South End Infill and Small Developments
- Thread starter xec
- Start date
IMG_2537
IMG_2541
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2012
- Messages
- 13,982
- Reaction score
- 22,088
Correct but the name is actually the 7Ink
7INK (née Ollie) | 217 Albany St | South End
"Newly approved by the Boston Planning & Development Agency, Ollie is soon to be the latest and greatest addition to the South End’s Ink Block residences. The project will be Boston’s first major co-living project, delivering 250 micro-units and shared suites........."...
archboston.com
Relatively minor news..but it looks like this project is moving forward.
Development Replacing Harriet Tubman House Secures $46M Construction Loan
November 3, 2020 Andrew Martinez, Bisnow Boston
www.bisnow.com
Development Replacing Harriet Tubman House Secures $46M Construction Loan
November 3, 2020 Andrew Martinez, Bisnow Boston
Development Replacing Harriet Tubman House Secures $46M Construction Loan
The developer of 566 Columbus Ave. has received a $46M construction loan to replace South End's Harriet Tubman House with a six-story, 66-unit structure.
www.bisnow.com
Take a peak on Google Maps... nothing any taller than this really makes sense here...
Blackbird
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2014
- Messages
- 1,172
- Reaction score
- 1,679
Went to Northeastern, so I know the area well. It's a block or two away from plenty of taller buildings. Fwiw, I’d also love to see the gas station across the street redeveloped some day. Especially considering what a ripoff their prices usually are.
Though if I must indulge you:
Google Maps
Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
www.google.com
Google Maps
Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
www.google.com
Google Maps
Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
www.google.com
Last edited:
Went to Northeastern, so I know the area well. It's a block or two away from plenty of taller buildings.
Though if I must indulge you:
Google Maps
Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
Google Maps
Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
Google Maps
Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
So why don’t you get on the horn with New Boston Ventures and tell them that what they’re building is way too short for your likings and that you’ll personally guarantee the additional $100m they’ll need to build up to about 20 floors?
Blackbird
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2014
- Messages
- 1,172
- Reaction score
- 1,679
Ha! This is the intersection of Massachusetts and Columbus Avenues, right across from a T stop.
I can’t imagine the developer is building to this height in order to maximize its profits.
Wasn’t it on this board that I heard “more units = more money”? Maybe I dreamt that.
Mods, can you please move these posts to the Tubman House thread? https://archboston.com/community/threads/harriet-tubman-house-566-columbus-avenue-south-end.5840/
Bananarama
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2020
- Messages
- 568
- Reaction score
- 1,123
Why is everyone here obsessed with height.
It's not the end-all-be-all of good urban design. We need to disassociate height with unit count and instead push for increased unit density per floor, multi family, etc. through zoning.
It's interesting to see those map pin links because those are all relatively unattractive buildings that prioritized height over good ground level experiences (particularly the towers next to Boston Med lmao). They break the urban fabric of their surroundings.
And we're really using Symphony towers as a good example???
This looks like a reasonably proportioned design with nice fenestration for the South End context. Unlike the Midtown up on Huntington, this lot is adjacent to many other lower buildings to the north, so shadows are a real concern here too.
It's not the end-all-be-all of good urban design. We need to disassociate height with unit count and instead push for increased unit density per floor, multi family, etc. through zoning.
It's interesting to see those map pin links because those are all relatively unattractive buildings that prioritized height over good ground level experiences (particularly the towers next to Boston Med lmao). They break the urban fabric of their surroundings.
And we're really using Symphony towers as a good example???
This looks like a reasonably proportioned design with nice fenestration for the South End context. Unlike the Midtown up on Huntington, this lot is adjacent to many other lower buildings to the north, so shadows are a real concern here too.
Blackbird
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2014
- Messages
- 1,172
- Reaction score
- 1,679
"Obsession" is a pretty heavy word to throw around like that, pal. I'm just saying that this is a big lot at a major intersection in the heart of the city, and with those facts in mind, I'd expect it to be taller. Like the Fenway buildings, even.
How? By making units tiny? I'm sure we could fit twice as many of those pods from that one hotel/hostel proposal downtown here if we wanted. But why would we? We should want more units with more square footage.
I'm sorry that the BMC didn't prioritize "good ground level experience"!
The Symphony towers do offer some of the better ground level experiences in the city. There's Lucy's, Cafe Bene, Blick, and Kung Fu Tea. What a joke.
You're talking about Bijan Cleaners and Render Coffee? How much time will a few extra floor's difference make during sunset (because I'm sure the sun isn't low enough in the sky to matter at any other time of day)?
Last edited:
Bananarama
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2020
- Messages
- 568
- Reaction score
- 1,123
It's called hyperbole. Clearly no one is literally obsessed. Height just comes up very very frequently in most project threads.There's a difference between pods and simply compact living.
