MGH proposes $1-billion expansion

WBUR reports on Mass. General's plans, which includes two new 12-story buildings and 450 single-patient rooms.

Neighborhoods: 

Topics: 

Free tagging: 

Ad:

Comments

It depends

It really depends upon whether or not your personal physician has enough seniority and institutional clout, not to mention the inclination, to fight the bureaucracy on your behalf.

up
Voting closed 6

MGH care

By on

While my PCP is not at MGH, I have several specialists that I see there far more frequently than I see my PCP. It;s always been easy to get in for things like Xrays and blood tests, and handy having all these docs in one place, in case one of them wants me to see someone else (for example, I have an appt with a surgeon coming up, and my other docs know him and work with him regularly).

I don't know if the world of PCPs would be different, but my experience has been fine.

up
Voting closed 2

Switched months ago.

By on

Going from Harvard Vanguard to MGH as my PCP was the best choice. MGH is so professional and gets things done for me. HV had some really nice doctors but the care sucked. Switched last July.

up
Voting closed 2

This would be a great revamp

By on

This would be a great revamp to an otherwise desolate stretch of Cambridge Street which is embarrassing as the first thing one experiences after crossing the Longfellow. Another opportunity to rebuild part of the missing "there" in the post urban 'renewal' era West End.

up
Voting closed 10

Except...

By on

They apparently propose to destroy the one historic building on that side of the street, the Resident Physician's House [ca. 1891] at the corner of Cambridge and North Grove Streets. The hospital actually received money from historic preservation groups to preserve that building in 1982. They did so by moving it from its previous location on Blossom Street.

An adjacent, modern building that is quite handsome -- the MGH Professional Office Building, built of brick in a style intended to complement the Resident Physician's House -- would also apparently be taken down.

Neither of those buildings appear in the renderings of the proposed new facilities. But they provide a needed transition between the high-rise buildings of MGH and the Beacon Hill residential area.

Agreed that a lot of Cambridge Street is pretty desolate and grim looking. But they shouldn't take down the two buildings that do look nice. There's a lot of other buildings that should be taken instead.

up
Voting closed 14

Resident Physician's House

I don't see them removing this. The proposed buildings would fill the two blocks east of it. The rendering that they provided doesn't show the west side of the corner of North Grove and Cambridge St.

I agree it is a shame that the MGH Professional Office Building is going.

Edit: Looking at the rending again it looks like they will be preserving the parking garage on the west side of North Grove. This would suggest they aren't doing anything on that side.

up
Voting closed 5

With all the digging for the

By on

With all the digging for the foundations and the proximity to Charles/MGH it would make sense to extend the Blue Line tunnel and build a connecting underground platform as part of this project.

up
Voting closed 11

is there a mechanism to push

By on

is there a mechanism to push for this? does MGH need to go before the city, can we pressure the city to demand transit investment in return for approvals?

up
Voting closed 1

Incorporate or demolish existing old buildings?

Much of this land is currently vacant, but it does have at least three old brick West End buildings. Will MGH demolish them or incorporate them (or at least their fa├žades) into the new building?

up
Voting closed 2

Buildings on Blossom St

The rendering doesn't quite make it clear what will happen to the buildings on Blossom St. They say the building on that block will be smaller, but the write ups I have seen don't offer anything else.

up
Voting closed 1

We've already preserved the South End, Beacon Hill and Back Bay

Pretty much in their entirety with the very real trade off that it reduces the amount of dense housing we can build near the city core. And I'm fine with that! But I think that negates the need to preserve a brick building or two in the West End. There's nothing specifically historically significant about those structures vs. having a city built for today and the future.

And the North End, that didn't fit in the title block. Four very cool historic neighborhoods preserved in amber ringing the city core - the West End is gone, let's remember it and move on. Facade preservation is just pointless architectural cosplay.

up
Voting closed 5

Thank you for this week's

By on

Thank you for this week's favorite phrase, "Facade preservation is just pointless architectural cosplay."

up
Voting closed 2

Those are the densest

By on

Those are the densest residential neighborhoods in the city. They don't reduce density.

up
Voting closed 1

Sure they do

You think more people live on Marlborough St or the new Boylston St in the Fenway per mile? I'd bet its the Fenway by a good margin.

Again, not saying we should not down the brick row houses- they're beautiful but they are 3-4 stories tall not 8-10. That's the trade off that exists and will always exist in those neighborhoods.

up
Voting closed 2

SEMPER UBI SUB UBI

By on

What happened to the building by MGH with big graffiti at the top "SEMPER UBI SUB UBI" ?

up
Voting closed 3

If MGH is bringing that many

By on

If MGH is bringing that many people to the area, they really should kick in a contribution to public transit improvements.

up
Voting closed 1