Congress Street Garage Development [Archive] - Page 3

Beton Brut

12-17-2008, 09:26 PM

First-off, it was more of a display than a meeting or presentation; there were about a hundred people, and the crowd turned over (I arrived at 6:30).

The renderings were up on stands and there were models. I chatted up a few of the project people and some of the locals. People are interested in seeing this go forward. Only one person (of maybe twenty I spoke with) was opposed to the idea of replacing the garage with something in line with these proposals.

They didn't want folks taking pictures so I had to be a bit surreptitious. I took a ton of pix, but not all are winners. I was unable to shoot the models, only the renderings.

So here goes:

Cook & Fox
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3165/3116544481_2da4d17f2a_o.jpg
In interesting design, strongly influenced by Norman Foster's design for WTC2 (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/84/237944917_27ce0a05f4_o.jpg). The street-level (not visible in the photo) seems to need work. I don't hate it, but it needs some work.

Gensler
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3079/3117370860_d8e523a3a8_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3123/3117428018_018b9c026c_o.jpg

Not too shabby. Reminds me both of the proposed tower for Copley Square (http://www.archboston.org/community/showpost.php?p=60645&postcount=485), as well as Zaha Hadid's unbuilt proposal for the NYC 2012 Olympic Village (http://www.thecityreview.com/zaha42.jpg) in Queens. Another Alvar Aalto vase, inside a fishnet stocking.

Office of Metropolitan Architecture (Rem Koolhaas)
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3041/3117370940_8914c5a066_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3098/3116544243_899efa6c3c_o.jpg

Koolhaas and his team are always hit or miss with me. This is a miss.

S.O.M.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3117/3117371148_171a4ccc98_o.jpg

Another disapointment. SOM's proposal for Transbay in San Francisco (http://www.som.com/content.cfm/transbay_transit_center) was breathtaking. This looks like they didn't even try.

It's a design in four gestures:

Two Modernist towers that look disturbingly similar to the JFK Building (contextualism?);
A boot-shaped geode (Koolhaas (http://www.eikongraphia.com/wordpress/wp-content/OMA%20-%20TVCC%20Exterior.jpg)) with random windows (Machado + Silvetti (http://cache.boston.com/news/galleries/magazine/2004/0222/harvard2.jpg));
A hokey ground-plane running up the facades of the low-rises;
Gausey space-frame atria

Rubbish. Dismissed.

Foster & Partners
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3100/3116544375_6c8b6488ba_o.jpg
Well thought out (not the best rendering). Circulation and the public realm look pretty good. Boston could have its own Barad-dur (http://vwt.d2g.com:8081/15-Mordor.jpg) and Isengard (http://www.hdrhq.de/images/gallery/hdrhq_gallery/helden/isengard.jpg). My pick.

Chris

12-17-2008, 09:34 PM

Upon initial impression, I agree, the Foster one is the best.

czsz

12-17-2008, 09:35 PM

Bubbybu

12-17-2008, 09:39 PM

Gensler and Foster are the two best imo

I love the latice work on Gensler's....when I first saw it I in fact thought that was the Foster design a la their Swiss Re Building in London.

I like Foster's...but I'd like to see the wide shorter building from another angle...does the shown facade split at a near 90 degrees or is it more broad faced? The bifurcation of the taller building reminds me of the currently stalled Russia Tower they designed...

OMA's design is just a mess....I see what they tried to do...play off the geometric interplay of Pei's Government Center but it is just too much....too busy, too cubic....and definetely not Boston....I guess they saw our city hall and figured the area was ripe for even more harmonious architectural masochism....

Cook & Fox's design is not bad but it looks like it belongs in Dubai...not Boston...in fact it strongly resembles Zaha Hadid's Dancing Towers design...

I dunno what SOM is smoking....did they even put one iota of effort and energy into this design? Maybe it is just a poor picture but it looks like something they dusted off out of their 1980's reject closet....

Props to Gensler and Foster Partners for coming up with some classy designs that are tailored to Beantown....secondary props to Cook & Fox and OMA for at least trying....

Skidmore Owings and Merrill can go fly a kite....

choo

12-17-2008, 10:06 PM

I like the wave on the cook one. It seems to break up the building, giving it a more slender look, which is different from the rectangle. I do like the base of the last proposal, however. While this sight is perfect for a signature tower, the street level interaction of all these designs needs to done right.

What is their approval timeline? I remember them setting an ultimatum for this or they would just keep the garage. How long will the NIMBY's have to know off 25 floors?

vanshnookenraggen

12-17-2008, 10:07 PM

I'm going to second the "holy fucking shit".

SOM? More like POS, m i rite?!

Seriously the Cook & Fox is just stunning. I am almost too jaded to think we could have something of that caliber in Boston.

The Foster is alright but it doesn't really do it for me. This would be awesome 10 years ago.

The Gensler I kinda dig but I think that design would get old fast.

Everything else is crap.

I'm going to bed dreaming of that Cook & Fox design tho.

Bubbybu

12-17-2008, 10:16 PM

now let us take our highly refined sensibilities and transplace them with the sensibilities of Mayor Menino, Kairos Shen and the BRA denizens while looking at those renderings.....

Which one do they go for?

Which one does the developer go for?

With the amount of money backing this project the development team can't be cheap enough to select SMO's design.

They probably also know that City Hall and the NIMBY Squad would absolutely hate the OMA proposal.

So we can assume the development team will pick either Foster, Cook + Fox or Gensler....

I think we win with any of those 3 designs. Though I'd like to see more renderings of course....

czsz

12-17-2008, 10:20 PM

Our NIMBY overlords are sure to love SOM's design; none of the others give them the respite of some rare open space.

But not before demanding it lose 30 stories and be built of red brick.

That, or whoever volunteers to draw in space for a supermarket first.

Chessplayer

12-17-2008, 10:29 PM

Foster's proposal exudes strength and is evenly proportioned - qualities I like for exposed locations because they appear to anchor an area.

The Cook & Fox proposal could be my favorite but I'm not really sure about what exactly is the shape of the design - I really need a better rendering.

Gensler's proposal - Idk - Boston's buildings always seem to face something (the street usually, but occasionally landmarks, the water, etc.) and these appear to just sort of float above. The inward curvature of the structures and the entire development's homogeneity of shape acts to separate the buildings from their context. The lack of windows doesn't help, for it further removes the buildings by giving the eye little to latch onto. As a future landmark, a building should define the space it's in - it should feel like a natural culmination of the built environment. These just seem transported.

Koolhaas lacks any of the funkiness and lightness that makes his other buildings unique. This would actually fit well in downtown Minneapolis - modern but corporate.

SOM is banality, gimmick, and more banality. Blegh.

blade_bltz

12-17-2008, 10:31 PM

I remember seeing an article in which some NIMBY asserted that nothing over 325 ft (height of JFK) would be accepted by the community.

GAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH ANGRY!

kennedy

12-17-2008, 10:34 PM

Holy fucking shit, some real architecture. I'd die for the Cook & Fox or Gensler proposals. Koolhaas' is uncharacteristically clunky; I guess this is what happens when he puts down the bong. And pray spare us SOM, which looks like it wanted to do a mashup of the worst of Government Center with the worst of the more creative Koolhaas. I wouldn't complain about getting Foster's, but, like all his designs, it's just a tad bit too tame.

I am stunned! I like Cook & Fox best, closely followed by Norman Foster's (which is odd, I usually don't like his stuff), unfortunately, we'll never have the luck to score that design. SOM made me puke in my mouth, and Gensler is what, in 50 years, we'll look back upon like we look back upon Charles River Park, and Harbor Towers and the like. Koolhaas looked like some squatty, modern, glassy Sears Tower. I think he may have forgotten about Boston's proposal, and thrown it together an hour before the meeting.

Beton, we've officially upgraded you to aB double-0 status after your successful infiltration and reconnaissance of a US Gov't Facility.

PaulC

12-17-2008, 10:36 PM

I thought the tops of Cook & Fox referenced the two towers on State St 28 & 60?

You can't see it on this pic but did you notice the Transamerica tower in the back of the first Gensler pic. I think there are some other SF buildings in the background too. The view with the Zakim was spectacular if not realistic. This would be my pick if it actually could look that way at night. Will make a great bookend to the Copley Sq tower. Skin looks a bit like the swimming hall at the Peking Olympics

I thought it was interesting the way Koolhaus fits with the JFK but it had the worst Street presence.

I thought SOM tried the second least, but at least they tried to referenced government center, I agree very little thought went into the atria even with a knock off of the Peking Olympic Stadium thrown in. I disliked this the most at first but grew not to dislike it as much after a while.

I thought Foster's buildings were pretty standard, I expected much more from this firm. The base looked like the massing model.

Notice all the children, guess who's parents want a school included? I thought there might have been a protest.

Beton Brut I must have been standing beside you because I heard all your descriptions while at the presentation.

Suffolk 83

12-17-2008, 10:55 PM

There's gonna be a million responses to this... so can we have a 8-10 answer poll question to this? I don't really care who decides the questions

Beton Brut

12-17-2008, 10:57 PM

^^ Tan coat w/ fun-fur collar, beard, scowl.

PaulC

12-17-2008, 11:07 PM

i remember now, thanks

KentXie

12-18-2008, 01:11 AM

HOLY CRAP! Many of these design you don't even see in the United States, let alone Boston. They look how do you say, European and Asian.

KentXie

12-18-2008, 01:15 AM

S.O.M. and Koolhaas has the worse design and I swear, if they built that, they might as well photoshop the towers out of a picture of Boston like they do with the hotel tower in Pyongyang

Padre Mike

12-18-2008, 08:00 AM

Foster and only Foster.....the rest are too gimmicky, too weird or dense at the base or just asking for the review process to strip them down to banality.

atlrvr

12-18-2008, 08:15 AM

Agreed...only Foster. I'm not overly opposed to Cooke and Fox, but as rendered, the way the towers relate to the base and how the base looks like it relates to the street leave much to be desired.

Foster is magnificant in every way for Boston. It screams modern and sophisticated, yet it doesn't strive to be over-the-top which would run counter to Boston sensabilites. In a sense, the Foster tower is a modern day John Hancock (with the street presence considered) It is bold and forward thinking for the time, but also some sense of refinement.

Gensler belongs in an emerging Asian city that is trying to make a statement and has no contextual urban fabric to begin with, or possibly as an bio-outpost on Mars.

SOM belongs in Century City, LA.

OMA belongs in the back of a filing cabinet to never see the light of day.

johnpaul5

12-18-2008, 08:40 AM

While the last design seems exceptionally cool and I'd be so happy if it gets approved without objection and expeditiously (like the Filenes development approval process), I am already so pessimistic about the nimbys dragging this on for 2-3 years and bastardizing the plans so that in the end the developers decide to abandon the project. It's a very common them in Boston, the worst city for development.

justin

12-18-2008, 08:44 AM

And the winner is... CBT!

Bubbybu

12-18-2008, 08:50 AM

I agree about Foster's being the 'most suitable' and the classiest; the only question to me is that 'does it look too similar to the Millenium Towers downtown?'

pelhamhall

12-18-2008, 09:05 AM

Beton - thank you so much for the photos!

I am going to withhold all judgment until I see a full set of clear renderings and models.

You have to give Raymond Properties credit for trying, but the complete lack of media coverage in the two dailies today screams volumes.

Everyone knows by now that none of this matters unless Boss Menino is dethroned.

Bubbybu

12-18-2008, 09:11 AM

No need to be so pessimistic about the prospects...

if Menino turns away from a $2billion development that has solid and powerful backing in a time of economic stagnation.....he should be filleted

NIMBYs can't supress such a good project in such dour times

choo

12-18-2008, 09:19 AM

This is something I would definitely fight for.

Boston02124

12-18-2008, 09:30 AM

What are the hieghts of these towers?

