--------- Good evening everyone and thank you all for joining us for a design subcommittee meeting of the Boston Civic Design Commission. Today's date is Tuesday, August 19th and this is session A of the BCDC. The planning department continues hosting public meetings in a virtual
setting for the health, safety, and accessibility of Boston residents. I'm Christina Rico, executive director of the BCDC. And before we begin with the agenda, I'm required by the open meeting law to notify uh you all that the public to notify the public that this meeting
is being recorded. Please turn off your camera and microphone if you do not wish to be recorded. For the record, commissioners uh Garland, Codoritus, Lubenau, and Manf Freddy have joined us this evening, and
we are expecting Commissioner Sykes to join us as well. We'll uh announce him when he's entered. Tonight's agenda will include presentations for projects at 990 American Legion Highway in Hyde Park and the Gillette redevelopment master plan.
Tonight's meeting proceedings will follow the typical BCDC design subcommittee format beginning with a presentation from the proponent followed by commissioners uh followed by comments from BCDC commissioners, public testimony and then a discussion of next
steps. Uh while Lizzie works to promote the um proponent team for 990 American Legion Highway, I just have a brief intro to read for folks here. So, a proposed project at 990 American Legion Highway
and Hyde Park seeking article 80 large project entitlement contemplates the uh development of approximately 341,576 square ft of primarily residential uses or 204 dwelling units and 249 off-
streetet parking spaces in nine buildings on a 14.1 acre site. This will be the second presentation of the proposed project following its introduction on August 2nd of 2022. Following a long pause in its review,
the planning department received a final project impact report on June 27th, 2025 and is required to complete its review of the filing by August 26, 2025. At the conclusion of deliberation this evening, commissioners should refer the
project to full commission to issue final recommendations at the next monthly meeting to conclude its review in a timely manner. A reminder to the proponent that the presentation will be limited to 15 minutes. I'll give you a 2-minute warning when you're approaching the end of that time. And with that, I
invite the proponent team to begin presenting whenever ready. Okay. Right. Thank you very much everyone. I'm just going to share my screen real quickly. All right. Okay. Can everybody see the uh screen
that I'm presenting now? >> We can, Philip. >> Okay, great. Thank you very much. So, I'll pick it up. Um, thank you Christina for the introduction and thank you everybody on the call for joining. My name is Philip Shen. I'm with the MQMF Hine Park LLC, which is an affiliate of
Willowbridge property company, The Proponent. I'm joined today by Chris Sansson with Hefner Architects and beside me, John Newton, principal with The Proponent. Just as a little background and context to the site, we've been working on this site for about 5 years now. It's located at the
address 990 American Legion Highway. It's in Hyde Park. It's surrounded by a mixture of single family, multif family, retail, and vacant land. This site is about 14 acres. We're seeing a significant grade changes and a challenging topography on this site. It
is currently vacant with a previously developed access road and underground utilities in disrepair on the site. Now, uh with the exception of that northeast corner adjacent to the shopping center, there are significant natural setbacks on all edges of the site. uh we have
conducted extensive studies on the existing conditions including geotechnical uh tree canopy and environmental studies that have been included in our FBI filing and uh our topography analysis and these analyses have helped us uh
inform us on the overall project design. Now I'm going to move on to the second slide the program. So for anyone unfamiliar with this, we're proposing approximately 204 or exactly 204 units of workforce housing in nine garden style buildings 2 to three tall and
we're including a resident amenity building and leasing center. Since the previous meeting, we have removed the first floor units to comply with the underlying zoning. Our project aims to work with existing topography and we do have a grade change up to about 72 feet
from the entrance on American Legion to the southern edge of the site. Uh we know that 58% of the site is usable open space. As far as parking goes, the project will have 226 uh parking spaces for residents and employees. an
additional 23 parallel street parking spaces on the driveway of the site and the net ratio of parking for residents is about one space per unit. Uh now we uh know that we are not seeking any zoning relief for this proposal. Uh for
third slide just briefly we're going to go through the next ones for a site aerial to give us greater context. This is a southeast view. And then the urban context showing some of the uses and lands around the site.
And then for the fifth slide, this is a neighborhood context showing some of the applicable links around the site. Now for the next slide, uh, design presidents, I'm going to hand it to my over to my colleague Chris Sansson at
Afn Architects. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Phil. Um, as Phil said, my name is Chris Sansson with Happy Architects. Uh, I did want to start out by looking at the sort of history of the process and and some of the inspiration
that we took uh as we started this project. So, you know, we looked at several neighboring developments. Uh, one that, you know, we we focused on, I think, more than the others was this Mstead Green project. Uh, so when we
started looking at, uh, this site, um, you know, our goal was always to to lay out the project in a way that engaged the site and responded to the topographical challenges. Uh and the way we approached this was to vary the
building sizes and orientations throughout the site uh to work with the topography to work with some of the natural elements that were were there which I think is is similar to to what they did on on this green project. uh
the variations in the buildings and the the different layouts uh allows us to provide unique it gives us unique opportunities to provide pocket parks and other site amenities. Uh I think you'll see later in the presentation we've able we are proposing a variety of
different amenity areas uh such as playgrounds, playfields and other outdoor spaces. Uh like said, green uh we're presenting a contextual vocabulary blending lap siding and shake siding. Uh rendered in warm earth tones offset
with, you know, crisp white trim. Uh the buildings are human scaled with point access blocks rather than large corridor buildings. Uh again, you know, in our experience, the the sort of point access blocks versus the long corridors help to
create an engaging and active neighborhood within the community. Um Bill, if you can go to seven, please. So on the proposed plan, um as Phil mentioned earlier, there is an existing access easement that kind of snakes its
way through the site. So, we did work with that access easement. Um, we modified it so that it met the requirements of the of Boston's uh public roadways so that we we increased
the width of it. We're providing sidewalks on each side as as well as parallel parking on both sides of this u you know roadway that that you know becomes the spine through this through this community. Uh the buildings were
laid out around this roadway in a way that again worked with the topography and allowed us to try to minimize cut and fill wherever possible. You know minimize the excavation which in turn minimizes the disruption to the
neighbors. uh building topography that we settled on was this sort of garden style, you know, point access uh pods of units that we then uh form into building footprints. Uh this topography allows us
to step the buildings in multiple directions. So side to side as well as front to back. Uh again with the goal of minimizing excavation, minimizing impact on uh on the site you know the topography like again was
mentioned earlier uh it rises you know 50 to upwards of 70t in some cases from American Legion highway. So that definitely was one of the challenges that we were uh trying to work around as we developed this site.
Next slide. So the entry to the site, we have a single public entryway into the site. There is a a secondary emergency access through the back, but we have one public access to the site off of American
Legion Highway. Because it is a single point access, it will require a median break uh to facilitate turns to and from southbound of American Legion Highway. We originally did not propose this median break, but the city did request
it so that there were no illegal U-turns at the shopping center further up American Legion Highway. Um, and then the the left turn out of the site will require a traffic light due to to sight distance
and just safety of of cars, you know, coming in and traveling on American Legion Highway. >> I'm going to pass it back to Phil at this point. >> Thank you, Chris. Okay, so just continuing speeding up a bit. Uh for this slide, we're showing everybody the
resident amenity areas which include playgrounds and a dog park. Uh these proposed to be for project residents. For more detail, we'll go into the next couple of slides. Uh this is the open space plan which is uh uh worked on by
land design and it's uh intentionally spread throughout the site to provide equitable access for everybody. The spaces are spread out but they are interconnected through the sidewalk network. We have a large playing field at the entry and uh this welcomes users
to the neighborhood and acts as an anchored green space uh expanding upon the hub of the clubhouse and leasing center. And then you move further into the site and you will see a less active smaller open space there woven in between these residential buildings. We
notice a plane field, a second playing field at the top of the image that is located on the oppos opposite side of the site from the entry field. And then we have two playground uh playgrounds located oppositely to provide a similar experience for everyone. And we have a
dog park as well as tucked further away from the residential buildings to provide an ample buffer. So for the next slide, I'm going to hand it back to Chris. So what you'll start to see on the on the site sections is some of the
topography you know existing and also uh uh on hopefully the packets that you received you can see some of the detail to it that shows some of the cut and bill. Um but again the way we tried to orient this this project and what what we did as we developed the site was you
know look to reduce the amount of site excavation and balance the cut and fill as much as possible. you know, any areas that don't have built structures, uh, you roadways, buildings, uh, accessible trails, that type of thing do generally,
uh, match with the existing topography, so we're not disturbing outside of of kind of what we're proposing to build. Um, you know, site accessibility obviously does require flattening some of the severely sloped areas uh to deal with, you know, allow
us to provide accessible, you know, pathways, parking, that kind of thing throughout the site. Next, Phil. So, as we get into the building elevations, all buildings are either three stories tall or two stories with
the basement. Uh the sort of bottom right images, you'll see the two stories with the basement, how they step um you know, front to back. Uh massings are consistent with the neighboring context. Uh all buildings are residential in
character by incorporating elements such as you peaked roofs with asphalt shingles, balconies, single hung windows. We do have singlecar garages on majority of the buildings. Um and again point access single stair blocks uh that
are then combined into these larger building masses mix of different residential materials. You can flip to the next one, Phil. So you know our goal with this project was to stay away from materials that
would make the buildings feel more commercial and institutional. Uh and we'll get into some of the the specific materials on the next slide, but this sort of development and materials, you know, we feel fits in with the context
of the neighborhood. And all the buildings will vary uh from 20 to 28 units uh as a whole, which you'll see on the the plans in the packet. Uh next bill. So, as we blow up some of the details of
the building design, you'll see there's a a variation of materials, but there's also a consistency throughout the site. Uh, so it's, you know, contemporary, but residential feel is what we were envisioning, what we were, uh,
designing for. Um, selected materials that were consistent with the type of project, you know, residential homes versus large commercial developments. And you'll see on the the information here is combination of you know lap siding board and batten shakes trim
asphalt shingles around all the buildings and the entry. So these single point access blocks all all of the blocks are accessed from this sort of glass stair tower. Uh you know it's definitely not a typical egress stair but being a residential development it
it brings in natural light during the day. It allows uh open you know open feeling for residents and also it's a safety and comfort issue for the residents where they can see in uh you know know you're not walking into a egress corridor which you don't know
what's inside uh at night. So this I think you know sort of helps with residential experience and and also breaks up the the elevations on the buildings. Great. And just to wrap it up, um so we
provided several project perspectives. Uh we do note that um the terrain of the site as existing slopes away from ALH from American Legion and the back of the site's grade is about 90 ft above the highway. And so this provides us an
opportunity uniquely to build the community into the hillside and create these spaces. Now, what you're looking at is to is an aim of ours is to minimally change the grade. So, we allow accessible buildings, sidewalks, and roads to exist
throughout the site. Uh we have some streetcapes that are complete with canopy trees, parallel parking, safe crossings, and spacious sidewalks. And uh the building apprentices and the open spaces you're seeing are catered to
daily experiences. and we've provided layered plantings and the flexible park spaces such as this. All right, so that ends our presentation. Thank you very much. >> Thanks, Philip. Right on time. And just
wanted to note for participants that uh Commissioner Sykes has joined us. So, commissioners, I turn it over to you for discussion. Does does anyone remember or who was people who was the group that saw it last? Maybe starting there would be
helpful of the commissioners. >> I did, Kurt. Um I may be the only one. >> I did see it too. >> Oh, you did? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> That was a while back. >> It was a while back. It was what, three years?
>> Yeah. So I think um I can I'll go first. Um I I I I believe it is largely unchanged from three years ago. Um and my recollection of our conversation that night three
years ago was that there was a general consensus among the commissioners that um from a density site planning um even topology point of view uh it was not
what um our expectations would be for the site in terms of um being a suburban product. uh on a piece of real estate that could have significantly more density. Um could um have a more um
urban topologies um and u be a be an opportunity to build housing in a part of the city where uh it it might be more affordably built and and
respond to real need. Um, I think this I think I I can't say I went back and and compared what we have in front of us to what we saw three years ago, but I think that um I think it's largely the same,
if not exactly the same. And um maybe that's maybe I I should ask that as a question. Is it changed at all from three years ago? >> Hi, this is uh John Non. Thank you, David. Um the real change is we remove the first
floor units. Uh that is that's really the only change uh from what we've seen before. >> And and so John, were those was it first floor and then townhouse or what was the arrangement before? Just
>> so it was it was we didn't have tuckin parking garages to the degree we do now. we were confronted with was a project that we needed to shape and form that was fully compliant with zoning. >> Yeah. >> And units on the first floor are
conditional use. >> So we remove those units. Um this is workforce housing. Um and reduce the number of units. Um we would still prefer at the end of the day to build the the quote larger project which you
originally saw. Uh, however, there's uh just too much push back from the community on on what we're proposing. We're kind of caught in what they call the crosshairs between a community who wants to preserve open space that unfortunately is not owned by the community but has been in the community
for a number of years. Um, the history of this site goes back decades. This was a previously developed site. There was a 80s condo uh proposal here. They put in the spine road. They put in the utilities. In fact, they even built the
clubhouse on top. So, we were really constrained, uh, David, by the topo, the geotech, the tree canopy, and ultimately the zoning. Um, and that's where we came up. I I I'm not going to debate with anyone. I know we're in the city. Um,
very familiar with the city, but clearly this is a more of a suburban setting. It's dictated by all the adjoining uses around us and primarily single family homes. um multiple cars per house and then you know the old 70s product garden
style. Nothing of this scale has been built in High Park in in decades. So it's a very unusual site. Our partners uh the Jubilee Church has been interested in in developing this. They
picked us and we've been proposing what we consider an an enormous need workforce housing. And unfortunately, um, we we've been kind of been fighting it out with the BPDA. Um, the courts are so projects are still
under the jurisdiction of land court as we speak. Um, so, uh, we would much prefer to work it out with everyone than end up having a judge decide what ultimately look like and include. So we we did have a lot of constraints but
back to your original answer um open space all of that kind of stuff are relatively same. We just remove the first floor units. >> Thank you. Um I too remember that um first
presentation and David you are uh remembering and reflecting it um accurately. Um and I guess I'm just disappointed that we haven't gotten at um the the greater demands of our time which is um
not an 80s configuration. And I I respect the development constraints, but I think the the needs are much greater um and the opportunity here to concentrate and and densify development
with some respect to the surrounding landscape. This is a unique opportunity in the city um as development goes. Um but it's also a unique opportunity to consider how to leave um much more natural space um that the site now has
uh to it regardless of how it may have been intended before. I guess I'd like some understand clarity. I I thought I heard you say one parking ratio um to units. Is that correct? And is that the
total amount of of vehicle space on the site? Because on the one hand, I I saw the garages. Um I wonder if there's other parking spaces or if everything else is roadside parallel parking. >> Can you clarify that?
>> Uh yes, Kathy, it's John from Willow Bridge. So there's three parking components we have. We have direct tuck under spaces. We have parallel, you know, public street, private street parking as a traditional Boston roadway
would have. And then we have parking lots. And the uh one to one is really being dictated by the uh the BPDA. It's just far enough away from
uh the orange line that it will be car dependent. And you know one to one is pretty much the lowest we can go on this site. >> So the aggregate that just to clarify the described.
>> Yes. >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Um and a question to BPDA. Um it I presume that that is the the um the requirement um as it's uh as
it's just been described. And then is this um project um required to follow Berto as well or is the timing um not going to work there? Can you clarify?
Uh I can on the first point Kathy which is that um because it's a large project the planning department is um directly empowered to discuss the parking ratio and make the project subject to the
parking maximums. And so it's my understanding that that um logic has been applied to this site and that we've driven down the parking ratio as much as possible as much as feasible. The second question about Berto um I'm less personally familiar
with. I I mean the project filed back in 2022. So anything that became a requirement after the project was formally filed does not apply to the project. >> Okay. Ah gotcha. Gotcha. Um and then uh
one final question. the roadways that are weaving their way through this development. Um, are they all private as well? >> There hasn't been a final determination on that. We have designed uh originally
the BPDA requested that it be a quote public street. We've design we've designed it to the public street standards. um so complies um but it ultimately hasn't been uh decided or discussed with the BPDA and I believe the public
improvement commission at some point but we've taken steps uh so it acts feels and looks like a public street. >> Yeah, I'm I'm taking note of your point about a traditional Boston street having parallel parking and if this is a public
street that makes sense. if it's a private street. I I have some questions about the the overarching vision for how um this entire development will I I I think that that's not the most um uh
elegant or efficient way to handle parking um in a um in a development of this size. But that is if it's public, that's a different story. >> Yeah. Again, we were requested to do it from the U. It's now we got to remember,
Captain, this has been almost 5 years, so a lot of people have come on from BPDA. So, uh we're we're agnostic about it to be honest with you. Personally, I did not originally submit this with parallel parking on the street. It was requested of us. Now, if it's requested
of us to remove it, we'll be happy to remove it. We're again agnostic about that detail. I think Kathy the point that you make about whether or not it's public and that it's designed treatment vers versus its care custody and control I think the
planning department shares the perspective that um if they are public streets they should be designed to public street standards and if they are not public streets then there is perhaps a different design solution. >> Gotcha.
Um, and one final timing question as well. Um, as affordable, these are all rental um, units, just so we understand the neighborhood configuration that um, will likely live here. They're all rental. >> Yes, they're all rental.
>> Um, and uh, BPD, I'm sorry, planning department um, staff. Uh, this will fall under the old affordable housing inclusionary requirements or the newest version. >> Correct. The filing predates
inclusionary zoning and falls into the uh IDP policy. >> Got it. Okay, I hand it over to my colleagues because I'm talking too much.
