The Bon | 1260 Boylston Street | Fenway

[Equilibria]

https://www.bostonglobe.com/busines...-for-boston/oEEKOgKdM8Emg1jufBpvYN/story.html

It would seem they've retained Gensler to design this.

 

[JumboBuc]

Re: Scape Student Housing | 1260-1270 Boylston Street | Fenway

Also, it appears that these would be the tallest buildings on Boylston past the Pierce - slightly taller than the Vermillion and the Harlo.

This project is clearly shorter than the Viridian next door (per the render).

Hopefully Machine and Jyuba can find new homes nearby. Also, never change, Baseball Tavern.

 

[Equilibria]

Re: Scape Student Housing | 1260-1270 Boylston Street | Fenway

This project is clearly shorter than the Viridian next door (per the render).

Also, never change, Baseball Tavern.

You're right. I confused the Veridian with the new buildings.

Also, never change, Sunoco Station.

 

[Lrfox]

Re: Scape Student Housing | 1260-1270 Boylston Street | Fenway

I know it's not the sexiest building in the world, but I like the facade (they don't make them like this anymore) and it would be nice if they could restore/retain it.

 

[FK4]

Re: Scape Student Housing | 1260-1270 Boylston Street | Fenway

Totally. I love those little old tax payer buildings. Brookline has tons of them.

 

[odurandina]

Re: Scape Student Housing | 1260-1270 Boylston Street | Fenway

It's missing the top 15 stories. it just has the lower 15 stories left on. What gives? Vancouver-height planning is needed here.

Highrise planning supports land conservation, jobs & progress. i believe Boston can begin to copy the Manhattan/Orange/Weschester Co model; w/ less trees being cut down a few miles from the core.

Yes friends; Bulls in Manhattan and Bears in Port Jervis i always say.....

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/sc...-study-says/WvO0n6It9QVOYfKwgRCl8I/story.html

 

[Equilibria]

Re: Scape Student Housing | 1260-1270 Boylston Street | Fenway

LOI:

http://www.bostonplans.org/document...gs/1252-1268-boylston-street-letter-of-intent

Note that the address is actually 1252-1268 Boylston.

 

[stefal]

Re: Scape Student Housing | 1260-1270 Boylston Street | Fenway

It's missing the top 15 stories. it just has the lower 15 stories left on. What gives? Vancouver-height planning is needed here.

Highrise planning supports land conservation, jobs & progress. i believe Boston can begin to copy the Manhattan/Orange/Weschester Co model; w/ less trees being cut down a few miles from the core.

Yes friends; Bulls in Manhattan and Bears in Port Jervis i always say.....

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/sc...-study-says/WvO0n6It9QVOYfKwgRCl8I/story.html

An additional 15 stories on this with the Fens a stone's throw away on one side and a line of buildings that would be 15 stories shorter than this on the other, while backing a 5 story brick masonry apartment building, across the street from a low-rise section of storefronts and restaurants, and across the intersection from another set of 6 story apartment buildings....

See: Context

While I don't agree an additional 15 stories works here, we do need to break that stretch's roof-lines up a little. Perhaps by taking a little bit of massing from the middle section and maybe the furthest east section of the building and adding it to the section closer to the Veridian. This massing would create a "valley" of sorts, or steps, depending on which massing you go with, within the development and bring the scale down from the high-rise section of Boylston down to the low-rises of Park Dr. and the Fens across Park Dr. As you approach from Bolyston from the East, it would allow one's eyes to follow up the buildings to a resolution at the top that follows down that stretch of Boylston, rather than a large 30 story tower standing in the midst of what, at street level/eye-level, appears to be a sea of 5-7 story buildings and trees.

 

[Suffolk 83]

As long as baseball tavern survives it's all good here

 

[odurandina]

re-posted w/ edits for all proper aB lashings.

While I don't agree an additional 15 stories works here, we do need to break that stretch's roof-lines up a little. Perhaps by taking a little bit of massing from the middle section and maybe the furthest east section of the building and adding it to the section closer to the Veridian. This massing would create a "valley" of sorts, or steps, depending on which massing you go with, within the development and bring the scale down from the high-rise section of Boylston down to the low-rises of Park Dr. and the Fens across Park Dr. ...

