South End Infill and Small Developments

Zero Worcester has a vertical emphasis that should happen more often. The only sour note is the struts underneath the roof. It would have been much more elegant without them. They don't look structural, they look like what they are: superficial and unnecessary nods to 19th century cornices.
 
Druker's proposal on E. Berkeley.

23south_end_new.jpg


Graphic from the Boston Globe.
 
Dream on with this scheme, it's much too urban contemporary for the activists/obstructionists. Can't you just hear them dropping to their fainting couches all over the South End? Too big, no open space, no historical detailing, no red brick, blah, blah, barf.

Yes it's something of a superblock, but it works here. Bold, extroverted, and look at all the retail. Elkus has stepped up their game with this.
 
It isn't a bad fit for that spot. Even the window pastiche won't be as bad there. The mass won't be as obvious as it is in the helicopter rendering.

Now if only someone would wipe out the victory garden.
 
A snipet found on the BRA website (though no documents yet) filed by New Atlantic Development for 600 Harrison Avenue:

"Proposal calls for the construction of a 193,300 SF development, including 160 residential units and 3,600 SF of retail space."
 
Brad Plaid said:
Dream on with this scheme, it's much too urban contemporary for the activists/obstructionists. Can't you just hear them dropping to their fainting couches all over the South End? Too big, no open space, no historical detailing, no red brick, blah, blah, barf.

Yes it's something of a superblock, but it works here. Bold, extroverted, and look at all the retail. Elkus has stepped up their game with this.
Click to expand...

You don't know this neighborhood. They like bold and extroverted, and will welcome the retail. They pushed for more density and height at both Ink Block and 275 Albany. They wanted creative, contemporary and, yes, bold design. That is not to say that all will welcome it with open arms, but the prevailing sentiment in that area is go bold, and do something new and different.
 
I agree. I know a few people on the neighborhood association over that way. By and large, they're pretty open to all sorts of new development over there. Don't confuse criticism and suggestions from a few neighbors for wholesale neighborhood opposition. There are cranks and critics to anything, they bubble up more in stories like this because conflict sells papers.
 
Why would the neighborhood that supports SOWA and it's associated businesses be against any of these? Seems like a totally illogical conclusion.
 
I have received one email regarding concerns about height, so there will be resistance. However, the whole area has been rezoned (or at least, in draft form) and I think the height here is within that limit (not that zoning actually means anything to the BRA ...).

The developer could certainly count on more support if he simply clad it in brick ... but thank god he didn't.

I'll take a photo this weekend comparing this building's height with the existing one down the street at 1000 Washington so you can see - it will be higher than much of what (currently) exists this side of Washington.

I can understand the idea of putting in commercial vs. residential - this is, after all, a very congested block at rush hours - but disappointing nonetheless. People will commute to work (why else is there a 200-car garage - of which none will be offered to the public?) and bail out at the end of the day. Again, though, I don't see the demand for housing at the corner when there is so much going up down the block.

If this development brings other mid-rise projects to Washington St between E Berkeley and Herald Square, I'm all for it.

BTW, someone needs to convince the Archdiocese to sell the German Trinity Church down the block on Shawmut Ave. It would make some nice housing (there's an apartment building attached - a rectory) and it could be mixed-income. They told me it isn't for sale and not sure if it ever will be, but considering they sold 600 Harrison (a parking lot) maybe money talks? (They are reluctant, I assume, because their congregation was bullshit when the church was shutdown.)
 
JohnAKeith said:
BTW, someone needs to convince the Archdiocese to sell the German Trinity Church down the block on Shawmut Ave. It would make some nice housing (there's an apartment building attached - a rectory) and it could be mixed-income. They told me it isn't for sale and not sure if it ever will be, but considering they sold 600 Harrison (a parking lot) maybe money talks? (They are reluctant, I assume, because their congregation was bullshit when the church was shutdown.)
Click to expand...

John I totally agree with you on this one.
Is this building, which just south of the church, being used? It looks deserted.

1070 Washington
I should think this would be a prime development site for residentual.
 
The new building at East Berkeley and Washington streets will be eleven stories, the same as the existing building at 1000 Washington Street. Within new zoning guidelines.

 
I believe the Drukers directly or indirectly control that piece of land. It was a Verizon phone facility of some sort for quite awhile (predating Verizon, I believe but not sure if it's in active use.

The BRA controls the lot between the church and the Verizon building on Shawmut. On the Washington side, there is a small building controlled by the MBTA between the Verizon building and where they are proposing the 11-story office building.
 
Thanks for your reply John.
Looks like we have the possibility of more new developments as this area builds out.
 
Decorative elements on a modern building?

Whaaaaaaa
 
This and MP3 are the sexiest things to hit Boston in a long time.
 
Ha. The third image down you can see my apartment - it's the top floor unit with the huge "John Connolly for Mayor" sign on the fire escape.

9769074482_03906c077a_b.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top