Rose Kennedy Greenway

Shepard said:
Does anyone know what the deal is with the huge parking lot at Fulton and Cross Streets? This is very close to the North End greenway parks, and I'm surprised I haven't heard about any development proposed for it. Anybody know of anything?
Click to expand...

I didn't think development was allowed in that part of the city. It's the Parks Quarter; didn't you know? Only open space there.

(I've actually wondered about that lot every time I've passed it as well... I tend to think it's city/state-owned, but if it is privately owned, I bet the owner is scared pantsless to propose anything and may be waiting out the storm of "no you can't build that"s that starts a-blowing every time Menino opens his mouth.)
 
One of the first spots likely to be designated for development is the BRA's parking lot, Parcel 11B, also known as the Fulton St. parking lot.Parcel 11A by the tunnel ramp could also be developed with air rights. The sidewalk areas in front of the old Martignetti's and existing Pace/Maria's locations could have new zoning recommendations to replace and expand those buildings to 55 feet high with more depth bringing them closer to the roadway on Cross Street.
Click to expand...
http://www.northendwaterfront.com/h...for-north-end-development-including-fult.html
 
Thanks for pulling that up. A good reminder of just how much development around the Greenway we may yet be disappointed about.
 
I like the 110' option. I also noticed how the "article" made no mention of 110' being an option. Weird.
 
Banker & Tradesman - April 5, 2010
?All That?s Left Is The Hard Stuff?
How One City Block Symbolizes Boston?s Future Development Struggles

By Paul McMorrow
Banker & Tradesman Staff Writer

City planners have big plans for this little Greenway block.Much of the chatter about the Boston Redevelopment Authority?s new regulations for development along the Rose Kennedy Greenway has centered around where dense new buildings won?t be able to rise ? at the Harbor Garage and the Hook Lobster site.

There?s less talk about the spots where the planning agency does see putting the 2 million to 3 million square feet of new development it envisions constructing along the mile-long parks system.

Some significant redevelopment plays exist in the BRA?s new guidelines. And one of the biggest ? a 600-foot tower planners envision rising on the block between 99 High St. and 125 High St. ? has every bit the intrigue swirling around the development sites across the street.

The BRA and its outside planning consultant, Boston-based architectural firm Utile, have said the block bound by Pearl, Congress and High Streets could easily accept the type of dense new development Don Chiofaro is trying desperately to construct across the street, at the Harbor Garage.

The current draft of the new Greenway regulations have this block, dubbed the Richardson block, ticketed for a 52-story, 900,000-square-foot residential and hotel tower. At that height, the Richardson block tower would soar above its neighbor at 125 High St., and match the height of Chiofaro?s International Place, which sits just two doors down.

Making Infeasible, Feasible

Timothy Love, a principal at Utile, said the firm identified potential Greenway development sites by matching up vacant spots with the buildings around them, and then running those specs through a set of tests meant to shield the Greenway from adverse environmental effects.

?It?s hyper-contextual,? Love said. ?We wanted to make the city, in total, as coherent as possible. We reinforced what?s already working well.?

That meant keeping development on the Greenway?s harbor edge low and permeable, while letting construction on the downtown side rise to meet Financial District towers. He said density at the Richardson block would throw no new shadows on the Greenway, while helping to create an urban edge he compared to Central Park West.

?It?s not a sensitive location in terms of impact,? added Kairos Shen, the BRA?s chief planner. ?It?s part of the core Financial District. It?s not really interrupting the relationship between the Harbor and the Greenway.?

When he unveiled the new guidelines, Shen characterized the new development envelopes as being about ?long-term value for the city,? and ?not about financial feasibility.?

?It is not the responsibility of the city to make feasible projects that would otherwise be infeasible,? he said at the time.

That comment was seen as a slap at Chiofaro. But the other side of that coin is that some parts of the BRA guidelines push height toward sites that are difficult to build on.

?The city is mostly built already,? Utile?s Love argued. ?This isn?t Houston. All that?s left is the hard stuff.?

A Challenging Challenge

Outside of the sea of parking lots populating the South Boston waterfront, there are few pure development sites left in the city. Most projects come with some degree of hair on them, from legal hurdles and complicated assemblage tasks, to unusual building footprints and tricky reuse challenges.

