The Alcott (née Garden Garage Towers) | 35 Lomasney Way | West End

FYI, for those of you who were not old enough to remember, or were not members of ArchBos, it'll be NINE years on 8/24/19 that the first post on this thread announced plans for Equity Residential to build new apartments on the site where the Alcott is rising. I have to say that Equity faced the most intense, insane fight from residents and others, and the plans were changed from two buildings to one taller building, but Equity held out. NINE freaking years later, we finally have construction! Another example of how tough it can be to build in Boston.
 
Yea gotta give it to them they actually went back and got more height too... in the west end. This area of Boston needed a makeover as bad as anywhere and theyre getting it done.
 
They may have gotten a taller tower but how much overall square footage was lost with the cancellation of the 2nd tower? And more open space was added to an already absurdly suburban place.
 
Thanks for pointing that out, Atlanta.

On top of all the usual hurdles, they also rode out a deep recession, too.

This opportunity is too good to give up on. With the Avalon doing well, all the North Station/Causeway stuff going on and the dearth of full service high rise apartment buildings in the city, this is still a slam dunk (no b-ball city pun intended).
 
atlantaden said:
FYI, for those of you who were not old enough to remember, or were not members of ArchBos, it'll be NINE years on 8/24/19 that the first post on this thread announced plans for Equity Residential to build new apartments on the site where the Alcott is rising. I have to say that Equity faced the most intense, insane fight from residents and others, and the plans were changed from two buildings to one taller building, but Equity held out. NINE freaking years later, we finally have construction! Another example of how tough it can be to build in Boston.
Click to expand...

Good points. We've been on AB a similar length of time, and sometimes I'm shocked at how much time passes between the first rumors to the topping off. Every now and then I go back to page one of a thread just to see.
 
Lrfox said:
Good points. We've been on AB a similar length of time, and sometimes I'm shocked at how much time passes between the first rumors to the topping off. Every now and then I go back to page one of a thread just to see.
Click to expand...

Good points

The reason the Seaport has 'Normal City" turn around times is that with the exception of the FAA and some neighbors on the margins, there are minimal impediments which NIMBYS can throw in front of developers

So the developers propose something and normal development countdown can be switched on

  1. the BPDA huffs and puffs and fiddles and diddles for a few months
  2. and then someone is digging a hole and driving pilings
  3. Cranes arrive and perch
  4. Concrete and Steel rises
  5. The thing is topped
  6. the last of the facade is installed
  7. and 2 to 3 years after the original proposal-- the building opens
 
NIMBYs and impediments are everywhere, not just Boston.

If you look at my city, the UWS, UES, Greenwich Village, West Village and most of Tribeca have no tall buildings because of zoning and NIMBY mayhem. Lots of Brooklyn will never see anything over 10 stories.

I remember there was a huge legal battle over a Citi bike docking location on a street in the UES, in the really nice part in the East 60-70's and Park Ave. The NIMBY arguments being used were unbelievable. Oh, the horror, people on bicycles!

In the West Village, there are a lot of rules around the facades of the townhouses, etc. Heck, when a whole street had to be torn up to replace water pipes that was cobble stone, they had to replace the cobble. So, this crap goes on everywhere.
 
Czervik.Construction said:
NIMBYs and impediments are everywhere, not just Boston.

If you look at my city, the UWS, UES, Greenwich Village, West Village and most of Tribeca have no tall buildings because of zoning and NIMBY mayhem. Lots of Brooklyn will never see anything over 10 stories.

I remember there was a huge legal battle over a Citi bike docking location on a street in the UES, in the really nice part in the East 60-70's and Park Ave. The NIMBY arguments being used were unbelievable. Oh, the horror, people on bicycles!

In the West Village, there are a lot of rules around the facades of the townhouses, etc. Heck, when a whole street had to be torn up to replace water pipes that was cobble stone, they had to replace the cobble. So, this crap goes on everywhere.
Click to expand...

