Congress Street Garage Development

[tobyjug]

Toby, had I guessed your age, I would have thought 30-something. Be complimented that you have the typing-style of a younger man haha.

You are as young as the...never mind!

[statler]

Toby, had I guessed your age, I would have thought 30-something. Be complimented that you have the typing-style of a younger man haha.

Ya, but you have to remember....that's in dog years!

[tobyjug]

Toby fits as much into every year as he can!

http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh109/tobyjug_2008/L10709032-1.jpg

[ngb_anim8]

From reading all the posts, it sounds like people are wondering why they are only tearing down part of the garage, and why they are only focusing on the plans for the front parcel. Maybe I'm stating the obvious...my apologies if thats the case. But I believe they are planning a phased development plan so they can keep half of the garage open while they develop the first parcel, with the entire garage eventually being torn down. Perhaps that's why they are presenting only this part of the plan (front parcel) and holding back on the rest of the plans. The owner of the garage can continue to make money while development is going on next door. This will also quell some of the fears of people in the "neighborhood" who rely on this garage every day.

[underground]

The Haymarket Station was recently re-done so I think that more or less sets in stone what can be done about them. Personally, I think the part of the station that's under the garage works well; the bus lanes are simple pull-offs that lead straight down into the subway. I'm not sure how that layout could be improved, unless you could find a way to integrate is more with the other half of the station down near Hanover St., but that's another issue entirely.

[Chris]

There is an article in the recent Beacon Hill Times...

What are the biggest issues going forward? If you guess height and shadows on the greenway, you would be right!

Also, questions were asked about narrowing some streets (unspecified which), but the city said it wasn't possible. It seems despite not giving a dime to the big dig in a decade, the width of those streets is still mandated by the federal government.

[type001]

There is an article in the recent Beacon Hill Times...

What are the biggest issues going forward? If you guess height and shadows on the greenway, you would be right!


So let me get this straight... The central artery, which served an urban purpose, was dismantled in order for there to be a suburban nothing in the middle of downtown. OK fine, whatever. But now, we can't build anything because it might cast a shadow on said nothing? Ladies and gentlemen, I present you the Rose Kennedy Black Hole.

Seriously though, I would like to know how much free time Beacon Hill residents spend on the Greenway.

[pelhamhall]

It's just lazy reporting... all Boston reporters keep this template on file:

Headline:
(Name of city project) has residents concerned

Sub-headline:
Project will cast shadows on (beloved park/monument/museum/sidewalk along the water)

Body:
(Developer) proposal to build a soaring tower of X stories at the (site) has local residents concerned it could alter the character and historic nature of their neighborhoods. The property will soar above the (beloved park/monument/museum/sidewalk along the water), casting shadows and creating windy conditions.

If near the water, they fish out a quote such as: Vivien Li, unelected person representative of nobody in Greater Boston except her own special interests, said "NO NO NO NO!!! NO!!!! YOU CAN'T" and other reasonable things.

Alt. quote, if not near the water and you need a land-based perspective: Shirley Kressel, unelected person representative of nobody in Greater Boston except her own special interests, said "NO NO NO NO!!! NO!!!! YOU CAN'T" and other reasonable things.

The developer defended themselves (developer doesn't get first say in these articles, the angries always get first say, so the developers are always playing defense) "this project makes total sense because....."

And finally, a politician who could care less "Well, we share the concerns of both the activists and the developers, it's a complicated situation and we want to make sure that gas prices are low and the boys from Iraq come home safely"

---

And then nothing gets built except an ugly squat boxes like at Jacob Wirth's, One Charles, Fan Pier, Seaport Square, Park Lane, WTC, the ICA, the Mandarin Oriental, the whole Bulfinch Triangle: Avenir, The Merano, Greenway Place, etc.

I don't mean to pick on Ms. Li or Ms. Kressel, it's not an indictment against them at all, it's an indictment against reporters who give these far-out-there fringe activists a voice in the newspaper.

Inevitably, the lazy reporter just picks up the phone, calls one of them knowing he/she will be able to easily get the generic, anti-growth, anti-progress point of view without actually having to report on it.

It would be nice and refreshing to see an article that says "people interviewed on the streets in front of the site all largely support this project. The only people at the BRA meeting to speak out against it is the small handful of anti-growth suspects that attend every meeting to fight all progress in this city" and just leave it at that. Why quote them? It gives them a voice that they really haven't earned.

[Suffolk 83]

well put, I agree.

[ablarc]

pelhamhall, a brilliant and hilarious post; had me chortling all the way through. Too bad it's all true.

[InTheHood]

People on this board tend to way overestimate NIMBY power.

A couple of years ago, I was at a meeting where Beal and Related presented the Clarendon proposal. Several people in the neighborhood engaged the presenters on materials - why, exactly, did this need to be pseudo-brick, given that it is across from the glassy Hancock and stone Hancock? The architects smiled, and interestingly did not bother justifying this decision - instead, they responded that "they had been told" that brick would be received most warmly. It seems the BRA was filtering the feedback.

Developers unsurprisingly often come forward with dull (or worse) proposals simply because landscaper boxes are inexpensive to build and the numbers work. They also look at recently approved projects for guidance on the path of least resistance. There is definitely an annoying contingent of NIMBYs who are fixated on irrelevant or misguided fetishes, like height and distant shadows. But most neighborhoods have at least some people with an urban sense.

Since the BRA is our planning agency by default, it should be playing a positive role in managing streetscape, promoting good urbanism, and encouraging excellence and creativity in design. You can't fault the NIMBYs for screw-ups like Hotel Commonwealth or mail-in designs like One Charles and its fifty clones. Or Shreve. Or these Congress Street Garage proposals. Or the fact that the Seaport will all be precast megablocks. Vivian Li may have limited understanding of what makes urban greenspace work, and Shirley Kressel may be absurdly fixated on height and the supposed adverse consequences of "density," but I've never heard either of them say, "golly whiz, what we really need are ten more buildings that look like those Seaport hotels." Indeed, at the meetings it's often some lone voice from the neighborhoods - someone like a Ron Newman - who is asking the pointed questions along the lines of: "why is there a garage entrance on the main street?" "can't there be windows along the secondary facade?" "will this be stone or precast?" "what sort of retail spaces do you envision for the ground floor?" "can't you do something about the dead space at the corner?" "why so much parking?" "do you really need to tear down the XYZ building to square up the parcel?" And the BRA rep at the meeting will smile and nod and shuffle the dear soul aside so that someone else can speak.

What then emerges is a precast box, five percent shorter than the original proposal, with optimized loading docks and vehicular drop-offs, regular floorplans, and a hulking anonymous aesthetic, perhaps with a flower pot or two in response to the neighborhood ... One Charles and its fifty clones. Can't blame NIMBYs for that.

[tmac9wr]

pelhamhall, a brilliant and hilarious post; had me chortling all the way through. Too bad it's all true.

Yea it's pretty sad.

[TheBostonBoy]

Pelhamhall do you work for the Globe or Herald? ;)

[singbat]

I keep hoping to get projects that would rival the new beautiful projects of New York City or London...the longer I've been following Boston development (5 years now), the more my hope lowers but I'm still young enough to have that one feeble glimmer of hope for successful new development in Boston. It's hard to look at the beautiful old buildings in Boston, and then see the new "Luxury" developments that are layered in precast concrete.

next to the cream of the global crop we got nothing... but by the new developments vs. what we were doing in the 70s and 80s we're looking significantly better, imho.

that tower -- the taller one -- is fantastic, ablarc. it's new to me -- what and where?

[Beton Brut]

that tower -- the taller one -- is fantastic, ablarc. it's new to me -- what and where?

Jean Nouvel, at MoMA in NYC. Stellarfun posted this article (http://www.archboston.org/community/showpost.php?p=41093&postcount=1) a while back. I love it too. So much of Nouvel's work is a bit dry for me. This 1100" show-stopper is a shot across the bow of Zaha Hadid (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d1/Signaturetowersdubai.jpg), Coop Himmelb(l)au (http://www.artknowledgenews.com/files2007a/COOPHIMMELB.jpg), and and Herzog & De Meuron (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Beijing_Stadium_April_2008.jpg). Hope NYC's famous NIMBY's don't ruin it.

[ablarc]

^ Buncha European carpetbaggers.

[Beton Brut]

Kinda. But I don't see David Childs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Childs) doing anything as inventive as the Euros.

BMW Welt is a rip-off of this (http://bp0.blogger.com/_jxS2xptP8ZI/SCI0t4HRcbI/AAAAAAAABe8/36Olcgw7sx8/s1600-h/arango_08.JPG) classic Lautner design.

[castevens]

I don't care whose design is ripped off when building in Boston, as long as you don't copy this (http://www.biltongbox.com/shop/images/uploads/shipping-box-med.jpg) classic design . . . again.

[riffgo]

How right you are!

[ablarc]

We're just not cutting edge anymore.

[JeffDowntown]

I don't care whose design is ripped off when building in Boston, as long as you don't copy this (http://www.biltongbox.com/shop/images/uploads/shipping-box-med.jpg) classic design . . . again.

Wait, you mean that isn't the BRA Master Design Template???

I thought nothing could be built in Boston without at least homage to Da' Box.

[Lurker]

The formula is rather simple
Rectangle + Stripes = APPROVED

[Charlie_mta]

Yeah, concrete panel exterior walls of a uniform biege color are mandatory.

[ablarc]

But the root of the problem mostly is the increment of development --which is generally too big by a mile. Therefore building a stumpy box gets you the square footage you need to turn a profit.

BRA and developer are both happy because they can thus appease the NIMBYs.

Democracy in action.

[atlantaden]

But the root of the problem mostly is the increment of development --which is generally too big by a mile. Therefore building a stumpy box gets you the square footage you need to turn a profit.

BRA and developer are both happy because they can thus appease the NIMBYs.

Democracy in action.

Is it democracy or economics. Ablarc, you're an architect, you must know the economics of large building construction. I would guess that it's much more cost effective for a developer to build one large building than several buildings with the same square footage but with with smaller footprints. Exterior walls alone would eat up valuable, rentable, space.

[ablarc]

The square footage in a short fat box can be put in a tall, graceful spire that sits on a third of the land occupied by the box. It will cost you more, but you'll still have two thirds of your land to develop with two more tall, graceful spires. (Think Rockefeller Center.)

That's economics.





P.S. Developers will build according to any set of rules they're dealt. They're constrained as it is, but not by a set of rules most of us think leads to ideal urbanity.

[Lurker]

Desired floor-plates are 40-50k square feet for developers and lease holders for maximum profit/efficiency. Most modern office towers in Boston, with the Prudential being the exception, are in the ballpark of 20k square feet per floor-plate.

[ablarc]

^ I desire a Bentley, a different babe every night, and freedom from setbacks on my house lot. I also desire freedom from taxes and building codes. Finally, I desire that the bank give me all its money.

[tobyjug]

The formula is rather simple
Rectangle + Stripes = APPROVED

Ha. Sounds like One Financial Center (the skyscraper that escaped Hartford).