Not at all. The context is is really helpful. Uh I was not a part of the initial review. I did go back and watch the recording. Um and I guess I would echo the comments my fellow commissioners about it. Uh uh yeah, I
think I share a lot of the concerns that were raised in the initial review. Um, I'm disappointed to see to not see some of the information that was requested at that meeting. I we have been reviewing a
lot of projects at BCDC in all across the city of Boston where we have asked to see existing tree canopy, you know, information about existing tree canopy. I understand from um the context we've received um the information we've
received about the site and the concerns from uh uh residents in the neighborhood about just you know as we think about uh the resilience of our city and just the um particularly in an envir environmental
justice community the uh need to consider the value of uh or the need to preserve some some, you know, existing shaded areas and existing natural environment. I'm just curious if there's anything, I know sometimes there's a
appendix if you have any additional information that could help us understand the existing tree canopy as well as the topography of the site. I I understand I I first of all appreciate that you're adding housing to a city that that desperately needs it. Uh I
understand the site is quite challenging from a topographical standpoint but helping you know I think um having additional information to help us understand that would be important. >> Yeah Christina if I could just answer
the board members question. So after that hearing on August 16th, 2022, uh we answered eight very specific questions primarily brought up by uh David about tree canopy, what we studied
the you know all of that stuff. We submitted over 50 pages and that includes detailed geotech work when where we can build and can't build because it used to be a quarry. We surveyed and I don't know anyone in the city's ever done this. We surveyed 941
trees by an arborist. Um, we've provided all of those great details, more details than anybody on this call would need to design a project and come to the similar conclusion we have on our limitations. The BPDA has
that document. It's unfortunate never made to the the the board members after we resubmitted it. So maybe they could circulate it again and you could see it. But we went through great lengths um and I've designed and built a lot of
projects on making sure we were uh studying the site appropriately before we ever filed. And when you >> and I did circulate the document to the commissioners, they receive hundreds of pages of text to prepare in advance. And
it's possible that this one escaped commissioners Lubanau's attention, but the document was sent in advanced materials. >> There you go. >> Everything you need hopefully. Thank you. >> And and I'm confident uh thank you
Christina for acknowledging that. And I I will also um acknowledge that we do receive um a lot of information about the projects. I'm just thinking in light of your uh presentation to the commission
uh being able to incorporate some of that information would be would be helpful to you uh to the project. Um I did have some questions. I I appreciate the dis previous discussion about is are these private streets or not because it
does seem very the development seems very internally focused and one of the principles we have as part of the commission is looking for you know how we not only how new proposed development uh fits into the existing context be it
the topographical natural context or the built neighborhood context but also how we can make connections I think in in terms of navigating the challenges of the site of of um community concerns
about access. You know, I would encourage you to look at opportunities to increase the number of connections through the site. Uh so that there are opportunities for people not only I mean I realize the vehicular connection is one way but just allowing people to walk
through the site. Um it would be also what what's hard to see in the plan and no doubt it is in other materials that were part of the package that were shared with us but understanding a little bit more detail about the site circulation where the building entries
are would be helpful. >> U thank you. Just as a a a footnote, um the original proposal um had a number of connections uh throughout the property starting from along American Legion Highway Natural Trails leading up to uh the lookout
sidewalks from uh American Legion, bringing people up through the site. Um and we did have a trail system, a natural trail system throughout the entire site. Even though um the challenge of the topography, we were able to do that. Um that is
those those are the benefits that are in the larger uh proposal. Unfortunately, right now we're looking at the as a right proposal which does not contain as many of those benefits. >> John, can can I interject just one minute too? Phil, can you go to the the
overall site plan? Um I I any one of these I I think is fine, but um I I think one of the other challenges is you know the area in front of the amenity building in front of that clubhouse uh noted off of American
Legion Highway. So kind of that area is the part of the site that has um sort of more mature you know old growth trees. So, you know, any additional connections we're we're kind of battling, right, preserving the the old growth trees, the
tree canopy with introducing new access points and how that sort of comes up into the site. Um, so I think that's one of the, you know, ch aside from topography, that's one of the challenges with any additional access points along American Legion Highway. um you know on
some of the other um you know sides of the project uh especially on the the very south side of this image you know then we get into crane's ledge which is you know literally a cliff so any connection points on that side become challenging um and it just it does
starts to slope up as you come off American Legion highway so connection points are you know obviously challenging and and we're also trying to balance preserving what um you know is is natural tree canopy that's old growth
with providing these connections. >> Okay. Um I'd like to jump in here. Um it's uh my name is Jonathan's first time I'm seeing this project. Uh Phil and John, so bear with me. I have just a couple of basic questions that you may
have uh uncovered or spoke about a couple of years um past. But you mentioned a uh zoning compliant a couple of times. I'm curious what is the driver from your standpoint to man to design the project to be as of
right um zoning compliant? >> Uh to avoid any variances. >> Uh understood. Oh, it's simply just to avoid variances. That's that's >> well this is the same locust where the the the same uh community group stopped
the little home for wanderers and I'll just leave it at that. So as a developer as a business approach to the site we we weren't going to file something that needed variances and 5 years later we were right not to do that.
>> I see. Okay. So it's it's literally >> it was clearly a business it was clearly a business decision based on the previous actions of some of the community advocates in that neighborhood. >> Okay. All right. So I was trying to understand if community collaboration was in your mind on the table off the
table because trying to marry that with some of your >> Jonathan we've done a lot of things in the city um a lot of successful projects. We tried to collaborate day one. We didn't say no to one community
request. In fact, the community members will tell you, "Nice project on a location. Never had an issue with the design. We submitted it just to give you depth and breath. 1,900 pages are submitted on
this project. We answered 248 questions. We ordered uh answered another 434 questions. We had four sitewalks, 24 calls with city officials, 71 reports, designs and submissions, and 148 plan
sheets. So, a handful of community uh advocates have decided to go for it, right? Let's see if we can stop development there and get control of this privatelyowned site from the Jubilee Church. And it's unfortunate. I've been doing this for 35 years. So,
that's their gamble, right? they took the gamble and maybe they'll win, but if they don't win, unfortunately, we're going to get a compromised project on that site, which I'll admit, it's not perfect, but we've had to compromise it to stay within the zoning. So, it's been
a very frustrating process. It's been >> almost five years. Um, and we offered them everything. We offered access to Crane's Ledge, which is not even on this property. We are. >> Yeah. No, I just I I I just come at it from and again I don't have the history
you have and I certainly respect all those stats you just listed. Um just I was just trying to piece together some of the um you know dissatisfaction that I think you hear from the commission years and I I have to agree this definitely it it feels like a
residential subdivision which I think is counter to the idea of of of urban living especially in the city of Boston and when you think about some of the words even you used about maximizing or sorry minimizing excavation and impact
on the site the fact that It's so spread horizontally. To me, it looks like you're utilizing almost 100% of the site. At least that's the way that's >> there's a 90 foot grade change. >> So, at one point we had the BPDA asking
us to do a single building like we did at the parkway in West Roxbury. >> Sure. Right. >> And um you know, so if we came out and proposed that, how would people feel about the degradation in the site work and the tree canopy loss? So
>> well that's that's kind of where I was >> we could >> that's kind of where I was going is you you don't have a large number of units cons site considering I think you said 204 units >> seeing that over two buildings or something in my mind wouldn't be
mind-blowing. Um I would just like to maybe if you could flip to slide five for a second. you started with or maybe Phil started with some um precedent of of what's in the neighborhood. These these are the buildings you said were in
the neighborhood. Um to me they look like your standard multif family apartment buildings. Uh which again you said were in the neighborhood. And then you flip to slide six. If you go to slide six um you frame this as an
aspirational reference. Um, but I'm not sure that this is in the neighborhood. So, again, back to this idea of the the scale, the density, and what is a direct response to the neighborhood. I think buildings more akin to slide five um seem to me more more akin there.
>> Um, and then secondly, but but but I understand that you are sort of driven within this zoning compliant approach. And so, I gather that maybe slide five, you'd have a height uh violation. Is that correct? if you were to add additional height onto your buildings.
>> Yes, that's that's correct. But okay, with all due respect, this is not that far from the site and this is a much more attractive uh development than what we just showed you built in the 70s and early 80s. So >> yeah, from from an external from an
external >> from an external skin standpoint, I don't disagree. But just from a a massing and site consolidation standpoint, I I'm much more thinking about something like slide five because you can preserve more of the open and natural setting. Um, but understanding
that you're going to stick with the zoning compliant, I would like to maybe offer some compliments to what I see on the screen and then look at your elevations and kind of compare and see if you're would be open to some design modification there. Um, to me, what
makes this particular set of buildings work is that they look like they're there's a wholesomeness to them. the gable end forms. Even the color uh seems to be really really comprehensive in the sense of using the color to anchor the
corners of buildings to change plane um to express height or hierarchy on the site. The boldness of the the window trim, the faces, there seems to be a nice simple clean New England gable and architecture that I'm seeing here. if
you can flip to your elevations that I I don't know what uh page they're on on this th some of those general moves I'm just not seeing come across here. I'm seeing this sort of uh um gray beige
almost take over the entire series of of lower levels and then you've got something you know accenting at the top and I'm just wondering if you can pick up on more of that what you saw in Mstead Green. This to me seems a little more fractured where and if you
can flip again I think you have another slide >> after this. >> Yes. >> Um it just I I would say it just feels fractured like go to go to your zoomin image. You have a zoomed in image. >> Yeah. This one this one's a good one. There's a lot of material changes going
on. There's a lot of materials period. You have shaker upper board and batten. You have accent shingles. Um, you have this glass stair tower, which again seems foreign to me. I don't think the glass stair tower fits the iconography
or the or the what David was mentioning just about the the overall language and stylistic character of, you know, quaint New England Gablein architecture. So, I I feel like if we are more or less driven down the path of zoning compliant
buildings can't be above three stories, you're going to spread them across the site. It's going to feel like a subdivision. At least can you work with us on getting the architecture and the language and the the ingredients simplified and a little bit more to that
understandable hierarchy and and not so fractured >> to that. We have no objection to that. >> Yeah. You know, I think there there's a lot of sort of moves we can take to, you know, simplify this in some ways, but
also um kind of enrich it like you're you know, like you're talking about, Jonathan. >> Um >> yeah, it's almost like less is more. Less is more. Um windows, simple things like if the if the frame and sash are dark, you know, should the trim be a contrasting white? You know, you there's
just a so many things. You've got balconies, a lot of ingredients. So, is there a way to simplify the palette? simplify the moves and then use color in a in a distinguishing way to communicate corners or terminations or change in
scale or height, something to that effect. Um, and then just a couple other questions about um, uh, utilities and and and somewhat storm water management. I I saw, you know, a good amount of asphalt on the site. I saw some open
space that had labels for activation. What is your approach to just managing storm water on the site? >> We're complying with the city's storm water management. We haven't thought it sought any relief from any of
that. So, um right now there is no controls off that hill. Um and obviously some of the neighbors have uh voiced concerns over the years from large storm events. So, we'll be managing all the water on site. That's what I mean. You you have to manage it on site and you're
introducing a a lot more imper uh impervious surface. So I'm just curious, are you doing a retention area or >> it'll all be it'll be all P tech systems on the ground for example. >> Okay. And that was my next question about below grade utilities. Do you have
ledge right there? Is that all you're going to be doing a lot of blasting? >> Um there won't be a lot of rock removal. There is some areas because it it has been a pre it used to be a quarry so there was a tremendous amount of uh
ledge removal over the decades. Uh there will be some rock removal but it's not extensive. If you walk the site today there is a well it's pretty degraded at this point but there is a fully built out roadway going up the spine of that
site with underground utilities. And as Chris had mentioned earlier, we've kind of tried to stick to that layout of that form of work. But um again, this was a previously developed site, so we don't we're not expecting that much ledge
removal. >> Okay. Okay. Um and then just two more here. Power, how are you bringing is power going to be below grade or overhead with >> Oh, all the utilities are below grade. >> Below grade. Okay. And and then lastly, are you doing a phased? Is this a phased
construction proc? >> No, it'll be built all all at once. >> All at once. Okay. Um so, uh um Christina Rico, are they is the process here that they would be able they would come back for a full commission? Is that
right? Or come back for further meetings? because I'm just wondering with some of the comments I suggested about the exterior and cleaning up the >> design, will there be an opportunity to see that really reflected in the next meeting?
>> We would recommend that the subcommittee refer them to full commission for final review and final comments and for that to take place before uh potential uh action by the BPDA board in September. that would be in the at
the full commission in two weeks. >> So, it's it's quite a tight turnaround time, but it um I think we've heard your comments here and it sounds like John and Philip and Christopher were um interested in working on those things that you identified. So,
>> okay. So, it would be great if if we could actually see that. And I want to be clear, I'm not asking you to go back and copy what you saw at Homemstead Green, but if that's your reference, and I'm so so I'm not expecting you're just going to have a slew of colorful buildings is what I'm saying. But can
how what ways can you simplify this and really think about a clean version of of New England architecture? >> Yeah, sure. No, I completely understand. I think there's plenty of of ways we can go about it to to sort of use some of
those uh design options in a in a way that you know, like you said, we're not copying it, but we're we're taking more of that inspiration and, you know, applying it here. >> Yeah. And and one last one is there's
another similar project, Washington Beach. Um, I don't know if you looked at that one, you might think of that one. But that also found a way to incorporate some flat roof areas because I noticed here everything is a gable end, but they did have some two and threetory uh, you
know, buildings and at the corners there was some flat roof and still kept the punch window and you know, you might you might think of how that could be integrated. >> Yeah, we can we can certainly take a look at that and and if there's something we can do to mimic some of that. Commissioners, I'd just like to
flag for you the time. Uh we've been at deliberation for more than 20 minutes and I'm sure that we have folks here who are interested in providing public comments. Uh would anybody here put before we discuss uh the what what will be next steps because we're not um issuing a formal recommendation this
evening. Can I go ahead and take any public comments? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yeah. But just before you do that, what I would say is I am quite confident that all the other commissioners who are not on this call, if this is coming to full commission,
we'll want to know what was presented quite some time ago and what has changed. You know, we sort of started the conversation. So, I think it would be really helpful to show how you've improved upon
um the feedback you got, you know, years ago and and what you which direction you're headed in. Uh because I think that we'll have that conversation again. I guarantee you. So, um so that's the only point I wanted to make.
>> Thanks, Kirk. You broke up a bit there, but I think we got the gist that um demonstrating change in between the meetings is >> perhaps one of the most powerful narratives a proponent can provide, particularly when the commission is issuing its final recommendations.
At this time, we'd like to invite any members of the public in attendance who may wish to contribute public testimony to raise your digital hand and I'll call on you. If you're calling in by phone, dial star 9 to activate the raise hand function and star six to mute and unmute
yourself. Please state your name and any relevant project affiliation information and please keep your comments to two minutes. Rick Yoder, we see your hand raised. Give us one moment to promote you. Are you able to unmute yourself?
>> Yes, I believe. >> Great. >> I think it is. Okay. Thank you very much and um thank you for being part of this a very very long process. Um I live uh in the Mount Hope Kantar
Neighborhood Association. I'm co-leader, co-chair. um lived in the neighborhood around 25 years. Um there's a lot to talk about. One is just to clarify uh in case people missed it
there, there will be no affordable units in this proposal, this most recent proposal. Um just make that clear. That's a step backwards. Um no nature trails which was mentioned. I
I think there's no real good reason for that. Uh that those should be there. Um on the storm water question, it seems to me um there's a problem of I'll give an example what happened over at stop and shop when they put in storm
water management for their their mall there. One of the heavy rains we had maybe 10 years ago, very heavy rain. They had a big retaining pond. It filled up and then immediately drained under mount under American Legion and
flooded neighborhood down below which is about another 10 to 20 ft below American below American Legion and I I haven't been convinced that they'll be able to solve that problem on this land
um with the same kind of system since there is so much ledge. I don't know exactly where the water's going to go other than down at the very bottom and then over to the other side. Um that right now the forest there is
sucking up a lot of these heavy rains. Not all of it but a great deal of it. When they're removed for the housing and the parking that's going to the mountain might be a problem. Um on the last thing, units eight and nine are the ones they're the ones uh
sort of closest to the the ledge overlooking um Bradley Street and the side streets there seems relatively close and my concern there is uh my understanding is there is some ledge there that has to be removed down to
maybe 14 or so feet in places where the buildings are going to go. And since a ledge and solid rock like that will transmit a um shock wave pretty efficiently, I'm worrying about the
loosening of that very tall um bluff right above all the housing and any damage that can be done to those houses. >> Rick, I just want to let you know that two minutes has passed. the all right the commission take um
received your written comment letter and I did circulate it in advance of the meeting. >> Okay. Well, others will speak I'm sure to other issues but thank you for your time. >> Great. Thank you. Are there other folks who wish to offer public comments?
You'll need to raise your digital hand. Lisa, uh we will promote you. Are you able to unmute yourself? >> Uh yes. Actually, I would like to seed my time back to Rick if that's okay. >> Fine bias. The timer's going.
>> Thank you. >> Oh, thank you. I wasn't ready for that, but um I you know I I understand the developer has been working hard on this a long time and they want to build this thing. uh the community and I'm talking
not just my immediate community but all around crane ledge woods all the workingclass bluecollar workers that live here live their whole lives want to conserve this as an urban wild park with the trails and po you know a
few places to sit and have a nice time and the view with the views the coolness of it the wildlife all that matters to them so much um and that's what we're trying to do. That's what is so important to this community.