What if we leave Park Drive out of the discussion, and consider height for this block, and higher usage (despite the added risk of delays) solely on its merits.

Argue for 1000~1500 grad students who will get to their classroom offices and libraries using all available means.

Put another way; if the proposal was, say 29 stories like Stu Vi, i'm certain many of us would be saying, "Some bold planning here! Great to see more serious height being proposed along this section of Boylston Street. Nicely done."

Keep the club scene alive; start with a couple of floors of bars. But don't back away from a not-even-seismic shift. Just continue a natural progression not unlike what the City is doing now everywhere. The BPDA can say "what the heck." Surprise people (more) every now and then.

Consider what's happening in any case; The Huntington, Parcels 7, 12, 13 & 15... Kenmore Square and Fenway Ctr.... now add 36~38 stories at 45 Worthington St, with the other older squat towers in Mission Hill... Present day Longwood up the street. ...in that context, going tall is just progressing in the natural order toward an urban neighborhood possessing a variety of height.

30 stories here isn't off par with Copley Tower which began planning almost a decade ago. .....400~500 beds isn't transformative. It's not risk-taking, imaginative, or breakout project in any measurable way.

With the horizontal progression into Roxbury and JP happening, aren't we forced to consider more vertical planning here?

We got into a rut for 3 decades. While Boston sauntered along in its malaise, the population grew by like 110M people. Now, we're living the aftermath of a City that under-built for 30 years. Residents have to adjust to the Fenway acquiring a bit more 'big city' feel. There's nowhere else for planners to go but consider even more height.

If the usual suspects want to rail at City planners over 30 stories of student housing, fine. The BPDA can jump in a foxhole with the developer! No one's suggesting older residents relocate to the housing project going up in Readville. But it's an option; No need for these stodgy patrons to go to New Bedford, or a bedroom community off Rt 24.

Build a City. Accept modest collateral damage.

 

[shmessy]

Re: Scape Student Housing | 1260-1270 Boylston Street | Fenway

It's missing the top 15 stories. it just has the lower 15 stories left on. What gives? Vancouver-height planning is needed here.

Highrise planning supports land conservation, jobs & progress. i believe Boston can begin to copy the Manhattan/Orange/Weschester Co model; w/ less trees being cut down a few miles from the core.

Yes friends; Bulls in Manhattan and Bears in Port Jervis i always say.....

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/sc...-study-says/WvO0n6It9QVOYfKwgRCl8I/story.html

T-R-A-N-S-P-O-R-T-A-T-I-O-N.

You and your Lego sets are missing the point.

Without the Blue-Red Connection and the NSRL (along with much more, eventually outlawing non-automated vehicles and replacing with a system of podcars within the city limits - thereby eliminating parking spaces and garages - freeing up much MORE space for 150 story towers). You and your pancake stacking of checkers is laughably shortsighted.

People have got to populate those tall buildings. If they can't get there, those buildings won't get constructed in the future. THINK.

Play chess, O. Get the transportation down and then build 2,000 foot towers to your heart's content. Currently, you are aiming too low because you are playing checkers.



.

 

[Justin7]

Re: Scape Student Housing | 1260-1270 Boylston Street | Fenway

T-R-A-N-S-P-O-R-T-A-T-I-O-N.

You and your Lego sets are missing the point.

Without the Blue-Red Connection and the NSRL (along with much more, eventually outlawing non-automated vehicles and replacing with a system of podcars within the city limits - thereby eliminating parking spaces and garages - freeing up much MORE space for 150 story towers). You and your pancake stacking of checkers is laughably shortsighted.

Play chess, O. Get the transportation down and then build 2,000 foot towers to your hearts content. Currently, you are aiming too low because you are playing checkers.



.

How did this rifleman post sneak through my block filter?

 

[shmessy]

Re: Scape Student Housing | 1260-1270 Boylston Street | Fenway

How did this rifleman post sneak through my block filter?

Wrong.

If you actually comprehended the post, you would realize it is very ambitious. We need to raise taxes/revenue to pay for the infrastructure! Rifleman strikes me as being completely opposed to that type of thinking (please correct me if I'm wrong).

Boston/Cambridge is on the precipice of an unprecedented urban revolution, given its biotech/university situation. History will look back and judge whether it missed its opportunity or grasped it.

