Radian (Dainty Dot) | 120 Kingston Street | Chinatown

A picture from today's Herald of the Dainty Dot. Too bad they didn't show a picture of the backside which farts on the new park and the Greenway.

3a05174967_dot_10052007.jpg


And DiMasi is now an architectural critic with sway over what gets built in Boston??????
 
I hate DiMasi. He has his nose in everything and is always taking the opposite opinion of me. Thats his right of course, but i still hate him!
 
So much for the ease of adapting the space along the Greenway. Should have reoriented the city first, then built the parks.
 
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.

With this logic, opportunities in finding new space for development is even more limited now. There's no way we could possibly put anything over 300 feet along any of the new sacred Greenway parks. F.cking lame.

And you know what, screw the Dainty Dot and screw Chinatown. There, I said it. It's a dirty gross area that should have much more value.
 
type001 in 1950 said:
And you know what, screw the Old Howard and screw West End. There, I said it. It's a dirty gross area that should have much more value.
I agree that this 'nothing near the sacred Greenway' mentality is stupid, scary and counterproductive. But the value in Dainty Dot and Chinatown should be realized via restoration not replacement.
Well, at least not wholesale replacement. Dainty Dot should be built upon, of course and certain buildings within Chinatown could be replaced but it should be mostly restored and improved upon. Just like they should have done with the West End and did do with the North End.
 
Hey, I don't remember writing that in 1950 :lol:

I didn't actually mean to get rid of Chinatown. It needs to be heavilly improved especially given it's location adjacent to the Financial District. By writing "screw Chinatown", I really meant that they should not be opposing this development no matter how high it is. Again, Financial District.

If they could restore the Dainty Dot and build onto it, then that's great. But if the only choice was to destroy it and rebuild something better, well, I wouldn't complain. It's not like we're debating over the old state house or old city hall here.
 
Interestingly, when the West End was "redeveloped" it was meant to be a model for future superblock neighborhoods that would eventually replace the fabric of all downtown Boston. Landmarks like the Old State House and Old North Church were going to be moved onto one "historic theme park" superblock parcel somewhere around Faneuil Hall. There has almost never been any debate about their significance...it's the rest of the city that's been under threat, in one way or another.
 
Razing of the West End was an absolute disaster to say the least, especially when seen from a 2007 perspective. The long-term effect on the city and the former residents as a result of the razing of the West End, Scollay Sq. and the New York Streets neighborhood is appalling. With this in mind, I find it plainly insulting to compare a development like the Dainty Dot, to the razing of what was somewhere in the vicinity of 45 acres of residential land...especially when the tactics that were used to do this are taken into consideration. Just because someone calls two things by the same name; in this case ?urban renewal?, does not?t mean that they are.

Finally, I sometimes find the mention of displaced working class residents to be a bit disingenuous. If the West End, instead of being razed, were to have been ?improved upon?, or the conditions of the neighborhood had improved along parallel lines in the West End as they did in it?s surrounding neighborhoods over the past 25 years, would anyone have been upset that those same working class people couldn?t have afforded to live in the neighborhood anyway?
 
One of the lessoned learned from the West End was that adaptive reuse and restoration (a' la North End and Quincy Market) is better than replacement.
The principle is the same, the scale is irrelevant.
 
^This project involves eliminating ZERO residential, and its correlation to the razing of the West End is nonexistent.
Besides, part of my point was based on the fact that the North End really hasn't not gone through an "adaptive reuse" like you're suggesting. It's just being used by a different socioeconomic segment of the population. If this were to have happened in the West End, the people who lived there (I actually know people who did) would not be able to afford to live there now.
 
I got it backwards. Quincy Market was adaptive reuse and the North End was restored (it was a slum prior to the 70's).
The buildings in Chinatown should be equally restored and the Dainty Dot should be a candidate for adaptive reuse.
They are both good examples of good urban design in poor condition, much like the West End was. They should be repaired not replaced.
 
North, South, West -- the Ends of the may Justify the Means

Each End in Boston has gone through major changes in use and even in topography over the preceding centuries.

Remember that in the past 100 years Paul Revere's House went from a being a tenement:
"after Revere sold the home in 1800, it soon became a tenement, and the ground floor was remodeled for use as shops, including at various times a candy store, cigar factory, bank and vegetable and fruit business. In 1902, Paul Revere's great-grandson, John P. Reynolds Jr. purchased the building to ensure that it would not be demolished"

to an icon ? that ironically in the process of being ?restored? lost the 3rd floor that in fact most likely was built by Paul Revere himself.

All the while the surrounding area of the North End went from a small scale version of Manhattan?s Lower East Side to a pleasant if not very high income ethnic neighborhood {the Italian North End that we remember}.