This is not going to add the kind of housing that this particular neighborhood needs in terms of cost. You know, it's a nice looking project, but it's not going to be what we need. We have been negotiating and
talking with the mayor and hopefully uh and she's made some efforts and hopefully we'll keep working on this. we'll see to purchase this land, give it a fair market value to the church and a a very fair reimbursement to the
developer for all the time and hard work they put in. And and then I think again speaking for the neighborhood, that is what we'd like to see happen. Short of that, I'm trying to make this a better project and that's what some of these
detailed comments have to do with it. Um those are I mean I guess I t I touched on some of the things that I think haven't really been addressed but um and even if it's built to have a maximum
amount of open nature available to the public not just you know people who live there is important to us. Thank you very much. Thank you, Rick. Um, Martin, are you able to unmute
yourself? >> Yes, thank you. Thank you very much, Christina, and thank you for the opportunity to comment. I come from a very different part of Boston, the the Back Bay. Um I was involved in the discussions several years ago uh brought
into it and initially starting off with the context of well what's the role of open spaces and tree canopies and all the rest of it in the quality of life in Boston and what strikes me about this project I mean it certainly looks like a very pleasant nice one and so forth but
it's entirely the wrong thing to have in this location not only because the um most of the people in the community that I've encountered who have very much impressed me with their thoughtfulness and good faith and commitment to the to the city and to the neighborhood. Um,
but it's just it's just the wrong thing to do here. There must be other locations where it makes sense to put housing within that general area. Why do you want to destroy a very rare open space that is extremely valuable? That
to me does not make any sense any sense at all. So, uh, as I say, I've I have no objection in particular to the design. It looks very nice, but it's the wrong thing in the wrong place at the wrong time, and it doesn't meet the kind of
housing that we desperately need in Boston, which is a lot more affordable than what is proposed here. So for that reason, I really personally fully support the idea that the best thing to do with Crane Ledge Woods is to preserve
it and to find other locations and develop. For goodness sake, the city doesn't have a strategic or master plan for warehousing makes sense and where it doesn't. And it's about time it developed it. And if it had one, it would show that this project, as I say,
the wrong thing and the wrong place at the wrong time. Thank you very much. Thank you, Martin. Right on time. Are there any others who wish to contribute public comments, please raise your digital hand and we'll
call on you. Okay. Commissioner, seeing no additional hands raised at this time, we will close the public comment period and ask you to discuss next steps. No vote is needed this evening.
>> Christina Tina, can >> can you give us um the broader perspective on public comment that has come in writing through this either the whole process or or recently? I just don't have a sense of the dimensions of
it. >> Yes, the planning department received more than 400 public comment letters over the course of the review of the project. That includes, of course, in response to the PNF, the DPIR, an FPIR,
and now an updated FPIR. Um, I think I many of the comments this evening are similar to the comments that you've heard here verbally uh this evening. um lots of folks interested in a
potential uh win-win solution that looks like public acquisition of a portion of the site um which um I think Martin just spoke to um and
you know concerns over housing affordability and ecological sort of impacts and concerns All of those public comments, you know, of course are compiled in the scoping determination and available
publicly. >> Okay, >> Christina, this is David. Yes, >> I um first of all I want to thank Martin and and Rick for their comments u which um were very thoughtful um and uh my
fellow commissioners uh who also made some very good comments. I think given the time constraints in the overall schedule of getting this back to full commission um I'm going to suggest that all of the comments taken into
consideration and the proponents um and very important and important and um um right on topic comments. Um I am going to suggest that we um send this to
full commission uh with uh strong urging of uh to the to the proponent um to address the comments that they've heard tonight. Um but allow uh the planning department to maintain the schedule that they are required to
maintain in terms of getting to full commission. And if I could add to that, uh again just echoing some of the earlier comments about you, we understand again appreciate the amount of time that the development design and development team
has put into this project. You've submitted a lot of information. Um, but if you can uh amend some of your slides to help the full commission, you know, as as we as someone else noted, there
will be similar questions to what we've asked tonight. So, if you could uh take advantage of those comments and find a way to indicate some of the good work that you've done um to uh evaluate or
address some of the questions that were asked about existing tree canopy topography. I I'd be curious to see where that existing road and those utilities exist. Uh I also would really like to understand I was disappointed to
see the addition of um groundf flooror garages. Uh it I'd be really like to see where those are because if that is something that that has to be a part of this proposal which is not something we would usually support. I think there are some ways that you could be strategic in
terms of where those are located. And it's it just wasn't clear from the the drawings. the the documents I saw are within the constraints of my time to review them where those were. So, helping us understand that in the building entrances, you know, our role
understanding these constraints is to try to highlight some of the really critical issues. And I I just would go back to that that idea of public access and trails as well. >> Yeah. And and I just want to second
Kirk's uh point about about what's changed. You know, I think >> even to be able to structure the presentation as before and after, you know, really try to set that up so that you can start the the brief with here's where we were and here's what we've done
almost like in a analytical way. It was like this, it's now like this and so forth. walking the full commission through that I think would go a long way. >> Right. And and reflecting what you heard from us so that the commission
understands um you know just to reiterate the point that there's um that you heard the the suggestions or comments from um your subcommittee. >> Okay. Thank you commissioners. Um, thank
you to John, Phillip, um, Christopher and the presentation team. We will see you all at full commission and, uh, we'll follow up with you with some further instructions. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> We are now going to pivot to our second project of the evening. Um, so a proposed project seeking article 80B master plan entitlement contemplates the demolition of the Gillette South Boston
Manufacturing Center and the development of approximately 4 million square ft of commercial uses, 1,725,000 ft of residential units uh, residential uses and approximately 4,489 off- streetet parking spaces in
approximately 20 buildings on a 31 acre site. As part of article 80 and BCDC uh reform efforts, the planning department will pilot a review roadmap to align department and commission review timelines. The project may be reviewed by this commission at up to six
meetings. This will be the second meeting following its introduction on June 3rd. The commission and the planning department recommended that the proponent focus this evening's meeting on the urban design framework, including streets, open space, and resultant block structure. Future DEI design
subcommittee meetings may address massing strategies, design guidelines, and uh those issues identified this evening. A reminder to the proponent team that the presentation will be limited to 15 minutes, and I will give you a two-minute warning when you approach the end of that time. With that, I invite the proponent team to
begin presenting whenever ready. >> Great. Thank you, Christina. This is Robin Fjo Green from CBT. Um I'm just I'll be the only one presenting tonight in the interest of time. We have a lot to get through on 31 acres and not a lot of time. So, um, just on behalf of P and G and Gillette, they wanted to thank you
for your time tonight and obviously we as well. So, um, hopefully you guys can see our my screen. Um, you know, just as as Christina pointed out, we are seeking article ADC. So, we're not doing article ADB, we're not doing building design, but we are get a chance, as I think was
noted in our uh, introductory meeting, a chance to focus on the urban design structure and the elements on on the framework. And that's what we're going to do tonight. uh specifically on connectivity, open spaces, the waterfront and the and the block structure. And then as we go forward, we will uh you know, as we said, talk about
blocks and mass and other things that identified tonight. It's it's worth noting that where we are in the process. We we filed our initial draft master plan. We went through eight uh public and IG meetings and we are now waiting the compilation of those public
comments. Our comment trade closed end of July. We saw you guys in June. Um, and I think what we're, uh, you know, interested in now is of course to get your feedback, uh, get the city's feedback and get the get the community's sort of formalized feedback. Of course, we've been hearing it throughout the
meetings, uh, and and try to come back to this this subcommittee with, uh, with something that reflects all that feedback. So, again, just really interested to hear all of your feedback tonight and and really looking forward to developing the project with you. Um so just quickly just a you know
refresher even though I know you get to see us in June and as you guys have just referenced tonight you see a lot of things you get a lot of material and you have your own lives. So uh the site is 31 acres the base of the fourpoint channel. Uh we are you know very approximate to the Broadway station on the red line within walking distance of
South Station. Uh and you know abudded by a street and west second street um and you know really kind of a unique situ uh location on the fourpoint channel and sort of on the waterfront in Boston. Um, in addition to that, we, you know, the site itself is, you know,
approximately 20 buildings make up the complex there now. It's a million and a half square feet of industrial use. It's almost entirely paved. There is, of course, a narrow harbor walk that's there today with limited access, but it does present uh, you know, it lives its own internal logic and doesn't integrate
well with the surrounding communities. Um, so part of our goal here is to sort of remake that connection from the waterfront to the surrounding communities. And we'll get into that a little bit. I think also you know just understanding where we are within Boston's context within the within all the mileage that we have of shoreline in Boston and what is it we can do here to
complement and enhance that both with our open space with our waterfront and with the overall fabric of the development. Um and then of course we've looked broad our field. I think you guys asked about this and I think you know we acknowledged at the time that of course we've looked outside of Boston and you know looking to other projects just to
understand what elements that have been successful in these other projects whether they be how they use open space program in a more linear fashion you know what mix of uses they have uh and also um similarly you know you know how do they integrate development with open space scales and connectivity to the
neighborhood and and intimacy of the scale as well I think important for for something where we're talking about zoning Uh and then I think just a quick reminder, you did see this before, the the overall framework has been informed of course not just by what we heard in the recent community meetings, but we had extensive interactions with the
community in the fall and other more informal ones to understand just sort of what is the what is the guiding framework? What are those principles that the community is interested in? What can we do to achieve them? uh and and come up with something that sort of uh gets to both the community's goals uh you know and and a vibrant you know
feasible project that that also can deliver on what the city's asking. So I think maybe more specifically to your guys's attention is trying to understand what those design drivers are. What are we pushing for? So of course we're trying to expand the waterfront what's there today is sort of the bare minimum. Uh and I think because of our location
on the four-point channel, trying to create a significant, you know, signature open space there at the base of the channel that that really becomes a focal point for the development and then connecting that back out to the surrounding fabric, you know, not just with streets but with significant green connections. Uh establishing a grid
again where there hasn't been one for in some cases over a hundred years. and then complementing those sort of primary streets with smaller both vehicular and pedestrian connections to create a block structure we hope is is as porous and fine grain as it can be given the given the the scale of development today and
then also making sure that it's flexible understanding that this is a zoning application and then we're talking about a project that will unfold over decades not just a few years um so just quickly jumping into connections and mobility uh you know reminder we are looking for sort of porous fine grain block
structure and trying to complement that with a generous public realm, both that signature waterfront park, but also the connectivity back to the neighborhood as well as trying to enhance the connection to the Broadway station from Broadway to the waterfront. Um, the city's interested in in a transit connection that goes from Broadway station all the
way to the reserve channel and so extending Richard Street through the site will enable that direct link. And I think it's something that, you know, we're well obviously, you know, our site is crucial to and we're been central to our thinking also. Uh and then of course there is there was a historic street grid here and we could show you that in
a little bit trying to reestablish that as well as the sort of other pieces that make this a more uh human scaled site and then improvements to our edges which would be a street and west second street in this instance. Um so just a reminder where the site sits today um a little bit about how that fits into
the context of both what's there today as well as what's been approved to our north uh with with other developments within the 100acre master plan. And then understanding that what we're really trying to do here and what we're talking about tonight is not the building fabric themselves or even the massing but the
connectivity both uh you know to the waterfront to the neighborhood and what are we picking up on from the neighborhood context neighborhood fabric how are we connecting that to the waterhood and creating something that can be vibrant you know as this project develops over the next decades. So a quick uh sort of plan of what's existing
today is the site it is now. Um, a little bit about this is a map from 1899. So, there was an existing street. It was called Granite then, but it roughly aligns with Neckluck Street today. Westford Street was there. Previously, there was a Richards that terminated at Granite as well as a
Balden Street that terminated Granite. And then what we're proposing, and we'll get into it a little bit more, is is the reestablishment of some of those historic streets. Uh, obviously the richer street extension and what it does for transit is important. and then the smaller streets to complement that so that we have a a block structure that
that I I'll zoom in a little bit and I uh is you know nothing you know trying to keep block structures blocks to as small as possible but as a flexible size that can be commercial or residential as this project unfolds and then also understanding that we've got street widths that can do everything we need
them to do from a pedestrian bike and and vehicular perspective. Um and just a little bit on that, obviously we have the, you know, standing Neco Street through the site all the way down to West Second Street, Richard Street, which will uh also incorporate bus lane for transit, West
First Street reestablished and to include a bus lane as well, and then secondary streets and then a shared street on the waterfront to both sort of enliven that frontage of that of those waterfront likely to be residential buildings because of their scale and the sort of that piece of the Fulpoint
Channel waterfront proven. uh pedestrian networks of course that complement that and and some of these are pedestrian only and we'll get into that in a little bit t you know connecting back to transit and then also connecting into the other networks to our north and to our west and south um
and I think you know on a cycle you know bicycle perspective we we're interested in making sure that the primary streets have dedicated bike infrastructure as well as ensuring that the South Harbor trail has a you know is connected through the site in a resilient way we can get into the details the elevations later and connect to some of the budding
networks. Um and then from a transit perspective, as I said, that this um what the city is sometimes called the tide line, which would connect reserve channels to the Broadway station, would come westbound on Richard Street in our proposal and eastbound on West First Street. We basically have a turnaround of some kind at Broadway. All these
details we worked out with the city as this project unfolds and then complementing that with the existing bus network that the city has. Um and then I think it is important to think about also as we think about these blocks which you know they have fronts and backs. They will have fronts and backs
no matter their use. Where is service likely to be? Where can we put parallel parking so that the businesses that are there and the parks have access for not just you know the people that are using the buildings themselves but other people using this as a destination. And then how do we how do we create you know
a livened waterfront and and concentrate our uses which whether they be retail or community spaces or other civic uses on on Neckl Street on Richard Street West first and a uh and I think just a couple of views to help you understand the sort of scale of what we're talking about. So this is
Dorchester today looking north from Broadway station. Um and then this is under the proposal what you know what we'd be doing obviously to open that up and make make a better connection both to the waterfront and to the station itself. And then similarly at Richard Street
this is from a street today. Obviously Richard Street just terminates at a uh and in the future the idea is the dream is to have both a bus connection obviously cycle tracks wide sidewalks significant more tree canopy and also
importantly views beyond. You can see even the Hancock Tower is visible from this location. So I think that's another thing that we're excited about as we consider the way these connections are shaped and how wide they are and what we can put into them. Uh and then similarly a street uh you know a street has been
planned to be expanded and does have some improvements in its in its uh sidewalk and bicycle infrastructure but through this project we can we can extend that all the way down to West Second Street through widnov street and introducing setbacks so that we have tree canopy. have safe cycle routes, we
have safe crossings. And similarly on West Second Street, which today doesn't have any tree canopies, you can see uh what can we do to you know provide tree canopy and introduce sidewalks and and spaces to you know turn this into a place that people actually can use.
Um and then you know other types of connections we have which are not vehicular are this is Mount Washington Street which today terminates into a street. This is at the northern end of the site looking west, you know, over to the four-point channel is, you know, where can we create pedestrian connections and plazas that are of a
similar scale to the streets but don't have any big, you know, any cars whatsoever and really are just a way to both, you know, in in connect back to existing green spaces. There's a small pocket park at Mount Washington and a street and connect back out to this extended and enhanced waterfront. And
that, you know, those kinds of connections are elsewhere in the project as well. And on the right hand side is the proposed 232A street. So that's a development outside of our project. And then I think another thing that we've been interested in, I think may be useful for you guys to to as you evaluate this and give us suggestions
and recommendations is looking at what else has been done at a similar scale, whether that be F, height, uh, open space, you know, what other projects have been approved or or developed. And so this is a comparison of our block structure and dimensions with Vampier. Uh you know again we obviously there are
differences and and this is not a game of our our development is better or worse or our proposal is better or worse but just to understand what has been proposed. You know we are excited to be able to show you know larger and more generous streets to accommodate all the things that we've anticipated here as
well as concentrate that open space on the waterfront um and and in some cases deliver more open space. But we really are you know excited about the opportunities that this structure is giving us today. And similarly, this is Seapport Square, which is a fair bit denser, has a similar amount of open
space in in terms of percentage of the project, but I you know, obviously it's concentrated in different ways and used differently. Um, but also, you know, we have significantly more unbuilt space than than Cort Square and a lower F. Uh, of course, you know, it deserves more F.
