Hey, there! Log in / Register
Plans filed to remove most of the crate that City Hall came in
By adamg on Thu, 06/06/2013 - 8:02am
A developer yesterday filed plans with the BRA to replace most of the Government Center garage over 10 years with a series of buildings housing 771 apartments, a hotel and 1.3 million square feet of office space. The plans, by Bulfinch Congress Holdings, which has owned the garage since 2007, also call for "a new public square and pedestrian promenade that will connect both the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway and the Market District along Congress Street through to Canal Street."
The proposal for the 4.8-acre parcel would also retain 1,150 parking spaces from the current garage.
View from Congress Street.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
A Council Chamber with seating that doesn't hurt.
A Council Chamber is needed that's inviting for the people. Seating that doesn't hurt is needed at Boston City Council.
Your laser focus is impressive
Although surely you realize your comment has nothing to do with this project except for my dumb joke in the headline.
That having been said, here's a secret: If you do attend city-council hearings in person, rather than watching on cable from the comfort of your couch, sit in the press section. The seats are more comfortable, nobody ever checks to see if you're actually press and 99 times out of 100 no press will show up anyway.
this guys always comments on
this guys always comments on cityhall related posting with stuff that has no relation to the subject at hand... i'm surprised that he's not complaining about the stenography or the maps with bordering street names.
and adam, you are right when you say watching from his couch... in cambridge!!!
Stenography in the news
Stenography in the news
http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/the-only-public-t...
Anything to modernize and
Anything to modernize and revitalize that part of the city is OK in my book. Things will start to look great with the rebuilding of the old Government Center "bunker" T station as well.
Can we knock down City Hall while we're at it?
600 feet. why can't we build
600 feet. why can't we build tall in this city another sub 50 floor building. How about reaching a little higher? Disappointed.
because there aren't enough people
We will probably have trouble filling these buildings out - why would you want to build even bigger buildings? How do you compete in the reasonably near future with millions of SF of office space, thousands of luxury apartments and hundreds (thousands?) of hotel rooms already in the pipeline without creating pain when the bubble bursts?
This is part of the problem when you have a development agency that doesn't give a hoot about planning - you get to much of one thing and it takes years or decades to recover. Condos in the 80's, offices in the 90's and now it seems to be luxury apartments and hotels right behind that.
Those who forget history...
Seems to be a demand for it no?
Trouble filling the space? Residential and commercial real estate prices are through the roof right now. Obviously there is a demand for it based on all the new projects going up in DTC, Copley and seaport. Demand drives the market. Boston is developing into a bigger city whether you like it or not. Sorry
yes - trouble filling the space
Commercial space is not through the roof - it's going up - but certainly not skyrocketing - especially downtown - some demand on the Waterfront (much of it subsidized by the city) and good demand in Back Bay but not good enough to stimulate the two approved office projects to actually build. If a couple of million square foot spaces open up - the bottom drops out.
Residential prices are rising - but by no mean's skyrocketing - I'd estimate my place in Back Bay is up about 4% since the last peak and that's driven more by low supply than by high demand.
There is some demand and the city is growing - a good thing - but there is a bubble a brewin' in luxury housing - particularly downtown towers. This can be very bad for the city - and won't help create affordable housing - as many think. I want the city to grow - I just want it to grow right. And building thousands of luxury homes is a disaster in the making - it'll take another 2-4 years and another recession - but if we actually build even a fraction of what is in the pipeline - we will end up paying for this for years.
Blame BOS
There was a proposal for a 1000-foot tower in Winthrop Square back in 2006. The plan hit a roadblock when the FAA said it was too tall, and that a plane approaching Logan that makes an emergency turn wouldn't have sufficient clearance to miss the tower.
This is one of the drawbacks of having the airport so close to downtown -- something most tall cities don't have to contend with.
The Tommy Tower
Which made the evening news during the Great Mooninite Scare.
Raising Density, Not Pretentiousness
You might be thinking of the original plan for the Filene's site. Regardless...
We don't need absurdly tall luxury towers all clustered in one part of the city. We need moderately increased height zoning allowed for selected projects out in the outlier areas of Boston. Areas like Roslindale or Brighton or Hyde Park, where those units might stand a chance of costing under $150-200K to buy.
We also need to stimulate more retail growth in those areas. A pizza shop here and a bodega there does not a thriving area make. Yet it seems the only businesses that will expand like such are bank branches which do nothing to add to street life. For a neighborhood to really succeed it can't be primarily residential only. Mixed use buildings are a must, some with ground floor retail and residences above, some with ground floor retail/food and offices above.
We're never going to be like New York where a 40 story building is considered average or small. This is not that kind of city. But we can do much more than rely on aging three deckers and boring, peaked roof single family homes.
No, he's right. In 2006
No, he's right. In 2006 Steve Belkin proposed an 85-story tower on that site, but it got stalled when the recession hit.
Now that the Winthrop Square
Now that the Winthrop Square garage has been closed down indefinitely, are we going to see redevelopment on that parcel?
I wonder how many of those apartments
will be Section 8? I mean, it's not like we need more affordable housing in this city, right?
We need more housing. Period.
We need more housing. Period. More supply must eventually lower prices, right? Sure, the first batches will be high priced but eventually rents will come down. We should build our way out of this downtown housing shortage.
Agreed 100%
Limits on building have created today's situation: luxury housing for the wealthy coupled with subsidized housing for the poor. People in the middle are forced to move far away.
More building is the only way out of this box.