Bubbybu

12-18-2008, 09:35 AM

What are the hieghts of these towers?

700 something and 500 something? (In feet)

Bubbybu

12-18-2008, 09:44 AM

You know what OMA's proposal reminds me of?

Tetris...

It is as if God just dumped a bunch of Tetris blocks onto downtown Boston.

Arborway

12-18-2008, 09:46 AM

I'm sorry to say that the Koolhaas proposal looks to be the densest and most urban out of them all. No idea how the street level would work, but it looks promising.

The SOM proposal appears to be little more than generic glass and Alcobond junk that has less than zero street presence, and looks like it involves the same kind of cheap trash low-rise construction that has gone up at North Point.

KentXie

12-18-2008, 10:35 AM

Bubbybu

12-18-2008, 10:36 AM

Do you think Koolhaas himself has given this proposal anything more than a cursory glance?

Beton Brut

12-18-2008, 10:49 AM

I've read people's thoughts on these proposals with great interest -- maybe I said too much about my own opinions, as we don't have proper renderings and site-plans to pass judgment (and I've no interest in being a taste-maker). Interestingly, the developers indicated that they didn't intend to put the renderings online at the project's website (http://demolishthegarage.com/index.htm). I think there may be some value in emailing the project team (Community@DemolishTheGarage.com) and letting them know that the designs are actively being discussed and debated online.

I asked one of the project execs if they studied the San Francisco Transbay Project (http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransBay/content.aspx?id=53) as they developed the RFP and worked with the competing firms; though they were very aware of that process, they seem more interested in what communities like ours have to say than a hand-picked jury of experts. That's why their decision to not display the proposals seemed a bit odd.

I did edit myself a bit as I was posting the renderings last night: because of the overall scale of the project (and present-state economics), it will likely be done in phases, so it is entirely possible that multiple firms will be involved in the project. I don't know how I feel about that. Could be cool, could be contrived and hokey, could be utterly sickening.

Keep talking, people...

czsz

12-18-2008, 12:36 PM

Still don't get the enthusiasm for the Foster. Why can't Boston have design on par with European or Asian cities? Why do we have to go with the "restraint" of Lord Foster of Thames Bank and the gurtel of corporate austerity that seems to hold back most of his work?

Doing something truly bold here would finally catapult the city over the notion that it still can't get over the traditionalist reactionism against 60s brutalism.

Bubbybu

12-18-2008, 12:50 PM

We were never going to get some sort of iconic peacock...Just a world class professionaly designed building that is quasi-unique. The scope of this project sort of came out of left field...the easiest way to ge tsomething built is to not tread too far from the main line.

The garage at the aquarium would be a great spot for somehting truly iconic

kennedy

12-18-2008, 01:07 PM

CZ, it's not that we love Foster (I certainly think everything he draws are uninspired, recycled designs with new materials and the LEED label), it is that we are so pessimistic that anything grander would be never be approved, or it would be absolutely razed by NIMBYs. Cook and Fox is unbelievable, but if it were actually chosen to be built, I'd say we have a good chance the world is coming to an end.

czsz

12-18-2008, 01:07 PM

I'm all for doing anything to get the garage demolished, but the "let's just get it built" mentality on this forum is sometimes a bit obtuse. We'd be better off with a skyline that was nothing but the Custom House Tower than 99% of the boxes downtown. Peacocks aside, can't we root for quality over quantity, and not just (at best) both?

London, for example, seems to have adopted a policy of building only the most inspired towers. Boston's has always seemed like the opposite.

Oh well, may my beloved Gensler find a home on the south bank of the Thames.

kennedy

12-18-2008, 01:16 PM

Man, I don't know what you see in the Gensler proposal. It doesn't have form OR function.

My mentality (and what seems like the rest of the board) is that if we don't push our favorites now, the NIMBYs will soon swarm around SOM and defend it to the death, and we'll end up with another low-quality box.

atlrvr

12-18-2008, 01:22 PM

I agree that the aquarium garage is a better place for something like the Cooke & Fox or even Gensler proposal. There really is no expectations for that site, and an awkward streel level presence would be par for their course in that strip.

To czsz....I assume from your posts that you believe Asian designs are something to be emulated. Perhaps that's where our differences begin. To reference your post, the 1960's brutalism was a bold step forward, and the last 4 decades have been architectural apologies. Do we really want to do that again? In other words, if C+F or Gensler was selected for the site, do you really want to pay the price for the next 40 years to in the form of brick-box reparations? Feel free to reference London in your rebuttal. :)

EDIT....I see you already referenced London before I finished my post. ;)

czsz

12-18-2008, 01:47 PM

I'm not an advocate of turning Boston into Hong Kong but yeah, London is a good model.

Anyway, our choice is Foster's pseudo-mediocrity for the near future or a sprinkle of boldness followed by some hyper-mediocrity?

Call me Kurt Vonnegut, but I don't think we should handicap ourselves for such small gain.

Sprinkle of boldness it is. No self-censorship, or the NIMBYs have already won!

Beton Brut

12-18-2008, 01:58 PM

Considering my post from earlier and the probability of a phased build-out, which of these proposals could be combined? I realize this isn't a "fair" question without a full disclosure of the site plans, with an eye to circulation, street-level usage, public amenities, integration with the T, etc.

Still don't get the enthusiasm for the Foster...

Doing something truly bold here would finally catapult the city over the notion that it still can't get over the traditionalist reactionism against 60s brutalism.

I like the Foster proposal because it has the stamp of an updated, high-tech version of Brutalism, in close proximity to two Brutalist monuments (City Hall and the Hurley).

With that said, Cook + Fox and Gensler are also really attractive. If the Gensler proposal isn't chosen, I think Don Chiofaro should consider it for his little garage project (http://www.archboston.org/community/showthread.php?t=936) on the waterfront.

tobyjug

12-18-2008, 02:22 PM

SOM= 1 Financial Center x 1.65

kennedy

12-18-2008, 02:59 PM

If the Gensler proposal isn't chosen, I think Don Chiofaro should consider it for his little garage project (http://www.archboston.org/community/showthread.php?t=936) on the waterfront.

This is a much better spot for the Gensler proposal, his is very liquid looking and would go with the cool, sleek angles of the Aquarium.

Bubbybu

12-18-2008, 03:21 PM

The taller Gensler tower would be perfect for the Aquarium Garage

and not every building constructed in London is iconic....

hell look at their Olympic Stadium for 2012...one of the most boring designs in memory for such a grand event.

it's nice to scream 'be bold' when it is not our money or our vested interest beyond being a citizen but not everything that is built has to be an nth wonder of the world.

I agree that I would like to see a 21st century iconic piece or two built in the city but in this location and for what are 3 very good potential designs...I'm not gonna complain

czsz

12-18-2008, 03:55 PM

London's public architecture has kinda lagged behind its private stuff. Luckily, this isn't a public project. Like you said, it isn't our money. But I'm pretty sure the developer wanted something at least relatively flashy, otherwise they wouldn't have invited these firms.

bostonnative

12-18-2008, 08:48 PM

BarbaricManchurian

12-18-2008, 09:18 PM

Koolhaas is my favorite, though needs a little improvement for the city hall view; I also like Cook + Fox and wouldn't have a problem with any of the other designs except for SOM. Seriously, the first render for the Koolhaas design looks great, but it seems like they cheaped out with the 2nd render; if they improve that, it would look fantastic and will be a great contrast that also fits in with the surrounding architecture in some respects.

Boston02124

12-18-2008, 09:22 PM

KentXie

12-19-2008, 12:01 AM

I go with Foster's though the base of the taller one reminds me of the Freedom Tower which I don't particularly like. I like it because of the angles which makes the tower look sharp. I think the shorter one needs to be more slimmer.

Gensler's design look very European, which is a plus though it will look very different and slightly out of place in Boston. This is my second choice.

I think I saw Cook and Fox's design somewhere in another tower or something similar to it. Reminds me a bit of the Dancing Towers in Dubai. Also reminds me of one of Gehry design. This my third choice.

As I chide earlier before, S.O.M.s and Koolhaas have the worse designs. Stripes and Boxes=Dull, Bland, and Ugly.

Lurker

12-19-2008, 12:27 PM

Unfortunately all too often in Boston: bland boxes + stripes + BRA = Proposal wins!

Bubbybu

12-19-2008, 01:05 PM

yea I see what you mean

http://www.boston.com/business/ticker/huntington111-thumb.jpg

http://www.consultwebs.com/ncphotos/images/boston/boston_4090_550wm.jpg

Exchange Place has to be the most underappreciated building in Boston....for being over 20 years old it has aged amazingly well

It is also similar to Tour Total in Paris...designed by the same firm

OMA's proposal for One Congress Street is also somewhat of a rip-off

Beton Brut

12-19-2008, 01:24 PM

Exchange Place and One Post Office Square are knock-offs of a couple of Paul Rudolph buildings.

The Lippo Center (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lippo_Centre,_Hong_Kong) (formerly the Bond Center)
City Center (http://prudolph.lib.umassd.edu/node/13759), Ft. Worth

Though much boxier and more awkward, the OMA proposal evokes Moshe Safdie's unbuilt Columbus Center (http://www.thecityreview.com/uws/cpw/gulfwest.jpg) at Columbus Circle in New York. I always preferred this scheme to the bland, corporate David Childs replacement (http://www.nyc-architecture.com/TEN/MID-TWC_small1.jpg).

Bubbybu

12-19-2008, 01:28 PM

Exchange Place is related to Tour Total which was built prior to Lippo though not prior to City Center...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tour_Total

http://img.groundspeak.com/waymarking/display/b625ef84-29a6-433c-833f-21e453cde938.jpg

which also makes one see just how lame OMA's proposal was

Cojapo

12-19-2008, 01:29 PM

Although none of them impress me, I like Gensler's the most, then Fosters. The rest...what?
Maybe SOM and Koolhaas know that this project will be cut down, chopped up and spit out into a shell of what they propose, so the effort and creativity was not there.
Gensler's would be cool if the Copley Place tower gets built.

Bubbybu

12-19-2008, 01:39 PM

also how did SOM go from designing this in Boston:

http://www.som.com/resources/category/5/0/3/8/1/3/images/001_21581309.jpg

http://archrecord.construction.com/projects/BTS/archives/offices/06_601Congress/images/1_lg.jpg

http://www.som.com/content.cfm/601_congress_street

To that crap proposal we saw this past week....???

Jane Jetson

12-19-2008, 02:11 PM

I feel like this has dragged on for so long - does anyone remember or know what the criteria is for deciding the winner???

vanshnookenraggen

12-19-2008, 02:16 PM

http://www.som.com/resources/category/5/0/3/8/1/3/images/001_21581309.jpg

vs.

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/original/gehry500big_fbny-thumb.jpg

Why must we have second rate architecture?

This is why I want the Cook & Fox design because it is by far the mast contemporary of the lot. I feel like all the other designs (maybe not so much the Gensler) just give in right off the bat and don't even try because this is "Boston".

statler

12-19-2008, 02:26 PM

I feel like this has dragged on for so long

You think this has dragged? This project is a baby. We've just started. Remember we have been talking about Columbus Center since at least Feb '03 (http://skyscraperguy.yuku.com/topic/669/t/columbus-center-article.html).

And SST goes back father that that!

tmac9wr

12-19-2008, 05:08 PM

I think the Cook & Fox design is the best....the Foster design is pretty cool, but the smaller tower is a chode. The Gensler design is really nice...it's smooth and elegant.

The other two are throwaway pieces of garbage. I'm going to reserve final judgement on the renderings until we get some higher quality pics (very grateful for these ones by the way), and get to see some other angles and models, etc.

If we got the Cook & Fox, Foster or Gensler design, I'd be very happy.

type001

12-20-2008, 12:50 PM

I think I'm the only one who actually likes the Aquarium garage. I don't know what it is, but something about it fits with the greenway and surrounding buildings. I can't put my finger on it, but there's a sensation when seeing it. I can't describe it, but I like it.