[InTheHood]

Much as I'd like to see development in smaller increments, ablarc, your economic shorthand is horsefeathers.

References to Manhattan and pictures of small/narrow buildings under construction in Manhattan are irrelevant. (Ditto Hong Kong, etc). Fat floorplates maximize the ratio of rentable space to systems and mechanicals. You only get thin and narrow when 1) all of the nearby land has been built up and 2) psf values are Manhattanesque ... unless there is a regulatory body forcing something different, in which case, developers will adapt as you suggest.

Walk around downtown Boston, and what do you see? Still lots of big empty lots (Hayward Place, Wirth, Kensington, Arlington St, many in the Bullfinch Triangle) and a bunch of big underutilized buildings that appear to be "inventoried" for future development. You could count the Congress Street garage as one of those (although it's better used than most).

So until more of Boston's "big space" inventory is depleted ... and that will take a couple of economic cycles at a minimum ... the best hope for smaller-scale development would be a planning/regulatory body that appreciates the wisdom of ablarc's guidance. Obviously that ain't the BRA. Indeed, because they have more power under "large project" review, and because there is more pull with bigger deals, they seem to loooove blocky elephants.

[ablarc]

Much as I'd like to see development in smaller increments, ablarc, your economic shorthand is horsefeathers.

Fat floorplates maximize the ratio of rentable space to systems and mechanicals. You only get thin and narrow when 1) all of the nearby land has been built up and 2) psf values are Manhattanesque ... unless there is a regulatory body forcing something different, in which case, developers will adapt as you suggest.

... the best hope for smaller-scale development would be a planning/regulatory body that appreciates the wisdom ... Obviously that ain't the BRA. Indeed, because they have more power under "large project" review, and because there is more pull with bigger deals, they seem to loooove blocky elephants.
Exactly correct. Regulatory changes are the best hope --though difficult to achieve for the reasons you give. Of course, if we on this board made as much noise as NIMBYs...

They listen to NIMBYs, don't they?




I'm not against regulation. I'm against misguided regulation.

[InTheHood]

Fair enough. One regulatory change that we've discussed before that would help a bunch would be to tax empty lots and underutilized buildings according to their commercial value. That would make land-banking less economic. Some developers spend years accumulating parcels for a big box, and they can do so because underutilized lots are taxed at a fraction of their true value. The tax bills on some of those empty lots are jaw-droppingly low.

The "InTheHood" tax rule would handle property taxation something like a thoroughbred claiming race ... under this rule, anyone could "claim" any property by paying a sum equal to three times the assessed value. (That is, the owner would be forced to sell at this amount ... or to accept a much higher assessment).

[atlrvr]

^ Interesting in concept, but wouldn't this encourage big block development, especially in delicate places like Chinatown. A developer could "claim" several adjoining properties to create a nice big square building footprint. The landlords likely can't afford the property tax increase, withouth raising rents to levels that force out the independent shop owners.

I think a slight variation would be to apply this rule to properties where the value of the improvements is less than 10% of the land value, which would make it relavent to suface lots, and other severly underutilized parcels.

[a630]

But if you're trying to remain economically competitive with suburbs, why would you try to discourage land-banking? Indeed, most American cities have been trying to facilitate it for decades through their redevelopment agencies.
Secondly, even if you do get a traditional sized lot, the development you're talking about only works if the developer can play with a series of give-and-takes, for example, if a developer can go high enough in the first place to cover the cost of the parcel, if a maximum parking requirement offsets the cost of going high on a small lot (and the developer still thinks they can sell say 2-bedroom units with 1 or less parking spaces), the rent psf offsets the construction cost of going higher. ie manhattan. etc.

[ablarc]

...why would you try to discourage land-banking?
To keep the city whole. Land-banking is urban amputation. Land-bank enough of the city and it will die. That is what has happened to all but about a dozen U.S. municipalities. A land-banked place like Charlotte doesn't function as a city. Boston still does, but with enough parking lots ...




(How much of you could I remove before you stopped functioning?)

[Ron Newman]

"Land-banking" is fine if it means that you become a small commercial or residential landlord while waiting for an opportunity to replace that building with something larger. It's not fine if you tear the building down and leave it vacant while waiting.

[statler]

I never understood the 'competing against suburbia' argument.

Boston shouldn't be competing against Norwood or Dedham.

It should be competing against San Fransisco, Philadelphia, Seattle, etc.

Suburbanizing Boston isn't going to draw in suburbanites but it will repel people who want to live in a city.

[ablarc]

It's not fine if you tear the building down and leave it vacant while waiting.
Or --just as bad-- put in a parking lot.

[Beton Brut]

"Land-banking" is fine if it means that you become a small commercial or residential landlord while waiting for an opportunity to replace that building with something larger.

Beg to differ on this one, Ron. The scenario you describe is exactly what Ron Druker is doing on Boylston Street. "Blight" on this block in manufactured. Same thing could be said about the Levin Family Trust and their stewardship of their properties in DTX.

[Ron Newman]

I said be a landlord. Emptying a building out and leaving it vacant to deteriorate isn't being a landlord.

[Beton Brut]

^^ Understood.

[a630]

You can also kill a city by not sustaining the economy. Where would NYC be without its aggressive disposition policies of the last 30 years? I'm not saying redevelopment authorities and other tools for land-banking are always in the right, especially for people who enjoy a particular aesthetic. But cities do need to compete, and you're right, not just with the suburbs, but with everywhere. Even if it is desirable on some levels, I just don't see discouraging land-banking as a reality in ANY city, anywhere. If you want to see little parcels getting developed at high densities, the answer is in other policies that reduce discretion, incentivize, etc.

[Ron Newman]

I don't see any way in which leaving buildings or lots vacant sustains the urban economy. That property could be paying rent, and taxes, and supporting a small business or three, while waiting for development.

[ablarc]

If you want to see little parcels getting developed at high densities, the answer is in other policies that reduce discretion, incentivize, etc.
I do, and I'm interested. Tell about them.

[a630]

from my post earlier today: allow the developer to play with a series of give-and-takes, for example, if a developer can go high enough in the first place to cover the cost of the parcel, if a maximum parking requirement offsets the cost of going high on a small lot (and the developer still thinks they can sell say 2-bedroom units with 1 or less parking spaces), the rent psf offsets the construction cost of going higher. ie manhattan. etc.
how to do this, some of these being more feasible than others:
reduce minimum parking requirements, establish maximum parking requirements, reduce minimum unit size, increase FAR in specific plan districts, reduce lot area required per unit, introduce residiential accessory services or mixed use where zoning is not cumulative, relax building codes for adaptive reuse projects, *re-evaluate building codes in general* ie ask if those hallways and fire lanes and stairways really need to be that large, reduce offsite improvement requirements, reduce open space requirements, reduce setbacks, and more!
basically, reduce costs.

[a630]

overturn ambler vs. euclid

[Lrfox]

The Other Block of Concrete
Tearing down the Government Center garage would transform the area - if the city didn?t stand in its own way.

By Tom Keane

When it comes to real estate development, Boston is a small-bore city. We like our change incremental, shying away from the big and splashy. And we have a process in place that ensures this - one that developer Ted Raymond calls "excruciating."

Perverse proof of this is the Apple Store in Back Bay, supposedly the most exciting new building to grace the city in years. Yeah, the building is all glass. But it is, after all, just a three-story retail space on a street jammed with three- and four-story retail spaces. Indeed, the Apple store is far less than it might have been. After being beaten up in the approval process, a once-innovative design became - glass excepted - something that looked an awful lot like everything else around it.

the rest here: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/articles/2008/08/10/the_other_block_of_concrete/

[Beton Brut]

^^ Good piece, good post.

Anyone think Keane has stopped by here?

[ablarc]

^ Send him an e-mail to find out.

[BarbaricManchurian]

The Apple store may be watered down, but it still looks stunning. I don't know how you can say it looks "an awful lot like everything else around it", except for the height. He's just exaggerating to bolster his argument, maybe he should have used the 100 other watered down projects that actually ended up looking crappy.

[vanshnookenraggen]

The process we have put in place to prevent mistakes like the Government Center garage is the same one that may well stop us from getting rid of it.

Well stated.

[type001]

A West End resident doesn't want buildings at all; just green space.

Someone get that man a a cyanide pill please.

[tmac9wr]

Someone get that man a a cyanide pill please.

Yea seriously...reading what "concerned citizens" thought about the project made me want to pull my hair out.

[JimboJones]

Tom Keane's article said it all, in under 700 words.

[underground]

A few weeks back Keane wrote the article in the Globe Magazine arguing that building tall is environmentally friendly. I hope he keeps it up with regards to these types of issues. It's nice to read something other than the usual uninformed, knee jerk, anti-everything stuff.

[tobyjug]

Here is a dissenting viewpoint. The Congress St. garage was an elegant design as originally conceived and built. The subsequent office penthouse addition is clumsy and makes today's result unbalanced and overbearing. The later paint job over the bare concrete added to the spoilation of the original.

I wouldn't have demolished one old building to make room for any of our brutalist buildings. That being said, they are here, and their antecedents are not. Congress St. Garage is one piece of a group that defined Boston in the late 60's and early 70's, and the destruction of such buildings someday will be regarded in the same light as the destruction of India Wharf.

There. I've said it. The anticipated sticks and stones will not break my bones!

[statler]

http://bp0.blogger.com/_oIY2gwKbQ4Q/R_snFZuuJEI/AAAAAAAAGHU/xLuaU3Ov_IQ/s400/sticks_and_stones.jpg

[Ron Newman]

I would find the garage barely tolerable if it did not turn Congress Street into a dismal tunnel, cutting the Bulfinch Triangle off from the rest of the city. That was unforgiveable, and we now have a chance to correct it.

[Tim Jackson]

Toby has got a point. We curse buildings such as the Congress St. garage and the City Hall, but thirty years from now, when they are all gone, we may miss them more than we think. I don't think that these buildings are given as much credit as they deserve for the role in Boston's architectural history.

Now, I still want to see the Congress St. garage gone and replaced with a vibrant mixed-use environment. However, the more and more I think about it, the more and more I would like to see the City Hall remain. An extensive renovation of the building and surrounding plaza would certainly be needed, but I think that that one structure should be kept. I used to be at the forefront of the people who wanted it torn down, but, when put into a historical context, I actually see some value in it now.

Off topic City Hall rant over.

[briv]

Let's not overthink this one, kids. The Congress St Garage is an abomination. It's probably the single most disruptive building to its surrounding fabric in all of Boston. And that's saying A LOT.

I think Toby just had too much to drink tonight.

[Ron Newman]

And the lesson that I hope the city learns from it: Buildings belong next to city streets, not on top of them.

[Lrfox]

Toby has got a point. We curse buildings such as the Congress St. garage and the City Hall, but thirty years from now, when they are all gone, we may miss them more than we think. I don't think that these buildings are given as much credit as they deserve for the role in Boston's architectural history.

