The Marc (former Our Lady of Victories Church) | 25-29 Isabella Street | Bay Villiage

As of 9/29.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_6727.JPG
    IMG_6727.JPG
    7.9 MB · Views: 79
  • IMG_6732.JPG
    IMG_6732.JPG
    7.3 MB · Views: 77
  • IMG_6734.JPG
    IMG_6734.JPG
    5.7 MB · Views: 71
  • IMG_6736.JPG
    IMG_6736.JPG
    5.9 MB · Views: 77
  • IMG_6737.JPG
    IMG_6737.JPG
    6.2 MB · Views: 68
  • IMG_6726.jpg
    IMG_6726.jpg
    7.3 MB · Views: 81
  • IMG_6729.jpg
    IMG_6729.jpg
    8.5 MB · Views: 85
I know it's been discussed before, but I would love to see something replace that parking lot in the first photo. It's so surprising that amount of surface parking still exists in the central city.
 
Java King said:
I know it's been discussed before, but I would love to see something replace that parking lot in the first photo. It's so surprising that amount of surface parking still exists in the central city.
Click to expand...
The two parking lot parcels (there are technically two lots there) are in the Bay Village Historic District. New construction is mandated to be limited in height to the adjacent parcels. The parcel to the south is a 2 story building. The parcel to the north is the Park Plaza Castle, nominally 3 stories. So you could probably sell a 3 story building on the site that looks like row houses. That is going to be hard to pull off financially.
 
JeffDowntown said:
The two parking lot parcels (there are technically two lots there) are in the Bay Village Historic District. New construction is mandated to be limited in height to the adjacent parcels. The parcel to the south is a 2 story building. The parcel to the north is the Park Plaza Castle, nominally 3 stories. So you could probably sell a 3 story building on the site that looks like row houses. That is going to be hard to pull off financially.
Click to expand...
Great job, Boston, on (another) historically protected parking lot.
 
JeffDowntown said:
The two parking lot parcels (there are technically two lots there) are in the Bay Village Historic District. New construction is mandated to be limited in height to the adjacent parcels. The parcel to the south is a 2 story building. The parcel to the north is the Park Plaza Castle, nominally 3 stories. So you could probably sell a 3 story building on the site that looks like row houses. That is going to be hard to pull off financially.
Click to expand...

212 Stuart is also in the district.

That project made it clear as to how worthless the districts actually are in preserving the character of the city's historic neighborhoods. If someone wants to build another 20 stories on those lots, it's not impossible.
 
mssrro said:
212 Stuart is also in the district.

That project made it clear as to how worthless the districts actually are in preserving the character of the city's historic neighborhoods. If someone wants to build another 20 stories on those lots, it's not impossible.
Click to expand...
Good point. And the building 212 replaced was allowed to decay to the point that demolition was needed -- also supposedly prohibited in historic districts.
 
HenryAlan said:
It's shorter on the parking lot side:
View attachment 59253
Click to expand...
Yes, but the apex of that roofline is almost (within a couple of feet) level with the roof of 162 Columbus, which is a five story building. We could also look directly across the street at 108 Arlington which also sits at 5 stories.

I would think (hope) that the proverbially floor on minimal height could start there at least? Note that this lot is just shy of .5 acres by my calculations; I would think a decent amount of units could be built on the four floorplates sitting above ground level with this site.
 
cburns said:
I would think (hope) that the proverbially floor on minimal height could start there at least? Note that this lot is just shy of .5 acres by my calculations; I would think a decent amount of units could be built on the four floorplates sitting above ground level with this site.
Click to expand...
This discussion and a similar one about Chinatown's parking lots has made me wonder what the tipping point is for investing in a building vs sticking with the existing income stream generated by parking. In other words, at what point does restrictive zoning leave parking lots as the best economic use for the land?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top