archBOSTON ARCHIVE

Mike · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 402

South Station developer rejected by panel
By Scott Van Voorhis
Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - Updated: 03:42 AM EST

A grand scheme for a giant development on the city's southern gateway - including plans for the Hub's tallest tower near South Station - has hit a stumbling block.

Members of a key community panel reviewing the South Bay project are urging a rethinking of the developer tentatively selected to execute this grand vision.

In a recent letter to the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, the South Bay Planning Study Task Force lays out a litany of concerns about the Boston Residential Group's plans, including a lack of a major office component in a development vision that was originally supposed to include a skyscraper.

``We find both the approach and design unacceptable,'' states the community panel it its letter.

As overseer of the Big Dig, the Turnpike is looking to cut a lucrative development deal for a broad swath of land and buildings off Kneeland Street near South Station. Turnpike officials are marketing the acreage, which includes the Big Dig's headquarters, as the giant highway project winds down.

The panel's letter comes a few months after the Turnpike tentatively selected Boston Residential. The company was the only one to bid for the site.

But Curtis Kemeny, chief executive of Boston Residential, said in a statement his firm is still hopeful of winning the coveted designation. Such a step would allow the firm to begin work on a plan that ``brings to life many of the concepts developed by the task force'' while also being ``economically viable.''

Task force members, however, say development guidelines should be fully hashed out before the property is put back on the market. With a better understanding of what exactly can be built on the downtown land, more developers will show interest.

Link

briv · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 118

More great reporting by Scott Van Voorhis.

What is the South Bay Planning Study Task Force? Who are these people? What do they find unacceptable about the approach and design? What are their motivations? This article is a waste of time.

DarkFenX · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 1111

I am sorry to say the next few words but. What the f**k. Omg you are f***ing joking me right? This is probably the best proposal and the most environmental friendly project that had freaking came by Boston. We should just march up to city hall and demand that they should rethink this. In fact we should create a website or a poll to see how many people think that Boston needs towers such as this to grow. We should let people who want Boston to grow voice their opinions and not those damn Nimbys. I still don't understand how people of Boston would actually reject this. Don't they want the housing problem to be solved. Lack of commercial space? O come on. That is just a stupid excuse. Boston has too much office space. How stupid can some be. They probably got confused with residential and office. Man I hope they decide not to because if they do, I dont see Boston improving for the next 2-3 decades. This is a load of s***

ItsConanOBrien · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 460

Gravedigger4444 · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 62

Perhaps a stall tactic to hope for more proposals from others

Ron Newman · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 1007

This article is too poorly written for us to jump to any conclusions whatsoever. Let's wait for the next article (hopefully by someone else).

Poolio · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 193

No, the article doesn't really say what about the proposal is being objected to. The only concrete thing mentioned is the lack of office space, which, as other have already pointed out, is a bit odd. However, there is no mention of density or height being an issue. It's possible that with increased commercial space comes greater height since floor-ceiling heights are generally greater in that case.

JohnnySic · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 72

I have a sinking feeling that this "task force", whomever they are, has an agenda against height and nothing else.

DarkFenX · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 1111

There is a new diagram of Gateway Center on SSP made by Vaidas.

http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?

Is this how Gateway Center supposed to look? Cuz if it is, then it looks really modern and such. However, I think this tower would be too cool to be allowed to be built in Boston.

BostonFaker · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 703

I don't think so...looks like nothing I have seen.

budman3 · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 58

Where is this? I cant find the diagram

DarkFenX · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 1111

The links not working so just search for Boston in the diagram at Skyscraperpage.com

bosma · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 148

The office vacancy Boston is getting much better and will always be in the top 5 in US. However you would think a group of residents would want more residential units because the more units equals lower rent, right?

As stated above, only getting one bid proves how horrible the development proccess is in Boston.

Since the Turnpike is owned by a government type agency would all the City of Boston zoning rules apply to development over the Pike?

steve6790 · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 19

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/images/Content/BostonMagazine/BIG_THING/Margulies.jpg

statler · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 825

DarkFenX · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 1111

Eww that's the design? I like the one they drew up on SSP. Is it just me or does that rendering show two towers that are going to be 800ft? Really hope this get built and built fast.

steve6790 · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 19

south bay planning study

http://www.ci.boston.ma.us/bra/pdf/publications//SouthBayReport.pdf

BostonFaker · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 703

That whole area is going to be developed? Thank god!

TheBostonian · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 617

It seems as big a deal as Fan Pier, if not bigger.