It's in the SE port and we're we're decidedly not in the seapport. And so I think that's something that we have to think about, but I obviously we're not talking about density so much tonight, but more about the scale of these connections and the scale of the open space. Uh, and then George Bay City, which is a lot of ways very much a correlary both in F and open space. And
just giving a sense they have a flyer waterfront park. Ours is six and a half. It's similar. It's kind of interesting, you know, to see what was this is a very recently approved project, of course. And then also, you know, on the dot, which is just down the street, doesn't have a waterfront component. Slightly different comparisons. You know, I
think, you know, it's it the goal here is to deliver as much open space as we can while delivering on the feasible sort of complement of of job creation and housing. And so, I think this is something we're trying to do and looking at what what other groups are doing in the neighborhood. And then lastly, speaking of the neighborhood is trying
to understand what the typical South Boston fabric is. And while we acknowledge obviously the buildings in this project will be bigger than that, the blocks themselves that we're proposing and sort of amount of opportunities for connections to the waterfront and changes you know in where you're walking is is increased through
the sort of block structure we have. These are all of course at the same scale. And I think just you know getting at that next meeting where we'll we expect to come back and talk about heights and massing of course we can talk about what that would mean is that you know the there was a flexibility to our block structure and there's also what's on the
right is our the the height zones that were identified in the filing for the for the master plan and the height zones are are intentionally loose fit so that they're flexible so that future article AB filings can you know whether they be housing or or commercial can sort of
meet what the demand is of the day but also allow for you know creativity and design and setback for for coming to this commission for feedback and not overly prescribing exactly which parcels are exactly which height. Uh I mean it's worth also pointing out that the heights
we have here if you did build to the maximums that we're showing here we'd have uh well more than 50% more F than his proposed. So we're relying heavily on uh the F restriction here to make sure that we have the flexibility of heights but the opportunity for you know
design creativity and skyline and other elements of river design that will be important for that. Um just quickly on the waterfront park I I'll try to go as fast as I can of course is you know it's an important piece of this and what we're doing here though is zoning. So what we're trying to think about is both the scale and location of the open
spaces, how that how that works with the waterfront edge and the resiliency necessary and then how does that integrate into existing you know networks and I think we'll kind of go through that as we do and and the same you know also thinking about what else is in the neighborhood now and what else could be added and so that's both
understanding what's there today as in the context of program and what might inform the scale of the open space and also as we I think talked about before spending a lot of time with community understand what are they looking for to put into this open space and what does that mean for defining the dimensions and the locations of the open space and
what it is that we're we're showing. Obviously, we're not designing the open space as part of an ARC filing, but we are designing the sort of limitations and the minimums of it. And so, that's something we're interested in getting uh getting right and making sure that we don't preclude anything that the community is looking for. Um and I think
you know that also means looking at at similar scales that this is a good reminder of the scale of the opportunity here that you know the Christopher Columbus Park are all a very similar scale to this park that we have proposed at the at the base of the channel uh all beloved
spaces within Boston and how do we make this one similarly successful. Um and then of course you know as we think about it you know we can't just uh it's not just about scale it's about access to sun ensuring the landscape is healthy. And so, you know, what we're showing here is that, you know, over 70% of the space will have at least six
hours of sunlight. The recommendation to keep grass alive is somewhere between three and four. Grass being maybe the most uh sunheavy uh suni plant there is. But I think the point really is to think about making sure that we have not just a successful landscape and the right scale for the
program, but that that this is a healthy thriving landscape, you know, throughout the year. And we'll get into that, of course, more in the future. And then on the resiliency front, you know, it's acknowledged, of course, that this is an entry point for for sea level rise. It's something that the community and the city has known about for a long time.
Um, and so, you know, our project is is is of course going to be a part of that solution. And I think, you know, the city itself is recommending or is is designing, excuse me, uh, a burm that would sit behind the the existing Harborwalk today. It's an earn BM. It's still in design. It's still evolving a
little bit exactly what the what it will become. uh I mean and I don't think it's any surprise there's of course questions around its funding. So the point is is what do we do here to ensure that we can deliver the same performance whether this berm exists or not but we are certainly uh designing around the idea
that it would be there and then we can we can but we also could provide the same uh protection if it was not and then you know you know what we are proposing too that I think just to point out is the existing seaw wall is there today uh and we're not proposing
elevating that the seaw wall itself or the harbor walk itself but creating that resiliency behind that point and we'll show you some sections about how we achieve that. But in addition, obviously the building parcels themselves and the roads would be elevated, but how do we elevate as much of the park as we can uh
to ensure that everything stays dry now and well past 2070? Um and and where do we draw that line of protection? So I think that's something this project's exploring and in doing that, how do we connect both to the SA Harbor Trail to the west and then to future developments and there are both Harbor Walk and
Harbor Trail to the to the north. Um and then and so we're creating both a dry elevated uh walk and and and cycle track and then maintaining the existing harbor walk and it's sort of uh focus on the water. So a couple of sections quickly uh the existing harbor walk is at
elevation 16. Uh we could within our 100% 100 foot set back from the water elevate to 22 further back and enable better visual connectivity to the waterfront and to the water sheet. Um, but of course the other options are to to shift that forward and create, you
know, tiered and create a dry uh South by Harbor Trail immediately behind the existing Harborwalk uh or or even potentially sort of incorporate the city's burm which goes up immediately to 22 and go back flat from there. And I don't we don't actually think there's any one of these solutions that's the
right one. having these and knowing that we haven't precluded any of them that the future park can incorporate one or even all of them into their design to create spaces that are deliver on those programs, the connectivity to the water and everything else that this communities uh has in their aspirations.
And so, you know, it's important to think, of course, that we are chapter 91 on this waterfront site and we do have a water dependent use zone. And what do we do with those sections that can enable and not preclude these activities that people are looking for, whether that be, you know, dragon boat and paddle paddle
sports or paddling or or artists or stand, you know, whatever else can be there. What are we doing to both enable that and and support that? >> Um, so with that, thank for your time. >> Perfect timing. I was just about to give you two-minute warning. Two minutes late.
Good. >> Go ahead, commissioners. >> Well, I'll I'll jump in. Thank Thank you for your presentation. You went through a a lot of information. It was but with a good bit of clarity and it's clear that you are juggling a lot of issues
with this site. So, appreciate your attention to those issues. I have um a question to you. I know you showed us um some perspectives looking down the streets. Do you have a view of looking from Dorchester Avenue towards the
channel? >> Flipping through my presentation. There's so much. >> No, you know what? We we don't have it's a good question. We don't have one and it's obviously something that we could create, but we don't currently have something from Dorchester looking towards the channel. And the reason I would bring that up and I know we are focusing so that we're
focusing on kind of the framework of of sort of lots and blocks. I appreciate again the uh the way you presented it and your rationale the community input looking at the history of the site looking at the scale looking at precedents both here in Boston and
elsewhere. But what strikes me when I look at this site, I just kept coming back again and again to the Broadway station and the degree to which that portion of the site where your site abuts that really is an important juncture for so much of what's happening
in this area. It's it's a tea station. We're seeing, as you referenced, significant uh development happening along Dorchester Avenue. Um and then there's this desire to create the sight line to the channel and also I'm just thinking
about the sight line to the city. So this is a you know a juncture in an area that is changing dramatically and it's not clear to me when I look at the plan that you present everything else is very lo very logical but when I look at that portion I almost want you to do a study
of that area at a larger scale to understand what's happening because I think that's going to be really critical for the legibility you know so you know a key portion of urban design is legibility you know giving people not only the view corridors but kind of, you
know, a little bit of the iconography of, you know, to help understand and I, you know, I've lived in Boston now for closing out 15 years and, you know, I came from Pittsburgh, both older American cities, but I often will get disoriented in Boston because of, you
know, the age of partly the age of the city, partly because of the way all these grids and, you know, natural spaces come together. So I think if you can really focus on that that will help to that'll be really critical in making
this development for lack of a better word sing and to also give it a sense of identity. Um and and also I want to just um commend you on your navigating the scale of the site and uh because I think that's also an opportunity to think
about what buildings you know are taller you know beyond the zoning or what you can build to but you know how could they also help to identify the person passing through help the person passing through the site navigate it and also help people just as our credential building
does you know I often use that as a landmark and knowing where I am when I'm elsewhere in the city. So that's I'll stop there. Thank you. >> No, it's point well taken. I think we are also very focused on the intersection. I did want to point out and I maybe I misunderstood your question. We do have this view from you
know this is effectively standing at the head house that's sort of sitting in the middle of the intersection there looking north. and then what would happen uh if I can get the slide to advance um excuse me um you know in our proposal but I appreciate that there's an opportunity to explain to you guys more
about all the ways this is complicated and and exciting and as you said I think a really important intersection for the and and sort of zone of the site for those points about about wayfinding and and knowing where you are and connectivity and everything else that you talked about. Thank you. >> And both I'll just add the view from the
site and then also the site, you know, the view to the site. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> David, you might be on mute. >> Yes, >> I am. Sorry. Um, Robin, I uh first of all, that was a
really um really good presentation. You covered as as Anra said, a lot of ground. There's about five, six, seven chapters in here, all of which I guess um will be an evening's conversation. Uh
but appreciate the the overview and and comprehensive nature of what you showed us tonight. Um a couple of things that um be interested in as we move along on this path. Um, first of all, this is incredibly important site to the city in
so many different ways um in in terms of resiliency uh access to the waterfront, taking land that really has been um fenced off for the last I don't know how many years uh and kind of restoring it to the walkable
city. Um, and I appreciate the all of the your thinking around connectivity. Neco Street, Richard Street, West First Street. Um, really good thinking and I really appreciate your the the
your block sizes. Um, and I guess one of the things I'd be very interested in hearing you explain more as we as we get into the finer detail is I noticed on some of the early uh uh planning block pages you had
dimensions on those blocks. Um, they were really of a as I I don't remember the adjective you used, but a really fine grain. um which I think is wonderful given the proximity to to South Boston, uh how important those
view corridors are to the residential neighborhoods. But then I realized as you got further in um that some of those are not streets, they're view corridors. Uh and kind of the difference between your plan on page 18 and your
plan on page 20. I'd love to hear at some point in the following weeks um how we kind of assure the the um the the permanence of those view corridors that uh we don't see this this is a this is a
marvelous plan um and um uh and then so now flip to 20 and um I I'm I I I want to I want to understand how those pedestrian ways in those blocks um kind
of in the middle of the pave. >> Yeah, we have a pedestrian way here. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. We can get into the details of how we control that. And I think what I think um Christina mentioned at the start is also understanding what we can do within the zoning context to enshrine those things so that they're preserved as you said, but give them a flexibility
that allows them to be so we don't have something sort of frozen in time here that 25 years from now someone can't do anything good with because we we couldn't see too far ahead. >> Yeah. No, exactly. That's that's that's really you you hit the nail on the head. The other thing I I I suspect we'll get
into as we move through the process is you've got streets that are 60 feet wide and buildings that are 300 feet tall. Um and so creating some stepbacks the at least the conversation around stepbacks
and how that will work to get light daylight the sidewalks into streets uh is is going to be very very important. Um he he you know I the 60 foot is very comparable. You showed it actually in one of your comparatives with fan pier.
It's very comparable to what's happening in Kendall Square on the Vulpi parcels which have 250 with pen houses 275 foot tall buildings and they are 60 ft building wallto building wall but with um with mandated
stepbacks in that massing um to avoid the the the the sheer wall coming down all the way down to the ground. So I we'll expect I'm sure to have conversations around that. But this is a great start. It's such an important
project um uh and um important to get it right. But I think that you've started with some real important um um attitudes about attitude about connectivity to the some streets that will connect
neighborhoods or parts of the city that um were disconnected by um the the present or former use of the site. So, thank you. Uh and this was really really a nice um introduction to it all. uh keep going here. Um so Robin, thanks
a lot for your uh presentation. Uh as as has been pointed out, I do like this idea of how you broke down the the chapters here with frameworks, blocks, and massing to be to make this digestible. Um but I do applaud you on being so comprehensive um where needed
but also finite you know where needed. Um just a couple of things that that stood out to me at least as questions as I as I learn about this site. Um you know I think I think on one of the slides you showed if you could just flip to one where you show like the green
spaces. Um, you have this large 6 and a half acre zone and then there's also an existing a street uh park that exists and I'm just curious with maybe some some maneuvering of the I'll call it the funnel. It almost looks like the green
space is funneling toward a street. Has there been any thought about um just what the dialogue could be with a street and maybe some blocks around that zone maneuvering or shifting so you could even potentially get sighteline connectivity or to your point view
corridor and connect visually uh the green spaces? >> Yeah. Yeah. No, we can definitely show you some more information about that. And I think your point about funnel isn't a word we use, but it's a good good one for and especially looking at this plan, I guess, is with uh north not being up. Um, but the the connection
back to East Street Park is not just a sort of physical one, but a sighteline one and trying to, you know, set back and I I could show it some setback some of the other pieces and we can add some views to help explain that in the future and what we've brought into that. So, that's >> Yeah. And and I think and I think the storyline could be because I think about
anytime I look at a development, I think about being a resident that lives close or an employee that works close or somebody that's been an invested steward in the area and I think a way to really engage some of the rich assets that already exist in the neighborhood and
make formal moves with the development to really engage those. I think about artists for humanity being one. I think about this a street park being another. And when I was, if you flipped to slide, I think it's 42 or 43,
uh, you had one of your, um, I'm really jealous of those vignettes that you pulled up, those those like sketch those, uh, color sketches there. Um, it could be this one. Yes, it yeah, the the image really struck me because I love
how the buildings and the massing crescendo and step down toward the water, but I also fear it could create what looks to be a one-sided development where there's a a very harsh line up against a street. And I don't know what the future of a street is. I don't know
that it will be what it is today with a series of uh lower density buildings but just some thought around you know does does the does the edge the the a street edge all need to be just high-spine commercial bigger bigger buildings or
could it have some of this lower scale the the clever way you're using the rooftops here and just more of that formal engagement with with a street back to the pedestrian u back to the pedestrian scale um you started to show um you know
something about sunlight and and with the park I would be curious about shadows. What what shadows do you anticipate happening on the open space? So maybe a couple of diagrams when the time is right. I know you're in like chapter two of 10 here. But when when that when the building massings start to
formalize um I'm just scanning my notes. And then I guess my last major comment is if you go back to your scale comparison on Seapport Square, um I was really intrigued by that one because it seemed like they found a way to get the
green space further into the heart or into the belly of the grid and and to me that was a really interesting idea. Um I think in in your case there is a formal green space and then there's the grid, right? But is there a way to almost mix
the two and purposefully muddy that up a little bit just so that there are some maybe pocket parks and some other uh green spaces that help to break down the scale? Um and and and I and I keep saying my last point, but but really my
last point is um the fact that you have residential almost exclusively lining the green space. Uh my only worry there is does that start to almost privatize in a subliminal way the green space. You know this idea of residents with eyes on
the park and you know I I I wonder what could happen to make sure that the public still feels like this is an invitation and a welcoming space for them. But thanks Rob >> for the presentation. It's very thorough. >> Yeah.
>> So okay I'm sorry. Go ahead. No, no, no, no. Kirk, your hand was up before mine. >> No, >> please. >> Uh, it's a virtual thing. Um, so what what I wanted to share was I saw
a diagram that alluded to a inventory of open spaces and places. And I I wanted to encourage you to think about what else is around this project and what is unique about the place.
Obviously the reser the fourpoint channel etc. But um I think Boston has an issue of an embarrassment of riches of great places to go and how do we make the place? What is the memorable moment?
What is the Instagram moment? what is the thing that keeps people coming back? Uh and so as as you come to talk to us, it'd be great to think about this and kind of a catalog of places people could be and why they
want to be here. And um I I just love to hear your argument on why this is a destination amongst many destination possibilities. So, uh, that that was something I think that really
is about placemaking in a small city with too few people to go in all the great spots. So, let me stop there. Go ahead, Ken. >> Well, thanks, Kirk. Um, and actually maybe my comment um, sort of moves in
that direction. I I really enjoyed your presentation, so thank you so much. I I think you brought both a lot of rationale and clarity to where you've landed. Um and and I love that you um looked at historic street patterns,
obviously the adjacencies and and really asserted um greening strategies um throughout the the roadways that you're um proposing. I'm remembering from your first presentation, I think it
was your first to us, um, a a comment that I believe came out of the commission and and is sticking with me this evening as I'm I'm looking at the the roadway and open space um uh layouts and that is um the civic
infrastructure and and I mean by that um more than strictly the uh open space, demand for housing, the infrastructure of of um uh resiliency, uh etc. it if if
we were look and this may be dealt with not just in the actual um uh look at buildings next time around but I'm I'm thinking of circulation um and desire lines through here um from one end to the other whichever direction
and how it relates to uses that might ultimately support a growing and dense neighborhood um And we talked a little bit about schools. We talked about other um uses that uh naturally occur in maybe
not naturally but have evolved in other neighborhoods over time. And at this stage of the game, I wonder how the roadways, the the walkways um and and other spaces um or the the the
transportation infrastructure is relating to the needs that go above and beyond new residences and new um retail and possibly um other, you know, office that might appear in here as uses. is um
because it feels to me like that flow or those locations are going to be key. And maybe this is just a a note for the the next time around, but I wonder if you can just speak to that in the at the risk of sounding too theoretical.
I just it seems to me that if there's um a place for a public school, a place for a community center or a zone or an area that you plan on um fostering those, how did how does the street pattern relate
to that um so that it it's accessible to the broadest number of of people flowing into the neighborhood from within the neighborhood and or across the neighborhood and through it. No, it's I I mean I obviously would love
to come back and talk more about it and I we always talking about this in the context of zoning and where we are and what are we fixing now and what are we sort of you know as opposed you know we're doing a lot of not precluding in this process as opposed to dictating uh and that's that's a a mindset we've kept
but I think it's something we want to talk about and and not just that we have active frontages but of course some of these can be those civic uses you're describing and and how do we as I think I was saying earlier comment David made how do ensure or enshrine some of those things so that those things do occur and they
incur in places that that make sense for the street network and for people's accessibility and all. But I think that's something that's certainly within our purview here in the zoning document and we just want to make sure we get right and get your feedback on. But we can talk more about that. I guess as you move forward, Eric, we see your hand raised, but um
there's no need to do that. Feel free to jump on in unless it's raised from your previous comment. might be. >> It could be from this previous one. >> Okay. Well, commissioners, um maybe let's see if there's public comments while you
think about uh how we might set up the next subcommittee meeting. At this time, we'd like to invite any members of the public who in attendance who wish to contribute public testimony to raise your digital hand and I'll call on you. If you're calling in by phone, dial star 9 to activate the raise hand
function and star six to mute and unmute yourself. Please state your name and any relevant project affiliation information and please keep your comments to two minutes. Tom, are you able to unmute yourself? >> Hi Christina, I am. Thank you. Tom
ready. Uh live off of uh a street in Warmwood in the Fort Point neighborhood. Um thanks for um making time available for public. I I'd like this is an intensely u complex project. Um the conversation today has been kind of
centrally focused on what's happening within the 31 acres. I'd just ask um the commission to start to think about uh the surrounding neighborhoods. So um what's going to happen with the site uh depending upon uses building height and
massing uh is is um um the zoning the applicant has asked for four times the number of parking spots uh that's currently available on the site today. Now in and of itself that's an interesting conversation but it requires um uh roads that feed the site. So where
are those vehicles going to come from? None of that was talked about tonight. uh how those are actually going to feed into the site and then be distributed throughout the site. None of that was discussed. Nor is uh has it been discussed the traffic patterns that are around the site and would flow through
the site when uh these roads are put in place. So clearly I'd ask um that to be part of the conversation. Similarly, it's a transit orient development uh with a primary access point being Broadway station. there's really hasn't there's been very little conversation
about uh the number of people that are need to get to that station, how they safely get to that station, what roads would they use to get to that station, etc. So, I'd ask once again it's outside the boundary of the site, but but clearly it needs to be a com a conversation with the site. Uh and and I
I'd also ask that as it relates to adjacent neighborhoods, right, Chinatown's on the other side of the highway, uh public housing uh along Broadway stay around uh West Broadway. How are those EJ neighborhoods going to get access to the site and how do they fit in? Uh lastly, with this the block
structure, appreciate street widths. We're really focused on high the road width, so they're very narrow uh and uh slow the cars down. It would be good to know what streets are going to be service streets. Uh we made that mistake on the 100 acres. So, which streets uh
would have loading docks, etc. Um we love the idea of pedestrian corridors versus streets. How do we maximize that? And uh I'd ask that uh the block structure of Fort Point, right, which is the adjacent neighborhood uh be included in the conversation. So, thank you.
