Stanhope Hotel | 39 Stanhope Street | Back Bay

My favorite is the anger that the historic stable/garage building is going to be destroyed, while the developers have gone to great lengths to show that the facade will remain preserved in its original state while also massively improving the experience on the plaza. Woe be to the Red Lantern, which is apparently closed now?
 
Justbuildit said:
The people at the Clarendon (400 Stuart) are NOT happy

bpda.app.box.com

2023-07-10_Public Comments_Stanhope Hotel.pdf | Powered by Box

bpda.app.box.com bpda.app.box.com
Click to expand...

Many years ago, when what is now the Raffles hotel was in its early stages of proposal, those The Clarendon residents were also flipping out about that proposal (which as we know is now built). Their arguments made no sense then, and they make no sense now. When you buy a condo situated in the middle of very dense city blocks that has a nice view solely/specifically because it is surrounded by underutilized parcels, then you caught a lucky break to get that view in the first place. It's really as simple as that. It's not like they bought their condo abutting protected parkland or the shoreline. Plus there is, of course, the hypocrisy of it being OK to have built your tower, but not the one next to it.
 
bigpicture7 said:
Many years ago, when what is now the Raffles hotel was in its early stages of proposal, those The Clarendon residents were also flipping out about that proposal (which as we know is now built). Their arguments made no sense then, and they make no sense now. When you buy a condo situated in the middle of very dense city blocks that has a nice view solely/specifically because it is surrounded by underutilized parcels, then you caught a lucky break to get that view in the first place. It's really as simple as that. It's not like they bought their condo abutting protected parkland or the shoreline. Plus there is, of course, the hypocrisy of it being OK to have built your tower, but not the one next to it.
Click to expand...

The Clarendon exists because of upzoning this area, which also allows the Raffles project and this one.
 
mass88 said:
I'll say it, it's too bad this hotel was not going to be 100-125 feet taller.

You cannot expect to buy/rent in a high-rise residential tower in a major city and expect your view to never change over the coming decades.
Click to expand...

Looking back through the filings (below, page 3). Apparently they could have gone to 356' by-right vs 270 proposed, so you're not far off. It's called out somewhere above as well, but thrilled that this has zero parking (not that there was a way to easily add a garage). In the future, with 1-2 air rights projects and the redevelopment of Clarendon garage this little section of Back Bay could be pretty special.

bpda.app.box.com

2023-05-23_Supplemental Filing_Stanhope Hotel.pdf | Powered by Box

bpda.app.box.com bpda.app.box.com
 
DwnTwnr said:
The Clarendon exists because of upzoning this area, which also allows the Raffles project and this one.
Click to expand...

Which is why, even though what they really care about is other buildings' heights and their views, they have to make up fake reasons why they are outraged when they submit their public comments.
 
New project npc. Gained a floor while staying the same height.

IMG_9710.jpeg


https://bpda.app.box.com/s/vjzlhodhyt36e2y9pvrmwepuafticshp
 
Why does a project like this get BPDA approval then immediately do a NPC? Seems like it would only add to financing cost + other complexities.
 
curcuas said:
Why does a project like this get BPDA approval then immediately do a NPC? Seems like it would only add to financing cost + other complexities.
Click to expand...

Things can get changed around in practically a hartbeat. :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top