More square footage to do what exactly? I'm not calling for some tiny house revolution, but the American standard of space is much higher than the rest of the world. Why can't we do more with less?
And what is the tower portion of Symphony doing? You could lop off anything above the 5th floor and create a less cavernous/shaded streetscape.
You know people live above those businesses, right? Winter time is exactly the time of year when low angle sun is valuable to spaces. And with outdoor dining coming back as a staple for restaurants, why wouldn't Render or SRV want to maximize their sun exposure so that it's a more pleasant place to eat?
I don't want to sound like a NIMBY because I'm generally in favor of some height and density. But I simply think this corner doesn't need it and shouldn't be a defacto complaint. I'd rather get quality urban infill that's contextual and well-designed than a push for height that could result in Symphony Tower #3.
Suspect the zoning is grandfathered in here; this is also in the historical district. Certainly, there should be room to go taller along Mass Ave without any complaints.
Blackbird
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2014
- Messages
- 1,172
- Reaction score
- 1,679
I'll give it to you that "compact living" is a pretty hip rephrasing of "squalor".
"Why can't we do more with less?"? Because we don't need to if we just increase the height of the building.
What is it doing? It's housing people! In the case of the Symphony Towers in particular, it's housing elderly people and people who wouldn't be able to afford the area otherwise!
Granted, I'd even be fine with people with $200,000 /yr salaries living in this building so that they don't buy up property in Dorchester or Somerville. The more the merrier!
You're basically making my point for me at this point. The height of a building has nothing to do with the quality of its street-level interaction.
And I wouldn't describe the area around the Symphony Towers as "cavernous", especially because of how wide Mass Ave is.
Render Coffee is only open until 2pm or 4pm, and the solarium that they’re known for is in the back of the building anyways. SRV probably doesn't even have outdoor seating during the winter, when the height of its southern neighbor might matter.
Exactly. If Cambridge can put up that new, big building by Central, Boston should be able to throw something similar up here.
Last edited:
Bananarama
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2020
- Messages
- 568
- Reaction score
- 1,123
So I'll break this into two overall reasons because I'm lazy and don't want to keep this petty point-by-point thing going lol:
1. It will inflate the cost of the units. I'd rather South End didn't become more elite than it already is.
Because height is expensive. Once you pass 6 stories, you're forced to switch from cheap stick framing to steel, which is at least double the cost/sq ft (the framing, not the overall construction cost). So up goes your market rate units in price along with it.
2. It's inappropriate for the neighborhood, Mass Ave be damned.
We must just have different personal experiences regarding space, because the area around Symphony is unsettling to me. The towers are anomalous to the surroundings and don't fit in. It's great they're housing the elderly at a subsidized cost. They're still hideous and looming over the street. The height absolutely does affect the street level, which is almost always in shadow and windy as is.
The immediate block around this parcel is 6 and under. This design has cues that relate to the height and some general South End-ness (cornice line, brickwork, some bay window notion, yadayada). Would a few extra stories kill it? Nah. If unit cost is out the window anyway, 9-10 would be fine. There's a couple old examples of this scale relationship along Mass ave north at Beacon and Marlborough. Those are taller than the the adjacent Bay Bay, but no more than about double (also with some very thicc mansards and cornices than stretch the visual height downwards). But your examples are pushing triple this height. I think that'd be a mistake. That example in Central you bring up is much closer to the urban core of the area with buildings of similar heights. A better (and worse)comparison would be the nursing home on Erie St to the south east which is waaay out of scale for the area, in a similar way I think that height on this parcel would be.
I have some personal vendettas against high-rise living as well. Above 5ish floors, you lose casual sight of the street -- people passing by and things going on. A person becomes more and more removed from a neighborhood. Fewer spontaneous outings since it takes so long to actually leave your building (down an elevator which might as well be a time capsule). There've been some studies that tie high-rising living to increased rates of depression, but I don't wanna go that route now. South End feels like a personable neighborhood because is respects this "rule" of 5 and lower. It also produces a street section that's more of a 1:1 street to façade relationship. The streetscape is a happy medium of safe/not exposed and not overwhelming. Again with some studies that say that's the ideal urban design (hey maybe you could argue taller since Mass Ave is so wide?) but I don't want to build that case because who knows the validity of them. Feel free to go down the google rabbit hole. This is just my emotional response to the issue.
1. It will inflate the cost of the units. I'd rather South End didn't become more elite than it already is.
Because height is expensive. Once you pass 6 stories, you're forced to switch from cheap stick framing to steel, which is at least double the cost/sq ft (the framing, not the overall construction cost). So up goes your market rate units in price along with it.
2. It's inappropriate for the neighborhood, Mass Ave be damned.
We must just have different personal experiences regarding space, because the area around Symphony is unsettling to me. The towers are anomalous to the surroundings and don't fit in. It's great they're housing the elderly at a subsidized cost. They're still hideous and looming over the street. The height absolutely does affect the street level, which is almost always in shadow and windy as is.
The immediate block around this parcel is 6 and under. This design has cues that relate to the height and some general South End-ness (cornice line, brickwork, some bay window notion, yadayada). Would a few extra stories kill it? Nah. If unit cost is out the window anyway, 9-10 would be fine. There's a couple old examples of this scale relationship along Mass ave north at Beacon and Marlborough. Those are taller than the the adjacent Bay Bay, but no more than about double (also with some very thicc mansards and cornices than stretch the visual height downwards). But your examples are pushing triple this height. I think that'd be a mistake. That example in Central you bring up is much closer to the urban core of the area with buildings of similar heights. A better (and worse)comparison would be the nursing home on Erie St to the south east which is waaay out of scale for the area, in a similar way I think that height on this parcel would be.
I have some personal vendettas against high-rise living as well. Above 5ish floors, you lose casual sight of the street -- people passing by and things going on. A person becomes more and more removed from a neighborhood. Fewer spontaneous outings since it takes so long to actually leave your building (down an elevator which might as well be a time capsule). There've been some studies that tie high-rising living to increased rates of depression, but I don't wanna go that route now. South End feels like a personable neighborhood because is respects this "rule" of 5 and lower. It also produces a street section that's more of a 1:1 street to façade relationship. The streetscape is a happy medium of safe/not exposed and not overwhelming. Again with some studies that say that's the ideal urban design (hey maybe you could argue taller since Mass Ave is so wide?) but I don't want to build that case because who knows the validity of them. Feel free to go down the google rabbit hole. This is just my emotional response to the issue.
Last edited:
JumboBuc
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2013
- Messages
- 2,646
- Reaction score
- 1,515
I have no strong opinions on whether this project should be taller or not, but I am surprised that they're planning 5-over-1 wood framing on a steel podium here. I checked the PNF and sure enough, it says wood. Other recent comparable projects of this scale in this area have used steel framing all the way up (e.g., 50 Symphony) even when they're small enough that wood would be permissible per the building code. We see 5-over-1 wood all the time in more outlying / residential neighborhoods and in the "suburbs," but usually projects in Downtown / South End / Back Bay etc. command the build quality provided by steel and concrete. This is a very loud and busy street corner (Mass Ave and Columbus) and that will likely be more evident inside a wood building on that corner than inside a steel and concrete one.
Also, steel and concrete units generally command higher prices not because they're more expensive to build but because they're more desirable to live in. Price is set by demand, not by cost.
And to reiterate cjbski:
The height of this was really intended to be a balance between what the zoning allows (in the Historic District it's limited to 85 ft) and also because the Landmarks District Guidelines say that a new building directly adjacent to historic buildings cannot be taller that them. The Landmarks Commission has discretion here, so usually they ask that the cornice lines match in some way and that the additional height steps up. IMO this is actually a good height. It's a prominent corner, so it's taller than much of what's around it, but not so tall that there's a big difference between the adjacent buildings.
I will say that the developer was very responsive to design feedback from the Landmarks Commission and the public. This design is SOOOOO much better than the first design they proposed. It feels modern but still fits in with the older Victorian architecture around it. I've seen far too many examples of new development not fitting in at all, so this is refreshing.
I will say that the developer was very responsive to design feedback from the Landmarks Commission and the public. This design is SOOOOO much better than the first design they proposed. It feels modern but still fits in with the older Victorian architecture around it. I've seen far too many examples of new development not fitting in at all, so this is refreshing.
Blackbird
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2014
- Messages
- 1,172
- Reaction score
- 1,679
Do you have some sort of data or source to back this up? I always thought that cheaper buildings (like a few of the towers going up in or planned for Chinatown) are generally taller while shorter buildings (like this one) tend to be bougier.
You won't change my mind about this, and I guess I can't change yours. However, with the development of Parcel 12 up the road, Northeastern's building at Melnea Cass & Tremont, the Huntington Theater tower, the BFIT development of the other side of Tremont, the buildings planned for Nubian, the Flower Exchange site, and a potential Copley Place or Columbus Center building one day we might look back at this parcel at the intersection of 2 of the city's major avenues and wonder why the city and developer didn't make better use of the location.
My only consolation is the potential to redevelop that gas station if the rip-off artists behind it ever sell.
We're talking about the same building, right? The buildings around it absolutely aren't similar heights : https://www.google.com/maps/@42.363142,-71.1000189,3a,75y,309.36h,104.19t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sYxPqNpZlFdJTkxb2UKTgNQ!2e0!6s//geo1.ggpht.com/cbk?panoid=YxPqNpZlFdJTkxb2UKTgNQ&output=thumbnail&cb_client=maps_sv.tactile.gps&thumb=2&w=203&h=100&yaw=242.50638&pitch=0&thumbfov=100!7i16384!8i8192