>> Thanks, Tom. >> Sorry, I'm just taking a moment here to scroll through participants and I see only Tom and Kirk's hands raised here. Are there any others who wish to contribute public testimony? public comment, I should say, as this
isn't a hearing. All right, commissioners, seeing no additional hands raised, we're going to go ahead and close the public comment period for the project as we discuss next steps. Um, >> actually, no, >> go ahead.
>> I was just going to say I I fully support all all the comments that um that I've heard raised in questions um from the commissioners as well as uh Mr. Readyy's general points about more integration. Um and I think with a
project this size there's a lot of learning to do right about just the the ways in which the site currently operates and functions uh day and evening and some of those granularities. So what what other key elements from the existing fabric can be incorporated in
um to to Mr. ready's point um uh generally >> Christine go ahead just Christine I think just with that in mind can you remind us about the kind of run of show in terms of the topics that we'll see next
because I think that is just you know as we think about next steps how we both learn about other dimensions of the project but also carry through or attend to some of the things we talked about tonight.
>> And you know, Christina, I'm um reminded of the old days. The old days being the days before the pandemic when every once in a while on something of this size importance and as somebody said complexity
um we would u go on a walk uh as a commission. I I think that would be really useful here. I my office was just about I don't know less than a thousand feet away from this for 10 years but but
still um if we can get and I know some of this is gated but if we could get access and walk around these around fourpoint channel and see some of these views from the neighborhood in all directions that would be a great thing I think for us to do if the commissioners
are willing to do that. >> Brilliant. I was >> good idea, >> David. There's no issue with you guys taking a sitewalk. Um, it would just have to be a non-deliberative session, right? >> So, we can follow up about making sure that that happens. And to your question,
uh, Commissioner Lubau about the run of show. I think Robin, correct me if I'm wrong, but, um, the proponent team either has or will receive a comment letter. I know you've had
serious We haven't received the comment letters yet. I think we will imminently. I refreshed the page, you know, an hour ago when there was nothing there, but very soon. And then we will also get the city's sort of consolidated comments. >> Uh my understanding is by Labor Day, but
you know, I won't hold anyone to that or quote time. So, we haven't received those comments yet after the close of our comment period. I think the thinking here, Commissioner Lubenau, is that they would have received that material and I think we could discuss whether or not having
received that if it's worth revisiting this conversation about the framework um after those formal comments or um moving straight into a discussion about building massing. Um
>> you know I think we we had proposed that the because of the meeting limit the six meeting limit you know we've had an introduction and now a subcommittee we wanted to make sure that we're you know making maximum use of the number of subcommittees that we have remaining.
And so it's important that we sequence them in a way that we're able to both introduce new material um so that you're not drinking from a fire hose of material every time we meet, but also that the proponent has time to incorporate changes and demonstrate those changes to you before
moving on to the next new thing. Um so it's 31 acres is difficult to metabolize. >> Sure. >> And is the I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> Oh, go ahead, Jonathan. I was just going to ask as an extension to that, will the final um um scene in the show, let's
say, be to approve or to move the PDA forward um is that with some general boundaries around that or is it the PDA plus the first building or something to that effect? >> It's just an ADC entitlement, just the PDA master plan.
>> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Yeah. So I just to follow up on my earlier question or just a proposal I think given I have great confidence uh in Robin and your team given what we saw tonight um and your ability to
communicate a lot of information a lot of complex information uh concisely and clearly. So, I would just encourage Christina as we pilot this process of really trying to build in some predictability for our
proponents and and for everybody participating in this process that we, you know, our goal is to stick to that schedule, but I would just challenge the B BPD team and the proponent team to
both move forward with the planned run of show and agenda, but to also build in, you you know some of the address some of these issues that we've talked today as we all know design is iterative it is not neatly packaged into little
chapters or containers so I think if there's a way that you can work you know that that the collection of you can work and then you know with each subsequent meeting provide a little bit of an update that's always one of the challenges we face is there's continuity
among comm commissioners attending these meetings but there are people dropping in and out. So I think um you know there's a way that we can both direct that that we can um be apprised of updates in the design team's thinking as
you progress while in response to the our comments in the previous presentation but also present new information. That would be you know the ideal as we move ahead. Sorry that was a lot. I don't know if that made sense. No, it makes sense to us. Um, in Marie
and I think also we will plan for a double session for just this project so that maybe we can have that conversation be clearly, you know, give a generous amount of time to update on both.
>> Right. I see a comment here in the chat from Sarah McCamand to have focus areas of the project posted in the agenda. >> Thanks Sarah. >> Today's focus area was all 31 acres. So um but I understand the the question the
request for more topic specific information in the agenda >> and I think also just in in your whatever the to the extent it's BPD staff and or the proponent just a brief recap again on these particularly these
large scale projects to reorient us each time so that we can be as focused and responsive as possible I think will just help support the entire process. Yes. >> Okay. Well, I think we have some clear uh next
steps. Robin, um the planning department staff will follow up with you guys. Um and we thank the commissioners and the members of the public who gave their time this evening and we will say good night. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you everyone. Bye. >> Thank you. Part: 2
Okay. Just want to confirm that folks can see my screen. >> Yes. >> Yes. Great. Okay. Uh good evening everyone and thank you all for joining us for a design subcommittee meeting of the Boston Civic Design Commission.
Today's date is Tuesday, August 19th, and this is session B of the BCDC design subcommittee. The planning department continues to host public meetings in a virtual setting for the health, safety, and accessibility of Boston residents. My name is Seth Riseman, deputy director
of design review at the planning department. Before we proceed with the agenda, I am required by the open meeting law to notify the public that this meeting is being recorded. Please turn off your camera and microphone if you do not wish to be recorded.
For the record, commissioners Nagahiro, Love, Solano, and Mars are present. Tonight's agenda will include presentations for proposed project at 305 uh Brookline A
uh in the Longwood Medical Area, otherwise known as Longwood Place Phase 1. Tonight's meeting proceedings will follow the typical BCDC design subcommittee meeting format, beginning with a brief presentation from the proponent or not so brief presentation from the proponent, followed by comments
from BCDC commissioners, public testimony and discussion of next steps. And team, I realize I read 305 Brooklyn Avenue and on the slide it says 395 Brooklyn Avenue. So I'll be asking the proponent to clarify what the address is
after uh I elevate them. Longwood Place Phase 1 uh a proposed project is seeking article 80B entitlement and contemplates the development of phase 1 of Longwood Place. The project includes 1,43,000 square feet of residential and
commercial uses and 520 parking spaces in a garage and three buildings on a portion of the a 5.9 acre site in accordance with PDA 134. Consistent with article 80 and BCDC reform efforts, the planning department is testing meeting
limits intended to align the review timelines of the department and the commission. Given the project size and complexity, the planning department created a five meeting review roadmap for this project. This will be the third presentation uh of the project to the
commission following its introduction at the May 6, 2025 monthly meeting and subsequent presentation at a design subcommittee meeting on June 17th, 2025 which focused on elements of the site plan and landscape design. This design
subcommittee is a double session and will focus on building form and architectural expression. The next design committee should focus on any changes made to the project as a result of BCDC, city staff, and community comments. This is a reminder to the proponent team that presentations will
be limited to 30 minutes. I will give presenters a halftime and two-minute warning. And as soon as I elevate uh the proponent team, I'll ask you to present. So, if you can give me a moment uh to elevate folks. I'm operating solo here,
so we'll just take a second. Okay, I think I have elevated uh the proponent team. Is there anybody that I missed? Um, Anna Lashinski. Um, and Andrew Barnett. Um, okay. Seth,
if you don't mind. >> And I also see Tony Marquez. >> Oh, I thought he was with Andrew. >> Okay. Anna should be a co-host. So, I think you should have anybody everybody, but let me know if
not. and Carolyn, I'll turn it over to your team. >> Great. Thank you. Um, thank you, Seth. Good to see um all the commissioners. Um, we do have a little bit longer than 30 minutes, Seth. I know you said 30 minutes, but I think we are targeting
40. So, I hope that's still okay. Um, and I uh yeah, appreciate everyone um joining tonight. Good to see some familiar faces. And we'll start off first with Emily who will introduce kind of the holistic project and then go into
the different the different building components. So take it away, Emily. >> All right. Thanks, Carolyn. All right, I'm here. I'm not frozen. Okay. Thank you. Um, good evening, commissioners. I'm going to jump right in. I'm Emily Paparella with Elkus Man Freddy Architects. As Carolyn said, I'm
also joined this evening by Picard Chilton Architects and KPF. And as Seth pointed out, our anticipated roadmap for the BCDC process, it's shown here in green. We're at subcommittee meeting number three. The focus tonight is on
building design, having focused on lands architecture and site design at our first subcommittee meeting. Um this being our second subcommittee meeting. And also as Seth said, we will review uh incorporate feedback uh including
landscape architecture to show you at our next subcommittee meeting. So tonight we will provide a brief review of the relevant PDA design guidelines. We're also going to show you our unifying design principles for Longwood Place, then followed by a short design
update presentation for each of the buildings. We were in front of you back on May 6. It was just our intro meeting, so we heard very brief feedback, but it was clear that you wanted to see more about the big idea of the site, how we're
balancing an architectural diversity with the cohesive identity, and a little bit more about how the project relates to the LMA context. Um, we've also had a series of approximately nine meetings with urban design staff. So, you'll also
see some of that feedback incorporated throughout. Okay, very briefly, uh, the proposed project, as we've said, is working within a a PDA. Uh, the PDA design guidelines were organized into three
parts. Tonight, we're focusing on building and massing because we've covered the other parts. They make it clear, the guidelines make it clear that the architecture should create allegibility of uses here and that the commercial building specifically should have both a unique
identity but also a shared character. And so our goal today is to show you how we're strengthening the design language that ties that ties all of the buildings together. The guidelines also call for facades, excuse me,
um, facades that face the main heart and the central connector to actively engage the public realm with program transparency and articulation that really create activation. And finally, the guidelines ask us to break down larger masses, especially
building C1 on Brookline Avenue, so that the street wall feels more contextual in scale. We'll also show you how um we're we're going to show you how C1 responds to this with formal gestures as well as the velo that that building has created
and also how the other buildings relate to the scale and rhythm of the surrounding neighborhood. As a brief review, as Seth pointed out, the PDA includes five buildings. The proposed Arglad B project that we're here to talk about tonight is the first
phase with three buildings, two commercial buildings, one residential building. The chart on the left hand side of the page is a comparison of the approved PDA and what we submitted for the PNF building height, building GFA
and floor plate sizes. You can see that the residential building is a little bit shorter. The commercial buildings are smaller and in all cases the buildings have a smaller maximum floor plate size. The purpose for that, the primary
purpose for that is we've been sculpting buildings to reduce shadows on the emerald necklace. The design thesis really comprises these four themes. We're creating a network of open spaces. We're thinking about how buildings meet the ground and create
public realm in terms of massing uses and architectural expression. We're thinking about how the buildings are sculpted to create view corridors and allow visual, you know, light and air penetration through the site. And also finally, how to really develop a a
harmony and an ensemble of buildings that respond to each other and their context and are and are legible in their respective uses. Since we saw you on May 6th, we have met as all four design teams to continue to
refine the buildings and find more opportunities to strengthen the connections that they share. We're exploring the question of what is the common ground? What makes them feel like a cohesive collection? And that has resulted in this set of refined principles. And this is really our
framework for uh reinforcing continuity across the site for what we're going to show you tonight. They are underlying principles that have guided our design from the beginning, but that we've also been working against to make the connection stronger and more legible
since May 6. First, we have established a series of horizontal datam lines. These anchor the project into the context. Um the first one here at 70 to 90 ft really aligns with the Windsor school with the step back along
Brookline Avenue. And then from there the data lines continue about continue every four stories. That four-story module is a common denominator in the heights of the commercial buildings. It registers into the residential building
as we'll show you. It registers into the future phase of the project and it also roughly approximates the scale of the built uh existing buildings along Pilgrim Road and they become this shared layer across all of the Longwood Place
buildings creating this underlying rhythm and and coherency. Second, the massing that the PDA establishes particularly with the commercial buildings is primarily linear. So to with a focus on efficient
floor plates combined with the need to carve away and minimize shadows on the emerald necklace, we have that has kind of resulted in these linear buildings but with very sculpted and expressive ends. And those uh those moments engage
the public realm. They frame view quarters and they sort of activate the activate the heart. The site plan, the master plan is really anchored around the spine that connects the main heart and the passive green
space of a future phase along the central connector and along the main heart. Consistent with the design guidelines is uh active uses, transparent edges. When we make all of those uses purple, you can really visualize the sense of continuity. And
it also uh we're also kind of trying to um aggregate more open space by sort of eroding and chamfering the edges of the buildings. You can see that that the the openings of this central connector are kind of flared
at the scale of the buildings. Uh we're using a grided texture. Obviously, that's this kind of shared DNA, especially with the commercial buildings, the 33 ft um vertical grid module, and then that fourstory horizontal module. We're going to show
you how we're sort of threading that through all of the buildings. Another way we want to reinforce cohesion and kind of calm visually uh kind of calm the overall composition is with a consistent glass specification.
And then moving into the pedestrian sort of scale and realm, this perspective view of the heart, you can see the relationship of the building bases to each other. They're all lifted. They all create a sense uh a welcoming gesture uh
a a space where the the the public realm sort of comes uh into the beneath the building somewhat and connects to those active uses on the ground floor. Um they also share this consistent architectural datim line here above the second story
or third story in the case of the residential building. Specifically at the heart also at the kind of the uh pedestrian scale. All three buildings share this uh design element of occupiable terraces that lend
a sense of energy and activity to the heart. And finally, at the ground floor, we're paying very special attention to material consistency, particularly elements such as column covers, peers,
sophets, and paving. So that we have the opportunity, the three uh architecture teams have an opportunity to work together um and create a result that has uh an experience that has a another quiet cue that all of these buildings
belong together and that they they all belong to Longwood Place. The next set of slides looks at um looks at long distance views. And our goal here is is to visualize two things. One, how the buildings look together and two,
how Longwood Place fits in with the neighborhood context. So with that, I I'll hand it over to Tony who will walk you through these in a little more detail. >> Thanks much, Emily. Hi, I'm Tony Marques, design principal with Bicard Chilton. It's so wonderful to meet you
virtually. Um, go ahead, Emily. So, we're going to look at the uh ensemble of buildings from a series of views. We'll start at the south looking northward and sort of wind our way
around clockwise. The first view is Longwood Avenue and Riverway with the um Emerald Necklace on the on the left. Temple Israel in the foreground and you can see C2 on the left kind of peeking
up and then C1 uh behind it. And it it's kind of a nice diagram showing how the building step down towards the Emerald Necklace and how from this vantage point um they're they're slightly visible. Next,
so we've gone up uh Longwood Avenue. We're looking uh straight axial. You see the sitco sign off in the distance, the Pierce and then our one in the foreground, the playfields for the Windsor school. And then you see uh C1's
uh western facade, the kind of faceted uh form, catches highlights, reduces the massing, the scale, and allows the building kind of to step down gracefully visually towards the emerald necklace.
Next, now we've circled around to the north. We're looking south. Emerald Necklace is in in the foreground. The greenery you see there. Uh we're at Park and Riverway. Uh St. Julia on the left there. Um and then C1 and C2. You see
the gap between the two buildings, the colorations of the buildings, how they try to fit with that uh warmer kind of terracotta feel uh of Longwood and of the adjacent buildings.