This. New York is just BIG enough, and has enough precedent, to easily build towers in certain neighborhoods. But Boston is so compact that NIMBY neighborhoods and areas (Public Garden, Back Bay residential, South End etc.) are close to our "tall zones". I don't think we need to wring our hands wondering "why is Boston so different?!" It's just that our NIMBY's are well-resourced and live close enough to Downtown and High Spine areas to make a strong stink.
 
George_Apley said:
This. New York is just BIG enough, and has enough precedent, to easily build towers in certain neighborhoods. But Boston is so compact that NIMBY neighborhoods and areas (Public Garden, Back Bay residential, South End etc.) are close to our "tall zones". I don't think we need to wring our hands wondering "why is Boston so different?!" It's just that our NIMBY's are well-resourced and live close enough to Downtown and High Spine areas to make a strong stink.
Click to expand...

No, more of the blame should be shifted to the proximity of Logan Airport. Look at the FAA map. The "tall zones" is restricted to an area SMALLER than the size of Logan Airport itself. Name a major city with that constraint aside from San Diego. It doesn't take NIMBYs much resource to petition against tall towers when there are essentially only 3 areas in the city where they are allowed.

If you want to remove the constraint to Boston's growth, both population-wise and economic-wise, then move the airport west of the city.
 
KentXie said:
No, more of the blame should be shifted to the proximity of Logan Airport. Look at the FAA map. The "tall zones" is restricted to an area SMALLER than the size of Logan Airport itself. Name a major city with that constraint aside from San Diego. It doesn't take NIMBYs much resource to petition against tall towers when there are essentially only 3 areas in the city where they are allowed.

If you want to remove the constraint to Boston's growth, both population-wise and economic-wise, then move the airport west of the city.
Click to expand...

You don't need supertalls for high density housing. And if anything, having logan so close is an economic advantage for the city (especially when we actually have red-blue).

And honestly, 9 years while really long doesn't seem that longer compared to a lot of other developments in the city--thats our housing issue.
 
KentXie said:
No, more of the blame should be shifted to the proximity of Logan Airport. Look at the FAA map. The "tall zones" is restricted to an area SMALLER than the size of Logan Airport itself. Name a major city with that constraint aside from San Diego. It doesn't take NIMBYs much resource to petition against tall towers when there are essentially only 3 areas in the city where they are allowed.

If you want to remove the constraint to Boston's growth, both population-wise and economic-wise, then move the airport west of the city.
Click to expand...

DAVE said:
You don't need supertalls for high density housing. And if anything, having logan so close is an economic advantage for the city (especially when we actually have red-blue).

And honestly, 9 years while really long doesn't seem that longer compared to a lot of other developments in the city--thats our housing issue.
Click to expand...

These two things together point to the real culprits here: the FAA (height) and zoning (height + density), with sides of NIMBYs and pandering officials.
 
DAVE said:
You don't need supertalls for high density housing. And if anything, having logan so close is an economic advantage for the city (especially when we actually have red-blue).

And honestly, 9 years while really long doesn't seem that longer compared to a lot of other developments in the city--thats our housing issue.
Click to expand...

Is it really an economic advantage when it's one of the only major city without a direct rail line to the airport? Honestly, in all my travels, I can get to downtown in the following cities with airports much further away just as fast as it takes me to get to downtown in Boston via the Silver Line: Seattle, Chicago, San Francisco, Toronto, Vancouver, and Hong Kong. The economic advantage of having an airport so close to downtown is overblown. The traffic that Logan Airport causes by redirecting all travelers north, south, and west of the city through downtown Boston itself limits the growth of the city.

Move the airport 12 miles west and stick a dedicated airport rail line to it and you get the same benefits without the constraints. You also free up land the size of downtown, north end, west end, and back bay combined for development by repurposing the land that Logan currently sits on.
 