Now, I still want to see the Congress St. garage gone and replaced with a vibrant mixed-use environment. However, the more and more I think about it, the more and more I would like to see the City Hall remain. An extensive renovation of the building and surrounding plaza would certainly be needed, but I think that that one structure should be kept. I used to be at the forefront of the people who wanted it torn down, but, when put into a historical context, I actually see some value in it now.

Off topic City Hall rant over.

I think City hall along with the plaza could be retro-fitted into a nice urban space (If the JFK building would open up it's ground floor as was intended, it would make the process easier. Neither building interacts with the pedestrian at all) while preserving the integrity of the architecture (and hopefully, cleaning it up a little). I do think getting rid of all of the brutalist gems is a bad idea and you're right, we would probably miss it.

That being said, the Congress St. Garage is not worth saving. and even if what replaces it is mediocre, cheap looking architecture, as long as it does it's job (interact on the street level with pedestrians and act as a link between two areas), I think everyone will be happy for the most part. It's junk.

That being said,

[Tim Jackson]

I totally agree with everybody's sentiments about the garage...the developer could not have planned that building worse. My suggestions lie solely with City Hall Plaza.

[Padre Mike]

IMO no garage is worth saving, except for something as classy as the MotorMart in Park Square. When Congress St. Garage was built, I liked it for it's repetition of form and it's filling of a huge gap of real estate in a time when everything around it seemed neglected, remote and unihabited. (I also remember when parking was $4.50 for the day!). I also dislike the added floors and they did to the proportions, etc.

But the greatest argument for ridding ourselves of this building is that its context has completely changed; there is new activity and excitement all round it, except, perhaps at the Kennedy Bldg., which remains a spiteful, aloof, and anti-social neighbor, jealous of its boundaries, even before security became so tight. The best way to influence that structure, as well as any left-over pieces surrounding the garage, it to redevelope the entire parcel.

That said, I did not particularly like any of the propsed schemes. I don't think pedestrian streets, indoor rooms, or other such gimmicks will succeed long-term. What we need is a sub-neighborhood of appropriately-scaled buildings and the restoration of streets to expose them to foot/auto traffic. Simple and clean, like the rest of the Bulfinch Triangle, but monumental enough as a visual bridge to the State St./Cambridge St. districts.

[Charlie_mta]

You make a good point that the context of the area today is different than when the Garage was originally built.

At that time, the garage's mass was intented, I think, to reduce the dominance of the Central Artery on the area, to have a structure taller and more massive next to the Central Artery, to reduce the Artery's scale. With the elevated Artery gone, the Garage now looms too large over the new open space and adjoining Bullfinch Triangle neighborhood.

[riffgo]

Too much or not enough?

[pelhamhall]

Why does the project's website say the next public meeting, regarding the skyscraper back parcels, is going to be held in "Sept. TBD" - we're running out of September. Has the development hit a snag or become stalled over something?

[statler]

Banker & Tradesman (http://enews.thewarrengroup.com/bt/Home/tabid/246/newsid971/1568/Neighbors-Dont-Want-Giant-Govt-Center-Garage-Project/Default.aspx) - October 23, 2008
Neighbors Don?t Want Giant Gov?t Center Garage Project

By Thomas Grillo
Banker & Tradesman Staff Writer

Boston?s West and North End residents are hoping redevelopment plans unveiled tonight for the site of the Government Center Garage do not include buildings taller than existing neighborhood towers.

Jane Forrestall, a West End resident and member of the Downtown North Association, a group of businesses, condominium associations and community organizations, said she has not been briefed on the specifics.

?The developer has promised shorter buildings closer to the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway and we support that, but we have no idea what they?re proposing for parcels closer to Government Center,? she said. ?I can tell you that if they propose something taller than the JFK Building that would upset the community.?

The John F. Kennedy Federal Office Building at City Hall Plaza stands 24 stories tall.

After a series of community meetings seeking neighborhood input, neighborhood residents will get details from the Raymond Property Co. on what?s planned for the 11-story facility adjacent to the Haymarket MBTA station.

Forrestall said the community has voiced support for an elementary school at the site as well as a mix of uses that offer street-level retail.

Robert O?Brien, president of the Downtown North Association, said no matter what is proposed tonight, it?s only a starting point for discussions.

?The community is very respectful of the fact that Raymond has come to the neighborhood for their ideas early on,? O?Brien said.

In the past, Stephen G. Kasnet, Raymond?s chief executive officer, has said the firm is considering replacing the garage?s 2,310 parking spaces with a mix of hotel, office, condominiums, apartments and retail.

Last year, Bulfinch Congress Holdings, a subsidiary of the Boston developer, paid $243 million for the garage. In addition to the parking spaces it includes 275,000 square feet of office space and several retailers.

Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 (Archive on Thursday, November 27, 2008)

[pelhamhall]

I hope it's a thousand feet tall at least, but you don't see me pretending to speak for "the community".

I don't know who went to the polls and elected Ms. Forrestall in charge of anything at all. What a rude and arrogant person. She speaks for herself, not the community.

[Bubbybu]

exciting...we get to see a new deisgn and proposal tommorow!!

Who is the architect? Is it known yet?

[Ron Newman]

Downtown North Association is mostly businesses rather than residents, I think.

[vanshnookenraggen]

24 stories? It always looked so much taller, but then it is on a hill and surrounded by open space. I don't think you really need anything taller than that here.

[pelhamhall]

These past few posts crystallized it for me:

The Government Center Garage stays for at least ten more years.

Sigh.

I love Boston, I do, but I wish we had some real leadership in this city.

[riffgo]

^ Really? When you consider the amount of square footage that is to be replaced, plus the cost of the property to begin with, isn't some element(s) going to have to be taller than 24 stories?

[nm88]

I think this location presents an opportunity for height, meaning more than 24 floors. A slender (!) tower going up 40 or 50 floors might work here. I would not favor a wide tower.

It might act as a boundary for Quincy Market/City Hall -- balancing the business district towers on the southern end.

[vanshnookenraggen]

You people are far to obsessed with height.

[atlrvr]

There is no reason that tall should be prohibited here....it's not in a flight path, it has EXCELLENT transit coverage, the moat of the Greenway already protects North End, and West End should have no dog in this fight, as it is a collection of poor urban highrises separated by the Courthouse and Policestation, that are far more damaging to a neighborhood that a highrise could ever be.

Bullfinch Triangle residents would have the most side-affects, but I'd prefer them to speak for themselves and not be represented by someone who choses to live a faux-urban existance.

[Boston02124]

You people are far to obsessed with height.

thats because we have'nt had a real tower since 1974!

[nm88]

You people are far to obsessed with height.

Mr. Moderator, I may be the least height-obsessed contributor to this site. I am often the contrary voice regarding height (Piano's tower a perfect example). However, there are a few places in the city where height might be desirable, the Congress Street garage is one. I think the aquarium garage is another, though there may be flight pattern issues with that one.

In any case, I believe your point is: it's not about height, it's about good design. We are birds of a feather in that belief.

[tobyjug]

...who went to the polls and elected Ms. Forrestall in charge of anything at all.

West End residency ought to debar one from comment on design or taste.

[pelhamhall]

There was literally a woman from the Downtown North Business Club/Cocktail Set who sent an angry letter about Equity scrapping the Charles River Park name for "the West End Apartments" name. She was proud to live in Charles River Park and incensed that this "historic" name was being scrapped!!!!!!!!!!

[vanshnookenraggen]

In any case, I believe your point is: it's not about height, it's about good design. We are birds of a feather in that belief.

Yes. Although I would kill for this (http://www.thechicagospire.com/) in Boston.

[Ron Newman]

Bullfinch Triangle residents would have the most side-affects

Are there any Bulfinch Triangle residents?

[statler]

Banker & Tradesman (http://enews.thewarrengroup.com/bt/Home/tabid/246/newsid971/1569/Pending---Pru-Sized-Tower-Proposed-For-Govt-Center-Garage/Default.aspx) - October 23, 2008
Pru-Sized Tower Proposed For Gov?t Center Garage

By Thomas Grillo
Banker & Tradesman Staff Writer

Owners of the Government Center Garage want to replace the concrete eyesore with a skyscraper that would rival the Prudential tower in height.

The 3.3 million-square-foot, mixed-use development proposal includes a pair of glass office towers on a parcel closer to Government Center. The tallest tower would be 52 stories, the same height as the Prudential Building at 800 Boylston. The other would reach 42 floors.

Boston?s Raymond Property Co., developer of the project, revealed its plans to North and West End neighbors at a meeting in the garage offices on Thursday night, after a series of community meetings held over the summer.
?When we bought the garage we always envisioned it as a prime location to expand the Financial District,? said Stephen G. Kasnet, chief executive officer of the Raymond Property Co. ?This is a very large site and it?s comparable in terms of mass and height to what exists in the Financial District.?

On the parcel closer to the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway, four buildings are proposed for housing and retail, ranging from 8-14 stories. The buildings would be wrapped around a garage masked by the project.

In addition, District A-1 Police Headquarters and another city-owned building on nearby New Sudbury Street would be razed to make way for the $2 billion transit-oriented development adjacent to Haymarket MBTA station.

John F. Palmieri, director of the Boston Redevelopment Authority, said while the developer has talked to his staff about the project, the city has not made any decisions about the height of the tower.

?It?s an aggressive development and there?s no question that it contains height and density,? he said. ?We have not weighed in on what we believe is the appropriate height for the tower. We are familiar with the approach that they have presented and we understand that they are making the case for height. We will keep an open mind and want to hear what the neighborhood has to say.?

Prior to the meeting, some residents had expressed reservations about a proposal that would include buildings taller than existing neighborhood towers.

?If they propose something taller than the JFK Building, that would upset the community,? said Jane Forrestall, a West End resident and member of the Downtown North Association, a group of businesses, condominium associations and community organizations.

The John F. Kennedy Federal Office Building at City Hall Plaza stands 24 stories tall.

Last year, Bulfinch Congress Holdings, a subsidiary of the Boston developer, paid $243 million for the garage. In addition to the parking spaces, it includes 275,000 square feet of office space and several retailers.

Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 (Archive on Thursday, November 27, 2008)

[rikahlberg]

Looks like a great plan that will get hammered down in a long, drawn-out CAC process. I'm sure they expect to lose lots of those floors.

[Equilibria]

Honestly, this is a mite short for my tastes... I'd have preferred they call it 900 feet and then let 150 or so get lopped off. That still leaves a Pru-sized building when they're done.

Somehow, I feel like if a thousand-footer were proposed and hyped for this site, you'd have an easier time getting this through the permitting process (hear me out on this). With a context-heavy 50-floor proposal and prominently mentioned shorter buildings, this is just some huge development. Boston needs someone other than the Mayor to hype up a defining project for the city, and actually work toward getting it done, like Chicago has done with the Spire.

If a building (a single building, however many there actually are in the development) is promoted as a symbol of Boston's future, and if people buy in, neighborhood whiners organizations will have a much harder time stopping the project. Instead of innocent victims, they can be unmasked a little for what they usually are, selfish attention hogs placing their own ego before the good of the city and region.