Next, we've we've moved a little bit further uh closer to Brooklyn. You see the residential buildings in the foreground. You see uh St. Julia there on the left. the Center for Life Science,
uh, glassier, you know, kind of more modern facades that one would see in in Longwood. And then more importantly, again, the stepping of the buildings, the datam lines that Emily talked about and the kind of shared uh, coloration
and materiality. A little bit more of an axial view down Brookline right next to 401 Park. And again with the life science center St. Julia now you get a better sense of the gap between the two buildings and the
thin profile of both uh C1 and C2 as they as they kind of face towards the Fenway. And again the the the big idea behind C1 is is creating a kind of jewel like faceted shape that reduces the scale and massing and has an expression
of the structure. C2 steps down a little bit denser uh terracotta facade. And finally, we'll swing around. You're looking over Roberto Clemente Field. Uh back towards uh uh the LMA and Longwood
Place Pierce on the right. Uh the composition of Longwood Place in the center in this kind of dipped form that you see in the silhouette of the sky. So hopefully that gives you a sense of the project in terms of how it fits within the context from the vantage
points that you asked us to look at. So I'll move on to now talk about the C1 building and follow a similar format to what Emily followed. Go ahead to the next slide. First the comments that we received both from the commissioners as they were
looking at the overall project and also providing some comments uh during the landscaping. Um again this idea of balancing creating a district creating unity creating an ensemble but balancing it with this idea of enough personality
for each building so that the overall composition also feels diverse and that so each building can respond to its specific condition within Longwood Place. You know C1 faces Brookline, C2 faces Pilgrim. So there are some kind of
subtle differences even though they're within the same district. Next slide. So when we look at a project and how it should fit within the urban context, one of our fundamental precepts is whatever piece we're developing
should fit within the greater hole and contribute to the greater hole. So a room contributes to a building, a building contributes to the city, etc. The other thing that we started to think about was how can we take the PDA form which is fairly simple and extruded but
built into it are some angles and leverage that uh kind of system to create a faceted building that's light on its feet lifted off the ground to allow some paracity. Next
um so here's here are some of the parameters. There's the the kind of basic envelope that's defined by the setbacks of the of the of the uh PDA. That's kind of the outside uh uh shaping
the building. Balancing that is some uh kind of issues or uh development ideas that that lead to a building that should work from the inside out as well. And that's lease steps of proper core so the
building can be successful in the mar in within the marketplace. And so the building is long and thin parallel to Brookline. As Emily said, we're carving the edges to add interest to the building and kind of working within those parameters. The building itself is
47,000 square feet smaller than prescribed in the PDA and the average floor plate size is almost 4,000 square feet smaller than prescribed. Next. So, here you see a a diagram that is overlaid onto the site model that we all
worked around. And you can see that collection of of cuts and carves, how they allow light and views into the uh into the precinct into the center of the space, how the top of the building steps in, but also how those cuts and carves
create an interesting building silhouette from various vented points around the neighborhood. And then finally, this idea of the pedestrian realm kind of filtering in throughout the building. Next, I'm going to show you a series of images
that are that start with kind of the basic design that we first sat down with uh the BPD staff. Some sketches that develop the design further and where we are in the design. So this is the view the approach from the Fenway our initial
studies with exposed structure slicing the building etc. Next, then a sketch overlay that started to look at overlaying some of those data lines that Emily talked about, working on the sophet alignments, refining the
cuts so the building became more graceful and elegant, and cutting that uh kind of bow tie cut on the Brookline facade to break that up and to mark the below within this uh site and on the street. Next, a a final view where you
see the coloration kind of working well with C2. You see us refining the uh organization of the diagonals of the structure. You see that four-story cadence that maps onto the datam lines etc. Next,
similar sequence of views now looking from the LA LMA back towards the Fenway. The initial studies, the kind of long uh facade along Brookline. Next, the sketch overlay that talks about the
materiality. Again, that idea of the cut on the Brookline facade and then adjusting the the kind of uh angle points within the tower so that the datam lines are further reinforced.
And then again the final image which you see the the kind of cutting of the building allows the the form to kind of slope away from the heart. Opens up that aperture between R1 and C1 to
expose C2 so you can get a nice view through the heart into the uh center of the project. >> And team you're about halfway through. >> Great. Next. And then the facade. This idea of a grided tartan weave that layers
structure and materiality works well with the cuts and the facets. Next, an overlay of that sketch where we're rebalancing that cadence to make it more vertical again to mark the the datam
lines. Playing with the depth of the materials, overlaying the aluminum, the glass, the fritted glass to create this kind of textured depth and this weave. Next, a ground floor plan. Kind of zoom
zooming in on just C1. And again, I think what's important is this idea that the full ground floor is open and active. Uh mostly due because all the parking is is below grade. C2 carries the burden of the ramp and the kind of
infrastructure. C1 is almost completely open with the lobby on the right hand side, the forum looking into that kind of uh nexus between the R1 porch, the heart, the pocket part park, etc. And
then retail wrapping and then finally the VCO which is a cut into the building which allows you to kind of center on the lobby of C2 and filter in. Next, some sketches of the ground plane. Looking at the set, the storefront, how
all that would work. And then finally, the sophet itself. We're looking at the materiality of that, how that can work with the other two buildings, add some warmth and texture to the pedestrian realm. And then the forum itself, a sketch of the
vico and the sophet. And then the forum itself next which will be the hub for Longwood Place, a place for performance space, a place with activity with art, a space that we're working with uh the some
local uh user groups to create a program working with uh the local uh community to develop ideas about how the space would work. a plan of the of the space where you see that uh forum kind of anchoring that
corner linking to the uh vehicle providing that activity that operability and that connection that's dictated in the PDA and then the final image is set within the the the heart space looking through into the forum reinforcing that
idea of the operability and I'll hand it to Anna. Hi everyone. I'm Anna Lashinski, design director with KPF and I'm going to share the latest design evolution for C2. Um so based on your feedback um that we
received both from the BCDC and the BPD, we focused our efforts on uh several issues. strengthening the relationship between C2 and C1, refining the massing to break down the scale to for overall scale of the building and enhance the
response to context in terms of uh through articulation of facade approach and detailing. Next, uh before I walk you through the design changes, I want to start by quickly explaining the rationale behind C2's
massing and overall approach. Uh so C2 began the design process with significant constraints. It has a long and narrow um massing only 100 foot deep uh which is very challenging for a viable lab plan. Next
um in terms of building scale, we looked closely at the Pilgrim Street context. We saw a consistent three fourtory scale and that module became a key reference for us when dividing the massing into smaller bars. Uh bringing that
horizontal break into the design helped us to reduce the perceived scale of the building uh facing the park and it allows the building to feel more in line with its surrounding, less monolithic u more approachable maybe. Um next um and
then the shifted volume strategy helps us to create a sense of transition between the scales. Uh on the north side it facilitates opportunities for outdoor terraces overlooking the park and on the south side it opens up the corner to
bring more visual permeability into the experience of the heart. Next u here you can see the building uh and the overall master plan in the context of the LMA and the park and this view really illustrates the importance of the
gradual transition of the scale that is present um in C2 massing. Next, um, early in this design process, uh, we determined that a side core was not appropriate for this building in the context of this master plan and it
because it would have created a large blank facade facing C1 and even more critically a blank condition at the ground floor. Instead, we chose an offset core to activate the street edge. And because of this
requirement, it limited the depth and the articulation that is available to us on the longer facads. Next, uh with that in mind, we also started the initial facade exploration. Uh we considered the overall approach to the
massing. Uh does the building have directionality? How do we bring variety and enhance the reading of the shifting volumes? Is it a series of stacked boxes or is it a volume that you carve into? Next.
Um, so this is the first scheme that we presented. Uh, it had a light frame with a singlestory staggered frit. Uh, which we thought created a very dynamic uh, and visually light facade expression appropriate for life science. Next, we
then transitioned to explore kind of adding more solidity and color, but we felt that the reading was still out of scale with its surroundings. Um, we then also started to look at larger interventions in order to help uh
mitigate the perceived scale of the building. In this first study, we introduced a continuous vertical break that divided the building into two smaller volumes. Uh next then we looked at introducing horizontal glass volumes
that anchored the building edges and kind of wrapped around uh the shorter facads as well. Next uh we then started to look at um kind of intro introducing also a vertical break along the kind of
long facade. Um first we kept the tube breeding at the end. Um and then we tested the idea of wrapping that facade around and maybe introducing variation in terms of wall types. Um but we felt like this approach was resulting in a
building that felt a little bit too busy. Um and ultimately where we landed and would like to introduce to you today is a more continuous facade that wraps around the corner and we thought feels kind of calmer and more consistent with
the overall uh building approach. Uh next before we look at the building renderings, a few notes on materiality. Uh our goals were kind of um we wanted C2 to be a building that bridges between
the different contexts uh between the institutional feel of the LMA and Pilgrim, uh between the residential um character of R1 and the more glassy character of uh C1.
Uh, next, we're continuing to explore a range of tones and materials to strike the right balance between the buildings in the master plan and in the their surrounding context. We're currently leaning towards the deeper red tone, which we believe will integrate
naturally within the predominantly brick character of the adjacent buildings. Next, um, so this is an updated view of the overall building as seen from the riverway. You can see the shifting volumes as they're kind of stepping incrementally towards the south. And the
scale of the facade is consistent with a life science program, but at the same time exists harmoniously with adjacent R1 just to the right of us. Next, uh, from the hard side, C2 has a very minimal presence. It's intentionally
quiet in the overall composition. You'll notice the stepping has been reduced in response to earlier feedback that we received and the facade is kept simple and restrained in a way designed not to compete visually with either C1 or R1.
Next, um, as you get closer to the building, the finer grain details and subtle design moves start to reveal themselves, giving C2 its kind of very simple but very identifiable uh, character. Next, as we look at the main
entrance from Brookline, you can see how the building leans away from its surroundings using a series of setback terraces u that provide some outdoor spaces for the building tenants and also help to create a more welcoming uh front door for the building. Next, uh while C2
plays a support role for the master plan by hosting the service ramps for the development, we're continuing on our efforts on activating the ground floor and increasing permeability through the site. So the south edge of the plan has
been chamered um to create kind of prominent presence through uh towards the heart and in response to the C1 vico we further increase that chamfer um and we'll see it in some of the upcoming renderings but again trying to find ways
to further enhance the permeability and bring the landscape um into the building next uh spatially together with the C1 team we've worked that kind of to craft a cohesive composition of terraces and
sophets that help to define the relationship to the heart. And while each one of the buildings has its own very distinct identity, they're designed to exist in a harmonious dialogue. And this is expressed here through the alignment of the datims, material
choices, and coordinated approach to sophets and detailing. Next, uh, we further enhance the integration between the podium and the tower. In this view coming out of the vehicle, you can see the kind of the per increased permeability. You can see the kind of
retail corner now taking up two bays. Um, and and that wider cut is just integrating more smoothly with the C1. Next. Uh, overall we feel that the adjustments in response to the feedback and conversation that we had over the
last few months made C2 a much better building, more appropriately scaled and crafted to fit the context. Thank you. >> Finally, R1, the specific feedback that we heard you relative to R1 was you
wanted to see a view of the building across Brooklyn A. So, we'll show you that. You also wanted to hear more about the front porch and the experience of that space, which paralleled a comment that we've also heard from urban design staff. Um, we'll explain a little bit more how the project realizes the design
guidelines, but we've also covered a lot of that already. The R1 building is 205 ft tall. It'll include approximately 227 residential units, which you're seeing on the screen is the version that we submitted for the
PNF. And as you'll notice, much of the the changes to R1 are very subtle compared to the changes on C2, for example. The building is comprised of two parts. One part facing Brookline A, this this pale color here, the other one
facing Pilgrim Road. The building is shaped at the heart to create an invitation to the site. And that is a direct response to the design guidelines that ask for articulation and a little bit more energy on the public uh public
sides, the public open spaces. Back at Pilgrim Road, which I'll show you, the elevation is a creates a little bit more of a regular street wall. It incorporates red brick which really draws from the material context of Pilgrim Road and the neighborhood beyond
as well. The footprint of R1 is relatively small at approximately 10,000 square ft. The residential entry is along Pilgrim Road with more paracity uh along the front of the building at the
front porch and the main heart. And again trying to maximize the opportunity for active e active uses and transparent edges all around the perimeter of the building. There are also notably two sort of gateways into the site uh along
Pilgrim Road next to the residential building. The R1 building design really started with the PDA massing. From that we established a floor plate that was better optimized for housing. uh it's
both efficient and oriented for views and daylight. From there, the massing was shaped in direct response to adjacent buildings to try to open up view corridors through the site. We then stepped uh we created stepbacks on the
upper levels to both align with neighboring building heights and also minimize shadow on the emerald necklace. And finally, we sculpted the corners to distinguish this building from the commercial architecture and give it more of a residential character.
The front porch facing the heart is a direct response to the design guidelines which require it. It's also an opportunity to enhance the experience of the open space by creating this sort of backdrop to the main heart. We started with the PDA massing. We shaped the
front porch footprint to follow the building moves above and then we extended it from two stories which is required to three stories to give it better proportions a lifted and vertical presence that creates a kind of a civic scale backdrop against the heart.
Finally, we explore different structural approaches, materiality, ceiling treatments, and building fenestration so that the space is in addition to being a civic scale gesture is a comfortable room that functions as cafe seating. The tree column, as we
call it, enables a flexible floor plan, if you will, open space for tables and chairs, um, uh, as well as visibility to the retail. And the current iteration that we'll show you is we believe efficient. It's structurally honest
while still being very expressive. Going back to the sort of tower materiality is part of our site analysis. We walk the neighborhood to really understand the brick detailing that's here in the LMA and the role it plays in the character of the
neighborhood. The design guidelines again call for materials that are contextual uh for and and for buildings to express their uses. And we believe brickmasonry accomplishes both of these things. Very much reinforces a residential character.
So in response to the May 6th feedback, we've used our unifying design principles to strengthen, like I said, the connections uh between the three buildings in Longwood Place. The what you see on your screen is what we submitted for the PNF. One of the
refinements that we've made is shifting the primary horizontal spandrels to align with those fourstory uh modules that we showed earlier. And that results in a very subtle refinement, but a window grouping that
goes from every three stories to this um somewhat uh gradiated um module. We have employed the same principle at uh Pilgrim Road but expressed it as a
darker or projected accent course but in both cases it's it's again a very subtle change but it's an alignment that is expressing continuity and across the site. um and and kind of almost a almost
a subconscious layer of of of something that connects all of the buildings. Like I said, the building is uh is is expressed two different ways. On the left hand side is the Pilgrim Road fenestration. On the right hand
side is the main heart. Both have vertically grouped windows to accentuate the vertical proportions. on Pilgrim Road, we've incorporated uh we we had a kind of a rusticated pattern. We've incorporated some of the lighter brick color back into the Pilgrim Road volume
to respond to a comment about a stark contrast in the color. So, we're sort of blending those. And as you can see on the heart side of the building, there's a little bit of an enhanced level of building articulation and detailing with
this rusticated course and this accented color spandrel between the windows which again is a response to the design guidelines and um and having uh enhanced articulation on the facades that face the heart. >> Two minutes, Emily.
>> Okay. Thank you. Lastly, uh we did want to show because we got questions about the front porch really zooming into this space. This is what we submitted for the PNF and we have refined this space again in a very subtle way but to add an interstitial
uh layer that we think operates at a more human scale creates the threshold between the threetory civic scale and the finer grain of that cafe zone to uh to really um make it make it really
comfortable for for human scale and make it function as it's as it's meant to as well as providing an opportunity for identity for for the retailer. With that, uh we look forward to hearing your feedback. Thank you.
>> Thank you project team. I know there was a lot of content there. Um, commissioners, I might ask where you all would like to start and if you want the team to uh flip back to uh some of the core design principles at the start or
dive into one of the buildings specifically >> and commissioners, I think we'll just try to have a conversation today um based on, you know, us being a small group and there's a lot to take in here.
Um maybe just to get a conversation going, maybe we could go to um I think the guidelines at the beginning, the massing guidelines and just Mimi. We have these from the PDA design
guidelines and then we have what we call our project design principles. So just let me know if which one >> get a land. >> So >> I'm still collecting my thoughts but in you know just to get things going this is what I was really um uh thinking of
these ones these PDA design guidelines. I think the one thing, you know, I really really appreciate the ambition of the project and I understand what you're trying to get at, you know, each building having a unique identity but it
all being you know one in one place. Um and so the the you know the glass, the coloration of the you know material palette etc all unifying makes sense to
me. I think the one um guideline that I'm looking for that I'm I I'm trying to see is breaking down the large masses is one of your guidelines for the long walls. And yes, here it is.
And while I can see it happening somewhat on some of the buildings, I think where I'm struggling most with is understanding if if C1 does that. Um because I'm I
C1 is sculpted and you know I love the rationale. I love this. I love the struggle that you're doing with they're going through with C1 because I do think it can be really really interesting. But I'm not seeing it
break down to reduce the mass. In fact, I just wonder if this faceting is almost making it feel bigger than than breaking it down into masses. So maybe we just start the conversation there. And Tony, I don't know if you want to
bring up a particular sketch when you were talking about how the facets have evolved over um the course of time. >> Yeah. Maybe you could describe how you're how you're trying to reach that
goal of breaking down the mass. >> Yeah. Actually, um Emily, before you go there, if you could go back to that diagram that, uh Mimi was looking at um because we did look uh very carefully at
the PDA and the PDA guidelines. Um and two comments. One, there is at the bottom there where there are only three images. If you actually go back to the PDA, there were a couple
of images, additional images, and one of them specifically showed a a building that had been kind of faceted, angled, and cut. But I would also say we looked very closely at the second from the left
uh in terms of the uh building organization. And that one clearly divides that facade into three vertical parts. But if you look closely, there's also this notion of a kind of a fold or
a bend. And um that was that was a shape that definitely influenced us as well as the one next to it where the the kind of angles and facets etc. um played a part.