I suppose there are few, but no, you are not the only one. I feel exactly the same way that you do. I simply love that garage, and it makes my day every morning when I see it. The fact that any garage could serve such function and look so elegant is a huge accomplishment. Unless there is some iconic 900ft building taking it's place, I wouldn't want to see it go.

http://www.consultwebs.com/ncphotos/images/boston/boston_4090_550wm.jpg

Exchange Place has to be the most underappreciated building in Boston....for being over 20 years old it has aged amazingly well

I can't agree more with this statment. I just had to write to it.

Regarding the 1 Congress designs, I am far too late to come to the table so I'll make it simple and echo tmac9wr's comment "If we got the Cook & Fox, Foster or Gensler design, I'd be very happy." I think the Cook & Fox desing is exactly what this city needs. If I owned the garage, I would threaten the community that I would never tear it down if any NIMBYs stood in my way (and fortunately, that is a very like scenario). The Foster and Gensler designs have their obvious advantages and I would be happy enough to have either of those to the point that it makes me less angry about losing the 7 floors off of 1 Franklin. But words can't even describe how happy I would be if the Cook & Fox design was chosen.

PaulC

12-20-2008, 02:19 PM

I'm not sure if this has been posted already

The developer said at the meeting that he might pick more than one architect

They want feed back and the best way is the web site email
http://demolishthegarage.com/contact.htm

Chris

12-20-2008, 04:03 PM

Exchange Place is the reason why Druker should have prayed SCL got historic status.

Bubbybu

12-20-2008, 06:10 PM

Exchange Place is the reason why Druker should have prayed SCL got historic status.

why because of the facade preservation?

tobyjug

12-20-2008, 08:17 PM

What it did to the lovely old State Street building was grotesque. They could have done without the stupid vanity lobby and minimized the wounds.
.

Chris

12-20-2008, 08:20 PM

why because of the facade preservation?

No, the ridiculous tax advantage.

Lurker

12-20-2008, 09:14 PM

Considering the original plan was to pull a 75 State Street on Exchange Place, be glad it turned out the way it did. I swear Maurice Gordon earned himself an even deeper place in hell for what happened to 83 and paved the way for 75 State Street to happen.

I sincerely hope SOM's & Koolhaus' designs, or a bastard combination of the two, aren't considered. Cook & Fox, Foster or Gensler the design, more or less on various levels, all have significantly more merit.

Although we haven't heard from the "OH NO S-S-SHADOWS!" lobby yet; so one wonders what two story Whole Foods, a few cell phone shops, several banks, drive-thru Dunkin's with 2x parking spaces per 500sf, and at least 45% open space, will be requested.

Bubbybu

12-21-2008, 06:53 AM

No, the ridiculous tax advantage.

ah lol

ablarc

12-21-2008, 02:40 PM

Koolhaas.

vanshnookenraggen

12-21-2008, 02:51 PM

Koolhaas.

Your reasoning for this is?

ablarc

12-21-2008, 06:36 PM

tobyjug

12-21-2008, 08:53 PM

I like the first of the two Koolhaas renderings because of the bouillon cubes. I bet it would look really interesting viewed at an angle from the "greenway". It shows a real sense of humour.

That second rendering, the view from Government Center is a bit cold, though. Until I saw that view, I didn't realize how dominating this project will be. I'd like to see all of the proposals from that angle and from Congress Street at about the crossing behind City Hall.

Liked Fox and Gensler for their "standoff" presence. Wish Gensler could take the Koolhass base/streetlevel and put it under a heatgun, melt it up a bit. In fact, put the whole thing under a heat gun and get it all melty or lava lamp-like.

Bubbybu

12-22-2008, 08:48 AM

OMA's design is ok for an expanding goverment area

Government center is a government area but one that is in the process of being constricted and enclosed....thankfully

OMA's proposal would expand upon a government zone

which is not what anyone is looking for at this time

plus the smaller buildings look horrible

skintreesnail

12-22-2008, 10:01 AM

Although the smaller building might look a little awkward, I think the Koolhaas design (especially the two towers) is the most striking and modern design, followed by Gensler (the Cook and Fox design is too blurry to tell, but it looks interesting). Foster is a nice design and would be a great addition, but in my opinion it doesn't pack as much a punch and would have as lasting an impact as the others. I think if Koolhaas switched up his pattern a bit for the smallest building, a lot of people would be having a completely different reaction.

It's kind of hard to really form an opinion on the SOM design; it looks like a chipboard model and doesn't stand a chance against the 3D renderings. You can't even tell what the materials are really.

Bubbybu

12-22-2008, 10:59 AM

I wouldn?t mind OMA?s design on Fan Pier or Seaport Square but not there on Congress Street. Just way too busy of a design imo. And too contrasting.

Beton Brut

12-22-2008, 11:20 AM

^ It's chopped up in chunks, like Chinese food; and the chunks are rectangles. This place needs rectangles.

Normally, I don't like Koolhaas, but this scheme --for him-- is commendably restrained. Maybe the details will display his customary weirdness; Boston could use some of that, but not at a large scale.

Congratulations, ablarc! You got me to go back and look at the OMA/Koolhaas scheme again. I agree that there are some interesting ideas in it (he's an idea guy, really, more than a craftsman like Piano), but the feel is not humane. It's cold, like a piece of the Borg cube. The details, materials, and grammar will make or break this design, and I didn't see any specifics in the presentation materials.

I'm not sure if this has been posted already

The developer said at the meeting that he might pick more than one architect

They want feed back and the best way is the web site email
http://demolishthegarage.com/contact.htm

I did make passing mention of this here (http://www.archboston.org/community/showpost.php?p=67146&postcount=535). I chose to leave it out of my initial post because I wanted pure reactions to the five schemes as is.

So what do people think? Could any of these be combined in a way that would work urbanistically, and as a "complete" design?

KentXie

12-22-2008, 12:07 PM

I still don't know what people see in Coolhaas's [sic] ice cubes design. You say its striking and modern but I see in no way it is striking. Yes maybe it is modern but it is bland.

I guess it's just a difference of opinions.

tmac9wr

12-22-2008, 12:55 PM

Beton, was the shorter of the Foster towers fat all around? Or was it thinner when viewed from other angles?

Are there any other meetings soon that will show the models again?

cden4

12-22-2008, 02:53 PM

I would love to see some visuals. Does anyone have handouts from the meetings they can post?

Patriots_1228

12-22-2008, 02:59 PM

Are all these towers the same 52 and 42 stories or whatever it was?

or do the different proposals vary in height. The gensler one looks really short compared to some of the others.

czsz

12-22-2008, 03:12 PM

This thread needs a name change.

Beton Brut

12-22-2008, 03:36 PM

Beton, was the shorter of the Foster towers fat all around? Or was it thinner when viewed from other angles.

Both towers have the same basic footprint, offset by 90 degrees.

I would love to see some visuals. Does anyone have handouts from the meetings they can post?

The project team didn't seem interested in presenting the plans and renderings to the public via the web. I found this odd, because they do seem very interested in hearing the thought and ideas from groups just like the active posters on this board.

I did not see any hand-outs at the meeting, other than prints of the .pdfs (http://demolishthegarage.com/meetings.htm) available at the project's website (http://demolishthegarage.com/index.htm).

Could someone (other than myself -- they've actually met me) email the project (Community@DemolishTheGarage.com) and ask that they post a proper set of renderings and site-plans.

skintreesnail

12-22-2008, 04:06 PM

Congratulations, ablarc! You got me to go back and look at the OMA/Koolhaas scheme again. I agree that there are some interesting ideas in it (he's an idea guy, really, more than a craftsman like Piano), but the feel is not humane. It's cold, like a piece of the Borg cube. The details, materials, and grammar will make or break this design, and I didn't see any specifics in the presentation materials.

I did make passing mention of this here (http://www.archboston.org/community/showpost.php?p=67146&postcount=535). I chose to leave it out of my initial post because I wanted pure reactions to the five schemes as is.

So what do people think? Could any of these be combined in a way that would work urbanistically, and as a "complete" design?

Since Beton Brut posed the question, I was thinking that the taller Koolhaas tower would look good incorporated with the two smaller Foster buildings. I like the traditional base of the Foster tower and think it would fuse nicely with the Koolhaas design, sort of a blend/battle between traditional and modern.

vanshnookenraggen

12-22-2008, 04:22 PM

This thread needs a name change.

I changed it to this for now, until they come up with a real name.

kennedy

12-22-2008, 07:09 PM

I don't think it worked...

...my bad, I just never refreshed the page.

bosma

12-23-2008, 09:16 PM

53 State/ exchange place is integrated new and old very well. You only notice the new building if you walk further down congress or kilby.

The lobby is currently undergoing renovations, seems to look a little better now.

KentXie

12-25-2008, 09:55 PM

I think I change my mind, I think the unofficial first renderings are the best proposal.

type001

12-26-2008, 08:04 AM

^^^ I'm with you brother! Although we all jugde the Boston skyline so critically (because we love it, and we love this city more than anything), it's exactly what this city needs.

garbribre

12-26-2008, 07:08 PM

I may be parroting parts of other posts behind me.

Personally, I don't care if they build 'too tall' here--30, 50, 70 stories makes little difference. I don't even want a unified design--essentially, that's what all these proposals do. However, (biiiig however), I most want to see a smaller street grid returned. OMA and Gensler seem to be the only two heading in that direction.

I want a combination of Foster's and Gensler's towers with OMA's seemingly tighter and smaller street grid, overall footprint and density, although Gensler's footprint and density looks good, too. (Huh??!! I know what I mean.) I think multiple architects, and breaking the site into three distinct parts for each of them is a good idea and would alleviate the 'planned, gargantuan complex' feel that all of these are. (Well, it IS a planned, gargantuan complex.)

Then, I want to take Cook's towers and use them, modified for the location(s), in Winthrop Square. In doing this, I don't want to see the BCBS/Rudolph Building demolished! (Look at Cook's again and think about this.)

Oh, also, the form of the tower portion of 53 State Street--a great building. The lobby, sadly, is not. That's what makes this facadectomy so jarring. Basically, the connection between the two buildings could have been handled better, but the grand lobby accentuates the 'mistakes.'

awood91

01-02-2009, 06:25 PM

IT'S POSTED!!!!!!!

http://www.demolishthegarage.com/pdf/presentations/pres_2008_12_17.pdf

vanshnookenraggen

01-02-2009, 06:32 PM

I still think the Cook & Fox is the best but now I like the Foster one more.

Chris

01-02-2009, 07:35 PM

Cook & Fox is appealing more to me, but I just don't like the larger tower (too derivative). The triangular approach of the larger tower in Foster certainly is new, but the base's interaction with the street is just ... eww. I really don't like Foster's left most building either (cook's split design is better).

Does anyone know the the building over the greenway in Cook's is supposed to be?

jass

01-02-2009, 09:15 PM

The cook base of the tall tower looks like a parking garage

The presentation definitely started off strong and then turned to ew...