[sidewalks]

I suppose I could be persuaded otherwise, but I really don't feel this is a good location for height. But we will see when the renderings are released.

[Mike]

Did anyone here go to the meeting?


btw - this thread could use a name change.

[czsz]

Let the NIMBYs have it...we don't need the World's Tallest Skyscraper on this site, just something that daylights Congress St. and breathes some life back into the area.

Although I ought to hold my tongue...it could turn out like the ugly new brick garage next door.

[Chris]

The taking of the police station are gives this a pretty large footprint (and the loss of another alley if i remember previously). Is there a reason (both towers on this footprint)? Maybe they want another mall inside?

[Bubbybu]

Yikes....This is suddenly a major proposal......

Those two towers are going to have to look amazing and irresistable on the initial rendering to help overcome a NIMBY and City Hall backlash over the height

This area is sort of no man's land in Boston so I really don't see how the West End NIMBY's can be afraid of the tower....if the design is impressive

On the other hand, this area calls for something thin and vertically acceuntuated....wide and thick would not work at all....that's what she said

Plus, this is a ton of space to fill.....how the hell are they ever going fill/sell most of this space??

[vanshnookenraggen]

These guys know what they are doing. 52 stories between the West End, North End, and Beacon Hill? HA! They are very smart. They see the need for something like 40 or 30 stories and do the song and dance where they bid high and we yell low.

Is this a broken system? You bettcha.

[Beton Brut]

The taking of the police station gives this a pretty large footprint (and the loss of another alley if i remember previously). Is there a reason (both towers on this footprint)? Maybe they want another mall inside?

I attended a couple of the early meetings that the garage owners held in the spring. There was some talk about actually restoring some of the old streets. No idea if this is still on the table.

These guys know what they are doing. 52 stories between the West End, North End, and Beacon Hill?

In this particular location, it's a no-brainer. They should have opened with 75 and 60 stories.

[Ron Newman]

If a building (a single building, however many there actually are in the development) is promoted as a symbol of Boston's future, and if people buy in, neighborhood whiners organizations will have a much harder time stopping the project.

There's no neighborhood here. The closest place where anyone lives is Endicott Street or Lynn Street in the North End.

[Equilibria]

^^

True as that may be, it likely won't stop someone from getting their hands on it. I've always liked this site for the 1,000 foot proposal for exactly this reason, although I'm not sure how rational that is. On the other hand, the success of the Copley Place Tower in public hearings should impart a strong sense to these developers of how important design is to the success of a project.

If it's beautiful (which means appealing, not 'unique'), people have a hard time fighting it. NIMBYs are as seduced by genuinely good-looking architecture as anyone else.

[12345]

High-rises may replace Government Center garage
Developer proposes towers of 42 and 52 floors, hotel, stores

Developer Ted Raymond is proposing to build two office towers, 42 and 52 stories high, as part of a massive mixed-used complex on property now dominated by the hulking Government Center garage near Boston City Hall.

The proposal, estimated to cost $2.2 billion, would result in the demolition of the 2,300-space garage. Raymond would replace it with a row of retail stores, restaurants, and a hotel that would hide new garages with space for more than 2,000 cars.

"The thinking is oriented toward people walking along a downtown sidewalk, so it looks very much like a typical Boston streetscape," said Steve Kasnet, the chief executive of Raymond Property Co.

Raymond's proposal would extend the Financial District down Congress Street and open up a corridor whose continuity was interrupted by construction of the garage in the early 1970s.

The complex would be built in stages, with the first buildings estimated to be finished in 2014.

The two towers - one on Congress Street, the other along New Chardon - would add more than 2 million square feet of office space during the next decade. Raymond is betting that demand for office space will be on the upswing when he seeks to proceed with construction in 2010.

The proposal also includes two new residential buildings across Congress Street, along the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway. Those structures would be 12 and 17 stories in height, consistent with the size of buildings that now border the Greenway.

Raymond has previously built Trinity Place in Copley Square and Flagship Wharf in Charlestown. His financial partners in the Government Center development are the $12 billion pension fund of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and Lewis Trust Group, a British company with worldwide property interests.

The Raymond Co. does not expect to begin construction for about 18 months, when officials hope credit markets will have reopened to help finance the development of large commercial projects.

Kasnet said the firm expects to file a proposal with the Boston Redevelopment Authority within two weeks, though.

In recent months, Raymond Co. officials have been meeting with community members and have created their own website, demolishthegarage.com. Representatives of the company were to meet with neighbors last night to discuss the towers' heights, long a principal point of concern.

Bob O'Brien, executive director of the Downtown North Association, said the towers could meet resistance from owners of the nearby Charles River Apartments, whose downtown views could be partially obstructed by the new structures.

But he said Raymond has been generally well received by neighbors, who want to see demolition of the Government Center garage.

"To call it the Berlin Wall disparages Berlin," O'Brien said of the massive gray structure.

Still, Raymond faces considerable obstacles. For one, he doesn't own all of the land he is proposing to use. The city owns property along New Sudbury Street that currently houses a newly renovated police station, and several other structures that would be in the way of the 52-story tower. There is also an NStar substation on the property.

John Palmieri, director of the Boston Redevelopment Authority, said the city must also study the effects of wind and shadows on the Greenway, as well as parking and traffic. "It's a robust development, so the question is whether the city could accommodate it," he said.

Raymond's architect for the project, Chan, Krieger, Sieniewicz of Cambridge, conducted a study that showed there would be shadows from the office towers over the Greenway for no more than one hour a day. They also said the building heights would be similar to those of existing structures near the Greenway, including the Custom House and the 75 State St. tower.

House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, a North End Democrat, and State Representative Marty Walz have raised the possibility of Raymond's setting aside space within the development for Suffolk University, which is seeking to build more student housing.

"I want to have Suffolk brought into the conversation about this site, because it is within one of the school's targeted expansion areas," said Walz, a Back Bay Democrat.

Suffolk is not currently included in the plan, but Kasnet said developers will entertain new ideas as the permitting process moves forward

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/10/24/high_rises_may_replace_government_center_garage/

can somebody post the pic?

[riffgo]

I never envisioned anything approaching this level of density or height, but I rather like the massing. The two towers appear a bit stout, but that can be refined. It is certainly a step in the right direction, and it's a million times better than what we are dealing with at the present.

[Mike]

http://cache.boston.com/resize/bonzai-fba/Globe_Photo/2008/10/23/1224819760_6012/539w.jpg

[Chessplayer]

More throwaway architecture. The towers should be slimmer and...better.

I hope the nimbys choose their battles wisely.

[BarbaricManchurian]

The design is better than most towers in downtown, and will breathe life into a struggling area, I'd say go for it; it would look better when taller though, and due to its fatness, it will look quite squat if short.

[ablarc]

NIMBYs are as seduced by genuinely good-looking architecture as anyone else.
Provided it's good looking in a thrice-familiar way.

Even then, you can expect the height card to be played. Even if you proposed the Custom House Tower you could expect to see the height card on the table.

[Bubbybu]

Some of Chan, Krieger, Sieniewicz's past projects are fairly nice but they have never done anything remotely as big as this project nor does it appear that they have ever designed a tower....

looking at that rendering above of this new project...the main tower looks ok, it isn't vomit inducing like the Mandarin or some of the Seaport boxes but it is a bit bland....at least from this angle....

[ablarc]

This firm's specialty is bland but correct urban design.

A possibility to consider: correct urban design encourages a certain blandness of expression in building design?

[Bubbybu]

well Boston certainly does a fantastic job of absorbing a tremendous amount of unambitious modern architecture....so it must be correct!

[kz1000ps]

There's so much shiny rendering gloss on those towers that I don't even know how to react. I expected the bulkiness (you're not going to get boutique-sized floorplates on 40-story towers), but as far as I can tell the design is as mediocre as it gets.

A couple of things they got right: in between the 42-story tower and the glassy midrise they included a set of small-scaled "buildings" (which of course will just be precast brick panels in a couple of different colors); and they included all the Greenway development (the YMCA and that L-shaped CBT office building ) so as to soften the blunt of this development hitting the parks.

[KentXie]

I'm not going to complain. Most people in other city will see these towers as great looking. Seeing how Boston doesn't have many amazing looking towers, I'm not going to keep a high standard. These are probably the tallest it will get in downtown and probably much taller than NIMBYs will allow. I'm guessing from the picture that the 52 story tower is around 600ft. And if I'm correct, there's a "spire" on it which brings the total structural height to at least 700 ft?

[Boston02124]

the taller one looks like a rehash of TNP.

[Bos77]

Three Words- General Services Administration

These towers will never get off the ground. They send security guards to the garage, if god forbid, you take a picutre of downtown, nevermind build two towers that will SOAR over the JFK Building. They kill every proposal made in redeveloping City Hall Plaza.

This is the pic that caused a 20 min interrogation: http://bradys-doghouse.smugmug.com/photos/171011024_4xHA4-S-1.jpg

[statler]

What ever functions are done at the JFK, really, really need to move down to the SBW, or better yet 128. (Or in Ron's world, abolished altogether ;))

[bentleykid]

Hello All,

Been lurking on these boards for a while, and now making my first ehem...post.

Just wanted to say that this garage definately needs to come down, its such an eye sore. But also, when I parked my car in the garage last week for a concert at the TDBN Garden, the spiral down to street level is so tight to the bottom (went down about 7 floors) I honestly got nauseous driving and nearly crashed my car i was so dizzy. Then I payed 26 bucks to park my car for like 2 1/2 hrs....lovely. thank god it was a good concert and I was in a good mood.

Anyways, I think building up the Congress St area is agreat idea.

[Ron Newman]

I don't thing GSA can control what happens on an adjoining piece of private property.

[Boston02124]

Three Words- General Services Administration

These towers will never get off the ground. They send security guards to the garage, if god forbid, you take a picutre of downtown, nevermind build two towers that will SOAR over the JFK Building. They kill every proposal made in redeveloping City Hall Plaza.

This is the pic that caused a 20 min interrogation: http://bradys-doghouse.smugmug.com/photos/171011024_4xHA4-S-1.jpg I've had that happen at other garage's while taking pix's.I caught hell in Union stations garage yesterday!I feel the top floor of a parking garage offer's a great spot to take pix's,they need to mellow out!

[statler]

I don't thing GSA can control what happens on an adjoining piece of private property.

^^ They do it all the time. Remember the hotel proposal?

[chumbolly]

I honestly don't understand what this project has to do with the West End/CRP. I'm just guestimating here, but it looks like at most this project would block out about 10 degrees of view for the CRP residents that have a view to begin with. I really hopes the Mayor carefully balances the increase in property tax revenue this building would create against that 10 degrees of view.

The federales in the JFK should be moved to Fan Pier so they stop screwing with our city.

[Ron Newman]

The hotel proposal wasn't on private property. It was on City Hall Plaza, and the federal government probably has some sort of easement or deed restriction there.