We can be a General still fighting World War I and build 40 story buildings in the Fens without accompanying arteries or we can be a futuristic General build the necessary infrastructure expanding all limits.

Boston/Cambridge has the best people/universities/minds - - the only thing holding it back is infrastructure - - that is the only reason why Amazon will choose a different HQ2 city.

To the point of this thread, for right now, Scape's building height works fine. Change the game board and you can play with larger pieces. .....and PLEASE keep those bottom two stories of that building facade intact in the new building!!!!!



.

 

[cadetcarl]

lol at the idea that fully autonomous cars are anywhere close, or a reasonable solution for cities.

I'm all for transportation improvements if they're mass transit. I'd put decent money if I had any on the autonomy play being a huge waste of time and never being fully realized. But even if they do, cars are still cars. Electric cars are still cars. Cars without drivers are still cars. If they're not parked they're taking up space somewhere.

 

[shmessy]

lol at the idea that fully autonomous cars are anywhere close, or a reasonable solution for cities.

I'm all for transportation improvements if they're mass transit. I'd put decent money if I had any on the autonomy play being a huge waste of time and never being fully realized. But even if they do, cars are still cars. Electric cars are still cars. Cars without drivers are still cars. If they're not parked they're taking up space somewhere.

Stacked in depots around Route 128. What's so hard to comprehend?

The earth isn't flat, Carl. It's going to happen and the only question is when. Probably not in suburbs or rural areas, but most definitely in urban cores - - and it will be a huge boon for cities - saving travel times, eliminating traffic jams, freeing sides of streets from parked cars and eliminating parking garages thus opening up more room for towers, etc.

If your "reasonable solution" for cities is more drivers (2% of whom are idiots causing jams for the other 98%) and garages, then party on.......But here's a little secret: Money Makes the World Go 'Round.

The technology will continue to improve and the economics will dictate the motivation.

 

[cadetcarl]

I'm not a luddite, I just do not accept the premises that (a) the technology will continue to improve [to the point of outmoding human drivers] and (b) that this is a solution especially for cities.

Even if I accepted (a), it would be in the exact opposite of the places you propose: put them on freight vehicles on long predictable stretches of rural highway and not in cities, where failure to identify pedestrians and cyclists could result in death. But I don't.

And as for (b), we've already seen credible reports that ridesharing is already adding to and not mitigating congestion. Autonomy would put more cars on the road, not fewer. Maybe the routing would be more efficient, maybe you get to look at your phone the whole time, but I reject this any sort of solution for cities. Qui bono?

There's nothing I'm not understanding; I just do not agree with you.

 

[JumboBuc]

I'm not a luddite, I just do not accept the premises that (a) the technology will continue to improve [to the point of outmoding human drivers] and (b) that this is a solution especially for cities.

Even if I accepted (a), it would be in the exact opposite of the places you propose: put them on freight vehicles on long predictable stretches of rural highway and not in cities, where failure to identify pedestrians and cyclists could result in death. But I don't.

And as for (b), we've already seen credible reports that ridesharing is already adding to and not mitigating congestion. Autonomy would put more cars on the road, not fewer. Maybe the routing would be more efficient, maybe you get to look at your phone the whole time, but I reject this any sort of solution for cities. Qui bono?

There's nothing I'm not understanding; I just do not agree with you.

^ This.

Autonomous vehicles will work best and be of greatest benefit where density is lowest, not where it is highest.

The primary factor limiting the efficiency of rural vehicular travel is the requirement to have a living breathing driver. The primary factor limiting the efficiency of urban vehicular travel is the space that all those moving vehicles take up.

Autonomous vehicle technology will likely in the next decade or so be sophisticated enough to eliminate the driver requirement for rural travel. This will lead to great efficiency gains on those routes. But autonomous tech does absolutely nothing to address the spacial requirements of the vehicles themselves. If anything, removing the driver from the equation would make spacial concerns even more significant. And these spacial concerns are the limiting factor in urban transportation.

Things like subways aren't efficient in cities because they allow hundreds of people to be driven by one driver; they're efficient because they allow hundred of people to all fit into a small space. Autonomous vehicles would move in the other direction, pushing urban travelers to take up more space, not less space.