BarbaricManchurian

01-02-2009, 09:50 PM

Spent a while cropping screenshots...here are the results! :D

Overview of all designs:

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b96/fccDaniel/congress%20street/overview.jpg

Cook + Fox:

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b96/fccDaniel/congress%20street/cookandfox.jpg

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b96/fccDaniel/congress%20street/cookandfox2.jpg

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b96/fccDaniel/congress%20street/cookandfox3.jpg

Foster + Partners:

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b96/fccDaniel/congress%20street/foster.jpg

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b96/fccDaniel/congress%20street/foster2.jpg

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b96/fccDaniel/congress%20street/foster3.jpg

Gensler:

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b96/fccDaniel/congress%20street/gensler.jpg

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b96/fccDaniel/congress%20street/gensler2.jpg

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b96/fccDaniel/congress%20street/gensler3.jpg

Office of Metropolitan Architecture:

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b96/fccDaniel/congress%20street/oma.jpg

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b96/fccDaniel/congress%20street/oma2.jpg

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b96/fccDaniel/congress%20street/oma3.jpg

Skidmore, Owings & Merrill:

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b96/fccDaniel/congress%20street/som.jpg

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b96/fccDaniel/congress%20street/som2.jpg

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b96/fccDaniel/congress%20street/som3.jpg

Arborway

01-03-2009, 12:16 AM

It's nice to see SOM completely ignore the street level.

vanshnookenraggen

01-03-2009, 12:33 AM

The SOM kinda reminds me of the Empire State Plaza. Do we really need a second Government Center? Did we need the first one? No.

Jane Jetson

01-03-2009, 12:55 AM

Does anyone know the the building over the greenway in Cook's is supposed to be?

I believe it's the mythical YMCA.

KentXie

01-03-2009, 03:09 AM

The new renderings made me hate SOM and OMA even more. The bottom of SOM has an interesting design I admit but it kills the street level. For OMA, there are so many cubes that I can't even count them all.

Bubbybu

01-03-2009, 06:07 AM

It's still tough to get a read on Cook + Fox's proposal...

I still like Foster's but not as much as I once did....the buildings might be too harsh for the location.

If Gensler's design incorporates some sort of lighting or color motif for the building's envelope like the Agbar or the Swiss Re using lit and or colored panels....I think it would run away with the best design of the 3 in terms of fitting into the location...counter balancing Government Center and also providing the best vista view out of all the designs, night or day.

It seems it would also be the easiest building to cut floors from if that became necessary in the City approval process.

SMO and OMA are still blech....both firms obviously made the error in coming up with a design that would act as an extension of Government Center.

Joe_Schmoe

01-03-2009, 07:48 AM

Can we vote for "back to the drawing board"?

I've come to the realization that the success of a Boston building is determined by how well the building works in winter. Does it enliven the space? Make the place feel warmer or inviting? Work well in the bleak grey January gloom? (Notice how all of these renderings are shown in sunny summer days.) All of these designs are cold cold cold.

One of the guiding principles of the designs should have been to create (or recreate) Haymarket Sq as an actual place. All of these designs just keep the existing street lines and retain this space as a throughfare rather than public square. I'd put back the circle that used to cap off the Bulfinch Triangle and formed Haymarket Sq. (I'll post pictures when the Boston Historical Society website is working again.)

Ron Newman

01-03-2009, 09:15 AM

When it was still a circle, what was in the middle? A statue? Trees?

Lrfox

01-03-2009, 09:50 AM

It's nice to see SOM completely ignore the street level.

Not only do they not even show a rendering of the street level, but one side of the taller tower has a COMPLETELY blank wall even in the rendering. Pathetic.

I still favor the Cook & Fox and Gensler Proposals most. Probably Gensler a bit more, but much of that is due to intrigue at the plaza/street level. I'd need to see a more detailed rendering to base a final decision off of. Right now, it looks interesting... a modern take on non-grid, narrow streets.

tmac9wr

01-03-2009, 11:45 AM

I think Cook & Fox runs away with this one. The design is stunning in my opinion, it's very unique. However, I'd like to see some ground level renderings. I also like how they added another building on top of the Greenway. If they go with this design, it'd be cool to see some rooftop restaurants on one of the shorter buildings.

My second favorite design is Gensler's. It's really cool looking and futuristic. Foster's taller building is cool looking, but the short one is such a stump that it makes me dislike the entire design.

I wonder what the heights are for the towers...the Cook & Fox tower looks like it could be over 800 ft. Also, I'd like to see other renderings from different angles.

Charlie_mta

01-03-2009, 12:40 PM

Joe points out something missing from these proposals: scaling back the street widths, and reestablishing Haymarket Square as a pedestrian friendly hub.

All of the overly wide streets built during construction of Government Center in the 1960's should be narrowed, and also have some variation in their alignments introduced, so that they aren't the sweeping superhighways they are now.

This photo, looking north, is of the area circa 1949:

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b66/karlgame/haymarket.jpg?t=1231009097

Joe_Schmoe

01-03-2009, 01:36 PM

It's so depressing to think that almost all of the buildings in that photo were destroyed by the West End, Government Center, and the Central Artery.

Suffolk 83

01-03-2009, 03:07 PM

no use crying over spilled milk

Joe_Schmoe

01-03-2009, 03:10 PM

The needless destruction of a good portion of a city on the other hand...

JohnAKeith

01-03-2009, 04:24 PM

Ron, here are some photos that may help figure it out.

There's another photo somewhere that I can't find that is from the South looking North, with the artery under construction on the right. It shows Haymarket Square as it was in 1950 or so.

http://johnakeith.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/haymarket.jpg

Above, 1960's?

http://johnakeith.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/haymarket2.jpg

circa 1914

Charlie_mta

01-03-2009, 06:00 PM

The 1914 photo above was the original smaller size of Haymarket Square, but was later expanded when the Sumner Tunnel was built a few decades later later. Here is the expanded Square in 1946, from an article by Ablarc on the Cyburbia website. The view is looking south, with Haymarket Sqaure on the right side of the photo. The widened Cross Street and new (at the time) Sumner Tunnel are also clearly visible:

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/medieval-boston/1946d.jpg

ablarc

01-03-2009, 06:31 PM

statler

01-03-2009, 06:53 PM

^^Medieval Boston (http://www.cyburbia.org/forums/showthread.php?t=10814)

goody

01-03-2009, 07:01 PM

Jesus one goes away for awhile and then something like this comes to town... Over all I would take Foster, but I also like Cook. Cook's main tower is just too much replace that with Fosters main tower an we'd have a winning combo. :)

KentXie

01-03-2009, 07:26 PM

I think Foster's would look better at where the Winthrop tower is at. Gensler's and Cook's can both work.

found5dollar

01-03-2009, 09:26 PM

Ok, I rarely post here, but here goes my views.

I realized a while ago that Boston is a city of brick and boxes. It is something that is often mocked on this forum. Almost all of the towers in the city have a boxy, flat top, that makes that "plateau" that everyone complains about. As a city, instead of trying to get building drasticly different than the boxes and the brick we should be looking for modern variations on these. By doing this hopefully we will get a building that is a landmark, but still definativly "Boston."

Out of all of the proposals, I think the Cook and Fox and the Gensler proposals do this the best. The Cook and Fox, at least from what I can tell, kind of took two international style skyscrapers and carved them up a little. The curves make it stand out from the rest of Boston's buildings, but not to a point where it becomes overwhelming. With the Gensler I realy like how the size of the buildings appears to be simmilar to the majority of the Financial district buildings, and the flat tops of the towers are in keeping with every other building ner it. Also, the kind of amorphous, rounded shape of the towers make a stunning contrast to the rest of the city.

Ok well there are my two cents on the matter.

JohnAKeith

01-03-2009, 09:50 PM

If it looks like a pickle, I like it.

nm88

01-04-2009, 01:15 AM

Thank you for the old pictures. They show variety and density. Just what a city should be.

We could use a little of that in this development. I know. Probably unlikely.

I support some height here, it seems appropriate, but why these block-filling behemoths? And why a single design theme? Isn't this sight large enough to have two or three architects working on different buildings? Wouldn't that give us a little variety, like we once had? Do we have to keep repeating our mistakes?

Architects give us "pretty" pictures. We're tempted. Then there's the "historic" pictures. Hardly pretty! But tempting nonetheless.

I think we can all agree, we've seen too many pretty renderings lately turn out to be something very different in the flesh.

I hope we can do better.

tobyjug

01-04-2009, 10:10 AM

[QUOTE=vanshnookenraggen;67624]The SOM kinda reminds me of the Empire State Plaza. /QUOTE]

That's funny! When I was looking at that rendering all I could think was...Albany! I do like it, in a 1962 kind of way. I just don't want it in this spot.

Jimbo, I mean JAK, the pickle should be taller.

PaulC

01-04-2009, 10:59 AM

skintreesnail

01-04-2009, 12:11 PM

After checking out the pdf, in which you can zoom in quite a bit to see some additional detail, I think the Gensler design looks the best. Although the Cook and Fox design almost ties it for me. I think Cook and Fox did a nice job fitting their plan in with its surroundings and still have the towers stand out, but I just like the Gensler design more. I’d take the Koolhaas design over Foster's because of its interaction on the street level. I hate the bottom part of the shorter Foster tower. It looks like a parking garage. The SOM design isn't even a contender.

atlrvr

01-04-2009, 12:26 PM

I completely agree about Albany and I almost posted it as my initall gut reaction, but I looked at some pictures at Empire State Plaza first and decided the resemblance wasn't as strong as I thought....but YES YES YES the gut reaction screams Albany!

Ron Newman

01-04-2009, 02:09 PM

Notice all they traffic in those old pics. The last one has almost no shadows so it must be around mid day. People forget that for a good part of the 20th century Boston was a dying city that most people had long given up for dead.

It could have been a Sunday, though. Back then nothing was open on Sundays, so there wasn't much reason to be driving around.

vanshnookenraggen

01-05-2009, 04:08 PM

I moved the last bunch of posts about Charlies redesign here (http://www.archboston.org/community/showthread.php?t=2657).

stp81

01-05-2009, 10:07 PM

Could someone tell me what that curved building that blocks the Suffolk County Courthouse is? I originally thought that was the building in this article. Thanks.

Ron Newman

01-05-2009, 10:10 PM

It is called 1-2-3 Center Plaza, but I don't see what it has to do with the garage site.

vanshnookenraggen

01-05-2009, 11:26 PM

but I don't see what it has to do with the garage site.

I originally thought that was the building in this article. Thanks.

That's all.

JohnAKeith

01-12-2009, 03:42 PM

Thomas Palmer has written a profile of the Downtown North Neighborhood Association and its director, Bob O'Brien, in a blog entry on the McDermott Ventures (http://www.mcdermottventures.com/tompalmer/the_new_west_end) website.

I may be reading into it, but from my point of view, it seems to me that the neighborhood association is brazenly making a threat ... "Either you deal with us, or we won't support you."

Or am I just being cynical?

The developer of that proposed project [One Congress Street], Ted Raymond, is scheduled to be at a West End Civic Association meeting soon.

Redevelopment of that vast garage "will remove the last remaining barrier between ourselves and Government Center," O'Brien said.

And that project is exciting for three reasons, O'Brien said, the first of which is "the possibility of a new public elementary school," the idea for which goes back at least 10 years in the neighborhood.

As it happens, that issue dominated discussion at the association's meeting after O'Brien left, the main item on the association's agenda.

"We could see that happen -- the developer is open to that possibility," O'Brien said. "It could change the nature of the community. We need that kind of change."

Everyone present at the meeting, including a few who have young children and many without, seemed in favor.

O'Brien said another reason for supporting the elimination of a hulking parking garage for a mixed-use complex, with more residential (if that market ever returns) opportunity, is it would improve "the social and cultural dimensions of the community."

Finally, in the Bulfinch Triangle, he said, it could usher in a new mechanism for community development, such as a "business improvement district." These districts, supported by taxes or levies on the local businesses, use the money for improvements within their boundaries.

They've been popular in some other cities but have not caught on here. Efforts for a BID for Downtown Crossing have not gotten a grip, nor was the idea very popular when a "PID" idea was kicked around for the parks of the Rose Kennedy Greenway.

"What we need is a NIB," O'Brien said. A neighborhood improvement district.

But, he said, "I'd have to put the school at the top" of his list.

*******

O'Brien answered some questions, including one about how a proposal for a couple of 700-foot towers for the One Congress St. site "fit into your vision."