[12345]

I'm not going to complain. Most people in other city will see these towers as great looking. Seeing how Boston doesn't have many amazing looking towers, I'm not going to keep a high standard. These are probably the tallest it will get in downtown and probably much taller than NIMBYs will allow. I'm guessing from the picture that the 52 story tower is around 600ft. And if I'm correct, there's a "spire" on it which brings the total structural height to at least 700 ft?

The 52 story tower is commercial, it is atleast 700' to the roof, they did a great job to make it look like it is about the same size as the other buildings in the F.D.

[Bubbybu]

Can we sue architects and developers for showing renderings with colors they will never be able to produce in real life?

I know I will feel defrauded once this is built

[pelhamhall]

The security concern on the garage is because the federal government is a tenant in the actual garage itself. That's why you get harrassed there. My friend has a funny story about getting detained there even though he had full permission from the landlord to be there. It has nothing to do with the nearby building, the garage itself is a governement (leased) building.

Back when the New York Times' Boston branch office could afford to pay actual journalists, I remember angry lil' Steve Bailey writing one of his typically venomous columns about this plan and he wrote something about an international architect competition for the towers? So what we are looking at now may just be the master plan presentation and not the actual building design. Not sure though. The idea would be to let the NIMBYs digest the bland Metamucil architecture before spiking them with an WTF architectural plan from a starchitect.

[Bubbybu]

^ That would be awesome but I wont get my hopes up that Ted Raymond has Rem Koolhaus waiting in the wings

Though on the other hand based on the estimated cost, huge amounts of space they will need to sell and mediocrity of the design....how will they ever get financing for the project?

if they did have a 'wow' building it would probably be much easier

[dirtywater]

The design that you see from Chan/Krieger is the result of a massing study only. They have included architectural elements only to make it easier for people to visualize what a development with that type of massing might look like. The design architects have not yet been chosen. Five firms are engaging in a design competition, including Foster + Partners, SOM, Gensler and two others. So don't fall in or out of love with this design. It will bear little if any relationship to the actual design.

[JimboJones]

I must be in a sour mood this morning. Everything I read makes me grouchy!

But, this would annoy me, any day of the week.

We have a developer proposing a $2.2 billion project. Thousands of jobs, badly-needed housing, office space, and parking. Hoorah! Let's get it going.

Without missing a beat, people already are asking for more. From the Globe article:

House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, a North End Democrat, and State Representative Marty Walz have raised the possibility of Raymond's setting aside space within the development for Suffolk University, which is seeking to build more student housing.

"I want to have Suffolk brought into the conversation about this site, because it is within one of the school's targeted expansion areas," said Walz, a Back Bay Democrat.

I've got a question for you, Ms. Walz: WHO ASKED YOU?

STFU.

[statler]

We need a 'Likelyhood-O-Meter'.


The Left side will have "Yeah, it's going to happen" (Filenes?)
The Middle will be "Maybe, maybe not" (SST?)
The Right will be "Pipedream" (Winthrop Sq?)

[Bubbybu]

The design that you see from Chan/Krieger is the result of a massing study only. They have included architectural elements only to make it easier for people to visualize what a development with that type of massing might look like. The design architects have not yet been chosen. Five firms are engaging in a design competition, including Foster + Partners, SOM, Gensler and two others. So don't fall in or out of love with this design. It will bear little if any relationship to the actual design.



That just made my day!!!

It would seem quite crazy to try and finance a $2 billion deal based on those bland designs....

[pelhamhall]

The real question here, and the only thing worth debating is this: Is Raymond Properties bluffing about leasing the garage space for another ten years and scrapping this plan altogether if people aren't interested in height and density here?

They are using "well, we'll just leave the garage as-is then, enjoy!" as an ax hanging over the head of these negotiations. They even have FHO putting a leasing banner advertising the office space on the garage... are they bluffing? Would they be happy spending a quarter of a billion dollars for a parking garage and some office space? They may be, they may not be.

Also, I feel like the 52 and 42 story towers are a good way to "compromise" with a 30-story and a 65-story tower. I can't believe they'd want to be within sniffing distance of "boston's tallest" and not pole through the extra few dozen feet they need for the trophy.

This is the dance, the negotiation... it is going to be fun. "Sure, we'd welcome Suffolk University.... but we'll have to add ten floors to the building..."

Let the games begin...

[tobyjug]

Bob O'Brien, executive director of the Downtown North Association, said the towers could meet resistance from owners of the nearby Charles River Apartments, whose downtown views could be partially obstructed by the new structures.
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/10/24/high_rises_may_replace_government_center_garage/

Bobby, do me a favor. Tell those CRA clowns that anything that blocks our view of them is a plus!

[palindrome]

I must be in a sour mood this morning. Everything I read makes me grouchy!

But, this would annoy me, any day of the week.

We have a developer proposing a $2.2 billion project. Thousands of jobs, badly-needed housing, office space, and parking. Hoorah! Let's get it going.

Without missing a beat, people already are asking for more. From the Globe article:



I've got a question for you, Ms. Walz: WHO ASKED YOU?

STFU.


Suffolk leasing space for student housing might be a good thing, as it would help get political support, as well as already having tenants lined up might make finding financing easier.

Regardless, i agree with you. Ms. Walz needs to remain quiet.

[vanshnookenraggen]

http://cache.boston.com/resize/bonzai-fba/Globe_Photo/2008/10/23/1224819760_6012/539w.jpg

I like the massing here, even if they are kind of fat. I just wish we could move past the glass wall. This could be a new landmark in the city and building just another glass box seems like a total waste. From what I can see the street level design and interaction seems to be pretty good but I'll wait to see the final designs.

[mass88]

The real question here, and the only thing worth debating is this: Is Raymond Properties bluffing about leasing the garage space for another ten years and scrapping this plan altogether if people aren't interested in height and density here?

They are using "well, we'll just leave the garage as-is then, enjoy!" as an ax hanging over the head of these negotiations. They even have FHO putting a leasing banner advertising the office space on the garage... are they bluffing? Would they be happy spending a quarter of a billion dollars for a parking garage and some office space? They may be, they may not be.

Also, I feel like the 52 and 42 story towers are a good way to "compromise" with a 30-story and a 65-story tower. I can't believe they'd want to be within sniffing distance of "boston's tallest" and not pole through the extra few dozen feet they need for the trophy.

This is the dance, the negotiation... it is going to be fun. "Sure, we'd welcome Suffolk University.... but we'll have to add ten floors to the building..."

Let the games begin...

If it takes putting Suffolk in one of the building to get this done, then so be it. Who knows, maybe putting Suffolk in adds 10-12 floors and bump the height of this thing up.

[Ron Newman]

I've got a question for you, Ms. Walz: WHO ASKED YOU?

I'm pretty sure this is her district, so she has every right to speak for her consituency.

[Ron Newman]

The security concern on the garage is because the federal government is a tenant in the actual garage itself. .

Besides the EPA leasing the office floors, the feds also lease one or more parking levels for their own employees. I recall being politely but firmly turned away when I tried to visit one of the upper parking levels to stare at the Big Dig demolition. I didn't even have a camera with me. Maybe they were concerned that I would plant a car bomb or something.

[atlrvr]

[SIZE="4"]John Palmieri, director of the Boston Redevelopment Authority, said the city must also study the effects of wind and shadows on the Greenway, as well as parking and traffic. "It's a robust development, so the question is whether the city could accommodate it," he said.


Of course not. The city can only accomodate underwhelming proposals regardless of location or benefits. Robust is code for "outside the vanilla box thinking we like".

[Jane Jetson]

There's no neighborhood here. The closest place where anyone lives is Endicott Street or Lynn Street in the North End.

I've been reading this board for a while, and I've actually learned a thing or two from you guys. Clearly, many of you are in the business and I have hesitated to join in, as I am not. As a member of the "neighborhood" in question, though - practically the nearest thing to a residential abutter this project has - I thought I would join the discussion.

Personally, I cannot wait for this thing to be built and that horrible blight of a garage to be torn down. I would love nothing more than to look out my window and see gleaming glass and steel. I may not know about architecture, but I know what I like.

I attended the first 3 meetings (missed last night's) and my impression was that the developers know exactly what they're doing and have known exactly what they intended to build before they even bought the property. You don't spend that kind of money and then put it out to focus groups. I am pleasantly surprised that the project is as ambitious as it is, given the track record of this town. I do believe, though, that they will walk away and renew the 10 year lease if it comes to that. It did not seem like a bluff to me. They've got steady income from the garage.

I could've sworn that I saw a letter from the usual suspects from the West End in the North End Review recently that came out in *support* of the project, but I guess everything has a price.

[Jane Jetson]

There's no neighborhood here. The closest place where anyone lives is Endicott Street or Lynn Street in the North End.

I've been reading this board for a while, and I've actually learned a thing or two from you guys. Clearly, many of you are in the business and I have hesitated to join in, as I am not. As a member of the "neighborhood" in question, though - practically the nearest thing to a residential abutter this project has - I thought I would join the discussion.

Personally, I cannot wait for this thing to be built and that horrible blight of a garage to be torn down. I would love nothing more than to look out my window and see gleaming glass and steel. I may not know about architecture, but I know what I like.

I attended the first 3 meetings (missed last night's) and my impression was that the developers know exactly what they're doing and have known exactly what they intended to build before they even bought the property. You don't spend that kind of money and then put it out to focus groups. I am pleasantly surprised that the project is as ambitious as it is, given the track record of this town. I do believe, though, that they will walk away and renew the 10 year lease if it comes to that. It did not seem like a bluff to me. They've got steady income from the garage.

I could've sworn that I saw a letter from the usual suspects from the WE in the North End Review recently that came out in *support* of the project, but I guess everything has a price.

[Patriots_1228]

I love the ambition, but i doubt it will get built...

[bentleykid]

*lurker finally making first post -

I just wanted to say, before everybody jumps the gun on the new buildings, lets start first with taking down the garage to begin with. Yes there are going to be problems with removing all that parking, but that eyesore will be gone. Determining what to do after is not the immediate priority at the moment.

Second, I parked my car in the garage last week for a concert and can I just say that the garages schematics are horriendous. The extremely tight exiting spiral down 7 flights honestly made me so nauseated that I was honestly dizzy still by the time I got to street level and paid 26 bucks to park a car for a couple hours. ugh. Any opinions on that?

[riffgo]

^Let's not start crepe-hanging just yet. There are many facets involved with this proposal that could make for a very interesting and very good development.

[statler]

Banker & Tradesman (http://enews.thewarrengroup.com/bt/Home/tabid/246/newsid971/1580/Menino-Govt-Center-Garage-Tower-Height-Remains-A-Question/Default.aspx) - October 24, 2008
Menino: Gov?t Center Garage Tower Height ?Remains A Question?

By Thomas Grillo
Banker & Tradesman Staff Writer

Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino is withholding judgment on a proposed 52-story tower that would replace the Government Center Garage.

