Hey, there! Log in / Register
31-story luxury tower proposed for Tremont Street across from the movie theaters
By adamg on Tue, 12/30/2014 - 10:20am
The Boston Business Journal reports a newish, but painfully short office building at 171 Tremont, across Avery from the Loews complex, could be replaced by a luxury tower. In completely unshocking news, the architect will be Elkus Manfredi.
No word if the developers plan on calling it something like Tremont on the Park.
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
Shadows On the Common?
Yes, I know we are supposed to have density in the city but one of the greatest triumphs of Henry Lee and the Friends of the Public Garden was the blocking of the Park Plaza development in the 1970's. Proposed mammoth Harbor Towersesque buildings were replaced with the Four Seasons and the Heritage plus the retaining (at the owner's self interest) of the Garden Building (Le Jardin) at 250 Boylston Street. Thereby keeping a park in place and not having the Swan Boats get blown all around the lagoon owing to wind coming off of a Hancock Sized Tower on Hadassah Way.
Say what you will about Billy Bulger, but he did have a law passed which prohibits new shadows on the Boston Common. The density and height for the Ritz / Millennium was in place owing to the approvals of the other pipe dream, the Commonwealth Center in 1987. That is how they got around the shadow law, but the law is the law, unless of course these guys still have some FAR to play with from the 1987 approvals.
This building is older than you think. It was reskinned in 1999. 345 Feet on that site means a slender building with big units with the height of the beautiful (sarcasm) 45 Province Street. Lets hope Elkus throws away the crap they have been working with over the past few years and puts forward something urbane along the lines of what was promised for Boylston Square in the late 1990s.
What about
What about world class shadows?
It's kind of a shame really
It's kind of a shame really that they would ditch the building on site when it is so young [although you mention it predates 1999]. It's actually a funky and cool looking building when you look at it from up in the movie theater.
I wish instead of promoting very tall buildings downtown, and not much else outside of there, they would concentrate on more density in the outlier areas of the city. Parts of Brighton, Mattapan, Dorchester, Roslindale, etc. would be better served by such development; replacing three deckers and other wood framed buildings with short [5-6 story] concrete buildings. It's only in those areas that you will see sale or rental prices that even come close to approaching affordable levels.
One man's shadow is another
One man's shadow is another man's shade.
Trees make shade
Buildings make shadows.
Beach umbrellas: shadow or
Beach umbrellas: shadow or shade? Go.
That's a gray area
Depends - your umbrella or somebody else's?
More luxury? The days when a
More luxury? The days when a middle class family with 2.3 kids and 2.0 cars could afford to live in a high-rise on the Common are truly over.
As are the days
As are the days when a farmer could graze his 2.5 cows on the Common.
Do you still need a gun?
To cross the common (In case of bears) Or did they repeal that law?
It is both required to carry
It is both required to carry a shotgun for bears and illegal to carry a firearm on the common. Dueling to the death is also legal on the common on Sundays if the governor is present as a witness. Laws in MA are rarely written with expiration or reauthorization requirements. So they shuffle on as conflicting zombies to be battled by lawyers.
Citation
Citation please.
I can believe a law about dueling. I cannot believe a law allowing dueling on Sundays. Our forefathers took the sabbath pretty seriously.
When?
When were the days where it was affordable to raise a family and have 2 cars while living in the heart of the city? The 40's?
During rent control
Which lasted about 30 years and was ended in '94 by referendum.
But the 2 car family thing? I doubt that part just because it would be so impractical.
Much More Recently
Not so sure about the 2 cars part... but property in the city was actually, fairly reasonably priced right up until about 1999-2001. That was when the real estate bubble occurred in Boston. When those bubbles burst it [unfortunately] does not mean prices fall back to their pre-bubble level. It just means they go back to rising at a more sedate pace.
For example a multi-bedroom place that in 1998 might have cost $60,000 - $100,000 [depending on size and neighborhood] now costs $200,000 - $400,000. At $60,000 - $100,000 you could get a mortgage with as little as $10,000 - $20,000 down which is an achievable savings goal. But now you would need much more money down and owe money much longer, making it a lot harder for people buying their first property.
You missed the part....
where the anon said "a high-rise on the Common". (which I'm guessing was sarcasm).
To live on the common in 1998, in a 2br/2ba w/parking would have cost you about $360k, not $60-100k.
Are you talking annual rent
In that case- you might find something for $360k (annually). If you are talking buying - I think you'd be hard pressed to find a 2 BR/2 BA for double that. And that's without parking. Downtown condos are selling for about $1000 per sf and up. something that needs work might run you $700-800 per sf.
In the late '90's
Not today.
In the immortal words of roseanne rosannadanna
Never mind.
One unit per floor?
The article says 31 units, without mentioning the number of floors. But the listed height is consistent with a single unit per floor. The 365 views on the upper floors should be quite spectacular.
...kidding, right?
...kidding, right?
John Costello's comment
Thanks for the information, John Costello. I always thought that little building on the corner was a part of the big Ritz-Carlton Towers condo-hotel-cinema development. It seemed to me that, considering the relatively narrow frontage of the complex's Tremont Street Common-facing side, the building's shortness on such a small lot was a way of preserving unobstructed views for hotel guests and lower-floor condominium owners. If this goes ahead, expect some grumbling from the adjacent buildings.
Numbering on Tremont
Am I looking at this wrong or does Tremont have mixed odd and even addresses on the same side on the stretch across from the common? The density of doors doesn't seem to require that deviation from the norm. Also, on Google street view, the building in question seems to be labelled as 172 Tremont.
Yes, It's Mixed
It is a legacy of buildings facing the Common. Beacon Street until at least Arlington is the same way.
12 Bay State Road
is a strange anomaly on the river side of the first block. All other north-side Bay State Road addresses are odd-numbered.
Are the wealthy residents of
Are the wealthy residents of these luxury units clueless as to the high population of homeless junkies outside their door? St. Francis House neighbors? Gun and crack slinging low pant hoods running wild around their luxury nests? Sorry but if I had money to buy luxury it certainly wouldn't be there.
These are built-in features of the neighborhood
They won't ever go away.
Just like the prostitution problem around the theaters in the Combat Zone.
Maybe they don't share your
Maybe they don't share your values, don't irrationally find people less fortunate than themselves threatening, don't obsess about "Gun and crack slinging low pant hoods," and enjoy the unique culture only available downtown?
Sorry, still wouldn't live
Sorry, still wouldn't live there. I'd live in west of boston burbs and drive my bmw to the Theatre District for a show. Wouldn't want to live there among knives, guns, and low pant gun and crack slinging hoods! ,:)
Luckily
In the U.S. of A, you can live wherever you want. Enjoy the burbs.
Your choice. I've worked in
Your choice. I've worked in that neighborhood for over eight years now, and I like it fine. As far as living there, I wouldn't, but that's for reasons of amenities (lack of) and cost rather than irrational suburbanite fears. (yeah, I know that's a little bit mean and I'm sorry, but I do think your fears are both irrational and the product of uninformed stereotyping)
Same old.
Is this building going to have Hardy Plank sidewalls, windows you can't open and yellow brick?