"I'm not in favor of height for its own sake," he said. "But, if we develop that, what do we get for what is being proposed?"

"The project needs to be worthy on its own merits, but what do we get that we otherwise wouldn't?" by supporting a large development.

"Height shouldn't be debated in the abstract."

The site is currently zoned for two 400-foot towers, he said.

"How high above that is less important than what goes on at the ground level and what we get for it."

Though Copley Place is popular, and not high-rise, he said, he considers it "one of the most uninteresting, unattractive developments one can imagine."

"Height can be elegant," O'Brien said. "Squat can be ugly."

*******

Ron Newman

01-12-2009, 04:12 PM

I don't see asking for a school as an unreasonable request.

palindrome

01-12-2009, 04:55 PM

"I'm not in favor of height for its own sake," he said. "But, if we develop that, what do we get for what is being proposed?"

"The project needs to be worthy on its own merits, but what do we get that we otherwise wouldn't?" by supporting a large development.

A higher tax revenue and the chance for an iconic new skyscraper.

JohnAKeith

01-12-2009, 04:57 PM

Extortion, outwresting, or exaction is a criminal offense, which occurs, when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups. The actual obtainment of money or property is not required to commit the offense. Making a threat of violence or a lawsuit which refers to a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future violence or lawsuit is sufficient to commit the offense. Exaction refers not only to extortion or the unlawful demanding and obtaining of something through force, additionally, exact in its formal definition means the infliction of something such as pain and suffering or to make somebody endure something unpleasant.

- source, wikipedia.org (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion)

vanshnookenraggen

01-12-2009, 05:36 PM

"How high above that is less important than what goes on at the ground level and what we get for it."

Though Copley Place is popular, and not high-rise, he said, he considers it "one of the most uninteresting, unattractive developments one can imagine."

"Height can be elegant," O'Brien said. "Squat can be ugly."

I like the way this guy thinks. We need more people like him.

KentXie

01-12-2009, 06:37 PM

I don't see asking for a school as an unreasonable request.

If the school becomes part of BPS (which I am assuming since it will be a public school), then the school will not help one bit. BPS is currently out of cash and have resorted to drastic cuts of teachers, department, class supplies, etc for the 09 year. In fact, in their current situation, they might need to close down underperforming schools and lump more people together in order to get enough money to run the system.

KentXie

01-12-2009, 06:39 PM

O'Brien answered some questions, including one about how a proposal for a couple of 700-foot towers for the One Congress St. site "fit into your vision."

A couple of 700ft? I thought only one of them is 700ft.

Boston02124

01-18-2009, 02:11 PM

An old pix I took not to many years ago. many changes already in this area since then http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn80/boston02124/53004567.jpg

kennedy

01-18-2009, 03:09 PM

And thankfully, too.

Mike

01-19-2009, 03:59 PM

Councilor slams Government Center tower plan
Spotlight on Boston garage sale
By Thomas Grillo
Monday, January 19, 2009

The proposed redevelopment of the Government Center Garage may become a political issue in the upcoming mayoral race.

Boston City Councilor Michael F. Flaherty has raised objections to turning over two city-owned buildings to a developer to make way for the $2.3 billion redevelopment of the seven-story garage.

Flaherty, a potential challenger to Mayor Thomas M. Menino, railed against the idea of razing the District A-1 Police Headquarters and a social service agency adjacent to the garage at a recent community meeting. The police station underwent a $4.8 million renovation in 2006.

In neighborhood meetings last year, Steven Kasnet, chief executive at Raymond Property Co., told both North and West End residents that the Boston Redevelopment Authority asked them to include the two buildings on New Sudbury Street in plans for the 3.3 million-square-foot, mixed-use project that includes a 52-story office building. Under the plan, the city buildings would be demolished to boost the project?s footprint.

While BRA staff, who attended those sessions, did not disagree, the BRA is now requiring that Raymond prove why the developer should be allowed to expand the project?s footprint to include those city-owned parcels. Some are suggesting the move may be an effort to defuse a possible campaign issue if Flaherty enters the race for mayor.

?The Raymond team said the BRA was interested in having them consider those city-owned parcels,? said David Kubiak, a member of the North End/Waterfront Residents? Association who attended several meetings on the project. ?But Mr. Flaherty?s objections appear to be the reason for the BRA?s change in position. The councilor has shined a light on an issue that needs to be vetted.?

But John F. Palmieri, BRA director, denied that the BRA encouraged Raymond to consider the city-owned parcels. He also dismissed suggestions that criticism from Flaherty had anything to do with asking Raymond to prove why the idea makes sense for the city.

?There was never any intention on our part to direct Raymond to include those city parcels,? Palmieri said. ?We were not the ones who told them to do it. They wanted to include them to get the square footage they need for the project.?

On Friday, Justine Griffin, a Raymond spokeswoman, said via e-mail that including the city parcels was the developer?s idea. ?Raymond has always been very interested in the city-owned buildings, and they brought it up early in discussions with the BRA.? She added, ?the BRA was willing to allow them to explore it.?

Meanwhile Flaherty took credit for the BRA?s stance. The at-large councilor said he raised the issue months ago. ?We need to stop letting developers decide what is best for the community,? he said

Link (http://www.bostonherald.com/business/real_estate/view.bg?articleid=1146251&srvc=home&position=1)

KentXie

01-19-2009, 04:11 PM

Meanwhile Flaherty took credit for the BRA?s stance. The at-large councilor said he raised the issue months ago. ?We need to stop letting developers decide what is best for the community,? he said

Yeah like the NIMBYs do. Nice joke. This definitely swings me on Menino's side. With Flaherty projects such as CC and other major projects will never go up thanks to his "listen to the community" stance. Odd how both Flaherty are anti-progress.

Riverworks

01-19-2009, 05:13 PM

Wow. What is with this city and development. Every time Boston tries to grow someone always has to oppose it like they're trying to prove something. Be that one leader who stands out and really "cares" about the city. I agree with DarkFen and go with Menino on this one. Given he's proposed some radical ideas, he's at least thinking outside the box.

Have we really heard what the community has to say about the proposed designs? This is an amazing opportunity, and I'd hate to see some small minded politician blow it.

Jane Jetson

01-19-2009, 05:30 PM

Sounds like someone is looking for cash. The city must have run out of liquor licenses.

KentXie

01-19-2009, 08:20 PM

atlrvr

01-19-2009, 09:59 PM

For not hearing much out of Palmeiri since taking over as head of BRA, this isn't how I wanted him to project new leadership. Deflecting allegations. Don't want to piss off your potential new boss. How gracious of Raymond to accept responsibility...its really a win win. Raymond now has some political chips to cash in on this deal.

tmac9wr

01-20-2009, 09:22 AM

The thing is, we would not mind the input of the community in including things they need like a park(to some extent) or a supermarket, or a school in this case. But if you are willing to just oppose the whole building itself and waste valuable plots of land and construct something like a 3 story crap there, then there's a problem.

I agree. It's one thing if they're attempting to better the community, but that's totally not the case. Their metality is "I don't like the prospect of a tower being built there because: (A) It will cast a shadow on my house (B) It will cause more traffic which is an inconvenience to me (C) I don't think it's an appropriate scale and I don't want to look at it." Then they will often have the nerve to call the developers greedy. These citizens should feel lucky they're allowed to demand such things like parks/schools from developers. Many cities are so desperate for new development that they will allow anything to be built anywhere (e.g. Houston which has no zoning laws).

What exactly is their argument in regards to giving up these other parcels? Aren't most of them empty lots on the Greenway? Where is this police station located?

Ron Newman

01-22-2009, 04:47 PM

There really is a police station there, owned by the city, so the developer certainly doesn't have an automatic right to take it over and knock it down without replacing it in some form. The second city-owned parcel, that I don't know about.

KentXie

01-22-2009, 04:58 PM

The police station is located on the West side of this garage. It's not that big I think nor is it amazing. It's tucked right in right across the street from the JFK towers.

underground

01-23-2009, 09:35 AM

Couldn't they move back to the Traffic Tunnel Admin building in the North End? They had gone over there during renovations and everything seemed to work fine. The building seems more or less deserted now a days (although I'm rarely over there 9-5 during the work week).

tobyjug

01-23-2009, 09:44 AM

I know this was the all the developer's idea *wink wink*, but the city has recent appraisals of these properties done in anticipation of conveyance. I am sure it is all a coincidence, of course.

Ron Newman

01-23-2009, 10:00 AM

The police station is in no way 'amazing' but it is a city asset that the developer can't just assume he has in his hands.

PaulC

01-23-2009, 11:33 AM

Councilor slams Government Center tower plan
Spotlight on Boston garage sale
By Thomas Grillo
Monday, January 19, 2009
Boston City Councilor Michael F. Flaherty has raised objections to turning over two city-owned buildings to a developer to make way for the $2.3 billion redevelopment of the seven-story garage.

?The Raymond team said the BRA was interested in having them consider those city-owned parcels,? said David Kubiak, a member of the North End/Waterfront Residents? Association who attended several meetings on the project. ?But Mr. Flaherty?s objections appear to be the reason for the BRA?s change in position. The councilor has shined a light on an issue that needs to be vetted.?

Meanwhile Flaherty took credit for the BRA?s stance. The at-large councilor said he raised the issue months ago. ?We need to stop letting developers decide what is best for the community,? he said

Link (http://www.bostonherald.com/business/real_estate/view.bg?articleid=1146251&srvc=home&position=1)

I doubt the city is going to "turn over' those buildings. The city will be selling them at a nice profit, even the newly renovated police station. "The councilor has shined a light" except that this was public knowledge.

Why should the city sell two buildings that produce zero tax dollars and replace them with a brand new police station and the tax revenue of a office tower. This is never done except kind of sort of on High St where the city go a new fire station and two tax revenue produceing office towers.

kz1000ps

01-23-2009, 11:36 AM

What exactly is their argument in regards to giving up these other parcels? Aren't most of them empty lots on the Greenway? Where is this police station located?

The police station and the other parcels are all directly west of the project:

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/9356/33448105qx5.jpg

There's a motley assortment of buildings in this little pocket block (police station, Nstar substation, a bunch of social services contained in some attractive neo-federal/georgian lowrises) that I wouldn't lose much sleep over losing. The neo-federals do add a humanistic touch and scale to the area, but architecturally they're as run-of-the-mill as the style gets.

Here's a post of mine from the summer showing the area (it's the windowless red brick thing in the first shot): http://www.archboston.org/community/showpost.php?p=55856&postcount=170

tmac9wr

01-23-2009, 12:00 PM

Thanks KZ. I'm still wondering why this Flaherty guy is raising such a stink about this. As Paul mentioned, the developers are obviously not going to get these parcels for free and the tax revenue from the development would easily pay for any government offices that were lost.

Kent Brockman: "I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Democracy just doesn't work"

Ron Newman

01-23-2009, 12:35 PM

How easy is it to replace or move an NStar substation?

Surely this development can be done in phases, so that they don't have to deal with the police station until the very end?

Beton Brut

01-23-2009, 01:22 PM

The NStar substation could be incorporated into the podium of the tower, much the same as what was done at 7 World Trade Center (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center#Construction).

You're correct, Ron, that this will be a phased project, and in all likelihood (according to the developers) the work of more than one of the firms that have presented designs. Since the west end of the site offers the highest profit potential, I think the tallest tower will go up first. This will (potentially) necessitate the demolition of the small buildings atb the back of the garage site.

This could be a big win for the city. Flaherty's making an ass of himself.

TheRifleman

01-23-2009, 01:38 PM

Another Development on the Greenway with a TON of potential. I have a feeling Big Bird has a better chance of being the Mayor than Flaherty.

Jane Jetson

01-23-2009, 02:37 PM

Since the west end of the site offers the highest profit potential, I think the tallest tower will go up first.