?I don?t want to prejudice the case yet,? Menino told Banker & Tradesman. ?I just want to say that height is good in certain locations, but whether this is the right place for it remains a question.?

Menino appeared surprised when told the tallest tower at the redeveloped site would potentially be the same height as the Prudential building at 800 Boylston St.

?Fifty-two stories?? Menino said. ?That seems like a lot of density for that proposal. We want to work with the developer. The community has some issues with the height of the structure, and we?re monitoring the situation.?

On Thursday night, Raymond Property Co. revealed its $2.3 billion proposal for One Congress Street to about 100 North and West End residents at a meeting in the garage offices. The 3.3 million-square-foot, mixed-use development includes a pair of office towers near Government Center. The tallest skyscraper would be 52-stories while the other would reach 42 floors.

On a parcel closer to the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway, four buildings are proposed for housing and retail, ranging from 8-14 stories. The buildings would be wrapped around a garage masked by the project.

Jane Forrestall, a West End resident and member of the Downtown North Association, a group of businesses, condominium associations and community organizations, said she was not surprised that Raymond proposed two buildings that were taller than the nearby 24-story John F. Kennedy Federal Office Building at City Hall Plaza.

?Developers always show the worst case scenario first,? she said. ?If at the end of the community process it?s still 52 stories, there will be an issue with the neighborhood.?

Posted on Friday, October 24, 2008 (Archive on Friday, November 28, 2008)

[Bubbybu]

by the time financing is secured...Menino could possibly be voted out of office....it is a nice thought

[tobyjug]

Hearing a modern West Ender complain about potential blight to her neighborhood is like listening to a nude leper worrying about poison ivy.

[johnpaul5]

Menino is such a loser provincial mayor pandering to the nimbys. He should be mayor of Fargo, ND. I predict that once he is voted out of office the next mayor, if he/she has any sense of bringing economic growth/expansion of the city, will have no problems supporting projects like this!

[czsz]

Think again.

The mayor of Boston will always be as provincial as those who elect him/her.

In other words, very.

[Ron Newman]

Too often I see a disdain for democracy among the participants in this forum.

[Equilibria]

^

Demanding a stronger mayor with an actual vision for the city and the will to get it done, as opposed to a panderer with developer friends and pet projects who is "surprised" to hear about a high-visibility proposal is not disdain for democracy. On the contrary, it's the definition of democracy. Disdain for democracy rears its ugly head when poorly-informed and tunnel-visioned 'neighborhood activists' hijack the city's corrupt development processes to hold back the future of the region.

That said, this project seems more robust than Trans National Place, to which it will often be compared. I get the impression this has more competent developers, and a more savvy proposal (not knowing Belkin personally or professionally, I refer only to TNP). It reminds me a little of the Columbus Center/One Kenmore (or whatever they're calling it this week) debate. When developers have the patience and wits to negotiate, they can make progress.

I'm eager to see Foster and SOM's designs. They do solid, iconic, contextual work.

[statler]

Too often I see a disdain for democracy among the participants in this forum.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy simply doesn't work. :)

[tobyjug]

In the rendering, what's that thing covering Congress St., just to the left of the project? Is it one of those euro galleria things? Or just a new bus shed.

[Ron Newman]

That's not Congress Street, that's Blackstone Street, and I think it's a hypothetical building on the unbuilt Big Dig parcel between the vent building and the Greenway.

Whatever is built on the garage parcels still needs to accomodate the Haymarket busway in some form.

[Beton Brut]

In the rendering, what's that thing covering Congress St., just to the left of the project? Is it one of those euro galleria things? Or just a new bus shed.

It's a pedestrian-only street, similar to what you describe, Toby.

[a630]

democracy is short-sighted and inefficient, and it's probably the best we can do.

[BarbaricManchurian]

Too often I see a disdain for democracy among the participants in this forum.

Sometimes, democracy is not the best solution. However, for Boston, where preservation in most places is preferable to development, democracy is the best choice. However, if you want growth (like if you're a new city), a dictatorship is the best choice (developer's paradise enforced by the people is 2nd best, like Houston). I know many people will revolt at the notion, but it has been proven time and again. Of course, just bring up Boston's government to the quality of New York's and it will be surprising how much it then can do. In the democratic system, we'll need a technocrat, focusing on what is best for the city, rather than what is best politically. Bloomberg is one of the best examples, seriously one of the greatest mayors of any city in the last 50 years.

[ShawnA]

With all these projects going on I very happy with the state of my city. Boston is really making a statement now.The northeast really kills the rest of the u.s in turns of skylines and economy.

[Chris]

http://cache.boston.com/resize/bonzai-fba/Globe_Photo/2008/10/23/1224819760_6012/539w.jpg

Wow, they should really tighten and shrink (get rid of the curved right turn lanes and square the corners!) that massive car-centric intersection there (is that how it is now?).

EDIT: this picture also shows just how much an abomination the b parcel proposal is.

[bosma]

Besides the EPA leasing the office floors, the feds also lease one or more parking levels for their own employees. I recall being politely but firmly turned away when I tried to visit one of the upper parking levels to stare at the Big Dig demolition. I didn't even have a camera with me. Maybe they were concerned that I would plant a car bomb or something.


Our taxes paying for Fed employee parking downtown?!!

[vanshnookenraggen]

Wow, they should really tighten and shrink (get rid of the curved right turn lanes and square the corners!) that massive car-centric intersection there (is that how it is now?).


That would make a great public space if they took out a few lanes of traffic.


EDIT: this picture also shows just how much an abomination the b parcel proposal is.

Yeah, that's a dud.

[sidewalks]

congress street needs to be totally redone from that point all the way through PO square.

[Ron Newman]

what is the 'b parcel'? If you mean the Big Dig parcel, I think that's just a hypothetical building put into the model to fill space, not any actual proposal.

[Chris]

I wasn't sure on the nomenclature for the two parts of the Congress garage proposal; the other building's more detailed renderings are at this post (http://www.archboston.org/community/showpost.php?p=58015&postcount=203)

[bosma]

Follow link below to BRA map with assessment/owner of land parcels in area. Didn't know the city/BRA owned so much land around this development. Interesting that BRA owns the piece of land in front of JFK (2nd ugliest building in Boston aside from CityHall), and they let the Fed block off and park vehicles on it.

The State of Mass owns the land that the hideous parking garage above Haymarket is on??

http://www.mapjunction.com/places/Boston_BRA/cgi-view/rest.pl?t=14177&p=18813

If you search the parcel ID on the city of boston assesment website you can find out the taxes paid. Redevelopment of this site could produce 15-30+ million per year for city



http://www.cityofboston.gov/assessing/search/default.asp

[vanshnookenraggen]

Since Boston needs more parking than office space and condos, this will probably stay a garage. But if anything was to be built, a low building, say 10 to 15 stories would be good right in Haymarket Sq, on the edge of the North End, and further up the hill you could built taller buildings, perhapse even a 30 story condo/office building.

Anything more would kill the scale.

Holy crap, I hit the nail on the head 2 years ago.

[JimboJones]

OMG, I thought the parcel b building was an airshaft or prison from the looks of it, not an actual office or residential building! It's like they threw a bunch of clay into a pile of dog poop.

[Boston02124]

The grouping of these buildings reminds me of International Place http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn80/boston02124/proposed%20and%20then%20what%20was%20built/xcranes015.jpg

[PaulC]

A lot of your questions are answered on the meeting presentations:
http://www.demolishthegarage.com/meetings.htm

each one:
October 23, 2008 - Back (West) Parcels Planning:
http://www.demolishthegarage.com/pdf/presentations/pres_2008_10_23.pdf

July 23, 2008 - Front (East) Parcel Planning
http://www.demolishthegarage.com/pdf/presentations/pres_2008_07_23.pdf

July 9, 2008 - Parking and Initial Site Parcelization
http://www.demolishthegarage.com/pdf/presentations/pres_2008_07_09.pdf

June 18, 2008 - Introduction to the Opportunit
http://www.demolishthegarage.com/pdf/presentations/pres_2008_06_18.pdf

[12345]

The tallest is 706' to the roof, the other is 554', 1.3 million sf and 1 million sf.

[JSic]

The best part about this project is that it gets rid of the garage. I wont nitpick the aesthetic quality of the buildings.

[Bubbybu]

Thank god this is ambitious....it is amazing how big a difference we see right off the bat compared to the Usual Suspect developers who dominate this city...

Raymond has development partners, union funds, a nice website, a master plan, and above all real big project architects bidding for the job.....

With Foster & Partners, Rem Koolhaas's OMA, SMO, Cook + Fox and Gensler all competing to design the architecture; we are going to get some interesting proposals....

Next month we will see them?

What is also great about this project is that with a well designed and dare I say iconic tower; it will really lend it self to being visible from numerous angles....the view from the Greenway, from upper Congress, Fanueil Hall, Tremont etc....

They give examples of the visibility towards the end of the proposal pdf.

I'm jacked...

[tobyjug]

Just do it.

P.S. That YMCA is obnoxious. Truly green space is preferable to it.

[Boston02124]

If this and the North Station towers get built we'll have a whole new skyline area from certain angles!

[vanshnookenraggen]

P.S. That YMCA is obnoxious. Truly green space is preferable to it.

The problem is that it can't be truly green space with highway ramps.

[jass]

The new parking garage doesnt seem to be so hidden in these plans.

Why will we get more NIMBYs fighting the height than the parking spaces?

[ablarc]

This says it all:

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/haymarket/haymarket.jpg

The space has been reallocated. Public space (streets and squares) are drastically curtailed. The space thus "liberated" is assigned to "landscaped" space surrounding sculptural object buildings with footprints bigger than a block.

Suburbia.

All that's left of the previous urban pattern is the Blackstone Block and the North End.

[riffgo]

^You're right, of course, ablarc. Haymarket Square was such an interesting warren of streets. Since that's been destroyed, our only hope is to improve upon what we have there now.

[bosma]

how about the 1964 government center urban renewal plan from the BRA
http://www.mapjunction.com/places/Open_BRA/cgi-view/rest.pl?t=14180&p=26805

The following historic maps of Haymarket are interesting
http://www.mapjunction.com/places/Open_BRA/cgi-view/rest.pl?t=14180&p=27106

[ChitchIII]

what is the 'b parcel'? If you mean the Big Dig parcel, I think that's just a hypothetical building put into the model to fill space, not any actual proposal.

Ron, The B Parcel is being built by the same developer, Raymond Property Group....


Parcel 2A, 2B and 2C Development
Bulfinch Triangle, Boston

"RPC has joint ventured with Hines Interests to develop the Bulfinch Triangle Parcel 2A/2B/2C, a $210 million project The project features ground floor retail, a second floor full-service supermarket, premier office space above, all to be built on air rights over the subsurface green and orange MBTA transit lines and the southbound Central Artery tunnel.

To date, Hines Raymond LLC has successfully achieved designation from the MBTA and the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority for the land parcels, and is in the process of securing the necessary ground leases with these agencies. Permitting has successfully completed with the City of Boston, and is pending with MEPA, expected shortly. Construction is expected to begin in 2009, with completion in 2011."