The Richardson block falls on the more challenging end of these already challenging sites. Nine different owners control property in the building?s potential footprint. Their aggregate assessed value is around $45 million, according to data obtained from Banker & Tradesman publisher The Warren Group, though recently sold properties on the block went for far above assessed value.

In 2007, New York-based real estate investor Brickman paid $41.6 million for 230 Congress St., a property assessed at $31 million. The building has a significant level of tenant improvements in place to accommodate a roster of telecom companies.

A BlackRock real estate fund paid $14 million for 121 High St. and 125 Pearl St. in 2007. The pair was assessed at under $6 million, total. BlackRock bought out Berkeley Investments, a firm that had considered assembling the block for large-scale redevelopment before selling. Brickman and BlackRock did not return calls for comment.

?There?s obviously some interest? in an assemblage, said Jonathan Peabody, part owner of Peabody Office Furniture. The Peabody family has controlled the building at 236 Congress St. for decades.

?A lot of exciting things have gone on around us,? Peabody said. ?It?s a challenging block. That?s been proven over the past few years. It?s a fabulous location, but I don?t know whether it will ever happen. The problem is, everybody on the block thinks their building is the most valuable.?

?It?s an assembly challenge, and it?s a preservation challenge,? said Peter Gori, the BRA planner in charge of the Greenway development guidelines. ?But what?s there now doesn?t contribute.?

Assemblage could be eased by building on the Brickman side of the block, and the alley running next to it, he said. He believes that residential and hotel uses mesh with the InterContinental across the street, and said a tower on the site, ?has the potential to be on the level of a Four Seasons or a Mandarin.?

Shen compared a possible redevelopment to another site across the Greenway, Russia Wharf. At that site, Boston Properties preserved historic low-rise buildings while building a tower above.

?Today the price of assembling is different than it was a few years ago,? he argued. ?Feasibility changes as the market changes and the price changes. Over time, the fact that the Greenway will thrive as an urban park will make sure that values appreciate exponentially.?
Click to expand...
 
When he unveiled the new guidelines, Shen characterized the new development envelopes as being about ?long-term value for the city,? and ?not about financial feasibility.?

That worked well you idiot with Columbus Ave, Filenes, the Greenway Projects.

Shen should really keep his big mouth shut because he doesn't have a clue about Planning.
 
?It?s hyper-contextual,? Love said. ?We wanted to make the city, in total, as coherent as possible. We reinforced what?s already working well.?
Click to expand...

If that is the case how about filling in that median strip.

That meant keeping development on the Greenway?s harbor edge low and permeable, while letting construction on the downtown side rise to meet Financial District towers. He said density at the Richardson block would throw no new shadows on the Greenway, while helping to create an urban edge he compared to Central Park West.
Click to expand...

Because there are NO shadows along CPW! Urge to kill.... rising...

?It?s part of the core Financial District. It?s not really interrupting the relationship between the Harbor and the Greenway.?
Click to expand...

Lets move this around: ?The Greenway is really interrupting the relationship between the Harbor and the Financial District.?
 
Van that was some pretty brilliant observation. Send a copy to Mr. Shen and Mr. Love, please? They just got schooled by an armchair (desk chair?) architecture critic.
 
I second Van wholeheartedly.

It's also worth noting the BRA's priorities here: sticking to some rarefied vision of a waterfront not having tall buildings ... despite the presence next door of the Harbor Towers; and simultaneously not giving a rat's ass about preservation.

The buildings in the "Richardson block" are all relatively handsome pre-war structures (not sure exactly how old they are -- could be 100+ years?). They are in good shape, and seem to be full of tenants. They have small footprints, allowing for great architectural diversity as well as diversity of uses.

The BRA's ingenious proposal does what the BRA has done for 50 years: It takes a successful (and "hyper-contextual," to use their contractors' words) mini-neighborhood of classic Boston buildings, levels them, and puts one mega-structure in their place.

And in presumably eliminating the public alley running parallel to Pearl and Congress Streets that separates the buildings into two blocks, it creates a super-block twice as wide as what the old cow paths and organic growth of the city had resulted in ... and filled entirely by one building.

