Reserved Channel Development | 300 West First Street | South Boston

Isn’t this site under the 4L/R approach or 22L/R departure at Logan?
 
RandomWalk said:
Isn’t this site under the 4L/R approach or 22L/R departure at Logan?
Click to expand...
Not quite directly under the approach, but still pretty restricted. Looks like 200 to 225 ft. max. across the site.
 
Last edited:
shmessy said:
View attachment 49734
I'm looking at that picture and I'm thinking 128 Burlington. That picture above is another soul-murdering architectural homicide. Whatever happened to the idea of Boston as a CITY?

Look, I know it's the Reserve Channel and all, but 12.9 FREAKING ACRES and all they can do is 205 residential units?????? I get that LEGO is now being used by engineers and architects over at MIT, but does every new building in Boston have to look like it was built by my 1967 set????

View attachment 49735
Click to expand...
I suspect the problem is American's just don't really know how to do urban design and developer's realize that doing urban design makes it harder to get through approval rather than doing the Office Towers in a Parkland setting.
 
393b40 said:
I suspect the problem is American's just don't really know how to do urban design and developer's realize that doing urban design makes it harder to get through approval rather than doing the Office Towers in a Parkland setting.
Click to expand...

Americans know how, but just like anything that costs money - -it's far easier and cheaper to make a Hershey bar than it is to make Toblerone.

American developers CHOOSE to build huge landscraping boxes with little or no detail to get the biggest profit for the least investment. It is what it is. And until the BPDA starts giving a shit and lays down some conditions, it will remain as such.
 
shmessy said:
Americans know how, but just like anything that costs money - -it's far easier and cheaper to make a Hershey bar than it is to make Toblerone.

American developers CHOOSE to build huge landscraping boxes with little or no detail to get the biggest profit for the least investment. It is what it is. And until the BPDA starts giving a shit and lays down some conditions, it will remain as such.
Click to expand...
Honestly this is also a market failure. If people who rented or leased buildings actually cared about the urban design and building architecture, the developers would do better, to attract tenants. Apparently not very many Americans care.

The only developers who care are ones who are developer/owner/occupiers, in for the long haul, usually institutions type developments.
 
JeffDowntown said:
Honestly this is also a market failure. If people who rented or leased buildings actually cared about the urban design and building architecture, the developers would do better, to attract tenants. Apparently not very many Americans care.

The only developers who care are ones who are developer/owner/occupiers, in for the long haul, usually institutions type developments.
Click to expand...

The developers and the tenants don't give a shit about the architecture - - and its not their job to. They only care about the cheapest cost and the greatest return. That's Capitalism - - it is what it is.

The responsibility is on the city government to be the protector of the overall urban life experience. The BPDA could be an effective agency or it could be a worthless paper tiger. Look what happened in Kenmore Square with Whoop - - and what it replaced. Boston's public voice is AWOL.
 
shmessy said:
The developers and the tenants don't give a shit about the architecture - - and its not their job to. They only care about the cheapest cost and the greatest return. That's Capitalism - - it is what it is.

The responsibility is on the city government to be the protector of the overall urban life experience. The BPDA could be an effective agency or it could be a worthless paper tiger. Look what happened in Kenmore Square with Whoop - - and what it replaced. Boston's public voice is AWOL.
Click to expand...
God help us if the BPDA suddenly decided that Brutalism is all the rage again -- central planning worked so well in our mega-urban renewal era.

And in the central planning model, who is the arbiter of taste? In Boston it has often been the mayor :rolleyes: ("The mayor says he likes the blue glass on that proposal". Six months later: "Why are all the new development proposals clad in blue glass?")
 
Last edited:
Between existing regulatory processes and market conditions, I don't think we need any additional barriers to development for the aesthetic sensibilities of people who aren't party to these transactions.
 
Rather than encouraging/discouraging uses by limiting them directly let’s just use design guidelines instead. Residential? Any density, glass and steel if you want. Labs and offices? Well we don’t like those, so has to be masonry and you need cornices. Self storage, auto repair shops? Full blown neoclassical or don’t bother asking.
 
sean99090900 said:
Between existing regulatory processes and market conditions, I don't think we need any additional barriers to development for the aesthetic sensibilities of people who aren't party to these transactions.
Click to expand...
We already have the Boston Civic Design Commission that plays the design and aesthetics oversight role on many projects. We just don't like their decisions.

The BCDC Review Criteria include:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top