DarkFenX · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 1111

M. Brown · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 260

I bet its the height thats causing some problems.

user_142 · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 36

In the proposal, I didn't see any indication of what the height(s) of the twin buildings were. I am guessing maybe 500-550 feet.

Does anyone know for sure?

BlinkieOB · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 103

Just out of curiosity, what are some of the arguments people would make against height in this specific location. Doesn't seem like it could possibly make much of a negative impact on many people.

statler · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 825

DarkFenX · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 1111

M. Brown · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 260

DarkFenX · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 1111

Gateway Center according to what I read about it, has about 30% affordable housing out of 1500 so about almost a third or about 500 units which is more than any residential project going on. If this project does not get approved, I will have totally lost hope of the BRA and Boston. What project have you heard in Boston where they develope a whole new neighborhood with a bunch of parks, not to mention modern and cool designs for the parks? When had Boston experience a project where the developers are making sure that the residents of their project will have a T connection ( they even considering a possible shuttle route to South Station)? When had Boston develope a project where they make a shopping area so that it is convenient for the residents (Besides Prudential)? When was the last time this much housing can be made in a city where because of the high demand for housing, has caused the cost of housing to rise so much that people are starting to leave the city? All I see are benefits. If they don't build this, Boston will dwindle and never be at its prominent state where it boasted 800,000 people.

budman3 · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 58

Off topic, because I totally agree with you DarkFenX, but your argument on population which comes up a lot is kind of redundant. Boston proper is land wise one of the smallest (if not the smallest, San Fran might be smaller) major cities in the country, but packs in more people than many cities with much more land mass. New Orleans' land area is almost 3-4X that of Bostons but has a smaller population. In the equivalent land area of lets say New Orleans, or Houston, or Atlanta, maybe even Philly (I'm not sure what their boundaries are) Bostons population would be in the millions and much greater. Its metro areas is one of the top in the country population-wise (maybe top 5, I could be wrong) but Boston propers population is around top 20. If you go by technicalities your numbers add up but what people think of as Boston (including Cambridge and other significant cities in the metro area) is the worldly metro area we have, and not just this barely major city you sometimes see.

But I still totally support Gateway Center, back on topic.

DarkFenX · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 1111

Well San Francisco is smaller in size yet it more populated than Boston. Sorry off topic so I'll stop here.

BostonFaker · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 703

BostonFaker · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 703

One thing I love about Boston when I view it from Google satellite....

all the baseball diamonds I see in parks all over the place, and even pretty much in downtown....

budman3 · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 58

I was more trying to say screw technicalities cus technically we aren't as big as we really are.

tmac9wr · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 22

Can somebody show this on a map from above so I can learn exactly where this is going to be?

Bowwest · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 616

DarkFenX · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 1111

Yea thats pretty much and New Herald Square would have been right around the corner.

Ron Newman · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 1007

I assume the former Wang building, most recently used as Big Dig headquarters, would be included (or demolished) in any development here. Though that new ramp to the bus terminal will surely complicate things.

DarkFenX · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 1111

The steam plant should also be included. You know what they should do, they should try to squeeze in the Harvard proposal with Gateway Center. Instead of having one 800ft tower with a bunch of shorter residence towers, they should build two+a bunch of 20-30 floor dormitories and maybe, if there are more room, a couple of mix used 40-50 floor towers.

Vanshnookenraggen · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 364

Ron Newman · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 1007

This is nowhere near any Harvard campus, so I don't see why they would build dormitories here. Also, the steam plant is important infrastructure serving many buildings throughout downtown and Back Bay; it can't and shouldn't be casually demolished.

DarkFenX · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 1111

DarkFenX · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 1111

A Longtime in Planning: South Bay Planning Study Area
May 19, 2006

by Adam Smith/Sampan Newspaper

Will it become a part of Chinatown, a gateway to the neighborhood, or a completely separate district of Boston? Those are questions on the minds of some Chinatown advocates who want to see that the neighborhood benefits from the development of the South Bay Planning Study area, a 10-acre plot of land that borders Chinatown and is bounded by Kneeland and Hudson Streets, the Massachusetts Turnpike I-90 mainline, and the I-93 northbound mainline. The site includes parcels now available for development as a result of the completion of the Big Dig project. The Massachusetts Turnpike Authority is reviewing a proposal submitted in 2004 by Boston Residential Group to develop the land with thousands of units of housing, a library annex, and supermarket.