[Ron Newman]

Thanks. Whatever's built there has to accommodate the existing busy busway in some form.

[Bubbybu]

the results from the competition should be released soon eh?

[tmac9wr]

In 10 or 11 days I think...I'm getting pretty excited.

[choo]

This is such a great spot. It can be seen from so many places and could really be an iconic tower, IMO. It is spaced far enough from the financial district to stand alone. I hope it isn't just and all glass flat top which seem to be all the rage.

And also, since the developers put the approval as an ultimatum, does anyone have any insight on financing? What are the odds in this market of them just re-leasing the building and waiting 5-10 when they can get easier money?

[kennedy]

i didnt know they had a design competition for this spot! maybe well get the same kind of results san fran got with their competition for that spot...that i forget what its called. trans something or other.

[Beton Brut]

^^

San Francisco Transbay Terminal Design Competition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Transbay_development)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdCaEjGZzBg

Pelli won. His design was the worst, by a wide margin.

The SOM proposal was breathtaking, a contemporary Eiffel Tower. Rodger's colorful high-tech scheme was cool and hokey in equal measure, a foil to Sutro Tower (http://www.sutrotower.org/).

[kennedy]

SOM did have the best entry. But as time goes on and more and more towers are SOM, they all seem to blend into one big glassy shard.

[Suffolk 83]

Not to get off topic too much, but that Forrest (red) design was hideous although I admire their boldness. The Peli is decent but a little too safe and generic. The other one with the open base easily should have won, looks like SF has some of the same cowardice that Boston has.

On the Congress garage, I'm sure people are going to argue against shadows and I was curious about a brainstorm I had and figured I bounce it off you intellectuals. What's the feasibility of creating a tall slim building on one side that rotates with the sun to create the smallest shadow possible? I've seen the supposed shadowless building in Paris (its just a triangle, pretty weak design) and I've seen these towers in Dubai that turn slowly throughout the day, so why not do that, but for actual practical purposes? Just a thought.

[pelhamhall]

This project has some deep pockets behind it (if you believe their website)... so that could be good. Also, Raymond has a history of getting largely out of scale projects pushed through such as Flagship Wharf and Trinity Place. Those are all good signs for this project, and a reason to be optimistic.

But, most importantly, this all comes down to how much money Ted Raymond has given Boss Menino lately. That, and that alone, will determine how long this approval/disapproval process will take. It all boils down to a line item "$X.XX" on a political campaign ledger. The more "noise" I hear from the backrooms of this corrupt city, the more I truly and actually believe this.

My uneducated guess is they can't get this done in today's market without the strong support of Boss Menino and his henchmen at the BRA - which it sounds to me like they do not yet have. Silence from Boss Menino usually is not a good sign, unless he's playing coy and can come out after the design competition and announce he's been "convinced".

Enjoy the really awesome renderings to come... because it's going to be hard to lose that garage for five years at least, and more likely ten years.

Remember, in Boss Menino's world, the term "World-class Greenway" is not a slogan, it's just a a punchline.

[Bubbybu]

Skidmore, Owings, Merrill is typically pretty hit or miss imo....

With Rem Koolhaas' firm you would probably get something out in left field...which means they would probably have no chance of winning a Boston design competition.

Foster co. has some nice buildings...very sleek and elegant...

the other two...dunno too much

[kennedy]

is SOM doing a proposal for this (congress st) site?

[Bubbybu]

yes they are one of 5 firms submitting designs...they should be revealed hopefully later this month

[tmac9wr]

I wonder if this project will put more pressure on Menino & Co. to move forward with their City Hall changes. When you look at this rendering, the only thing preventing this project from being apart of the financial district is Government Center. If only they would just sell that hideous City Hall Plaza...

http://cache.boston.com/resize/bonzai-fba/Globe_Photo/2008/10/23/1224819760_6012/539w.jpg

[tobyjug]

This rendering is curious. The Saltonstall Building looks wrong. The "new" courthouse (the 30's-40's art deco highrise building, new only compared to the Adams (ex-Suffolk County) courthouse) is sitting in the middle of Pemberton Square. The Adams Courthouse has gone missing. How accurate is this?

[Lurker]

That rendering was probably generated from the BRA's official 3d cad files, which at least in my experience years ago, were horribly constructed. Something was probably catastrophically wrong with the Adams courthouse in the files, and some render specialist decided to just tweak that area to make it work.

You'll also notice several of the towers in the background are improperly skinned. 60 State Street, Harbor Towers, etc.

[type001]

I think the best thing about anything being built here is that it will block the views of 1 Beacon from the NW. To me, 1 Beacon is an abominition and clearly does not deserve the privelige of having that address.

[cden4]

I always find it clever how these renderings usually have a perspective of looking down towards the new buildings. In this one, it makes the new towers look shorter than the existing towers around it. Most people will be looking from ground level or from another building, yet we rarely see this perspective.

[kennedy]

i believe they do the view from the top so you can see more of the building.

was this one of the proposals? if so, i like it.

[ChitchIII]

Some one had stated it earlier and was correct, these were only done as a massing studdy, that's it.

[JSic]

I think the best thing about anything being built here is that it will block the views of 1 Beacon from the NW. To me, 1 Beacon is an abominition and clearly does not deserve the privelige of having that address.

Agreed; All the worse that 1 Beacon "stands alone" on the skyline from many angles. The more it is shielded, the better.

[gravedigger4444]

The only way One Beacon could stand alone is possibly through a re-clad and ornamental top addition.

[kennedy]

...or a tear-down and rebuilt as something good.

[riffgo]

There are building far worse than this one in Boston! Still, I wouldn't mind it getting lost in the mix.

[type001]

^^^Not with that height and presence though.

A reclad and new top could make all the difference. Can we start a petition to get the owners to invest in it? :-)

[statler]

So Scottie and Grillo have pretty much switched beats.

Boston Herald - November 24, 2008
Sal DiMasi joins Hub opposition to skyscraper project
Skyscraper plan hit
By Thomas Grillo | Monday, November 24, 2008 | http://www.bostonherald.com | Real Estate
Photo

House Speaker Sal DiMasi has joined the chorus opposed to a proposed skyscraper for Government Center.

Raymond Property Co. is planning One Congress Street, a 3.3 million-square-foot, mixed-use development. If approved, the existing seven-story concrete garage would be replaced with a 52-story tower - twice the height of the nearby John F. Kennedy Federal Building.

?We are not opposed to replacing Government Center Garage, because it?s an eyesore,? said Aaron Michelwitz, DiMasi?s constituent services director. ?But we have concerns about putting what would be the city?s third tallest building at the crossroads of several neighborhoods.?

The proposed $2.3 billion ?transit-oriented? development, next to the Haymarket MBTA station, would also include a 42-story tower and four smaller buildings closer to the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway that would range from eight to 14 stories.

DiMasi is not the only North End resident worried about height and congestion. Naomi Paul questioned the developers at a community meeting late last week.

?Why do you want to bring more people and more congestion into a neighborhood that?s already overcrowded?? she asked.

In response, Stephen G. Kasnet, Raymond?s chief executive, said the city needs to grow. ?We don?t have sufficient office space to meet tenant demand,? he said.

Jane Forrestall, a West End resident and member of the Downtown North Association, said the tower should be in keeping with the nearby neighborhood, where the tallest buildings are 38 stories.

Neighbors may also be disappointed to learn that the city is not considering an elementary school at the project site.

?We have more available seats citywide than we have students, so we?re in a scaling-back mode,? said Christopher Horan, a Boston Public Schools spokesman. ?We have so many other capital priorities for existing schools that it would not be feasible for us to talk about new construction in that area now.?

Residents have asked Raymond to include a school on the four-acre parcel, which intersects the North and West End, Bulfinch Triangle and Beacon Hill neighborhoods.

?Two or three people are very keen on the school idea, but no one from the city has asked us to make a school part of the project,? said Kasnet. ?If they do, we?ll address it.?
Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/business/real_estate/view.bg?articleid=1134444

[vanshnookenraggen]

This is almost soap-opera level drama here, folks. These developers have done their homework. Start by engaging the community so they have your support, check. Then propose a building much tall than the market can even sustain because you know the public will complain and have it reduced to the actual height you wanted it at, check. Next they say there will be no school but you know they are keeping the door open on that one so they can look like they are acting with the neighborhood when they finally give in and build it.

The dance is alive and well (lets hope it turns out better than NorthPoint)

[Jane Jetson]

Why is 38 stories the standard? Is there some objective significance to that height?

[Lrfox]

While i think Height in this location isn't a bad thing, I don't think it would be terrible to reduce the building to 38 stories (or thereabouts) as long as the developers have taken community opposition into account and won't widen the building while reducing the height to maintain the sq. footage (read: turn it into a squat box).

I think the height can effectively go into future development at City Hall Plaza. I think if Boston is ever going to get a supertall, It'll probably be there... away from residential areas where it'll cast shadows, away from the landing paths at Logan, and right on top of a major transportation hub and sandwiched between tow major Boston streets. 38 stories on the adjacent parcel will make for good balance and set a good precedent for CHP in the future.

[underground]

Sounds like Sal's looking for a 4th mortgage.

[Bubbybu]

How is height an issue for the neighborhoods here?

There is a clear demarcation in this spot between the North End, the West End, Beacon Hill, etc etc...

there is no encroachment....
this is Boston No Man's Land

wth.....

[PaulC]

Jane Forrestall, a West End resident and member of the Downtown North Association, said the tower should be in keeping with the nearby neighborhood, where the tallest buildings are 38 stories.

Was the west end in keeping with the buildings that were their previously. She want to preserve her views, nothing more. At least in an article in the North End News some people had the guts to admit it was about protecting their views of the financial district.

As far as the school, a group in the Back Bay and Beacon Hill had offered to buy the city a building because there are no public school any where near them even though they pay outrageous taxes. The city said no because it was concentrating on building 3 new school in Roxbury and Mattapan.

?We have more available seats citywide than we have students, so we?re in a scaling-back mode,? said Christopher Horan, a Boston Public Schools spokesman. ?We have so many other capital priorities for existing schools that it would not be feasible for us to talk about new construction in that area now.?

Menino is trying to reduce the city's $14 million dollar busing cost. Once again they are rejecting a free school.

Sal is looking for a diversion and some good press.

Let's not forget many in the North End wanted the elevated artery to stay.

[JimboJones]

First thing: the article states that the parking garage is "7-stories" but the new building may rise to 52-stories. But, are the parking levels typical height? It sure looks higher than 7-stories today, no?

Also, you got that right, Paul. Why not open new schools where the new people are living? More importantly, why are they building all those schools while enrollment is down over 15% in ten years?

Also, the three schools going up in Roxbury & Mattapan - you're not including the $40 million Renaissance Charter School, I assume (since it's in Hyde Park)? That's a boondoggle ripe for the picking by some attentive member of the mainstream media.

[tobyjug]

Sounds like Sal's looking for a 4th mortgage.

