significant reduction in the project?s height and other changes.

Builder Ori Ron is weighing plans to drop the height of his proposed 350-foot tower at the site of the historic Dainty Dot building to roughly 300 feet or below, according to an official briefed on the changes.

Ron is considering other changes as well, including the use of more stone and brick on the project?s facade, originally designed to be a glass-and-steel high-rise, said Michael Vaughan, a spokesman for the project. The new tower would be cantilevered over the historic, 118-year-old Dainty Dot textile building, which would be renovated.

The moves come as Ron, a local developer, faces concerns that his proposed residential tower would loom over a new centerpiece Chinatown park, which just opened next to the neighborhood?s traditional ceremonial gateway near South Station. It is one of several new Greenway parks taking shape in downtown Boston with the end of the Big Dig.

But in a victory for the developer, Ron has satisfied concerns raised by House Speaker Sal DiMasi (D-North End), who had pointed to the proposed 29-story tower?s height as an issue. Ron, along with some Chinatown supporters of the project, recently met with the House speaker.

?He (DiMasi) had a good meeting with them,? said David Guarino, his spokesman. ?I think they addressed his immediate concerns. We will continue to keep an eye on the project.?

Ron is also looking at other design changes, including a stepping back of the project away from the park in a bid to enlarge the new Chinatown park by 20 percent. The builder has also committed to building 48 affordable units at another site in the neighborhood, considerably more than the city?s requirement, Vaughan said. The units would be targeted at those making as little as $18,000 to $20,000 a year.

Still, some remain concerned.

?The kind of development they are proposing will be really overwhelming,? said Valerie Burns, head of the Boston Natural Areas Network.

Source: http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1036088
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top