 

[shmessy]

Even if I accepted (a), it would be in the exact opposite of the places you propose: put them on freight vehicles on long predictable stretches of rural highway and not in cities, where failure to identify pedestrians and cyclists could result in death. But I don't.

.

The very LAST place where it will be adopted is rural areas.

#1 - The Importance of Reading an Audience - folks in rural areas aren't going to give up the freedom to move where and when and how fast they want to (along with alot of other physical and spiritual freedoms, etc. My Car, My Gun, My God). Urban dwellers are the only ones who will accept this.

#2 - the major benefit is conserving space - - that's a big deal in cities, not a big deal in rural areas.

#3 - freeing up real estate on a road outside of Holyoke is not going to make possible a 50 story tower. Doing so in Boston will.

Two universal truths that have been proven constantly over the past several hundred years: Money makes the world go round and technology sharpens over time. Fossil fuels will be replaced by renewables and autonomous vehicles will replace human-driven in cities - the only variable is the human/political one - as to "how soon".

 

[shmessy]

^ This.

Autonomous vehicles will work best and be of greatest benefit where density is lowest, not where it is highest.

The primary factor limiting the efficiency of rural vehicular travel is the requirement to have a living breathing driver. The primary factor limiting the efficiency of urban vehicular travel is the space that all those moving vehicles take up.

Autonomous vehicle technology will likely in the next decade or so be sophisticated enough to eliminate the driver requirement for rural travel. This will lead to great efficiency gains on those routes. But autonomous tech does absolutely nothing to address the spacial requirements of the vehicles themselves. If anything, removing the driver from the equation would make spacial concerns even more significant. And these spacial concerns are the limiting factor in urban transportation.......

.

Ahem. If you think rural residents will give up their own driving without a very bloody armed insurrection, then you've never lived in a rural area.

Autonomous vehicles are a non-starter in rural areas.

The only population willing to adapt to it are urban dwellers - - and they will flock to it to save on garaging costs, maintenance costs, the "joy" of driving city streets, or being at the mercy of a taxi/uber/lyft driver they've never met, etc. They will order up their pods via their smartphones and have monthly subscriptions tied to miles used and trips - they will pay and track their usage through their phone apps. It's going to happen. The only obstacle is political/corporate at this point.


To your second point, I was not talking about eliminating subways/busses/mass transit at all. You are right on, in that they are the most efficient space savers. Autonomous pods are not to replace THAT. It is only to replace the individual drivered car/truck that has to be PARKED and that experiences far more accidents per million miles comparatively ALREADY in the technological infancy of the autonomous technology.

***My sincere apologies for digressing off of the Scape building thread topic. I love the idea of Scape and hope they build many many more forward thinking dorms around Boston and other cities - - it is another idea that will revolutionize urban life in the next decades. We live in an exciting time.

.
.

 

[JumboBuc]

The very LAST place where it will be adopted is rural areas.

#1 - The Importance of Reading an Audience - folks in rural areas aren't going to give up the freedom to move where and when and how fast they want to (along with alot of other physical and spiritual freedoms, etc. My Car, My Gun, My God). Urban dwellers are the only ones who will accept this.

#2 - the major benefit is conserving space - - that's a big deal in cities, not a big deal in rural areas.

#3 - freeing up real estate on a road outside of Holyoke is not going to make possible a 50 story tower. Doing so in Boston will.

Two universal truths that have been proven constantly over the past several hundred years: Money makes the world go round and technology sharpens over time. Fossil fuels will be replaced by renewables and autonomous vehicles will replace human-driven in cities - the only variable is the human/political one - as to "how soon".

Your argument is stereotypes about Gods and Guns? Okay...

The vehicles of private citizens will be the last to be automated. First will be long distance and fleet vehicles (think long haul trucking, which is an enormous industry where labor is extremely tight). This isn't about John Doe living in the heartland giving up his truck, it's about Doe Conglomerates Incorporated automating their fleet of trucks that has to criss-cross the heartland in order to get their goods to market where the people live (i.e., the cities).

And just as it's harder and less pleasant for a person to drive in the city than in the country, it'll also be harder for a machine to drive in the city. Current technology is very close to being able to drive a truck on Interstates across the country; it's very far from being able to navigate hectic city streets.

But yeah... I can't wait for the PNF on this Scape project.