Quaker Lane + Congress Square | Downtown

[12345]

Fidelity's HQ may go high

Fidelity Investments has started exploring the possible sale of its former headquarters block in downtown Boston, a storied site that’s expected to draw significant interest because it could be redeveloped with an office tower up to 400 feet tall.

The company hired broker CBRE New England to market its longtime home at 82 Devonshire St. and three adjacent buildings, either for sale or lease. And Fidelity’s team recently met with city planners to test the waters to see how developers could rework the property within zoning rules.

“Given its desirable location in the heart of the Financial District and on the edge of Downtown Crossing, we believe there are a number of attractive options for the buildings,” said Fidelity spokesman Vin Loporchio.

http://bostonherald.com/business/rea...hq_may_go_high

[gooseberry]

Those are nice buildings.

[itchy]

Agree. Hopefully any new construction there would be an addition rather than replacement.

[awood91]

I think the ideal redevelopment scheme would be to convert the existing buildings into residential to serve as a base for a condo tower as big/tall as the market will allow. Condo units as opposed to rentals or at least a mix of both because there are already a ton of rental units coming online soon.

Benefits:

Converting the existing space will take obsolete office space off the market.

Adding residential units in the financial district would shift the area towards a more mixed use environment which I think the city and public finally understands makes for vital areas.

Boston is kicking ass right now!!

[JSic]

Fidelity should get an 800 footer with a sign on top like the Pru and State Street. Its a Boston-based company, they should get that perk. Putnam as well.

[DBM]

Originally Posted by JSic

Fidelity should get an 800 footer with a sign on top like the Pru and State Street. Its a Boston-based company, they should get that perk. Putnam as well.

Did you even read the article?! Fidelity is SELLING the building. By definition, there will not be Fidelity-advertising sign placed on top of whatever gets developed there.

(Not only that, but Fidelity, though "Boston-based," of course, is famous for having sent thousands of jobs out of state to RI, etc., making your misplaced aspiration even more ironic.)

[meddlepal]

Did you even read the article?! Fidelity is SELLING the building. By definition, there will not be Fidelity-advertising sign placed on top of whatever gets developed there.

(Not only that, but Fidelity, though "Boston-based," of course, is famous for having sent thousands of jobs out of state to RI, etc., making your misplaced aspiration even more ironic.)

Not to mention it clearly states in the article that the height ceiling is 400ft.

[JSic]

Originally Posted by DBM

Did you even read the article?! Fidelity is SELLING the building. By definition, there will not be Fidelity-advertising sign placed on top of whatever gets developed there.

(Not only that, but Fidelity, though "Boston-based," of course, is famous for having sent thousands of jobs out of state to RI, etc., making your misplaced aspiration even more ironic.)

Yes, I read the article. My point was irrespective of the article, that Boston companies like Fidelity and Putnam should be allowed to build tall, signature towers downtown. Maybe that would encourage them to stay in town and move their opertaions and jobs back up here.

[type001]

400 feet?? It's literally in the middle of the Goddam financial district. Biggest lost opportunity right there. Am I only one that thinks this?

Regardless, that building best be preserved. That will be the saving grace for whatever turd gets put on top of it.

Edit: Atwood91 has a good perspective on this.

[Shepard]

So do we think Fidelity will be looking to lease in existing class A space or build something new for themselves elsewhere?

[choo]

I'd be surprised if Fidelity wants to make a landmark investment in Boston. While I would certainly welcome it, it would be counter to every move they have made over the last ten years.

Also, I don't think residential could get the rents that office could here. Maybe our own version of chicago's Hancock tower with residential and office would be good. Why can't that be 800' right here?

[shmessy]

Originally Posted by JSic

Yes, I read the article. My point was irrespective of the article, that Boston companies like Fidelity and Putnam should be allowed to build tall, signature towers downtown. Maybe that would encourage them to stay in town and move their opertaions and jobs back up here.

If you've been following Fidelity's trajectory the past few years, you would understand that they are tiptoeing out of Massachusetts as fast as they can towards Rhode Island, NH, Texas, etc..

They are simply NOT going in the direction you are dreaming. It's time to get over it. Boston has.

[atlantaden]

So, what are the major limiting factors here in regards to height? Shadows on the Common? FAA? Or is it just some arbitrary zoning number?

[bigeman312]

Originally Posted by type001

400 feet?? It's literally in the middle of the Goddam financial district. Biggest lost opportunity right there. Am I only one that thinks this?

Hopefully they are speculating and throwing out a bad number, because if for some reason that lot is only able to be zoned for up to 400 feet it would be a travesty. Here are the heights of nearby buildings:

One Boston Place (2 blocks away) - 601 feet
One International Place (4 blocks away) - 600 feet
Two International Place (5 blocks away) - 538 feet
One Post Office Square (1 block away) - 525 feet
One Federal St (2 blocks away) - 520 feet
Exchange Place (1 block away) - 510 feet
60 State St (2 blocks away) - 509 feet
One Beacon Street (4 blocks away) - 505 feet
28 State St (2 blocks away) - 500 feet
33 Arch Street (2 blocks away) - 477 feet
225 Franklin (2 blocks away) - 477 feet

This lot should be zoned for at least 600 feet or as tall as the FAA would allow. A signature 650+ footer would be perfectly contextual.

[TallIsGood]

Fidelity proposed building a tall headquarters building on that location back in the 1980s. The owners of Exchange Place successfully fought it since it would harm their views. There is an old drawing of it somewhere, I'll try to dig it up.

[TallIsGood]

Here are the renderings I have of the previously proposed Fidelity HQ on that site.

[dirtywater]

Fidelity considered building a tower in the 1980's but, I believe, dropped the idea on its own before there was much of a battle with Exchange Place or anyone else. Exchange Place (or some of the tenants led by Goodwin Procter) fought against 75 State Street resulting in a shorter, squatter building than what was originally proposed and what the BRA was prepared to approve.

[found5dollar]

I think people are forgettign the boston rule with this building "Zone the building short so that if you need or want to build tall you need a variance. Through the variance discussion the city gets something out of you."

[AmericanFolkLegend]

Originally Posted by atlantaden

So, what are the major limiting factors here in regards to height? Shadows on the Common? FAA? Or is it just some arbitrary zoning number?

Just some arbitrary number.
I believe the only spaces zoned for taller than 400 feet are the PDA at the Filene's crater and some air rights parcels (SST, Copley Tower, etc.). So the fact that this building is located in the tallest as-of-right zoning district in the city makes it very likely that they'll either:
1. Create a PDA and zone it taller. Or,
2. Grant variances for more height in exchange for some extortion (civic space, linkage funds, etc.).
People shouldn't be freaked out by the 400 number.

[Brad Plaid]

Originally Posted by TallIsGood

Here are the renderings I have of the previously proposed Fidelity HQ on that site.

A major bullet was dodged here. This would have ended up as much of a cartoon as 500 Boylston.