The destruction wrought by the building of the Central Artery in the 1950?s ironically saved the North End as it was visually and quite access-wise isolated from the rapidly renovating waterfront and equally rapidly developing Financial District {1960?s on}.

Subsequently, as talk of the removal of the elevated highway became fact -- the North End was "discovered" and it has become an ethnic neighborhood theme park complete with religious fetes for the touists and a new upper middle class neighborhood.

Most of the Italian-ethnic population got assimilated and moved out to the suburbs. The new neighbors are from all over {many are from far away ? picking the North End because of its proximity to the Hospitals, Financials and Universities as well as for its ?Ethnic Quaintness.?

The West End never transitioned from an Ethnic Tenement District and at the time of the demolition was not far from Roxbury or the South End on the economic scale.

Some of the members of this forum apparently don?t have a very long historic horizon. A lot of Boston that seems new, modern and rich was for many years, old, tired and poor. The real money of Boston was out in the suburbs and places as close to the financial district as a 5 minute walk {on several of the wharfs} had rooms for rent without a bath as recently as the 1960?s. Even in 1970, when I arrived in Cambridge as a freshman, 19th century townhouses in the South End were available for a few thousand dollars {for sale that is}.

Would all the development that happened over the past 40 years have happened without tearing down the West End and Scollay Square ? we can never know for sure. The only data that we have is:
1) Prior to the 1960?s {Pru, State Street Bank, JFK Federal} nothing much had been built in Boston since the Great Depression began {John W. McCormack Post Office and Court House 1932, Old Hancock 1947, and New England Telephone 1947, Traveler?s Insurance {demobilized in 1988} built in 1952} being the few exceptions
2) Since the large scale neighborhood demolitions in the 1960?s ? Boston has been on a rollicking building spree with a few brief pauses and a few dramatic spurts {we seem to be in one of those now}.

What needs to be done now is to build sensibly so that in case there is another extended hiatus the stuff that will have been built will be worth saving for a few more decades.

Westy
 
Plans for Dainty Dot building now daintier
Developer offers to reduce height, enlarge park site

By Thomas C. Palmer Jr., Globe Staff | October 23, 2007


Responding to criticism of his plan for a 29-story residential tower near Chinatown, developer Ori Ron has agreed to shrink the building, expand the Greenway park next door, and preserve almost the entire facade of the historic Dainty Dot building on the site.

Ron's revised plans, given to the Boston Redevelopment Authority last week, would shave two floors, lowering the building about 25 feet to 300 feet.

After weeks of meeting with residents of Chinatown and the nearby Leather District, Ron responded with other substantial changes as well: Plans now call for moving all in-and-out traffic away from the park to Kingston Street, incorporating two colors of masonry into what had been designed as a glass tower, reducing the footprint of each floor by about 500 square feet, relocating a floor of parking underground, and adding a 26-by-60-foot decorative glass wall on the exterior to enhance the park.

The Dainty Dot building, which some have sought to save despite its failure to gain Boston landmark status, would be taken down and reconstructed, using the same bricks if possible.

Facades of all nine existing bays of the building - named after a now defunct hosiery company - will be retained. The building at Kingston and Essex streets was also once known as the Auchmuty building and was more than twice its current size before being slashed for the Central Artery highway construction in the 1950s.

"The preservationists will be happy," Ron said of the revised plans.

David Seeley, a Leather District resident and member of the Mayor's Central Artery Completion Task Force, has opposed building a tower on the site. Yesterday, Seeley said he still wasn't happy about the proposed building's height. But he said he was happy to hear that more of the old building would be incorporated into the 180-unit project.

"My fear remains that when you put a building of this stature slammed up right against the park it's very difficult to get way from the impression that it's private property," Seeley said.

On a tour of the area yesterday, Ron said again that he wants the area's residents to like what he builds. Many support the project, in part because Ron is also partnering with the Chinese Economic Development Council Inc. to build 47 low-income housing units two blocks away, on Oxford Street.

Some even like the idea of a genuine tower in Chinatown.

"I love it. A newly designed building like this will attract people," said Tony Yee, president of Chinatown Main Street, a business organization.

The tower, designed and redesigned by Howard Elkus of Elkus/Manfredi Architects, now has a curved facade facing the park, rather than a wavy one. The impact on the park and the rest of the surrounding area has been reduced, Ron said.

Restoration of the six-story building will include removing marble, glass, and steel that was tacked on in 1946 and emphasizing the reddish brick and stone Romanesque revival exterior.

While Ron said the revised plans address many neighborhood concerns, he acknowledged that the building's height remains an issue for some. But he also pointed out the plans now call for taking up less space on the 14,500-square-foot lot.

