archBOSTON.org

Go Back   archBOSTON.org > Boston's Built Environment > Development Projects

Development Projects New urban and/or architectural developments in Boston metro.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-11-2018, 08:21 AM   #121
HalcyonEra
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 397
Re: Riverside Station development

Quote:
Originally Posted by kingofsheeba View Post
Sorry I was referring to HalcyonEra in regards to the triple decker comment.

Anyways, back to your points.

1). I'm not sure I follow your Back Bay analogy. BB has always been one of the wealthiest neighborhoods to live in from the time Boston was built. What's different now than in the late 1800's?

2). Swinging for the fences on Assembly Row. Does it have to be those specific chains? Nope. But there are those types of shoppes going in Assembly Row. Overpriced, flashy, overrated outdoor patio decks and lounges. It's the same concept. No concept of community fabric. A massive failure of long-term neighborhood planning.

3). Legacy Place is right on 128. 3rd Ave in Burlington is on 128. They all have high end retail. Catering to a more upscale demographic. And I left out Wakefield and Westwood Station. The only thing that stands out from the rest of the pop-up developments along 128 is that the T station is already there.

I'm not saying that there isn't a market for these types of neighborhoods but in terms of building a neighborhood with character, I'm a bit skittish on the details. I don't live in Newton but if I did, then I'd demand that the project include a neighborhood school. Public or charter would do just fine (though I would prefer a public school).
I am simply not sure what you expect. Every development needs to be profitable but there are so many restrictions placed on developers that their options are severely limited. It was recently reported that Mass has the highest cost of living expense in the country. That expense flows throughout everything that is built. It is incredibly difficult to build anything dense outside of Boston proper. Virtually any proposal over 3 stories is met with the pitchfork and pearl neckless clutchers and the ďcommunity activistsĒ who are really there to protect their own interests, nothing more.

Would it be more desirable to build truly economic diverse neighborhoods? Of course. However, while government used to build affordable public housing, that ceased in the 80s. All that is done now is renovation of the existing stock usually through a quasi public-private partnership. The affordable housing component has been pushed onto the developers, and guess what, that cost, which is really a subsidy, is directly passed on to the limited units that are built, and therefore the purchaser of those units, and limiting the demographics that can afford it, both at the housing and retail level.

Would it be great to build eclectic neighborhoods with cool restaurants and shops? Of course. But again public policy makes that virtually impossible. One, you got the ROI for the developers. If you donít make money you go out of business. I travel a lot and itís very obvious to me that they reason we only have chain crap around here because of our antiquated and ridiculous limitations on liquor licenses. Chains are the only ones that can afford them. Sure, some communities increase their cap (through state approval of course) but itís not nearly enough. Individual owned restaurants need to sell booze to make it. And this runs the gamut Ė case in point, Wegmans paid a small liquor store owner in Natick $1.3M for a full retail license. The windfall is fantastic for the owner of the license, but those costs are ultimately passed to the consumer. And the license holders themselves Ė stores, bars and existing restaurants are highly protective of those investments and therefore lobby heavily to keep the status quo. As with the small liquor store owner, the license becomes their retirement fund.

So what do end up with? The bro-hoods that you donít like. At the end of the day though, it's the broís can afford it. And the rich foreign kids who come here for school. Itís totally understandable why you donít like it, but we, as a society, have created this mess through ignorant policy making. In time, things change, neighborhoods evolve. But right out the gate, at this time, these types of developments are really the only thing that can turn a profit.

Sorry for the rant, but again, I am not really sure what exactly you expect.
HalcyonEra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2019, 12:27 PM   #122
Equilibria
Senior Member
 
Equilibria's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,567
Re: Riverside Station development

The latest:

Newton's Riverside Vision Plan | http://www.newtonma.gov/civica/fileb...p?BlobID=96820

This got rushed like hell given the progress of Mark Development's proposal. Hello Washington Street has sketches, massing models, detailed conceptual maps... this one has a checklist of planning principles and pictures of developments in hipster downtown districts. The only things of value here are the emphasis on accessing the river, which Mark Development has ignored to this point and which was the most unanimous concern from the neighborhood at the meeting I went to, and the reference to Station Landing, which I think is a pretty good prediction of where this site is headed.

The result of this will almost certainly be Korff "checking the boxes" in his presentations to the Council and the neighbors dismissing the visioning process and whining as they would have anyway. Complete waste of time and money.