And so, uh, yeah, that middle one, uh, you know, when we saw that image, uh, that to us seemed to be an interesting approach to to shaping the building. And again, part of it was because the basic
form already started with some angles. And again, if you look at the the mass second from the left, it's very clear about that angled top as well. Um and so that just to be direct that kind of
started us down that path of how do we how do we create a form that's that's uh you know cut gemlike. And we also knew that we wanted to um undercut the ground
plane a bit to to kind of open it up and make that uh that part feel more porous and inviting. And so that that really set up that that approach and that language. And um
>> you know we we tried to use then to leverage that idea as as we develop the the massing and form. Mhm. >> I guess you can you go to one of our building image. I just want Tony to speak to our actual Yeah,
>> cuz I can see how the foss at the ends are working and I know that's one of your guidelines like the ends are sculpted on all the buildings and I completely get it but when we're talking about breaking down the massing I'm thinking about long would have and so
that that doesn't really happen too much on long would have and I know you're starting to explore some you know paracity with the Vlogly does that. >> Yeah. >> Um, but there's long straight runs along long would have. And I guess my question
is, you know, when you're sculpting it on the sides, should it be flush with your planer elevations or is there something you can do to help break up the sculpted ends from the straight run ends? Or, you know, I I'm not trying to tell you how to do it. I'm just trying
to follow your guidelines in terms of breaking the mass. >> Yeah. Yeah. Actually, >> you know, >> I'm sorry. Go ahead. Finish. >> Oh, yeah. You could go to the >> the street view renders as well that are
in our slides. >> And just a clarification, that is Brookline app. >> Yes. Sorry. >> Oh, yeah. Sorry about that. We know what you meant. >> Just uh just the render like >> page 37. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Yeah. Doris. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. I think in this view that's where you see the um that kind of scale of the cut and how that I call it the bow tie cut marks the location of the below and then and then slices through. Um the
other building that we looked at, frankly, was the um Dana Farber building uh that you all recently approved. And I love the way that building, although it does it with a kind of a curve form, you know,
creates that that shape in the center and creates that kind of reveal. So when you one last question and then I'll I'll stop speaking. When you say that the facets should wrap, you're saying is there some
kind of break as the facets wrap to separate the ends um from the long facade? >> I was just suggesting that as one strategy for bringing relief to that, you know, long elevation. Again, it's
really not I don't want to be prescriptive in any way. >> Yeah. Yeah. But I see that continuation of the facet to the to the planer elevation as making it look more monolithic rather than broken down in scale. >> Yeah. Yeah. Gotcha.
>> But Laura, I see you're trying to chime in here. >> Yeah. And I I know what you're you're saying, Mimi, because I had the same um reaction about what the various planes do to the mass. But before I get there,
let me just say that I think that there's a really nice um dance going on between the two buildings. One of them is just kind of this, you know, the C2 is the kind of slight move and shifting,
right? And it's very clear. And the other one is doing a different dance, but it's dancing, right? And there's sort of this energy that comes between them. And I'm so glad to see the precedence you looked at with that other building, but the difference is the the
scale is so much different and the moves that were done there were so simple, right? And I think the thing that starts to detract me about this, I don't know if it's the diagonals, which you didn't talk about this, but I'm assuming
they're a structural aspect to the building, but you know, I don't know. you would be good to hear that. But the other is that it's it it looks more like a wrapped package than it does with the
building kind of shifting and moving. Um, and I can imagine that a form like this would actually be terrific in terms of the amount of light that it catches both in the context of the city and those inside the building. And so the
the planes um the planes I think are a great idea. It's just the scale of them and then how the they are articulated. And I didn't have the same feeling about the ground plane as you did Mimi, but it's for one very specific reason which
is the buildings cut in half and downscaled, right? And so having that aperture is, you know, just helps both that building in terms of its massing, though maybe that could be expressed better on the ground floor, and the way
that it opens up that middle corridor so that there's actually some life and air. I mean, it would just be deadly that corridor without um without that kind of um aperture to to a busier street.
Right. No, I'm I'm maybe I'm not understanding. I I'm fully, you know, uh in support of the vehicle. I think that's a great moment to break the scale. Like I think that's critical and I think the architectural expression >> seems right like how it gets resolved.
But you did say something that's kind of intriguing to me. Um, and I just wonder if it's worth, you know, again, these are all just comments that you could think about and decide if you want to study your room or not, but maybe those diagonals in the end elevation are
actually distracting from the beautiful planer moves and the horizontals that now are trying to unify all of the buildings. I just wonder if the the facets just being
that subtle, you know, um shift in geometry. >> I mean, if you took away all the diagonals, Amy, it would just feel like such a different building and it's subtleties with light and views and
would just be so much more cohesive in in my mind. Um, so I don't I don't know. I'd love to hear from some of the other commissioners about this as well. >> And and I'm wondering if I could just interject because I think this is
something that staff has been grappling with as well, right? Given the the elegance of the the cut and the facets with the um you know glass form, what was the right uh type of filigree and right type of articulation right to to
apply to this and and hopefully not just applied but sort of integral to the idea of the building as well. And I think we've gone back and forth between various scales um having more pronounced uh you know framing and filigree to less pronounced framing and filigree. And so
would love to you know as you all continue this conversation love to hear your thoughts on that as well. >> It' be interesting to hear um Tony um Tony's response to uh Laura's comment.
Um so first first response is yes we are planning to have uh some diagonal lateral braces at the ends of the building. Um you know that the buildings by nature are kind of long thin bars.
>> Are those the those ones you're I'm sorry I'm drawing with my finger and doing a really crummy job of it. Or but can you see the purple that I >> Yes. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> And so, um,
the core can handle the majority of that kind of lateral load on that kind of long thin sail, but the core can be optimized and be made more efficient if we add some diagonal structure at the ends because then
that'll help kind of brace in that short axis. So that's always been a kind of fundamental idea behind the building to lighten up the structural in structure in general. And we did like this sense that there was something happening
within the building that then gets projected to the outside. And you can see in some of the earlier uh studies it was more of a cross brace and that felt a little too kind of you know X. And so as the design
>> are we seeing are we seeing the cross bracing inside? >> Yes. And I and um we don't know yet whether it'll be a single brace uh in one direction. You know, we've done
buildings with bracing where it's kind of more like a barber pole. Um and that that's still yet to be developed. But as we worked on refining that the the kind of upward gesture in a single low in
kind of a single movement felt better than just that kind of pure cross which seemed to f further separate the ends from the rest of the composition. >> Maybe were you asking whether or not the
bracing could go inside the building? I >> was thinking that. >> Yeah. >> Yes. So sorry, all the bracing happens within the glass line. What you're seeing on the facade is a mapping of that structure. It's not a structure
element that's outboard of the curtain wall. Curtain wall runs shear. All the bracing happens. >> Oh. >> So it's a choice >> in in theory. >> Yeah. >> Sorry. Say that last part. Me. >> So you don't have to express it if you
chose not to. We're just asking. Yeah. >> No, but I I think it adds a a life and an energy and a a kind of a certain honesty to the building. >> I think >> I don't know if that answered your
question, David. >> No, I I just wanted to hear your response to her comment because I think it's interesting to try to think about simplifying it. At the same time, I know you were tasked with trying to create uh continuity between the buildings and those are those kind of datim lines that
are tying the pieces together. I do think that the KPF uh building is quite understated and elegant in its restraint um in contrast to this. So, uh, you know, I think it's a interesting opportunity for this pairing of the two
buildings working together. And I think the one that steps out with the facets, I think is, you know, pretty effective. I do think that when you start to see the light, and I know it's hard to depict this in the renderings, that faceting will have a different color to
the glass, which will really add to the dynamic quality of the building. I do think that some of your earlier studies uh or the studies in your appendix were very effective in making that vico really read which I think is that separation between the masses and maybe
responding more to Mimi's comments along the the the really long length of u you know Brooklyn Avenue. So, I don't know if that's possible to express a little bit more or at least, you know, I know that the if it's not in the same plane
as the the vertical sections, it'll read differently, which I think is will be a really positive piece. I wonder if the KPF piece might be a little bit too um simple and that if there's a little bit
more there's a a more of a craft to the way C1 is being depicted and then C2 I think is is very simple but I think the verticality piece of that proportion might be enhanced by another line or so that gives it um a little bit more
verticality I The other comment I would have is that on the C1 where the the building is creased and the uh the fractures happen as it comes down to the ground. I know there's a fourstory kind of cadence to
the way the the massing is being stacked. But if you pull in closer or maybe if we can look at the ground plane a little bit more closely. One of the things that I liked about what was presented in the guidelines was the ability for that ground plane to
have that porocity and that transparency. And I find that uh the strength of the the V-shaped structure is very close to the glass in many cases and it feels a little bit too confined. I think if it
could have a little bit more breath to it, it feels like it's it's a little bit too tight. If you go to some of the um the closeups of those views, >> David, could you say that again? I'm not sure I'm understanding what you're saying.
>> So, if you go to uh image uh >> maybe 146 um shows the Brooklyn. >> Yeah, if you can pull in closer. Um >> you you want How about one of the views that was in the appendix, David, or the
>> Yeah, possibly. But I think the the the Vshape has such a bold, you know, kind of >> spirit to the structure. And when you look at the plan, the the retail facade is really taught to it
in many cases and it feels like it's crowding it. I think part of it is wanting it to breathe a little bit more. And maybe to um Mimi's comment, the two V braces on the base of it facing out towards the the heart, you know, feels a
little bit cramped uh in comparison to the kind of the ability to really open that up and open to the to the forum. >> You know, um may I respond to that, David? >> Sure. >> I think that's a good ad and a and a
great observation. Um, when we were looking at the base of the building and how the columns come down to the ground, one of the conversations that we had with the retail consultant was a desire
to create, for lack of a better way to describe it, a kind of a standalone retail presence. So, as we were kind of shaping the the first floor, you can you could see where we made these bays that kind of weave in
and out of the V columns. And the idea where there was to create a kind of a distinct frame or slot where if you had an individual retailer that wanted to create something that was more specific,
we had defined a zone. But I think within your observation, there's room for us to kind of push and pull the with the width of that bay and push and pull a little bit to give the columns
um some more breathing room because I I do think when in some of the views you can see where it feels a little uh almost like that facade has been poured around the V column. Yeah, it's it's like it's just been offset from the V column versus
>> Yeah. Yeah. And I think >> the distinction between the retail and the rest of the building seems like the retail should have that presence that the retailer's looking for that's maybe a little bit independent and less of the rigor of the rest of the building. >> Yeah.
>> To really kind of make it special. And I know there's that two-story piece in the second floor is a combination of a little bit of backa house and uh some of the amenity space for the second floor, but I think uh those columns are so bold
in their kind of depiction on the building. I just want them to have a little bit more dynamic quality so that you're not losing that within the the retail kind of pushing up against it. >> Yeah, I think that's a great ad. I think the other notion or the other idea that
I would throw out is as we looked at those in certain views initially we oversize the wrap around those columns because you know if you cut a section through that the steel within that would be you know smaller
and so I think playing with the bay the way the bay intersects the column but also maybe fine-tuning the the scale of the wrapper a little bit So it's not pushing against that facade would be would be helpful.
One other quick >> definitely sorry I I agree with that idea of scaling down the you know structure that comes down because what's nice about this you know sculptural piece is that it really just gently you know sits on
>> on on the surface. Um, and you know, the lighter it looks and the more, you know, um, unbelievable at how light the structure is compared to this volume above, I think could be really nice. I even think if the material of the lower
two floors, it's just different. I don't know if it's darker or what it is, but if it just um has its own language, I think that could be really nice. This this image is really highlights what you were saying, David, about
>> that glass just hugging so tight. >> Yeah. >> Around those columns. >> That's a good ad. One one other quick observation. Um, one of the beauties of this kind of tartan weave approach is it adapts well
to the cuts and facets, but it also adapts well to some of the things that you are raising. And I hear hints of yes, we understand that you're creating these datams, but can you play with the weave a little
bit uh to to kind of create some more sense that the facade is broken up? And then I think I also hear you saying um study the scale and the need for the
diagonal structure pieces on the end and what kind of pattern they create. And I think also if you look at the form of the building, there are some dips and I don't want to get ahead but there are some dips that happen at the ends and
that might be a place where there could be a subtle fold as well that might >> might accomplish some of what you're talking about Mimi where >> you you emphasize it as less of a rapper and a little another kind of deflection
or fold if you will. I mean, I think that there's I I think you just said it perfectly in terms of what one might continue to investigate, and that is how light can
that outside frame be on such a massive building that's kind of turning and twisting. It's sort of like what what Mimi was saying about the columns like it's sort of impossible that those columns can hold up that building at a
smaller scale, right? The the columns themselves at a smaller scale. And I wonder if you don't take or at least try to study what that might translate to with the diagonals and the framing of
the various um the various uh facets of the building. >> Yeah. I mean there's there's really some pretty lovely things about this really. >> Yeah. I think you're uh you guys are a
master at some of these skins. So I I I think you're going to do a really beautiful job on the administration. One of the things that was really telling, I love the appendix by the way that you showed a lot of your studies because it was very effective in how you
came to resolution of the the final form which I think the facets are pretty effective and visually you know sculpting those edges. I think it's going to be it's it's it's really essential for the masses because of the the density in this location. So, one of
the things that I did like in in in one of the master planning uh PDA guidelines was the idea that the faces of the facades facing the heart and the passive space, you know, have its own sort of character
to it, which in your appendix, one of your model shots, I think, um, really expressed that pretty effectively. I think it's 144. And I just want to hear a little bit more about, you know, when you what
Laura was just saying about the elegance of the skin and how the building is kind of wrapped by this really beautiful um texture and the frame. Uh not taking away from that, but that kind of uh expression as it goes up the building to
be able to have that kind of frontage quality to it. And that's not only on C1, but I would say R1 as as well is how that kind of addresses the uh the public realm to really signify that edge of a of public realm.
Um it that's a interesting comment and um there's a couple things that have been going through our minds and one of them which you you all may chuckle at is
Mimi's comment in the initial first pass where she looked at C1 and said, "I like the building. I'm not sure it's it's pretty glassy." And so we have worked to add some density. And I do strongly believe that facing Brookline, we should
have that density so the building feels solid, etc. and and you know purposely not as glassy as the pier say, but I could imagine as we wrap around
and get in that connector condition, we could reweave the tartan so that maybe it does become a bit more glassy. I wouldn't want to lose the whole tartan because then you know you struggle a little bit
with the program is exactly the same. You want the folks to have light and air, but I could see some shifting of the elements so that as it wrapped around it, it did have a a more uh
glassy feel as a as a possibility. Well, I think I I don't know. I think um maybe the the one thing before we move on to the other buildings so we just make sure we're talking about all of them is is I do think that there is a >> I'll leave you with a thought about the
hierarchy in terms of legibility of the architectural moves. I definitely think facets should be the strongest and I think that's pretty straightforward. I I'm I'm thinking that maybe that horizontal coursing becomes the next level of hierarchy and then the
diagonals become very subtle as just adding interest to to the layers and how you um express them might not want to be all things equal because I think right now everything is a little bit equal and
and these models are convincing me like oh yeah I can see the different you know readings of the architectural elements. >> But maybe um C2, should we talk about C2? I do think
David, you're spot on that it's so elegant. It's like, you know, very rational. It makes a lot of sense. It's, you know, compositionally attractive, but it feels like it needs
something. I would even say the pressure to me is less on Pilgrim Road. It's it's really maybe at the end where you're at the end of the connector or somewhere along the connector. I feel like they're they're
you know, we want to see some excitement um there. And I don't know what that is, but maybe you could talk a little bit at least about what's happening at the connector at the lower level. >> Yeah. So um as as I mentioned in the
presentation, it's a building that is working with a lot of constraints and I think in a way that's what kind of brought this design to the forefront because we're constantly trying to be incredibly disciplined with
kind of understanding what are the critical moves and how they're supporting the bigger gesture of the building. But a lot of it is happening through kind of crafting of special moments and like very fine grain articulation. Um so at the connector level um we had
several images before but we took all the opportunities maybe if we can look at the plan for a second actually. Um, we looked at all the opportunities that we could find to carve into the building and create these in between zones that
extend the landscape into the building and help us to break down both the lengths of that facade and and the scale. So it doesn't become just the rhythm of the peers and glass glass but um you saw the images for that south
condition where we have the retail corner kind of chamfered two bays and then the level above that is a terrace that would ultimately be kind of an extension of the pedestrian level experience. And then in the middle of
the connector um again in the plan there's kind of like an alov condition that was designated as art and landscape uh space that is directly of integrated into the landscape strategy of the
connector. So we think that by having these two moments in those critical conditions and then um having the lobbies anchor the ground floor were both relating to the midblock road and
the visibility from Brookline and also taking advantage of the great gesture that C1 is able to do by breaking down the massing and bringing a little bit more life into the connector uh and kind extending that and stitching together
also the transition to Pilgrim Road. So again, kind of chamfering the corners, carving out spaces, um is the way that we're trying to bring more animation to the ground floor of C2.
>> Can we go to an image of the chamfering of the corner? >> Yep. [Music] So this is the one view sorry where you're able to see these side by side. We thought it's it was very important to
actually be able to see the datams and the relationship. Um and even here you can also start seeing uh the volo beyond as you transition through that space and come into the connector. But do you
have a view? Even if it's not a rendering like this, it just you're standing in the heart looking back at this building. >> Yeah, this one. >> So, every building has their like signature column piece, right? Like R1
has that beautiful tree and C C1 has the the columns. think maybe page 70 >> is and and I can understand that the rhythm of the columns of the building comes down on the ground floor. I just wonder is there something you could do
different at that corner or maybe you know I'm curious what other commissioners think about that. I'm trying to find a move in this. So, >> if you go back to the last uh rendering or the one before, sorry,
>> Emily, the one from the VCO, I think. >> Yes. >> Sorry. Which page number is that? I I'm getting a little uh >> there was one view from the heart that sort of looked at that corner. That
would be the appendex. >> In the appendix, actually >> you just had it. >> Emily, I can share the deck if you want. >> Oh, it's it's right down the bottom. >> Bottom third from the right. >> Oh. Oh, maybe that one's okay.
