Residential Tower | 41 Lagrange Street | Chinatown

Aha! I knew there was a tower portion to the 48 Boylston BYMCU project!

For some reason every mention of this phase disappeared and you could only find info on the renovation of the existing building. I remember seeing the massing for this about 3-4 years ago.
 
I really hope they end-up extendin the facade design across the right 1/4 of the front side.

Right now, that segment just looks dated and stale.
 
Hah hah, I love that Centerfolds and the Glass Slipper made it in to one of the renders.
 
LOL, and "My-Tan Fashion" (the place that was shut down for selling stolen goods) is there too. They've been replaced by Happy Lamb Hot Pot.
 
Elevation sucks but it's tall infill, so right on.
 
Awesome, keep filling in vs demo + replacement. Theyre gonna love this its not visible from anywhere except the front door.
 
I'm glad this was approved before the luxury building next door. I wouldn't have wanted the new residents to then turn and oppose this project next door.

We saw that happen at the Kensington where the new tenants opposed the traffic mitigation that the developer had agreed to, so then they canned the road diet and bike lane on Washington St in front of the project.
 
sm89 said:
I'm glad this was approved before the luxury building next door. I wouldn't have wanted the new residents to then turn and oppose this project next door.

We saw that happen at the Kensington where the new tenants opposed the traffic mitigation that the developer had agreed to, so then they canned the road diet and bike lane on Washington St in front of the project.
Click to expand...

I suspect that this approval timeline was pretty carefully curated between POUA and BPDA. This project has been under discussion for a lot longer than the luxury building proposed next door (it is the second Phase of the St. Francis House project, the YMCU renovation at 48 Boylston.) So everyone knew it was coming and wanted to make it happen.
 
as long as it gets built by ~2022~23

instead of 2025~29....
 
sm89 said:
I'm glad this was approved before the luxury building next door. I wouldn't have wanted the new residents to then turn and oppose this project next door.

We saw that happen at the Kensington where the new tenants opposed the traffic mitigation that the developer had agreed to, so then they canned the road diet and bike lane on Washington St in front of the project.
Click to expand...

1.) Said luxury building next door, 47 LaGrange, was actually approved three months ago, proof:

http://www.bostonplans.org/projects/development-projects/47-55-lagrange-street

2.) RE: Kensington, although 'tis true these happen to be rather wealthy, and thus, theoretically more politically-connected residents, in the aggregate, they are also transient apartment tenants. I doubt more than 10% of the building votes, year-after-year. This is compounded by the fact that Downtown Crossing, by its inherent nature, is an exceptionally vote-poor district, compared to Charlestown, East Boston, West Roxbury, etc.

In other words, in the brutal "how does this effect Marty's constituency" calculus of Marty's policy advisors, the Kensington doesn't count for shit.

So why do you think Kensington's politically irrelevant tenants had any role in convincing BTD to scrap this bike lane?

<It's a serious, not sarcastic, question.>
 
DBM said:
1.) Said luxury building next door, 47 LaGrange, was actually approved three months ago, proof:

http://www.bostonplans.org/projects/development-projects/47-55-lagrange-street

2.) RE: Kensington, although 'tis true these happen to be rather wealthy, and thus, theoretically more politically-connected residents, in the aggregate, they are also transient apartment tenants. I doubt more than 10% of the building votes, year-after-year. This is compounded by the fact that Downtown Crossing, by its inherent nature, is an exceptionally vote-poor district, compared to Charlestown, East Boston, West Roxbury, etc.

In other words, in the brutal "how does this effect Marty's constituency" calculus of Marty's policy advisors, the Kensington doesn't count for shit.

So why do you think Kensington's politically irrelevant tenants had any role in convincing BTD to scrap this bike lane?

<It's a serious, not sarcastic, question.>
Click to expand...

^ I think the sentiment in 1) was not about approval of the luxury building, but having the luxury building completed with occupants who could object to the planned affordable housing. (I could be wrong)
 
DBM said:
1.)
2.) RE: Kensington, although 'tis true these happen to be rather wealthy, and thus, theoretically more politically-connected residents, in the aggregate, they are also transient apartment tenants. I doubt more than 10% of the building votes, year-after-year. This is compounded by the fact that Downtown Crossing, by its inherent nature, is an exceptionally vote-poor district, compared to Charlestown, East Boston, West Roxbury, etc.

In other words, in the brutal "how does this effect Marty's constituency" calculus of Marty's policy advisors, the Kensington doesn't count for shit.

So why do you think Kensington's politically irrelevant tenants had any role in convincing BTD to scrap this bike lane?

<It's a serious, not sarcastic, question.>
Click to expand...

I want to say 3-4 years ago they presented the plans, and the neighborhood association was vehemently against it. They refused to give up their legal (660) and illegal (Kensington) pick up/drop off zones as part of the project. At the time, I believe BTD didn't have much support to push through these types of projects "for the greater good". I see that changing more recently though, so maybe there is hope. For example, the changes on Kneeland St which eliminated parking on one side were mostly without controversy since they actually came about through a group of Chinatown youth who wanted their community to be safer to walk in.
 
sm89 said:
I want to say 3-4 years ago they presented the plans, and the neighborhood association was vehemently against it. They refused to give up their legal (660) and illegal (Kensington) pick up/drop off zones as part of the project. At the time, I believe BTD didn't have much support to push through these types of projects "for the greater good". I see that changing more recently though, so maybe there is hope. For example, the changes on Kneeland St which eliminated parking on one side were mostly without controversy since they actually came about through a group of Chinatown youth who wanted their community to be safer to walk in.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see--good clarification.

I don't doubt this is a significant transportation issue in its own right; however, when you're talking about Washington St. overall from Stuart/Kneeland north to DTX, the issues involving theater crowds at the West/Ave de Lafayette corner, and the Silver Line buses frequently causing jam-ups at Temple Pl. as they get L-hooked at the turn, idling, compounded with the fact the of pedestrian zone (starting at Temple Pl. intersection) being, well, still stuck in its 1979 regulatory environment, seems to be of radically greater import than this.

[Oh, and that Tremont St., paralleling the whole time one block away, is still preposterously over-wide like some kind of half-assed drag-strip, and all the unpleasantness that leads to.]
 
Over-wide?? Haha-ha-ha, w/ all these towers and mid-rise buildings they've approved, in a couple years, there won't be a GD street in Boston remotely worthy of being called, 'over-wide.' Shytte, i think we're already there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top