Actually, it's the other way around - they said they are going to work on the Greenway side first, above Haymarket.

kz1000ps

01-23-2009, 02:49 PM

Question: does anyone find those little buildings to be worth saving? Of course there's no redeeming value for the police or sub-station, so I'm asking about those neo-federals. I've already said I don't see anything special in them, but I also know nothing of their histories.

The one thing that does give me pause is how the hell they managed to survive the 'renewal' of 50 years ago when literally everything else within a block or two of them (short of the Verizon building on Bowdoin Square) met the wrecking ball. This anomaly factor, plus the human scale of the buildings are the only reasons I see worth keeping them around. After all, Goverment Center already has more than its fair share of megablocks thankyouverymuch.

Jane Jetson

01-23-2009, 03:00 PM

The one thing that does give me pause is how the hell they managed to survive the 'renewal' of 50 years ago when literally everything else within a block or two of them (short of the Verizon building on Bowdoin Square) met the wrecking ball.

I know this is somewhat off topic (although you've brought up urban renewal), but does anyone know how the Last Tenement on Lomasney Way managed to survive?

Beton Brut

01-23-2009, 03:41 PM

Actually, it's the other way around - they said they are going to work on the Greenway side first, above Haymarket.

I know what they said at the last meeting. I think the numbers may tell a different story...

czsz

01-23-2009, 04:04 PM

I know this is somewhat off topic (although you've brought up urban renewal), but does anyone know how the Last Tenement on Lomasney Way managed to survive?

I think the guy just refused to sell and used all the profits he derived from ads on his building to fight everyone off.

tobyjug

01-23-2009, 04:47 PM

I have a feeling Big Bird has a better chance of being the Mayor than Flaherty.

I don't know. Against Menino this time, probably not. $250,000 vs. $1,500,000. Run to set yourself up for next time, maybe. Yoon and Ross seem lite.

kennedy

01-23-2009, 07:17 PM

Noam Chomsky.

Lurker

01-23-2009, 07:29 PM

Considering Dr.Chomsky had a torrid intellectual love affair with Pol Pot, it would be best he is NEVER allowed to hold a political office.

Yoon isn't likely to win, he's spent more time fund raising rather than actually showing up for his bloody job, and Mumbles, whenever he feels like retiring, is literally going to handle the mantle of Mayor to Ross.

PaulC

01-31-2009, 05:23 PM

I noticed in this week's Courant that the developer is giving two neighborhood presentations in the next few weeks.

PaulC

02-18-2009, 07:31 PM

According to the Beacon Hill Times the developer will be filing the PNF in the next 2 to 4 weeks

PaulC

03-02-2009, 07:28 PM

http://www.boston.com/business/ticker/2009/03/developer_propo.html
Boston developer Ted Raymond is pressing forward with a plan to build a massive mixed-use development, including two skyscrapers, on land now occupied by the hulking Government Center garage near City Hall.

Raymond today proposed to demolish the garage and replace it with as many as five new buildings on both sides of Congress Street. In his proposal, filed with the Boston Redevelopment Authority, Raymond calls the development the largest green building project in the city's history.

?We are working hard to create a development plan that will create a new destination, weave together the neighborhoods, and revamp the vitality of the streetscape in the area,? Raymond said in a statement.

But his plan, estimated to cost $2.2 billion, faces considerable obstacles, not the least of which is the fact he doesn't own part of the land where he is trying to build.

Because of that, Raymond separated his proposal into two sections - one for the garage site he owns, and one for city-owned land along New Sudbury Street that is now occupied by a newly renovated police station.

On his property, located at the corner of Congress and Merrimac streets, Raymond would build a 42-story office tower along with two residential buildings along the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway.

The proposal includes street-level retail stores, restaurants and a hotel that would hide new parking garages with space for more than 2,000 cars.

On the city-owned land, Raymond wants to build a second 52-story office tower, putting a cluster of high-rise buildings in a corner of the city that now lacks that kind of development.

There is also an NStar substation standing in the way of the second skyscraper.

Officials with the Boston Redevelopment Authority have said Raymond must show considerable benefits to the community if he expects to acquire the city-owned property.

In his proposal, Raymond promises to build a new police station for the city, and provide payments for the development of affordable housing as well as millions of dollars in new tax revenue. The development would also create thousands of construction jobs.
(By Casey Ross, Globe staff)

http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2009/03/02/daily13.html
The developer of the Government Center Garage project in Boston has filed paperwork to move the project forward and into the formal public-review process.

Raymond Property Co. said Monday that a Project Notification Form has been filed with Boston officials and outlines two scenarios to build what could be the largest so-called ?green? development site in the city. The project, as it stands, would result in between 3.6 million square feet and 3.78 million square feet of mixed-use development ? including Class A office space, residential units and a hotel ? adjacent to Boston?s City Hall.

Patriots_1228

03-02-2009, 08:16 PM

2.2 billion.....where the heck are they gonna get that?

Lurker

03-02-2009, 08:29 PM

Where is the NStar substation?

kennedy

03-02-2009, 09:30 PM

Built into that brick garage, I thought.

ledjes

03-03-2009, 07:48 AM

The substation is on a little "U" shaped street right behind the police stantion and the Boston Sports Club - Hawkins Street, I believe. You'd never see it unless you wandered back there...and there's very little reason to wander back there.

Maybe I'm grasping at straws after yesterday's stock market plunge, but this news of Ted Raymond moving forward with this project is a welcomed ray of sunshine!!! Go Ted, go!!!

Ron Newman

03-03-2009, 07:58 AM

I'd really like to see this built, with or without the second phase.

PaulC

03-03-2009, 09:27 AM

A source said the development team has selected architect Cook & Fox, which envisions asymmetrical, curved glass towers for the site. The New York firm designed 4 Times Square, an 866-foot-tall skyscraper in the heart of Manhattan that has been described as ?environmentally correct,? with state-of-the-art air-quality and energy-conservation systems.

http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view/2009_03_03_City_gets__2_3_billion_plan_to_replace_ Government_Center_Garage/srvc=business&position=also

underground

03-03-2009, 09:37 AM

I'd be willing to bet Raymond's banking on this project still taking a LONG time even by Boston standards, so he's thinking that by the time everything's set and ready for lease the economy will have rebounded (7-8 years?). Personally, I don't know if that's such a crazy idea. I'd probably avoid doing that in a place like Las Vegas, but Boston might be a prime candidate for a couple of reasons: 1) there was no over building during the boom (space is still pretty tight); and 2) Boston's industries and location in the North East corridor make a prime location/candidate for an early bounce back (as compared to the rest of the country/world). Then again, maybe I'm just being overly optimistic.

skintreesnail

03-03-2009, 09:43 AM

http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view/2009_03_03_City_gets__2_3_billion_plan_to_replace_ Government_Center_Garage/srvc=business&position=also

Good, I like the Cook and Fox design almost as much as the Gensler.

Riverworks

03-03-2009, 10:18 AM

Here we go boys and girls. Hopefully this source is correct - I love this design.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b96/fccDaniel/congress%20street/cookandfox.jpg

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b96/fccDaniel/congress%20street/cookandfox2.jpg

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b96/fccDaniel/congress%20street/cookandfox3.jpg

I know a lot people hate the idea of comparing New York to Boston, but this project is incredibly similar to Columbus Center. Even the designs look similar, assuming they choose Cook and Fox. Both are adjacent to large park spaces. Haymarket was once a city circle, and still has many streets joining or running through the site... I'm really looking forward to seeing this progress ... The city fabric of this neighborhood will be connected once again.

vanshnookenraggen

03-03-2009, 10:55 AM

Oh fuck yes!!

Justin7

03-03-2009, 11:19 AM

Oh fuck yes!!

My thoughts exactly.
Really hoping this source is correct.

The rendering shows the tunnel ramps covered and matching the rest of the development pretty closely. What are the chances that that is actually going to be a part of this? Those two projects will really tie this part of the city back together.

Also... can anyone see the parking in front of the Garden being developed at some point? Is there a particular reason it's not?

Arborway

03-03-2009, 11:22 AM

I'm excited, but I can't wait to see the NIMBY-ified, sanitized, shortened version that has all the creativity siphoned out of it. Because you just know that's going to happen.

mass88

03-03-2009, 11:52 AM

I'm excited, but I can't wait to see the NIMBY-ified, sanitized, shortened version that has all the creativity siphoned out of it. Because you just know that's going to happen.

Wait...you mean people from the North and West Ends will probably oppose this??;)

I really hope this gets built. The renderings look awesome and this would be such a solid addition to the Boston skyline. The current situation in that area is terrible, the garage is an eyesore and needs something done to it.

johnpaul5

03-03-2009, 11:53 AM

Is the Cook and Fox design what they are moving forward with, or are the other 3 contenders still being considered?

Justin7

03-03-2009, 11:57 AM

The Globe has an article as well now: http://www.boston.com/realestate/news/articles/2009/03/03/developer_presses_on_with_plan_for_towers/

As usual, try not to read the comments.

KentXie

03-03-2009, 12:16 PM

I pray to god Flaherty will not be elected as mayor. He will open the doors to a new era of anti-development in Boston. Menino looks like a Dubai sheik compared to him.

riffgo

03-03-2009, 12:39 PM

PaulC

03-03-2009, 01:28 PM

Why should anyone object to selling the police station for this development?
One, the city gets paid for the property.
Two, the property will become tax producing.
Three, the city gets a new police station at no cost to the city.

four, the city has done this before, the fire station on high street and ever garage that is now a building

Ron Newman

03-03-2009, 01:34 PM

I'd prefer to see the first part of the project built successfully before the developer buys occupied city-owned property. The last thing we want to see here is the Filene's scenario, where the police station is torn down and then the developer runs into financing troubles, leaving us with a vacant pit and no police station. Some sort of performance bond needs to accompany a sale of city property.

Riverworks

03-03-2009, 01:51 PM

The comments are actually pretty decent. Not many naysayers knocking it down ...

Here's one of my favorites...

"What is it with Bostonians? As I have said before, without Harvard and all the colleges that came here Boston is a fishing village. Let the city grow, become cosmopolitan, have grand new buildings and get a decent reputation. I mean for chrissakes its the city, skyscrapers are supposed to be built here."

tmac9wr

03-03-2009, 03:13 PM

I'm really surprised by the lack of criticism that this was getting on the comments section of Boston.com...of course there were a few foolish comments, but much less than expected. I'm glad to see this project has plans to move forward. The design is awesome in my opinion--it was my favorite out of the group proposed.

I can hear the rallying cries coming from the North End...."NIMBYs ho!!!"

Patriots_1228

03-03-2009, 07:37 PM

I was a little pissed initially that they chose cook and fox, as i recall from when they released the first renderings, it wasn't in my top 3. The problems I had with it were a) it looked too much like that one building in the new WTC [stupid when you consider how many look alikes there are in the world, but remember, this tower needs to be iconic considering size/setting] and b) the design wasn't really that attractive IMO.

HOWEVER, this new rendering we are seeing looks great, still not amazing, but definetely somthing that i would be able to enjoy [similar to the pru in that aspect]. Is there any differences in the actual building between the initial render and this one? it appears different to me, of course, ive yet to compare, doing that now..

czsz

03-03-2009, 07:53 PM

I'm calling it now. This is the next SST / Tommy's Tower. Will not happen.

bosma

03-03-2009, 08:59 PM

No way, South Station will be first. But I hope this is.

The towers will be cut 10 stories each.

Throw the neighbors some discounted parking, improve the surounding intersections, and make the street level look good and this should get approval

JSic

03-04-2009, 10:02 AM

Wow, there sure is a slew of projects that may get going once this recession/depression runs its course...

PaulC

03-04-2009, 10:10 AM

from today's Metro:
http://www.metro.us/us/article/2009/03/04/02/5509-72/index.xml
Metro discussed the project with RPC Chairman Ted Raymond.