>> Trying to guess. Um, I think is this one. That's That's the old one, though, isn't it? >> If you can go back to the deck. Yeah, >> I can recognize this. Uh, go back down >> in the appendix. >> Yeah, in the appendix. >> Oh, okay.
>> There is a view straight on at that corner. Keep on going. Uh, this this one. >> This would have been an updated. That's okay. >> Yep. Sorry. Let me clean the markup.
Yeah, we we we felt that the stepping down of scale for C2 was was quite appropriate. When we looked at a much larger grander gesture, it felt like it was trying a bit too hard for the
overall balance between the three buildings. Um so we felt that having kind of like one gesture at the pedestrian scale that this is where the retail would exist. It will have its own character that um necessarily
like will have more flexibility than a terrace above as a way to relate to what R1 and C1 are doing was kind of what what we felt is appropriate response. Definitely curious to hear what you guys
think we can do differently or think about differently. >> Can you go back to the image of from the piccolo looking through where you have the the second store story uh measin?
Yeah. I'm wondering if you were I'm just going to say to take out the the second floor. That scale seems more appropriate with the scale of what's happening next door and adjacent to it. It feels like everything is so tucked in there on this
one. It seems like it could um >> you're thinking at the end, right, David? Yeah, the relief of that seems like it's a bolder scale that will set up the pocket park better and set up that
corner transition better and not be so >> um >> yeah, >> I agree. And then like that ceiling has some kind of special moment like it, you know, does across the way or in in both
R1 and C1. I know you've got a lot of geometries there and that the the ground floor is not matching up with the second floor. So, there's a lot to think through in that piece, but it just feels like there's a a scale transition because the the tree column is four
stories. The other one is, you know, two and a half, three stories, and this one feels very compressed, and it feels like there's a a big public space there that uh might benefit from the scale.
Yeah, we we can certainly look at that. >> Also, the weight of of the um the band that has to hold up that floor is really kind of weighing down that corner in a way that
um makes it feel more removed from the public realm. Um you're >> you're referring to this, right? >> Yes. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Mhm. Yeah. >> Yeah. Go ahead. >> No, go. You go.
>> I I was just going to say we we we we looked at several iterations of this, but I think the building has evolved quite a bit and I think it's a good time for us to look at it again. I think one thing we discovered is that what we as
long as we can keep the corner condition like the corner itself I think we have a lot of flexibility with how we carve into this. >> Uh but it was very important for us for the overall reading to capture that corner. Um
>> because as kind of the volumes start to slightly peel off and step we needed something to anchor it with. Um but I certainly think that how we shape up this space we can continue working on and definitely look at a larger gesture
and re-evaluate. Um >> is this going to be terracotta? >> Um the intention is for it to be terracotta especially at the lower levels but uh yes masonry um focused
>> that could be very beautiful. >> Yeah. Can we pull back and just see another view where you can see the overall form >> can go. >> Yeah, that's f that's fine. Really
almost any side. How how did you decide how much um shifting would happen in each floor, each block the this amount of shift? >> Mhm.
>> Um there are a few several factors that played into it. One is obviously the PDA envelope that kind of defined the max um the number of steps that we wanted to create overall kind of dividing the
difference. Um and then we looked at it two different ways in terms of which way the building wants to lean and step towards. So it has been studied kind of doing the opposite of this both ways. um
analyzing the impact of both of these scenarios on on shadows and public space and arrival experience. I think ultimately in this iteration that we're sharing today, it has also been crafted to work on the module because we think a
lot of the beauty of this building is in kind of like the precision. So you can see that now it's um always shifting a module. >> Got it. >> Removing a module. Uh so like very very subtle but very rational.
Um so the building is working on an 11 ft module lab building. Um so then these steps are aligned to that same modulation of the office building.
>> Thank you. Maybe we go to R1. Any other comments on C2? >> I I just like how restrained it is. >> Um it's I think it's
nice that way particularly it you know and it kind of gives I was using this analogy about dancing. So, you know, this one kind of dances like my husband and the other one dances like me and yet we come together. Um, so it's
it's nice. It's really nice. The language between them is very successful. >> Maybe we go to the Oh, go ahead. >> No, just I'm ready to go on to R1. Okay. Yeah. I I was going to actually I mean I
think R1 um compositionally makes sense to me. I think I think my one comment if we go to the slide with all of the column studies. What I what I really or even there that
one rendering where you were at um this one. So what I really like about this, you know, building is this lightness of, you know, the masonry and then this like incredible column. Um the underside, I think you had some great
studies, but this fascia that holds up like a tray that holds up the brick volume, I'm not sure it's the right articulation yet. I just wonder if that should even look more unbelievable. Like that fascia is like a really thin plane
that's holding up this really, you know, um, heavy piece. I just feel like it takes away from the reading of the brick to have like a metal edge there. And I know it's so nitpicky, but I I don't know why it stands out to me because I
think everything else is so, you know, um, elegant in its reading. And I kind of have a little bit of a similar thought about C1, by the way. Like maybe just thinking about what those, you know, as the buildings are
lifted up, is there something to unify the buildings in the way they're reading with the fascia? And maybe this is the solution and and all of the buildings have a similar solution. But I do think it really is going to matter because what's so interesting about the ground,
the public realm is how these buildings all relate and they're very similar. And so should that reading be, you know, unbelievably thin and elegant or is it a more consistent ban that runs around I think
is is worth thinking about as a as a group. I agree with Commissioner Love. It uh feels to me and I I personify this in two ways. It's either a very firm hand
of fingers that can hold up a stack of plates or um you can personify it as a tree with roots that is supporting um something with life. And those are just two different design
concepts that I've been struggling particularly with this this particular building. Um that isn't fully connecting for me with the other buildings in terms of like person the personification of that base. It's been a little bit lost for me this entire presentation.
Um but it's like which one which one makes the most sense. I think we still have to play with it a little bit. I like this sequence of uh the massing how it evolved and thinking about you know the view
strategy and all the things that you would design into a an efficient um residential tower but with a dynamic twist to it. So I like the twist a lot. I just am concerned about the materiality of the piece that jets out
into the heart. I just wonder if it should be metal instead of masonry to be honest and that the the brick red brick piece holds on to the a metal piece instead of it being masonry. I know this is a very different concept but the
building above looks like a bearing wall masonry building sitting on top of this uh tree column which is a little disconcerting to me. I think if this building were metal, it would feel much more elegant in its depiction of its
kind of lightness on top of this tree. And then the way that the the red brick grabs that uh massing, I think would be much more effective to me. Um, I know that's a very different premise and I know that you've studied the context of
the uh the LMA and a lot of the masonry buildings, but it just feels like it would be and it would also be much uh lighter against the other two buildings instead of feeling so heavy. Um,
so that's one comment. Um, the other is that wanting to make sure that the program underneath the tree column uh is really robust because I think about, you know, how the like the A that
little carveout has such a dynamic quality to it that, you know, people really want to go and sit underneath that space. And I want this to be that same thing where, you know, when I have a guest come into town, I'm like, you know, you got to come and see this tree
column. It's so amazing. And I want to, you know, bring somebody to come see it. And that space underneath it has this really great program element that, you know, keeps you there and, you know, is protected from the elements. And so that's a lot. I just uh Emily, I just
gave you a lot right there, but I just was thinking about I'm I'm a little concerned about the the masonry sitting on top of the tree column for one thing, and I don't know how the other commissioners feel, but I just feel like it might be a better
pairing for the other two buildings if it were a lighter material. Emily, could you go back to the massing studies that were done? That helped me a lot understand what you
were doing. Um, are these the ones? Uh, I thought that there was a group that was more at um There you go. These. Yeah. So all of this made um a lot of
sense to me and and yet getting to the end it it kind of lost it for me. And I I've been trying to think what is that because you're making these shifts that are you know that are responsive to
where each side is. I think it's the rounding of the edges that feels to me like you've lost the delineation of that. The the rustication
feels like it detracts to me. It doesn't put it in like there's not a language about residential. There's not a language about commercial. It's so I'm really curious how the corners came to be
rounded and how the rustication became um so um expressed I guess. >> Well, we started as as you can see with all of the corners rectal linear and we
ultimately did end up with these two pieces. the one pil the pilgrim road volume sort of holding the the heart volume as David put it. Um, we we were experimenting early on and when we rounded the corners, we felt that the
the distinction that that made for the residential building was meaningful in that it was a contrast to the more geometric and faceted language of the commercial buildings. And we liked that
it had a softness to it, that it those that the curve that the excuse me that the rounded corners kind of resonated with the bend of the volume of the of the building massing itself and also with some of the moves that are happening in our minds at the scale of
the site. We we've we've we thought of the site a lot in the beginning about these stones in a river that get eroded by these uh desire lines and and and circulation through the site. That's how it came to be. Um
but it it sounds like you think there it might be fruitful to study to go back. Well, >> I think for me it has subtracted something that tied it to the other buildings.
>> And um you all were looking at both um continuity as well as um I'm not using the right word, but personality, right? allowing each building to have its own personality.
And for me that the rounding of the corners and I I'll agree with David. I think the masonry um and and particularly the color of the masonry for me is sets it too far apart
from the other buildings. Um, you know, I've been trying to think, okay, this is an unusual and yet a very contemporary condition, right? Where you have residential right next to uh more commercial buildings, right? And
um uses that you could never have 100 years ago. >> And I I just wonder how, you know, how much should they relate? How should they? Oh, I'm glad you brought this up because these corners are also rounded, but
they're much more subtle. Is that right? Do I Do I Am I reading that right? >> Correct. >> Yeah. And so doing the krenellations on the front just sort of felt like it
what is that game where you know what what's which one doesn't look like the others, >> right? >> Um so that's that's the way and and the color has a lot to do with it for me as well. >> Um and I get why you did the why you did
the brick. Um for sure. And then I'm going to go against what everyone has said about the about the tree column. Um, if we could go back to a view of that.
I don't know if it's because the masonry does feel very heavy to me, but for me, this uh the tree structure feels as if it gets in the way that it's it draws
attention to itself as a building. It is um trying to speak the same language as the other buildings in terms of columns coming down and hitting the the plaza, but for me it's more distracting than
anything. Um maybe it's the scale of it. Maybe it's the position of it. Does it need to be, you know, right in the middle, which is what I find so distracting about it? Um,
and I'm assuming based on the sketch that it is, you know, in plan right in the center. It's sort of equally spaced, but I may be wrong about that. Um, but I I think it could could benefit from
not being it's such an interesting idea, but does it have to be that forceful? Like could it could there be more subtlety about it just the way we were talking about the other columns, right?
Does it need to be that size structurally? Does it need to be that position? Do all of the columns have to be the same um circumference? I think that these are that um might
need some exercise with this. We were we were careful to explore that to a certain extent before we showed it publicly. And just for context, for what it's worth, you can see we did explore some some different shapes. the column,
the expression that we're showing now is >> it's very efficient structurally in that the the six branches or legs kind of tie into at very regular places and where it anchors into the ground is at a very efficient place and we did size it. It
might be a little conservative but we wanted to be realistic in the size that would be required. I mean it is holding up the entire building uh which is as you would imagine >> that >> Yeah. Well, I I just wanted to say that it's more efficient than an actual true canal lever, which would be which may be
a little prohibitive. So, that's the story behind why we have a column at all and why we have one column. We did study a >> a small little forest of columns, which obviously that would be much more limiting in terms of visibility and
paracity. So it it definitely has been a challenge and we um we did try to ultimately again something that was expressive but again you know kind of honest and
efficient as well. Um >> could you could Emily could you explain in plan because this was a is a big part of that corner right that public the public realm there and could you explain
sort of h I've always been a little confused about this so I understand that it is holding up the building that that uh swivels and then is that on an upper level from the
heart. In other words, are there steps that go down? >> Yes. This Yeah. Go ahead. Sorry. >> Why do you need that? I mean, I understand it's FF stuff, right? But why do like why why did you separate
those two levels? >> If I'm understanding your question correctly, the existing site grading is is a little bit higher here. I believe it's about 4 ft higher in this plan northwest versus plan southeast. And so
the R1 >> the plate is went through basically. >> Yeah, we have to grade up a little bit to the R1 building. Um and we can show you we can we have all of that we and we
can show you um at the next meeting with landscape architecture. Yeah, >> it does kind of create this stage, if you will, this slightly elevated front porch or stage as a backdrop to the heart and the and where this column lands is sort of in the interstitial
uh moment between that elevation and the main heart with a difference of a couple of feet. Maybe it might be three feet. >> Yeah. And I and I just wondered whether or not um and I saw this last time in the landscape whether or not the column
should end on the same level as the main heart or end on or sit I should say not end sit on the terrace that goes up from that because it's and and in some ways
you know for me it feels really jammed in that corner where it's it hits the site. Um, hang on. Let me see if I can unfortunately I don't have my mouse and so I'm >> So, so you're talking about here
it feels jammed in there. Is that >> Yeah. Yeah. Like like if it's going to be this elegant thing that comes down, then how it hits and what it hits I think is really important. And does it hit into
the landscape or does it hit on the building? I don't know what the answer is, but I think that that should be considered. >> Okay. Thank you Laura for the comments. Um yes, we were trying to balance that
column because I think the location is structurally needed um with how much space we want to spill out for the front part should be because we think with enough space people perching 3 ft higher than the part will have a elevated view
almost like you're sitting overlooking the whole landscape um with an ADA access between the front porch upper step and the bottom step. But we could explore circulations that potentially
eliminate that access um by putting the front porch column, the tree column, landing it directly onto the ground. >> I just think it's something that that should be looked at and should be looked at with the landscape architect. Yeah.
>> To see whether or not that will enable other things to happen in the landscape. And so that's >> Oh, can you go? >> That's enough said. >> Oh, we can look at the diagram we were going to show. I just wanted to show for
reference the grade change. This is the Yeah. Okay. And then >> can I uh Laura, I just want to make sure you know that >> I'm sorry, Russell, you're on mute. I just want to make sure you know that Ann who just spoke is with Sasaki who's
the landscape architect. So, uh I I you're this line of um kind of research is something that we have been working on too. So, I I you're going to get some some good response from us because you're spot on to something that we have
been working on and trying to make sure that we perfect. So, it's it's a it's a perfect question uh from my perspective. >> Yeah. And um and I'm I'm not trying to drag the conversation into landscape because I know what we we get a whole
juicy session later on. Um but I but I think it's it's relevant right between the building and the landscape. Anyway, Mimi, were you going to say something? >> Yeah. So, I I'm curious how this corner of the building plays compositionally
with the overhang >> because that that is alderings because it looks like it's a lower mass. That's that's right. Let me >> and it's not helping to support that overhang. And I just wonder
I wonder if this might be a good image just to describe that. So on the ground floor of the building, we have our full footprint and we're maximizing retail and and other accommodating other support spaces for the building. But starting immediately on level two, we do
have units. So the building is stepping back and becoming more of that L-shaped footprint that you see in the in the massing. Maybe this is a better view. And and the reason for that is to get that south as much southern exposure as
we can into this um into this inside corner. And really that is what is driving the mass. And uh we we are proposing this is small but we are proposing that it's occupiable that it's
an accessible terrace. So you would see some sort of activity in there and it would kind of visually connect but it's separate and distinct from the expression of the bend or the swivel as Laura called it and it would be really belong to
>> the ground floor. >> The ground floor. >> I mean I think that makes sense. Um and maybe we can look at a rendering. It just feels like it's just part of the background that doesn't get really, you know, focused on in some of the
renderings and compos. I understand why you need to have that bend and where the units start on the second floor. All of that sounds good. It just um I'm just trying to think should it just have its own
distinct reading all at the ground floor and then the tower starts because you have some glass like what's happening above like what's happening in these two levels like what's what's is that amenities or Yes.
So maybe that's kind of the question. Should that be as glossy as you have it to look like it's retail or should it be a little bit more solid? But >> in thinking about David's comments, I'm like, you know, David, that's that's pretty spot on. And maybe, you know, we
were starting with the theme of things look in structurally impossible. So, I was bringing the brick down to the columns, but maybe the the lightness of the material being a different material is also a good thing to explore.
I do think that the the lighter color masonry or metal or whatever really to me seems right given that it's at the terminus of the connector which is already, you know, tight space.
Uh, but the materiality might be something to to to think about. And I think David's right like this massing, you know, might not be able to visually support um that brickmasonry and even the the different color of
brick maybe adding to the visual weight at the spandrel. And I know that we um you have an energy code and there's a percentage of glass, but if even if the masonry were thinner and it was more glassy, it
feels like it would be a little bit lighter. I think I'm just responding to its kind of loadbearing kind of feel to the way the the brick is being depicted. So um >> almost like it was pre-cast like very just simple and you know
>> there >> could be a strategy but I I do I understand that comment. Yeah, we are stretching our window to wall ratio as it is as you know it >> it will be required to be passive house. So we we are >> um >> I like the parti a lot Emily to be
honest. I think your whole um massing strategy is so fun and I think the uh I I can completely understand the view strategy you've picked up and the efficiency of the plan. So I'm just I think my one thing is that you know the
materiality and I I really want that space underneath it to be this amazing space that I want to bring people to from you know when they come visit me. So >> that's the challenge for you is to to really bring that the spirit of that out.
>> Yeah. >> Thank you. It's a really great presentation. It was so clear. