Stanhope Hotel | 39 Stanhope Street | Back Bay

Their parter, Masterworks Development, is known for doing Club Quarters properties so I assume it’ll be one of those. Guess it’s better than another Yotel or some crap like that.
 
Equilibria said:
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1171845198130896896



The only two story building on Stanhope is the home of Red Lantern. It's a nice facade that I hope they'd keep for the hotel, but I'm not holding my breath.
Click to expand...
I think the building must have been stables back in the day. It is a great facade, but checking google maps it appears the whole building will be a goner. Another quirky part of Boston down the drain, it appears. I wonder if the project includes the Friendly Toast next door, which appears to have been restored for its opening.
 
I can hear residents of The Clarendon lighting their torches and sharpening their pitchforks already.
 
Yup. They aren't going to like having their south-facing views blocked.

Bos77 said:
I can hear residents of The Clarendon lighting their torches and sharpening their pitchforks already.
Click to expand...
 
Possibly this?

1568256166757.png


https://www.craigbentonnealy.com/stanhope
 
Stantec is not the architect and that is not the design.
 
From BBJ Article

Boston-based H.N. Gorin Inc. and Masterworks Development Co. LLC, a New York hospitality development company known for building Club Quarters Hotels, have jointly proposed a 300-room hotel on Stanhope Street in Boston’s Back Bay.
The hotel is proposed at 39 Stanhope St., currently home to Asian restaurant and lounge Red Lantern Boston.

“We are excited about this project and fully support this development,” said Ed Kyane, owner of Big Night Entertainment Group, which owns Red Lantern Boston. “We love the idea of a new hotel in this area and looking forward to being a part of the development.”
The property at 39 Stanhope St. is located between eateries Flour Bakery & Cafe, The Friendly Toast and The Brahmin, just across Clarendon Street from the Back Bay MBTA subway and commuter rail station. H.N. Gorin Inc. owns the property through an entity named Stuart Clarendon Associates, and it has an assessed value of $4.44 million, according to city data.
“We look forward to working with the city and the community to create a boutique hotel in one of the city’s most beautiful neighborhoods,” said Roz Gorin, president of H.N. Gorin Inc., in a statement. “The Stanhope site is an ideal location for a boutique hotel given its urban setting and proximity to the Back Bay train station as well as shopping and restaurants, amenities which any traveler looks for in a downtown hotel.”
The proposed hotel would span 124,400 square feet and reach up to 240 feet in height, Gorin said in a letter of intent filed Wednesday with the Boston Planning and Development Agency. The hotel would not include parking, the letter of intent states.

Boston-based design firm Group One Partners will design the Stanhope hotel. Group One has previously designed hotels including the Envoy in Boston’s Seaport District and the Hotel Commonwealth in the Fenway neighborhood.
 
It really seems like historic preservation is taking it on the chin over the last year in Boston.

Without knowing the numbers, I didn't have a sense that many historic buildings were lost over the past 10 years - which one might have taken as a sign the city's citizens and politicians actually cared about preservation. But over the last year the hits seem to keep coming. Sure, they aren't razing Trinity Church. But monuments alone do not a built environment make. The underlying mass of 'filler' historic structures - like this extremely cool little building - has been revealed to be utterly unprotected and the politicians as indifferent as, well, Worcester's on this front (while the NIMBYs worry eternally about "shadows" and "Manhattanization").
 
itchy said:
It really seems like historic preservation is taking it on the chin over the last year in Boston.

Without knowing the numbers, I didn't have a sense that many historic buildings were lost over the past 10 years - which one might have taken as a sign the city's citizens and politicians actually cared about preservation. But over the last year the hits seem to keep coming. Sure, they aren't razing Trinity Church. But monuments alone do not a built environment make. The underlying mass of 'filler' historic structures - like this extremely cool little building - has been revealed to be utterly unprotected and the politicians as indifferent as, well, Worcester's on this front (while the NIMBYs worry eternally about "shadows" and "Manhattanization").
Click to expand...
Uh. Yeah. Because Marty Walsh’s administration is a cesspool of poorly supervised corrupt government officials, including the recent scandal at the BPDA. Very smart to change the name from the BRA… The scandal would sound so much worse if they had kept their original name. Now, if you didn’t know the name had changed, you would think it was just some random agency. Honestly, it’s a complete and disgusting joke what has been happening in the city, from Menino to Walsh. And lately, it seems worse because so many more historical buildings are being destroyed willy nilly. What the fuck is the point of any of this wasteful development process that drives up construction and ultimately housing costs in the city, if the real fact of the matter is just that you have to grease the right palms in the right way and you can do whatever the fuck you want? Give us flagrant open corruption without the absurd and laborious veneer of a process that just wastes everyone’s time, or if you’re gonna have the rules, enforce them. What we have is truly the worst of both worlds.
 
Last edited:
itchy said:
It really seems like historic preservation is taking it on the chin over the last year in Boston.

Without knowing the numbers, I didn't have a sense that many historic buildings were lost over the past 10 years - which one might have taken as a sign the city's citizens and politicians actually cared about preservation. But over the last year the hits seem to keep coming. Sure, they aren't razing Trinity Church. But monuments alone do not a built environment make. The underlying mass of 'filler' historic structures - like this extremely cool little building - has been revealed to be utterly unprotected and the politicians as indifferent as, well, Worcester's on this front (while the NIMBYs worry eternally about "shadows" and "Manhattanization").
Click to expand...
I agree Itchy. Aside from political corruption is the educational corruption, esp. regarding the Arts and History. Increasingly younger members of various agencies may not have the background necessary to appreciate the fabric of older buildings, even though they are not technically "historic." It is a shame that gradually Boston's historic neighborhoods are getting "ghettoized" and isolated as museum districts without enough connection to the rest of the city through buildings such as Stanhope St. When this happens too many see the city as one sees Disney World...as a serious of completely separate theme parks with no relation to each other. The next 50 years will be critical for Boston to retain what is left of the very thing that attracts people there. The new will make sense culturally only if there is a sufficient proportion of the "old." Otherwise we end up with Kendall Square, and may I say, the Seaport District. Lovely to look at from afar, but sterile. At least the latter promises more street life and retail...maybe. By the way, I'm not new here. I used to be called Padre Mike....no way to change the name and retain Senior member status!
 
Life Coach Mike said:
I agree Itchy. Aside from political corruption is the educational corruption, esp. regarding the Arts and History. Increasingly younger members of various agencies may not have the background necessary to appreciate the fabric of older buildings, even though they are not technically "historic." It is a shame that gradually Boston's historic neighborhoods are getting "ghettoized" and isolated as museum districts without enough connection to the rest of the city through buildings such as Stanhope St. When this happens too many see the city as one sees Disney World...as a serious of completely separate theme parks with no relation to each other. The next 50 years will be critical for Boston to retain what is left of the very thing that attracts people there. The new will make sense culturally only if there is a sufficient proportion of the "old." Otherwise we end up with Kendall Square, and may I say, the Seaport District. Lovely to look at from afar, but sterile. At least the latter promises more street life and retail...maybe. By the way, I'm not new here. I used to be called Padre Mike....no way to change the name and retain Senior member status!
Click to expand...

I sympathize with wanting to save this building, but there's no reason that a 30-year-old at a regulatory agency would have any less "background" in buildings from the 19th Century than a 55-year-old, or a 30-year-old in 1975.
 
A couple of thoughts on the preservation front.

  1. This seems like it would be pretty easy to preserve the facade, as it's only two stories. I'd like to see that approach.
  2. It is crazy that the historic building is less valued than the new playground across the street. The correct place to build a tower is on the playground's foot print. I suspect the vast majority, though, if they think about it at all, would sooner rally to the playground than the building.
 
itchy said:
It really seems like historic preservation is taking it on the chin over the last year in Boston.
Click to expand...

Based on the slow-goings of some other hotel developments I’m optimistic that this never materializes.
 
Equilibria said:
I sympathize with wanting to save this building, but there's no reason that a 30-year-old at a regulatory agency would have any less "background" in buildings from the 19th Century than a 55-year-old, or a 30-year-old in 1975.
Click to expand...


Whoever it is, and whatever their age, they are dropping the ball on this more lately. I encourage folks to walk Stanhope and arrive at this building and those restaurants and see how you feel about the city just knocking it down for a 19 story boutique hotel. I'd love to see many, many more hotels built and much taller than this one, but geeez - - can't they find a less beautiful nook of the city to replace. Hell just go a hundred feet or so to the left and build it over the godawful Trinity Place garage. Hopefully, this can somehow be preserved in the building, but I doubt it. It's a loss.

.
 
My user name happens to come from the fact that for many years in my early 20's I lived on Cortes, a street that's similar to Stanhope, right next door. Both were streets/areas that were going to see a massive overhaul if the Columbus Center project had ever gone through. And when it didn't, John Hancock's decision to buy what is now Frieda Garcia Park just seemed to muck things up in the way of getting any project done in the area. I'm glad to see that something is being proposed here, but Stanhope St just still strikes me an alley, albeit one that I have learned how to use very effectively in slicing through that part of town.

My hope for thea are would be to extend Cahner's Pl. as a pedestrian way as part of the redevelopment of 370 Stuart, thus making the rest of Stanhope ready for another tower of this size, perhaps much taller. I think of these parcels in much the same way as that of Legrange St., or others downtown.
 
Last edited:
Did I miss something here? Everyone is talking about the demolition of this building as a "done deal." I don't see any mention yet of the destruction. From the owner of Red Lantern: "We love the idea of a new hotel in this area and looking forward to being a part of the development.” Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but that tells me there is some preservation effort. I wouldn't think a restaurant would be that thrilled if they said "We are going to flatten your restaurant and you can re-open in five years in a new building" So, I certainly HOPE this is some facade or interior preservation, because it's an interesting and unique space. Does anyone remember the Bertucci's restaurant? Does anyone remember "The Loft" down the street that was open until 5am or so..........I never stayed till closing. :)
 
Java King said:
Did I miss something here? Everyone is talking about the demolition of this building as a "done deal." I don't see any mention yet of the destruction. From the owner of Red Lantern: "We love the idea of a new hotel in this area and looking forward to being a part of the development.” Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but that tells me there is some preservation effort. I wouldn't think a restaurant would be that thrilled if they said "We are going to flatten your restaurant and you can re-open in five years in a new building" So, I certainly HOPE this is some facade or interior preservation, because it's an interesting and unique space. Does anyone remember the Bertucci's restaurant? Does anyone remember "The Loft" down the street that was open until 5am or so..........I never stayed till closing. :)
Click to expand...

From the LOI:

As such, the existing two-story building on the site will be demolished to make way for the hotel project.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top