This is perfect area to build housing, as there's little concern about abutters, and replacing a hulking garage with housing is a clear improvement to the area.
The devil is always in the details, but this seems like the right direction.
Not just that...constructing
Not just that...constructing a building is extremely expensive in this city. Developers will not spend more money on a building than they can make in "affordable" housing.
Unless there is serious subsidy, it's just not attractive to developers or investors, in fact, investors have far more power than we think. If they won't fund affordable or market rate housing, it won't get built.
We need the RIGHT kind of housing
If you build downtown - you have to build luxury to make money (lots of reasons - for discussion different time and place). What we truly need right now is moderately priced market rate housing. You won't/don't get that building east of Mass Ave because land prices are outrageous - and lots of it can't be built on because it's park, historic, hospital, university etc.
People always talk about the NIMBYs downtown preventing development, however, I challenge you to come up with a project that was significantly downsized or canceled due to NIMBY opposition in a downtown neighborhood in the past 15 years (I know of one air rights project - not Columbus center which collapsed under its own weight).
Spoke with a mucky muck at the BRA and based on that s/he said the real opposition comes from the outer neighborhoods that shoot down large projects all the time - and because they are politically powerful - nothing gets done there. Probably the opposite of what most people think.
Density does not necessarily
Density does not necessarily equal lower housing prices. As someone pointed out once, forget if it was here or on ArchBoston, that if density was equated with price, than Tokyo would be the cheapest place to live.
Terrible example
Tokyo is not that densely populated. It's rather sprawly actually. It's just railroad sprawl instead of car sprawl; the combined subway and commuter railroad system carries 40 million riders per day (the T manages 1.3 million).
The Ginza <> Tokyo
People tend to think of the Ginza and don't understand that it's only a small part of Tokyo. When I was there, it reminded me quite a bit of Los Angeles. And it's interesting, because Tokyo is thought of as being much more dense than it is, whereas Los Angeles is thought of as being much less dense than it is. But they are actually very similar to Boston for density (Tokyo a bit higher, L.A. a bit lower).
Rich people won't take over other neighborhoods
Even luxury housing helps, because it prevents upgrading of other housing stock to luxury housing.
Some cities have redirected gentrification issues by luring up-end buyers with new buildings and amenities.
isnt it like...
20% of all units in a building need to be low income or sec 8? (I thought that was boston city requirements...)
Also there's a difference between section 8. Section 8 folks can live anywhere (the landlord has to agree to accept the certificate), Low income means you apply for the unit and you pay/mortgage based on your income level. Big difference.
And yes folks, even the Mandarin has low incoming housing it in. Layouts the same, the finishes are not (laminated counter tops, cheap cabnets, plastic fixtures, etc). You also have to enter in a different entrance to get to the low income housing and residents in those units cannot get to the 'high income' units without walking outside and going in thru the main entrance
It's not Low Income...
...it's Affordable Housing. Eligibility for these BRA-regulated units range roughly from 80%-120% of median income levels for units for sale. It runs lower, I think, for rental units.
http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/afford...
Woooow...
I can only imagine walking up to the Mandarin with another resident and having to awkwardly veer away from the lobby towards a well-concealed door marked "POORS ENTER HERE".
It's not actually marked that way...
Instead of words, it just has a picture of Uncle Pennybags with his pockets pulled out.
The above comment is not
The above comment is not exactly true.
I used to live in one of the affordable housing units at the Mandarin, and the affordable rental units are mixed right in with the regular rental units. There are 2 different towers. One is all apartments (10 "affordable" and the regular priced), and the other tower is the hotel and the condos (there are no "affordable" condos). There are separate entrances for each tower (same as other hotels with residences in the city), but while one of our next door neighbors was a couple in another affordable unit, the other was a rich & famous Boston celebrity.
Also, the finishes and details were very nice. We had granite counters in the kitchen, marble tiles in the bathrooms, 10' ceilings in the living room, and (my favorite part!) lots of appliances: our own hot water heater, clothes washer, dryer, dishwasher, and disposal!!
I loved our apartment there, but it was way too expensive. Our "affordable" rent was just under 40% of our total gross income (that's pre-tax income, folks), and after taxes and deductions for health/dental insurance, etc., it was almost 70% of our take home pay. The utilities were also very expensive because we had to pay for heat and A/C. We barely ran either, but our electric bills were about $200/month.
We had to move because it was just NOT affordable for us. I wonder how the BRA comes up with the numbers for what is considered "affordable..."
Where's the school?
What is happening with the school that should be included with this?
You mean Mitt Romney Memorial?
The city's buying 585 Commercial St.
Anything that cuts down on
Anything that cuts down on parking and gets rid of that eyesore is a good thing.
Nothing there
www.governmentcentergarageredevelopment.com has no content, just GoDaddy ads.
Try again now?
I just went there, and I saw photos and press releases and no ads.
They thought big
... and I call them phallic.
What Boston needs is a Torre Agbar:
Close...
But a London Gherkin facsimile would be even better. Then we could compete as the Big Pickle.
Innovative design
Any one of these could make a good city hall replacement.
Hottest new design for the "oven city" of Wuhan, China:
C'mon, Boston! Can't be a World Class City without one of these lady pleasin' towers!
peee-yuu!
The buildings in those renderings are so ugly they make the JFK bldg look good! Build big if that seems to be what's needed, but ferchrissakes can we have a decent looking building, please?
does it have to be so
does it have to be so generic-looking? Where's the style, Boston?