Last edited:
Tall is not necessarily a requirement for dense.
Boston area - 48.5 sq. m, population - 680k
10 tallest (ft) - 790, 749, 742, 685, 614, 601, 600, 591, 590, 554

Barcelona area - 39 sq.m, population - 1.6m
10 tallest (ft) - 505, 505, 472, 381, 371, 367, 361, 361, 358, 358
 
Smartiro said:
Tall is not necessarily a requirement for dense.
Boston area - 48.5 sq. m, population - 680k
10 tallest (ft) - 790, 749, 742, 685, 614, 601, 600, 591, 590, 554

Barcelona area - 39 sq.m, population - 1.6m
10 tallest (ft) - 505, 505, 472, 381, 371, 367, 361, 361, 358, 358
Click to expand...

You would also have to raze the entire city of Boston and organize them into squares of 8 story residential blocks to get that population. No thanks.
 
Czervik.Construction said:
NIMBYs and impediments are everywhere, not just Boston.

If you look at my city, the UWS, UES, Greenwich Village, West Village and most of Tribeca have no tall buildings because of zoning and NIMBY mayhem. Lots of Brooklyn will never see anything over 10 stories.

I remember there was a huge legal battle over a Citi bike docking location on a street in the UES, in the really nice part in the East 60-70's and Park Ave. The NIMBY arguments being used were unbelievable. Oh, the horror, people on bicycles!

In the West Village, there are a lot of rules around the facades of the townhouses, etc. Heck, when a whole street had to be torn up to replace water pipes that was cobble stone, they had to replace the cobble. So, this crap goes on everywhere.
Click to expand...

^I don't believe the first paragraph is completely true. (but perhaps not pertaining to Brooklyn) I remember reading somewhere that most of the tall Manhattan towers are concentrated centrally due to varying soil/bedrock conditions in certain areas of the city. (this prohibits taller towers in some areas)
 
lapradetom said:
^I don't believe the first paragraph is completely true. (but perhaps not pertaining to Brooklyn) I remember reading somewhere that most of the tall Manhattan towers are concentrated centrally due to varying soil/bedrock conditions in certain areas of the city. (this prohibits taller towers in some areas)
Click to expand...

I had always heard that, too, but after a quick look around it seems like this may be more of a coincidence/myth.
 
Sounds as much geosoil eng myth. But what are we talking? 450' or 950'?

In any case, so much of the UWS is at least reasonably tall and dense,

not to mention quite enough of Manhattan!
 
That is partly true when thinking north/south below Central Park. For the most part, high rises stop below 40th street and don't pick up again until FiDi.

A lot of that has to do with soil, etc. However, there are 700 footers popping up in the NoMad area, so developers have found some pockets to build on.

The UWS has almost nothing in the 30+ floor variety. Lots of historic buildings, brownstones, etc plus a strong multi-generational neighborhood that is very NIMBY.

In the UES, there are some high rises, but they are on the outskirts, close to the East River. Most of the UES is a no-fly zone for tall buildings.

When looking at downtown, I lived in the West Village and there is no way anyone is building anything tall there or in Greenwich Village or Chelsea (unless it is West Chelsea near the High Line). Fierce opposition from neighborhood groups and zoning. It is NYC's version of the Back Bay / South End, etc.

If someone gets a 700+ footer like my building built in the West Village, I will eat my hat.

lapradetom said:
^I don't believe the first paragraph is completely true. (but perhaps not pertaining to Brooklyn) I remember reading somewhere that most of the tall Manhattan towers are concentrated centrally due to varying soil/bedrock conditions in certain areas of the city. (this prohibits taller towers in some areas)
Click to expand...
 
^this is a myth^

NYC downzoned everywhere between midtown and the FiDi effectively by the time of the 1961 zoning code (the village was in the late 50s) and historic preservation did the rest. There are older buildings on Madison Square and sprinkled throughout that are taller that slipped through in various ways.

The entire history is well documented
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top