How economically feasible is it to continue with such a project at this time?

We?re very fortunate to have the financial partners in this deal to be very, very strong. You can?t say we?re not affected by the market. But we are pushing very hard to get approvals done. In 2014 there are a number of major leases in the city that come due and we want to be in a position to be able to, when this thing starts to turn around, go ahead with the development.

Will there be a rush for available space in 2014?

You have to bear in mind that there are only 32 high-rise buildings in the city. Their average age is 30-something years old. If Boston is going to continue to be a world-class city it does need to have a physical environment so that it can offer modern tenancies.

What will replacing this garage mean to the surrounding area?

Some have used the description that the garage is like the Berlin Wall. I think that?s not inaccurate - it really does do that. By opening it up it just totally changes the sense of the place.

tommym96

03-04-2009, 10:53 AM

it's beautiful.

::trying not to get hopes up::

tobyjug

03-04-2009, 11:57 AM

The comments are actually pretty decent. Not many naysayers knocking it down ...

Here's one of my favorites...

"What is it with Bostonians? As I have said before, without Harvard and all the colleges that came here Boston is a fishing village."

Who knew Walter Muir Whitehill was still alive and writing?

PaulC

03-09-2009, 06:14 PM

I received this today, still nothing on the official web page
Please be advised that there will be a community meeting regarding the Government Center Garage Redevelopment Project on Wednesday, March 25, 2009,
6:30 PM ? 8:00 PM, at the Government Center Garage, 10th Floor (Please enter at the One Congress lobby at the corner of New Chardon and Congress/Merrimac Streets. Please allow time for check-in with building security. You will need a photo id to enter the building.)

On March 2, 2009, Bulfinch Congress Holdings LLC, the Project Proponent, submitted a Project Notification Form for the Government Center Garage Redevelopment Project, located at One Congress Street in Government Center. The Project Proponent proposes to replace the Government Center Parking Garage and potentially adjacent city-owned buildings with approximately 3.8 million square feet of mixed use development divided among five major buildings, ranging in height from approximately 60 to 710 feet. The proposed project includes space for residential, office, hotel, and retail use, as well as space for the MBTA Haymarket Station. Approximately 2,000 total parking spaces are proposed in above-ground and below-ground garages.

The public comment period ends on Friday, April 17, 2009. Please send comments to:

MAIL TO: KRISTIN KARA
BOSTON REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ONE CITY HALL SQUARE, 9TH FLOOR
BOSTON, MA 02201
FAX TO: 617-742-7783
EMAIL TO: kristin.kara.bra@cityofboston.gov

TheRifleman

03-10-2009, 09:44 AM

Jane Jetson

03-10-2009, 06:40 PM

You've got the old standby issue of height, then you've got the city land issue, and to really mix it up, the West End is ready to fight for the public school. Not to mention the issue of the impact a project of this scale is going to have on traffic patterns (oh yeah and the parking spaces that are being lost). This meeting should be a hoot. Popcorn, anyone?

Beton Brut

03-10-2009, 08:16 PM

I'll be there. I love a night at the theatre!

I'm not sure the lobby Gestapo will allow you to bring food upstairs, but there's usually some sort of spread.

And after, cocktails...

PaulC

03-10-2009, 09:02 PM

the pnf is now online, and yes they have great food there

http://demolishthegarage.com/pdf/GCGR_PNF.pdf

I no longer have this weeks courant but I think they said the neighbors are leaning towards this project so long as they get a school

Ron Newman

03-10-2009, 09:56 PM

And a school is a good idea. If you look at a map of Boston public schools, there's a huge swath of land with no schools at all, stretching from Mission Hill to the North End.

vanshnookenraggen

03-10-2009, 10:07 PM

It just struck me how similar this complex would be to the TimeWarner Center at Columbus Sq in NYC:

http://www.overseaspropertymall.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/original.jpg

kennedy

03-10-2009, 10:14 PM

TWC is more similar to the IC, IMO.

Oooh, acronyms.

tmac9wr

03-10-2009, 10:32 PM

I'd definitely like to make it to that meeting. I've never been to one before, so what should I expect?

vanshnookenraggen

03-10-2009, 10:49 PM

I'd definitely like to make it to that meeting. I've never been to one before, so what should I expect?

Hard to tell on this one. Probably the people who speak up will talk about:

1) Wind
2) Shadows
3) Height
4) School
5) The city land that the developer doesn't own
6) Who the hell knows

type001

03-11-2009, 07:00 AM

I like the proposal but this development will stand some serious oppositions from the neighbor activists. The North End Neighborhood will be a tough sell. They might have to Chop 10 or 15 stories smaller.

Of course it will. But when proponents of height and development start thinking that way, then we truely have lost. It's one thing for the mayor to take it up the rear from residents, because those are all lost votes if he doesn't. What does Raymond have to lose? Maybe he can just say "Hey dbags, if you don't like what I got, enjoy the garage for the rest of your worthless lives."

I personally like the Aquarim Location better for major high rise.

Why not both? It's all downtown.

TheRifleman

03-11-2009, 09:21 AM

Why not both? It's all downtown.[/QUOTE]

AGREE 100%. It's time for the city officials and neighborhood activists to step back and let the city flourish with PRIVATE INVESTMENTS.

These developers want to make a better city not destroy neighborhoods.

Their should be some concern about Height Restrictions over shadowing neighborhoods on certain areas but this area needs a major development.

kz1000ps

03-11-2009, 11:49 AM

TWC is more similar to the IC, IMO.

If you're going just by looks, yes. But think about what the Time Warner Center has for uses: a good-sized mall; a performing arts space designed specifically for jazz; TV production studios for CNN; office space; a hotel; and finally, condos. It's that kind of agglomeration of programs that made Van connect the TWC with this project.

Jane Jetson

03-11-2009, 06:46 PM

[/QUOTE]

Their should be some concern about Height Restrictions over shadowing neighborhoods on certain areas but this area needs a major development.[/QUOTE]

Why can't there be a "shadow zone," an area in the city just FOR tall buildings?

KentXie

03-11-2009, 07:29 PM

^^Because some activists from the opposite side of the city will say that area will be gloomy and will become a cesspool for crimes because it is always dark there.

Jane Jetson

03-11-2009, 08:26 PM

How much direct sunlight does a human being actually need in a day? Do these people photosynthesize? I thought all the ozone had burned off and the light was bad for you now.:confused:

People who move to the shadow zone sign a release; visitors will be given flashlights at the gate.

eaalkaline

03-12-2009, 02:43 AM

i think ur on to something!

Smuttynose

03-12-2009, 10:23 AM

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3222/2818692857_b9011fa500.jpg?v=0

For the life of me, I can't understand how a sane person could look at the plans and say, "Nah, I like what we have much better." I'm not aware of a more unattractive, obtrusive structure in the city of Boston.

The developers should be thanked for their willingness to demolish such a disaster of a building.

tmac9wr

03-12-2009, 10:37 AM

That's a beautiful picture of such a horrible building. It will look so much better when there's a couple beautiful towers there in its place. Ahhh, 2045 is going to be a great year.

vanshnookenraggen

03-12-2009, 03:20 PM

I moved the last few posts to a new thread here (http://www.archboston.org/community/showthread.php?t=2791) cuz they were going off on a good tangent.

vanshnookenraggen

03-12-2009, 03:21 PM

For the life of me, I can't understand how a sane person could look at the plans and say, "Nah, I like what we have much better." I'm not aware of a more unattractive, obtrusive structure in the city of Boston.

People aren't saying they like the building. People are just worried that it will be replaced with something that is worse/more detrimental to the city.

Smuttynose

03-13-2009, 12:29 AM

People aren't saying they like the building. People are just worried that it will be replaced with something that is worse/more detrimental to the city.

Unless they actually plan on building the Gateway to Hell or the new George W. Bush Presidential Library there, I don't think it's technically possible to build anything more detrimental than the Gov't Center Garage.

KentXie

03-13-2009, 01:55 AM

For the NIMBYs, height, shadow, traffic, etc automatically makes the building the Gateway to Hell.

JSic

03-13-2009, 06:36 AM

Unless they actually plan on building the Gateway to Hell or the new George W. Bush Presidential Library there, I don't think it's technically possible to build anything more detrimental than the Gov't Center Garage.
Yeah, given all the negatives its brings to the table, its not a stretch to consider the Government Center Garage the worst building in the history of Boston.

BarbaricManchurian

03-13-2009, 02:29 PM

^^really? The ground floor retail on the Greenway side isn't really too bad, and it adds to the sense of enclosure on it by being so big and hulking.

Jane Jetson

03-26-2009, 08:33 AM

Bravo to John for raising the obvious question at last night's meeting as to why Menino has agreed to "consider" building a school at One Congress St., and for pissing off the woman from the BRA!! I wanted to say hi to you, but when it got past 9:00 I had to get out of there.

The meeting was rather low key - a handful of the usual former hippies/crazies, the guy who always complains about parking, and the parents who came begging for a school.

I like how Mike Ross showed up late and left right after making his demands of the developers. I'm surprised he didn't bring his photographer with him.

The one element that was new at least to me, and will probably get lost in all the other arguments was how they intend to make this a green complex, including cogeneration to make it almost completely sustainable.

ChitchIII

03-26-2009, 03:12 PM

I had gone to the IAC Meeting on Monday, and planed on attending yesterday but I just had too much to do on my current project.

Anyways, My question to the Development team on Monday was;

I love what I?m seeing. Its a green project on the cutting edge of sustainability and with the pick of your architects I think this has serious potential. I stated that I was probably the furthest thing from a NIMBY in the room, and I would really like to see this project move forward. But with such a large project, it is inevitable that at some they will have to go through some sort of Value Engineering process. So my question is?. What?s the first to go? Where does your company typically find value to cut during the VE process.

Basically, it was too early to answer that question, and I knew that?.. But its something to think about.

ChitchIII

03-26-2009, 03:14 PM

^^really? The ground floor retail on the Greenway side isn't really too bad, and it adds to the sense of enclosure on it by being so big and hulking.

I know we have talked about this before, but everyone needs to understand that the renderings you guys are seeing are only for Massing studies. No One knows what this complex is going to look like yet.

Mike

03-26-2009, 05:04 PM

The Boston Courant article from a couple weeks ago is up at demolishthegarage.com: http://demolishthegarage.com/pdf/news/Boston_Courant_2009_03_06.pdf

Beton Brut

03-26-2009, 05:20 PM

^ Thanks for the post, Mike.

Here's my account (http://www.archboston.org/community/showpost.php?p=73607&postcount=12) from last night meeting.

The pics I took of the model with my phone camera are worthless (the model's white, so everything blends together).

There were other forumers there last night. Got to chat with John Keith, but missed PaulC and Jane Jetson.

Jane Jetson

03-27-2009, 09:21 AM

If you are interested in providing a comment letter on the project, these are due to the Boston Redevelopment Authority by April 17, 2009. Comments can be emailed directly to the BRA at Kristin.Kara.BRA@cityofboston.gov.
I don't know how much weight this will carry, but at least it is a chance to voice an opinion directly to the powers that be, and possibly counter some of the shadow people.

Bubbybu

03-27-2009, 09:48 AM

I sent a comment a few weeks ago...they immediately responded. They didn't address anything in the comment but they were nice and at least you know people are looking at them.

PaulC

03-27-2009, 12:24 PM

I just got a notice on the next meeting:
Please be advised that there will be a Government Center Garage Redevelopment Project Impact Advisory Group (?IAG?) Working Session Meeting on Thursday, April 2, 6:00 PM - 7:30 PM, at the Boston Redevelopment Authority, 9th Floor of City Hall, BRA Board Room (Please note that after 5:30PM, you can only enter/exit City Hall from Congress Street).

All members of the community and media are welcome to attend IAG Meetings.