Mark Development's proposal | http://www.newtonma.gov/civica/fileb...p?BlobID=96153

The renders for this are the same as we've been discussing, submitted in September. I like the aesthetics, but the neighbors and City Council should make a concerted push to work in recreational trail access and rightsize a little bit. It's also silly to even talk about Riverside without MassDOT in the discussion, since it only works if you make changes to 128 ramps. It's the same thing up in Waltham with 1265 Main and the other stuff around Route 20/117: developers want changes to the highway and are willing to put in for them, and MassDOT doesn't have the organizational wherewithal to respond or take advantage.

Also Statler: this is a real proposal, not a discussion. Change the name to "Riverside Station Development | 367 Grove Street | Newton"?
Equilibria is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2019, 01:52 PM   #123
jklo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 314
Re: Riverside Station development

I could see them not wanting to do anything with the river since you would have to get Weston involved.
jklo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2019, 09:43 PM   #124
Equilibria
Senior Member
 
Equilibria's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,567
Re: Riverside Station development

3D flythrough:

https://vimeo.com/331747161

I appreciate that they've made a couple of renders of improved river parks, but I'm not sure I buy it until they say exactly what they'll improve.

The roundabout on the Lower Falls side now has its first appearance from this development team.

Last edited by Equilibria; 05-14-2019 at 07:05 AM.
Equilibria is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2019, 05:12 AM   #125
HarvardP
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 26
Re: Riverside Station development

This is a huge development, it makes the Woodland res complex seem tiny. Other than the new rotary and the Grove Street interchange, Newtonians must be foaming at the mouths...
HarvardP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2019, 02:03 PM   #126
jklo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 314
Re: Riverside Station development

Still think they should ditch the office space, especially given how far it is outside of the city even being on the green line.
jklo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2019, 10:05 PM   #127
curcuas
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 264
Re: Riverside Station development

Suspect there's some latent demand for 128-accessible but also core-transit accessible office demand (or developers who believe there is)
curcuas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2019, 05:47 AM   #128
jklo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 314
Re: Riverside Station development

Quote:
Originally Posted by curcuas View Post
Suspect there's some latent demand for 128-accessible but also core-transit accessible office demand (or developers who believe there is)
When I was last at Riverside Center, there was definitely space available. And that's a pretty nice space. Will say that it's probably at the higher end of pricing for Newton office space tho. But yeah people drive, it's too far out and would be too long even if you lived right on the D line.

Maybe the numbers work even if they only fill half or less of the space or something.
jklo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2019, 07:12 AM   #129
Equilibria
Senior Member
 
Equilibria's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,567
Re: Riverside Station development

Quote:
Originally Posted by jklo View Post
When I was last at Riverside Center, there was definitely space available. And that's a pretty nice space. Will say that it's probably at the higher end of pricing for Newton office space tho. But yeah people drive, it's too far out and would be too long even if you lived right on the D line.

Maybe the numbers work even if they only fill half or less of the space or something.
If there wasn't demand for office space on 128, we wouldn't be seeing developers keep building it in Waltham, Needham, Burlington...
Equilibria is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2019, 08:08 AM   #130
jklo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 314
Re: Riverside Station development

Quote:
Originally Posted by Equilibria View Post
If there wasn't demand for office space on 128, we wouldn't be seeing developers keep building it in Waltham, Needham, Burlington...
Are they? I believe Hobbs Brook in Waltham has talked about rehabbing some structures but that sounded to me more like trying to make the building a bit more OOFP friendly in an attempt to keep tenants.
jklo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2019, 08:28 AM   #131
Equilibria
Senior Member
 
Equilibria's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,567
Re: Riverside Station development

Quote:
Originally Posted by jklo View Post
Are they? I believe Hobbs Brook in Waltham has talked about rehabbing some structures but that sounded to me more like trying to make the building a bit more OOFP friendly in an attempt to keep tenants.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/business...nTM/story.html

Wouldn't call that a rehab. It's also right down the road from The Post.

There may be other reasons why the Riverside Center has vacancy - leasing rates, contiguity of available space, issues finding subletters if a company moves out before lease end... it's hard to extrapolate from one building.
Equilibria is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Westwood Station bostonman Development Projects 278 05-23-2017 12:28 PM
Development over JFK station KentXie Development Projects 9 06-23-2011 01:45 PM
Kenmore Bus Station? Boston Needs A ShakeShack Transit and Infrastructure 2 07-18-2008 11:53 AM
Westwood Station pharmerdave Transit and Infrastructure 19 04-18-2007 11:55 AM
T station layouts justin Transit and Infrastructure 6 05-26-2006 02:33 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.