"What I'm hearing is small-footprint buildings are preferred," he said.


Link
 
Last edited:
Dainty Dot Tower Height Reduction
Oct 19, 2007

by Christopher Rogacz


The Boston Herald reported on October 5 that the height of the proposed tower at the site of Chinatown?s Dainty Dot building may be reduced from 380-feet to 300-feet. The changes in the plan were prompted by concerns within the Chinatown community that the new building would overshadow the recently-opened Chinatown park, part of the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway. These changes have been confirmed by the developer.

The plan for developing the Dainty Dot site was to have been submitted to the Boston Redevelopment Authority this past Wednesday. The development of the Dainty Dot into condominiums goes hand in hand with a plan to develop affordable housing in Chinatown. In fact, neither plan will be approved unless both are.

The affordable housing plan calls for developing a parcel on Oxford Street, currently a parking lot, into approximately 48 units of affordable housing at 30% average median income (AMI), Section 8, and 60% AMI.

The property at Oxford Street is being sold to the Hudson Group North America LLC, the developer, by the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association. To develop the Oxford Street site, the Hudson Group proposes to make the parcel available to the Chinese Economic Development Council, Inc, also providing the CEDC with financial support for the project.

Concern exists that the Dainty Dot development will irreparably damage the historic value of the site. The building was recently named ?endangered? by the group Preservation Massachusetts, which every year publishes a list of the most endangered historical sites in Massachusetts in order to draw attention to them and concentrate preservationist resources on protecting them.

However, the plans for the site call for preserving the facade of the Dainty Dot, including the signage. Developer Ori Ron has been heavily involved with the community in finalizing the design of the Dainty Dot project.

The initial height of the project, at 380 feet, was feared to be too high, and the project not sufficiently respectful the aesthetics of the neighborhood.

In response to these concerns, the total height of the building is now 27 floors, which, with a partial mechanical floor, bring the height to 320 feet, equivalent to a 22 story office building.

This represents a 15% reduction in height.

In order to better accord with the brick architecture of Chinatown and the Leather District, masonry elements were added to the exterior.

In order to further reduce the footprint of the building, the side facing the Chinatown Park will be convex, increasing the park space available to the public by approximately 2,000 square feet.

To alleviate concerns over traffic, access to the building was changed from Essex Street to Kingston Street.

In spite of these accommodations, the project remains the subject of intense debate within Chinatown.

The period for public comment on the plan ends on November 19, 2007.


Link
 
Last edited:
The Chinatown community kind of puts to shame several other neighborhoods on how to work with developers, as opposed to pure obstructionism.
 
Ron's revised plans, given to the Boston Redevelopment Authority last week, would shave two floors, lowering the building about 25 feet to 300 feet.

This reminds me of when Liberty Place was reduced by 2 floors - as if that made any kind of difference to anyone. :roll:
 
The BRA is hosting the next public meeting for this project on Nov 1 6:30-8:30pm @ 65 Harrison Ave, 7th floor conference room of the Chinese Economic Development Council.
 
Chris wrote
The Chinatown community kind of puts to shame several other neighborhoods on how to work with developers, as opposed to pure obstructionism.

Not so sure I agree.
 
I actually think the height reduction is for the better. I can't believe I'm saying this, but 380 ft. was a bit too high. I know One Lincoln is across the street, but the Financial District has to stop at some point! If this tower was made taller because of its proximity to a 400+ ft. building, what's to stop the next developer from making the same argument and building a chain of skyscrapers that completely swallow Chinatown? I think this is what the developer really wanted, and he used the 380 ft. scheme to make people appreciate his true proposal much more....that's why he seems so calm and collected (great tactic, if you ask me). And we're still ending up with a tower taller than Archstone Boston Common and the canceled Kensington!
 
lexicon506 said:
I actually think the height reduction is for the better. I can't believe I'm saying this, but 380 ft. was a bit too high. I know One Lincoln is across the street, but the Financial District has to stop at some point! If this tower was made taller because of its proximity to a 400+ ft. building, what's to stop the next developer from making the same argument and building a chain of skyscrapers that completely swallow Chinatown? I think this is what the developer really wanted, and he used the 380 ft. scheme to make people appreciate his true proposal much more....that's why he seems so calm and collected (great tactic, if you ask me). And we're still ending up with a tower taller than Archstone Boston Common and the canceled Kensington!

I think every developer knows that they need to start at a taller height and then "make concessions" which get them down to the height they wanted in the first place.

You could propose a 5 story building in Boston and someone is sure to say its too much. Simply say 10 floors and knock it down to 6, and everyone wins*.


*Except forumites who wanted 100
 

Back
Top