Mike

03-29-2009, 05:42 PM

Shadows over Greenway
Conservancy chairman works for builder?s PR firm
By Thomas Grillo
Friday, March 27, 2009

The chairman of the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway Conservancy works as a top executive at a public relations firm pushing a massive $2 billion development along the urban park.

Peter Meade is chairman of the conservancy, a nonprofit corporation overseeing the design and use of the Greenway. He works as managing director for Rasky Baerlein Strategic Communications, the PR firm for the Government Center Garage redevelopment.

?This is clearly a conflict of interest because as the conservancy?s chair he has a fiduciary duty to protect the Greenway,? said Father John Paris, an ethics professor at Boston College. ?But he?s also working for someone who has a private, financial interest in putting up buildings that will cast shadows on the very space he is obligated to protect.?

In March, the Raymond Property Co. filed plans with the Boston Redevelopment Authority to demolish the 11-story garage. In its place, Raymond would build a 52-story skyscraper - about the same height as the Prudential Tower - and a 42-story structure closer to the Greenway.

If approved, the development would include more than 3 million square feet of development adjacent to the Haymarket MBTA Station.

In the BRA?s first public meeting on the project this week, its urban designer from Chan Krieger Sieniewicz acknowledged the buildings will cast shadows on the Greenway - the parkland created after the Big Dig?s removal of the Central Artery.

Meade, who retired last year from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, denied any conflict of interest.

?Every time the Government Center Garage has come up at a conservancy meeting, I?ve told the board that the company I work for represents the developer. The board has yet to make any decision, so I don?t know how there?s a conflict,? he said.

The conservancy actually leases office space - and the board meets - on the 14th floor of One International Place, whose owner, the Chiofaro Co., has also proposed a massive development on the Greenway.

Larry Rasky, chairman of Rasky Baerlein, said the firm has had a relationship with the Raymond Co. since 1990. ?Peter?s arrival at the firm is totally incidental and does not impact the project or how we?re approaching it,? he said. ?Anyone who knows Peter knows he plays his cards face up.?

Nancy Brennan, the conservancy?s executive director, said Meade will recuse himself from any vote on the project.

But Paris, the BC professor, said recusing himself is not enough. ?(Meade) must resign from the (chairmanship) of the conservancy because he can?t defend their interest because he has financial stakes at the other company,? he said.

Link (http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view/2009_03_27_Shadows_over_Greenway:_Conservancy_chai rman_works_for_builder_s_PR_firm/)

czsz

03-29-2009, 05:50 PM

?This is clearly a conflict of interest because as the conservancy?s chair he has a fiduciary duty to protect the Greenway,? said Father John Paris, an ethics professor at Boston College. ?But he?s also working for someone who has a private, financial interest in putting up buildings that will cast shadows on the very space he is obligated to protect.?

Already, the Greenway is seen as a static entity that cannot be changed or altered. "Protection" is the conservancy's duty, even as most of the space around the Greenway remains in a transitional state. And "protecting" is defined in such a way that means that no new development can benefit or enhance the parks, only despoil them.

kennedy

03-29-2009, 06:19 PM

Not only that, they're trying to protect it from a benign threat-a shadow.

Mike

03-30-2009, 12:26 AM

School sought for garage site
Builder plans 2 towers
By Thomas Grillo
Monday, March 30, 2009

If the Raymond Property Co. wants to build a skyscraper in Government Center that rivals the 52-story Prudential Tower, it may have to build a school as part of the project.

Parents from Boston?s downtown neighborhoods have scheduled a meeting with Mayor Thomas M. Menino on April 3 to explore ways to build a kindergarten through eighth-grade school within the proposed $2.3 billion Government Center Garage redevelopment.

?This project is at the nexus of three communities and it?s a natural place for a school,? said William Jacobson, a member of Coalition for Public Education, a group of 165 parents from downtown neighborhoods lobbying City Hall for an elementary school at the massive project site. ?The city has done lots to get people to live downtown, and a school would complement their efforts.?

Earlier this month, Raymond filed plans with the Boston Redevelopment Authority to demolish the Government Center Garage and replace it with a 42- and a 52-story tower as well as a hotel, stores, restaurants and smaller residential buildings.

The school idea is the latest wrinkle in the controversial project. Some residents insist the proposed skyscrapers are too tall. And City Councilor and mayoral candidate Michael Flaherty has already objected to the developer including city-owned buildings as part of the project.

At a public hearing last week, more than a dozen parents spoke in favor of a school.

Steven Kasnet, Raymond?s chief executive, told the crowd that he is waiting for guidance from the BRA on how to proceed.

City Council President Michael Ross said he will not support the project unless it includes a school. ?At a time when some Boston schools are being abandoned, every downtown elementary school has a waiting list,? he said. ?There?s an opportunity here to get a school built as part of mitigation for this development.?

While the school department has closed six schools and the city is facing a $131 million budget gap, Menino said he will consider a new school. ?Four neighborhoods have come together on this issue and I?m willing to look at it,? he said.

Menino, who met with parents last month about the school, believes that Raymond promised parents a school.

?The developer told the neighborhood in private meetings that they will build a school, but didn?t tell the BRA, so I question the developer?s sincerity,? he said.

Jacobson, one of the parents, said he is unaware of any promise by Raymond to build a school.

Kasnet could not be reached for comment.

Link (http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1162109&srvc=business&position=2)

KentXie

03-30-2009, 06:49 AM

The school better be not part of the BPS. The BPS barely has enough funds to maintain the opening of all the school in the city. Hopefully it will be a private school.

PaulC

03-30-2009, 09:06 AM

A went to the meeting last week and I'll post more on that latter. I just want to point out that in regards to the school if the mayor agrees that a school is needed in that area, and it is, and the develpper builds it then the city still has to pay for teachers and all the other cost. If the project does not happen then the mayor would then be commited to build a school at the cities expense.

JohnAKeith

03-30-2009, 10:03 AM

I haven't seen any projections of how many children would attend a K-8 school if one was built. The city says it is "studying the issue" but perhaps parents in the area have already done some research?

The Orchard Gardens school in Roxbury was built to accommodate 750 students at an estimated cost of $24 million. How many students would they get at a new school drawing on Beacon Hill, North End, and West End students? When does a new school become feasible?

Councilor Ross said he wouldn't support the Garage project unless it included plans for a new school. He recommended building it on-site or where the West End Public Library is, currently. Based on enrollment projections, maybe they'll end up being able to hold classes in it, as is. (joke).

There are 307 students at the Hurley School in the South End and the Josiah Quincy School has 791 students.

I support a school or schools in the district. Where and how big and who should pay for it is an open question.

Beton Brut

03-30-2009, 10:06 AM

[size=4]City Council President Michael Ross said he will not support the project unless it includes a school

Here's some footage of Mike Ross from last week's meeting (pardon the quality, shot with my phone camera):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBMPe_tS-hE&feature=related

commuter guy

03-30-2009, 10:19 AM

Also, there is already a K-8 Boston Public school in the N. End. The Eliot School.

Ron Newman

03-30-2009, 11:42 AM

Yes, and it's at capacity, which is why people are asking for an additional school.

Beton Brut

03-30-2009, 12:11 PM

Does anyone know the answer to these questions?

...if there's a real need (and there indeed may be) for a school to serve the young families in the North End, Beacon Hill, the West End, and the Bulfinch Triangle (when it's built out), doesn't the School Committee (or the School Department) have a mechanism to study these needs and plan ahead? Isn't there a process to determine where to build new schools? Census data? Does anyone look at this stuff?

I'd really like to know.

statler

03-30-2009, 12:14 PM

^^ I think it is all determined by yelling parents.

The louder they get, the more urgent the need for a new school.

PaulC

03-30-2009, 12:14 PM

The Back Bay wants a school too.

Beton Brut

03-30-2009, 12:24 PM

^^ I think it is all determined by yelling parents.

The louder they get, the more urgent the need for a new school.

If this is indeed true, am I alone in finding it both shameful and absurd?

Ron Newman

03-30-2009, 12:47 PM

I don't see anything unreasonable about the request. If you look at a map of where schools are, there's a huge empty area in the Fenway, South End, Back Bay, Beacon Hill, etc.

statler

03-30-2009, 12:52 PM

If this is indeed true, am I alone in finding it both shameful and absurd?

Actually, I've always been under the impression that is how all government action works.

The louder group x yells about cause y, the more likely the government will respond.

Ron Newman

03-30-2009, 01:05 PM

Which to a large extent is how things should be in a democracy.

statler

03-30-2009, 01:11 PM

^^Those who can afford the biggest microphone get the most say?

Beton Brut

03-30-2009, 01:32 PM

Perhaps I'm being naive, but aren't these smiling faces (http://www.bostonpublicschools.org/node/68), and this city department (http://www.cityofboston.gov/bps/) in the business of making sure that taxpayers expectations (and their children's needs) are addressed proactively?

And to make sure we're all reading from the same script, I'm not at all adverse to seeing a school incorporated into Raymond's program for the Garage redevelopment project (even if the project doesn't incorporate city-owned land); further, there's nothing that I can see in the current proposal that would preclude a school being incorporated into the podium of the towers, much like this (stalled?) project in NYC (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=278818&postcount=3012). I do, however, strongly disagree with Mike Ross's tactics to strong-arm the developer to win his approval.

Which to a large extent is how things should be in a democracy.

I think there's a big difference between advocating for a change in public policy (i.e. a noise ordinance where a commercial district rubs against a residential area) or for the constant improvement of public amenities (i.e. cleaning and repairing parks and playgrounds) and petitioning for a capital project costing tens of millions of dollars.

Am I wrong to assume that the Boston School Department has a strategic plan to grow and improve our schools?

sidewalks

03-30-2009, 02:21 PM

Which to a large extent is how things should be in a democracy.

I can think of innumerable situations in which an extremely loud or well funded group of activists do not represent the interests of the majority. If we're talking about how things "should be", I would prefer that our leaders take the vocal minority into account but govern with an eye toward the needs and rights of the wider community.

czsz

03-30-2009, 04:31 PM

Which to a large extent is how things should be in a democracy.

Thank god we live in a republic with representatives who delegate power to administrative agencies to make determinations on this kind of thing, then.

Beton Brut

03-30-2009, 05:22 PM

Before we all start piling on Ron, consider that:

...there is already a K-8 Boston Public school in the N. End. The Eliot School.

&

...it's at capacity, which is why people are asking for an additional school.

Planning a new school likely takes years. Is there a plan, for these neighborhoods, and others? What concerns me is that the parents who attended the last meeting may never benefit from a school built on the Raymond site -- their toddlers may be ready for high school by then.

And also consider this piece by Ted Landsmark (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/01/31/its_time_to_end_busing_in_boston/). How far could $40-million go to build new or improve existing schools every year?

Jane Jetson

03-30-2009, 08:20 PM

Does anyone know the answer to these questions?

I'd really like to know.

I would think the first step would be to look at the existing school(s) in the area - like the Eliot School - and see if it is at capacity and if there is a waiting list and how long. You would also look at the number of applicants for that school over a period of time, and then see how many of those have dropped off the waiting list and have not gone into any other public school. I don't know what kind of census data you could look at, other than birth records at local hospitals. Maybe you could look at the existing private schools in the area, and their enrollment numbers, and where those kids live. You have to find a way to measure demand.

Beton Brut

03-30-2009, 09:46 PM

I asked two questions of a close friend who teaches in the Boston system:

1. If a school is needed at this or any location, what tools does the City use to determine a course of action?
2. Is there a long-term strategic plan for capital projects, such as school construction and renovation?

His replies:
1. As far as tools, I think it's a magic eight ball. BPS proper has no say and I'm not sure what branch of government makes the call, (aside form the obvious muttering mayoral visage).
2. "Long term strategic plan?" BPS? Are you smoking crack?

I'm sorry to have taken this thread off topic...