I wouldn't worry about him much. P.S. A Victoria's Secret might do pretty well on New Chardon St.

[pelhamhall]

The article is full of inaccuracies... it seems like the journalism world has been reduced to political cheerleaders to cover (or cover-up) political news and then low-grade college interns who can barely write to cover all the other stuff....

There are eight levels of parking.

There is a ninth level of private parking.

Then there is the tenth and eleventh floors which are offices.

In no manner, whatsoever, is this a 7-story garage.

It is an 11-story monstrosity that sits above one of the busiest commuter hubs in the entire city - it is a perfect, tailor-made site for density and urbanity.

[ArcaneAlchemy]

Wow, how old is this getting? Projects get proposed- NIMBY Bostonians shoot them down... I'm surprised development firms can even survive in this town. This plan is perfect- too bad it won't happen, or will but in a substandard bastardized form...

[tmac9wr]

Aren't the designs for this project supposed to be revealed soon?

It seems like everytime I open a thread for a cool project, there is a new newspaper artcicle posted talking about how terrible the project will be for the city, the entire neighborhood is against the project, etc. This isn't exactly in downtown, but it's damn close. Even TransNational Tower was facing resistance (though the project was short-lived) and it was located in the direct center of downtown. This is getting a bit overwhelming.

[Jane Jetson]

The problem isn't so much the NIMBY's - the problem is that people listen to them and give them so much weight. What kind of review process is this?

If I own private property and my neighbor doesn't like what I put on my land, he has the right to sue me, but the case will get thrown out of court if he can't show he's being harmed. He also has the right to move.

[Ron Newman]

Is this entirely private property, or is some of it leased from the city?

[Jane Jetson]

I believe they own the whole parcel. There is an additional piece (where the police dept. is located) that they want to acquire, but it's relatively small and I don't think is vital to the project.

[PaulC]

Also, you got that right, Paul. Why not open new schools where the new people are living? More importantly, why are they building all those schools while enrollment is down over 15% in ten years?

Also, the three schools going up in Roxbury & Mattapan - you're not including the $40 million Renaissance Charter School, I assume (since it's in Hyde Park)? That's a boondoggle ripe for the picking by some attentive member of the mainstream media.

The Renaissance Charter School I think is private, certainly it's out of the reach of the Boston teachers union. I think the other three schools have been built and that while enrollment might be down city wide there are some areas in the city where it's growing.

[eaalkaline]

Anybody close to this project that knows when either the winning design is unveiled or when all of the competing designs are revealed? I'm pretty pumped about this proposal- I really hope this goes through without the process totally stripping it of its balls. It's not the *best* place for height, but if they are going to propose a couple of top-quality towers (and it looks like they are headed in that direction) it's also not at all a bad place for height. And from that pdf it doesn't look like shadows on the RKG are really that big a deal realistically

[PaulC]

The pdf from the 11/10/08 meeting is now online:
http://demolishthegarage.com/pdf/presentations/pres_2008_11_20.pdf

This might be the big one:
Topic: Architectural Competition Visuals
December Date TBD, 6:00-7:30pm
The public is welcome. Please enter at the One Congress Street entrance at the corner of New Chardon and Merrimac/Congress Streets, and remember to bring photo ID for building security.

[Boston02124]

^thanks ! very cool!

[czsz]

Clever how they rendered in the North Station towers to balance out the background skyline.

[vanshnookenraggen]

I have no problem with either of those towers.... but that proposal for Parcels 1a/1b is crap on a stick. I understand the need to not over shadow the North End and the Greenway but come on, what the hell is that design? What are the steps to nowhere? Back to the drawing board please.

[Patriots_1228]

wow. These two towers NEED to get built. They change the skyline for the better, and they look beautiful. Kinda like a boring version of the lippo center.

[Suffolk 83]

If I'm understanding the pdf correctly, those aren't the final renderings. The last page or so of the pdf says which firms are competing

[vanshnookenraggen]

That's right, those are just massing models.

[jediot]

I have no faith in any of those firms to make something better than the massing models. They should hire the guy that made the models and save everyone a lot of time and money.

[PaulC]

I don't know if this is new but one of the slides on the new presentaion has a caption "Add third structure to lower height of other two towers".

[BarbaricManchurian]

Existing to proposed comparisons from the PDF:

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b96/fccDaniel/newsudburyexisting.jpg

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b96/fccDaniel/congress1.jpg

Views from Congress Street:

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b96/fccDaniel/congressexisting.jpg

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b96/fccDaniel/congressnew.jpg

Views from West End Place:

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b96/fccDaniel/westendexisting.jpg

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b96/fccDaniel/westendnew.jpg

Views from Whittier Place:

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b96/fccDaniel/whittierexisting.jpg

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b96/fccDaniel/whittiernew-1.jpg

Views from the Greenway:

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b96/fccDaniel/greenwayexisting.jpg

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b96/fccDaniel/greenwaynew.jpg

Views from Dock Square:

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b96/fccDaniel/docksquareexisting.jpg

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b96/fccDaniel/docksquarenew.jpg

View from the waterfront:

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b96/fccDaniel/waterviewexisting.jpg

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b96/fccDaniel/waterviewnew.jpg

Keep in mind that these renders are meant to dissaude NIMBYs, so the tower doesn't look as big as it really is; or maybe this is the final design :rolleyes:.

[KentXie]

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b96/fccDaniel/greenwaynew.jpg

What is the large tower on the right? The North Station Towers?

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b96/fccDaniel/waterviewnew.jpg

And what is the large tower to the left of the John Hancock? Looks like a 900 foot Winthrop Tower. Skyline looks good if it ends up this way.

[vanshnookenraggen]

They added the North Station Towers as a way to balance the rendering so the new towers don't stick out so much (sneaky).

[tmac9wr]

Agreed...what do you think the chances are of that happening though? 1 in 10? 1 in 20?

edit: my post was in response to the end of DarkFenX's last post.

[Lrfox]

Also looks like they added TNP to add some height to the financial district. I'd say 1 in 10 for the chances.

[Suffolk 83]

I don't think there's a doubt it's going to get done. The community wants it done. They're just going to be bastards and make the "towers" 300' x3.

[Mike]

The North Station towers will definitely be built ... that area is zoned for tall buildings.

[riffgo]

Then lets all work to make sure the proposed heights are maintained. These heights seem reasonable for this area, and the ovedr-all concept is a pretty good one. It's very urban.

[Padre Mike]

It will happen...but not until we slog through the next 5-10 years of recovery from this recession and the inflation that is inevitable after printing all these trillions of dollars, pounds, yen, etc. worldwide. The financial decision for future borrowing for such large projects will most likely be in the hands of the Chinese, who alone will have the money to spend after this current debacle.

[Lurker]

"The financial decision for future borrowing for such large projects will most likely be in the hands of the Chinese, who alone will have the money to spend after this current debacle."

China's currency and banking system is so heavily manipulated and fraudulently represented that they are going to be just as poor, if not poorer, than the rest of the industrialized world following a global meltdown. The ecological, political, and demographic storm in China has only been held at bay by foreign investment. The second the money stops flowing in, expect the world's biggest bubble to pop, and it won't be pretty. If you don't believe me, do a search on labor unrest in China following recent factory shutdowns and Chinese bank panics.

When all of that happens, expect the Western world to be shocked at having to pay more for all formerly cheap manufactured goods, and new or resurgent manufacturing industries to pop up in unexpected places.

To be honest, I think India is going to pop out of nowhere as the next global power when more the half the world was trying to play nice with the dragon. Dubai will be an empty urban amusement park of derelict sculpture, while Lahore gets the next world's tallest.

[justin]

... while Lahore gets the next world's tallest.

So India reconquers Pakistan (with a few nukes presumably going off in the process)??

[PaulC]

Next meeting date anounced:

Next Meeting:
Topic: Architectural Competition Visuals
December 17, 2008, 6:00-7:30pm
OPEN HOUSE
The public is welcome. Please enter at the One Congress Street entrance at the corner of New Chardon and Merrimac/Congress Streets, and remember to bring photo ID for building security.
http://demolishthegarage.com/meetings.htm

[Bubbybu]

nice thanks for the update!

[tmac9wr]

It will be nice if they reveal the renderings of each architectural firm at the meeting.

[Beton Brut]

Anyone going to the meeting tonight? I'm gonna try to be there.

[pelhamhall]

It should be very exciting to see all these different... I want to go, but am not sure if I will have the time - such a busy time of the year at work and at home.

[Bubbybu]

If they allow it can someone take pictures of the models and post them on here?

Thanks a BUNCH in advance if it is possible.

[kennedy]

I second that motion.

[Beton Brut]

I'm sure there'll be a PowerPoint or a .pdf uploaded to the development team's website. Because there are Federal offices in the building, and the grief they give you just to get inside, I opted to leave the camera at home. I have my Treo -- we'll see how those pics look.

[Ron Newman]

I think the only restriction on cameras in federal buildings is that you can't take them into courtrooms.

[czsz]

Oh Ron, you and your September 10th mentality. Don't you know the rules don't mean anything anymore? Don't let the terrorists win.

[Beton Brut]

I've heard of folks (on this board) being bum-rushed from the garage for photographing the JFK Building and City Hall. I believe the regional offices of the EPA are (or were) in the building, so there's always the fear of the Earth Liberation Front (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Liberation_Front) carrying out a direct action.

They have airport-style security in the lobby. They tossed my bag and made me boot up my laptop at the last meeting I attended. So the camera is at home.

[jass]

Its like living in a world where cell phones with 3mp cameras do not exist

[Ron Newman]

When I visited the Bankruptcy Court a few years ago, I recall a sign requiring people to check their cellphones at the security gate, probably for this reason. (No, I wasn't filing.)

[Lrfox]

I've heard of folks (on this board) being bum-rushed from the garage for photographing the JFK Building and City Hall. I believe the regional offices of the EPA are (or were) in the building, so there's always the fear of the Earth Liberation Front (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Liberation_Front) carrying out a direct action.

They have airport-style security in the lobby. They tossed my bag and made me boot up my laptop at the last meeting I attended. So the camera is at home.

This is true. I was told to "delete my photos" while taking a picture of 1 Beacon from across the street (there are federal offices inside)! I've also walked in and forgotten to pick up my visitors pass or check in at the desk and had them let me in w/o question so I guess it depends on where you go/ who you deal with.

[jass]

When I visited the Bankruptcy Court a few years ago, I recall a sign requiring people to check their cellphones at the security gate, probably for this reason. (No, I wasn't filing.)

Courthouses do not allow cell phones but thats because of the calling feature, not the pictures.

When I went to the Dorchester court for Jury duty, I walked in with ym camera and call phone. While phones were banned, jurors were allowed to have their phones. Nothing was said about my camera (which I carry at all times)

[Ron Newman]

State courts don't have a rule against cameras and video. Federal ones do, which is why you never see live or taped coverage of a federal trial on TV.

[Beton Brut]

Who wants to see some shitty cellphone pix of the proposals?