In short, more brilliant urban planning from the BRA and the local hacks they hire to do their bidding (think the Wicked Witch of the West's flying monkeys).

All this to basically ensure that a big concrete garage is never developed into anything more useful than parking.

I can't help but ask, over and over, how much more damage the BRA has to do to this city before it is disbanded.
 
When he unveiled the new guidelines, Shen characterized the new development envelopes as being about ?long-term value for the city,? and ?not about financial feasibility.?


Gothca Shen, so in Boston you can throw basic econmic forces out the window and things will still get accomplished. B/c I'm pretty sure in capitilism no one does shit unless it makes them money. So unless we can somehow lower the value of this property or give the next developer compensation nothing will get built. Fucking retarded.
 
GW2500 said:
When he unveiled the new guidelines, Shen characterized the new development envelopes as being about ?long-term value for the city,? and ?not about financial feasibility.?


Gothca Shen, so in Boston you can throw basic econmic forces out the window and things will still get accomplished. B/c I'm pretty sure in capitilism no one does shit unless it makes them money. So unless we can somehow lower the value of this property or give the next developer compensation nothing will get built. Fucking retarded.
Click to expand...

I really don't know how the BRA is going to justify keeping that Harbor Parking Garage or transforming into a 200ft stump.

Shen is moron, he talks about LONG-TERM VALUE. Long-term value for the city would be shutting down the BRA.

So as an investor in the city of Boston if you don't kiss Menino's ass or give him what he wants the Mayor with the BRA could make you go BANKRUPT.
Capitalism at it's best. I hate these people.
 
My Bing bird's eye view keeps crashing, otherwise I would post a screencap. Worth a look: this block really could warrant a tower at the scale they're proposing. But is it a priority?

1) It doesn't replace anything broken (in fact the building with the Subway in it appears recently renovated).
2) It won't fundamentally improve the Greenway or waterfront.
3) It isn't market-force or developer driven (unlike a certain garage we've heard about).
4) Consolidating ownership is a pipedream and likely wouldn't happen.

The only reason the BRA focuses its energy here is bureaucratic cowardice.
 
Am I the only one who believes that the BRA chose the location of taller buildings because they believe that those sites are unlikely to be developed by a developer?
 
Yes I agree, but it isn't altruistic. "Let's look busy and relevant by focusing on something that can't happen in order to ignore and sabotage something we don't want to happen."
 
An article in the Boston.com
Off the topic.


City asks exempt sector for help
Task force readies payment formula; Some nonprofits balk at proposals
By Andrew Ryan
Globe Staff / April 6, 2010
"Boston?s hospitals, universities, and other tax-exempt nonprofits may be asked to contribute tens of millions of dollars more to city coffers to help pay for basic municipal services such as police and public works."

But the Mayor and the BRA won't work with a developer to get increase the height of a broken down garage for an extra 400Ft in the air.

How is this city going to afford to maintain the GREENWAY?
 
^^The Greenway is maintained by the non-profit Rose Kennedy Greenway Conservancy. I'm sure they get some funding from the city, but I don't think it's their main source. You can probably get more info from poking around their website.
 
Shepard and Itchy have astute comments about the "Richardson" block. It appears that the planners have a child's building block mentality toward height, and as long as the height increases progressively as one moves inland, it doesn't matter what gets destroyed in the process. An indiscriminate approach is what makes downtown Hartford the success that it is today.

Hearing about the "Richardson" block took away some sympathy that I had for the BRA height concept. Sympathy, you say? Yes. Didn't you always hate the way the World Trade Center made Manhattan look like it was about to capsize? Didn't the lower Manhattan skyline look better when buildings stepped up from the water, culminating in the Wall Street towers? So, I could see a logic at work.

Now all I see is lack of subtlety. Perhaps it would be better to forget a rigid ziggarat style skyline massing approach. Of course, that model presupposes some variegation in height, not a butte, so perhaps the ziggarat analogy limps a bit.

Either way or no way, don't lose focus on where the rubber meets the road...the street scape! In a city without great skyscrapers it is what we have!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top