Tishman Speyer Lab/Office | 232 A Street | Fort Point

Sheer glass wall facing the channel will be great for the occupants, really happy this building and Lilly are focusing their prime views on the water while enhancing or retaining the public waterfront. Down with the parking lots!
 
BCDC: https://bpda.app.box.com/s/xsapwi7rc38dgzs5q36kv7h120ezn44l

1706046586617.png

1706046638188.png

1706046679768.png
 
Someone's going to be left holding the bag on the lab market eventually, and it would be great to have more housing beyond the one building at Channelside, but if a resilient Fort Point Channel waterfront comes out of this and the future Gillette development it will be a big win for the area. Neighbors are going to hate it no matter what, but the worse option of two buildings and no public park is by-right, so this seems like a decent outcome.
 
So is the approval only for Building G8 on the site, with Building G7 to follow (or not)?

And did the entire site move from an originally planned 4 buildings to now just 2?
 
itchy said:
So is the approval only for Building G8 on the site, with Building G7 to follow (or not)?

And did the entire site move from an originally planned 4 buildings to now just 2?
Click to expand...


They consolidated two buildings zoned on G7 and G8 to one building, on the G8 site, and gave the G7 site back as part of the extended waterfront park for a bit more height on G8. It was only ever envisioned as two buildings max under the 100 Acre Plan. The sites towards the harbor are part of Channel Side, which is three buildings total with a large park (G4-G6). Screen shot below. the massing is a bit different from this render, but it's more or less accurate.

The trick is, the developer could've built the two buildings by right, which I think would have been net worse for everyone. They basically dangled that suboptimal outcome to advocate for a bit more space in G8 with the promise of a park and better waterfront access.

1716211558399.png
 
^^ Ah, thank you - that's helpful. It's a disappointing (d)evolution from the initial schematics presented, IMO...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top