The Hub on Causeway (née TD Garden Towers) | 80 Causeway Street | West End

[KentXie]

Speaking of High Line, I bet that if someone took the current Garden Office tower and proposed it on the High Line, everyone would think it's so original
and daring.

No, it wouldn't. It wouldn't be considered original or daring anywhere. The office tower is probably just a couple of steps above the brick tenements you see in NYC in terms of originality and boldness (slight exaggeration).

 

[Charlie_mta]

In my world, one that thinks ahead, we'd be looking at a masterplan to develop the former Spalding site, the jail, and the air rights over the North Station rail terminus, with front-end provisions for a four track incline to the NSRL. Let 'em build the Boston-scaled equivalent of the Hudson Yards here, as long as the developers pony up for the NSRL.

Chicago has a great master plan type development for a riverfront area, similar to what you're describing.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/lincoln-yards-north-branch-chicago-river-sterling-bay/

Vision!

 

[Beton Brut]

The parts of Chicago that most visitors see have great energy and panache. I've felt most at home in Wicker Park, North Halsted, and Wrigleyville, places of rich urban fabric and human scale. This looks more bold and more polished than anything we'll ever see around here.

 

[stefal]

In my world, one that thinks ahead, we'd be looking at a masterplan to develop the former Spalding site, the jail, and the air rights over the North Station rail terminus, with front-end provisions for a four track incline to the NSRL. Let 'em build the Boston-scaled equivalent of the Hudson Yards here, as long as the developers pony up for the NSRL.

Can you do that with the west end and north end sitting right there? The Hub on the Causeway wanted to shoot big, but neighborhood groups cut the height, and Boston Properties had to pay the price with a cheaper, less bold and more bland design. What would be different here? Slightly further away from both?

 

[FitchburgLine]

Why bother with a master plan? If you correctly guess the highest use, the plan has no effect vs letting the developer propose. If you incorrectly assign the zone, the developer sits on it for years doing nothing. What does a master plan get you for a single lot beyond height limits and existing design review, which we already have?

 

[Charlie_mta]

Why bother with a master plan?

Pretty good size area at North Station outlined here in red, parts of which have been recently redeveloped. I'd say the remainder of this would benefit from a master plan addressing rail expansion, architectural cohesiveness, air rights development over railways and roads, pedestrian/bicycle access and open space.

 

[Beton Brut]

Can you do that with the west end and north end sitting right there?

I believe you'd have a pretty good shot here because the bulk of the site is:

further away from both(.)

Development takes place in a politically charged arena. Successful political gambits (circa 2018) must be inclusive. That's my pragmatic, jaded, realist take. But my optimistic side believes that great things can happen when designers, planners, developers, and public officials actually listen to each other. And listen to understand, not to simply respond.

What does a master plan get you for a single lot beyond height limits and existing design review, which we already have?

The geotechnical requirements and the site's proximity to the Charles River Estuary would require some vision and some political will. Make a place out of a frayed edge. I'd call Tony Di Mambro and Ken Yeang.

 

[FitchburgLine]

Pretty good size area at North Station outlined here in red, parts of which have been recently redeveloped. I'd say the remainder of this would benefit from a master plan addressing rail expansion, architectural cohesiveness, air rights development over railways and roads, pedestrian/bicycle access and open space.

Rail expansion (tracks 11/12) is starting within 5 years and is entirely the purview of the T, no other entities will get input. The North Bank bridge is already happening and will only need to coordinate with the T, not private devs. Lol at air rights pencilling at North Station when a much more desirable location at South Station has stayed empty for years. That leaves developing the parking lots (a really good idea!), but you can do that through large project review.

EDIT: However, BTD narrowing the speedway that is Nashua St would go a long way towards making future development more pedestrian friendly.

 

[tangent]

Rail expansion (tracks 11/12) is starting within 5 years and is entirely the purview of the T, no other entities will get input. The North Bank bridge is already happening and will only need to coordinate with the T, not private devs. Lol at air rights pencilling at North Station when a much more desirable location at South Station has stayed empty for years. That leaves developing the parking lots (a really good idea!), but you can do that through large project review.

EDIT: However, BTD narrowing the speedway that is Nashua St would go a long way towards making future development more pedestrian friendly.

Yes, the parking lot behind the old Spaulding appears to be prime candidate for redevelopment with least complexity with riverfront, highway and north station access all right there in the plus column. Everything else in that outline area seems spoken for or far too complicated to be practical.

Air rights over the platforms at North Station seems like a truly bad idea... I mean a really great idea, but it has not a chance of being economically or practically doable and it is hard to see how it would even create a desirable result unless you actually move North Station and the river crossing under ground as part of a NS Rail Link project, but the size of the development opportunity there would be far less valuable than the cost to do that unless it is just an incremental cost of the NS Rail project (which doesn't appear to be happening in anyone's lifetime). All those highway ramps and tunnels there also add to the complexity.

If you want to spend some master planning dollars then look north towards Sullivan Square and Bunker Hill CC or over to the West End for some retail/restaurant/bar infill and maybe some new towers.

 

[stick n move]

I agree wholeheartedly that this area could greatly benefit from major development in the North Station area. Theres already been so much improvement happening here that this is the next logical step. This area has been neglected for so long that its time. In a way its a good thing that it has taken so long because what we would have gotten before would not have been anything great, but in the last few years architecture has taken a shift to where now masterplans or large scale developments are coming out extreeeemely well and I have no doubt that they are now capable of delivering something world class. The new-found emphasis on public space, retail, transit connections means that this would be yet another urban masterpiece with massive benefit to the area. The same can be said for the Seaport, Im very happy its being built now because its going to be amazing vs if it was built in the 80s, 90s, early 2000s...etc. I wonder if anybody is allowed to be planning for this site now or if its not even on the table yet for planning.

 

[odurandina]

Great discussion. Your round table has us inching closer to the the site i believe most strongly supports a tall, outlandish, iconic design proposal.

 

[Czervik.Construction]

Oh, I agree the scale and heights of Hudson Yards is completely different, I was referring more to the high aspirations, ambitions and execution of the whole thing.

I definitely agree with your Time Warner Center comparison. It is one of my favorite complexes in NYC. It really changed the neighborhood and has become part of the community.

Agree, Hudson Yards on Causeway Street would be overkill. But a scaled down version of Time Warner Center would have worked just fine.

 

[Czervik.Construction]

One question I have for the conoscienti here, is what if Boston kept the elevated tracks and did a high line-styled park here. Would that have been a big value add or not so much, given the hemmed in nature of the tracks on Causeway?

 

[stick n move]

I think its better without personally. Im waiting for someone to build their own purpose built high line with an elevated concrete structure. Itd be cool here if they did this at the end of the greenway to extend it past the hub and around the west end then as a ped bridge across the charles. I saw another city that made a high line from an area that was elevated ground with tracks on top, with brick on both sides holding in the dirt, I thought it looked great.

 

[Beton Brut]

The Green Line viaduct between Science Park and Lechmere would make for an interesting urban viewing platform, but rerouting the Green Line might be a bit costly...

 

[Lrfox]

Skip reading if you're not into getting off-topic.

Speaking of re-purposing old infrastructure for recreational use... I'd love to see the dry dock in the Seaport turned into a park with the lower (below water level) area still intact, and the gate replaced with some sort of glass to turn it into an underwater viewing area. Deposit some old rubble and rock in front of the glass and you'd literally be able to watch a new reef/habitat grow.

 

[BronsonShore]

Skip reading if you're not into getting off-topic.

Speaking of re-purposing old infrastructure for recreational use... I'd love to see the dry dock in the Seaport turned into a park with the lower (below water level) area still intact, and the gate replaced with some sort of glass to turn it into an underwater viewing area. Deposit some old rubble and rock in front of the glass and you'd literally be able to watch a new reef/habitat grow.

You're not alone: https://www.bostonglobe.com/busines...-great-park/3v1qFRRuuIxhkLPLssMrNM/story.html

I really hope this happens. The Seaport deserves a real park somewhere and this would be a real stunner.

 

[TomOfBoston]

The parts of Chicago that most visitors see have great energy and panache. I've felt most at home in Wicker Park, North Halsted, and Wrigleyville, places of rich urban fabric and human scale. This looks more bold and more polished than anything we'll ever see around here.

Bold and polished are not in Boston's DNA. Our heritage is clunky and decrepit and I would not trade it for Chicago.

 

[Beton Brut]

I like Chicago, but it's far from perfect. My affection for it is connected to its heritage as an architectural laboratory. Like New York, its scale covers its warts and blemishes.

And I agree about Boston's "clunky and decrepit" heritage. We fetishize our history, except for instances of greed-induced dementia like the recent tear-down in my neighborhood, or the loss of the Gaiety Theatre and the Dainty Dot. I struggle with living in a place that not only fails to learn from its mistakes but also disdains learning from success elsewhere.

 

[KentXie]

You're not alone: https://www.bostonglobe.com/busines...-great-park/3v1qFRRuuIxhkLPLssMrNM/story.html

I really hope this happens. The Seaport deserves a real park somewhere and this would be a real stunner.

I hope they take a page from Chicago and put a Navy Pier there. A park is fine and dandy if all you want to do is sit. Something like a Ferris Wheel that can give a good vantage point of downtown would be an absolute win.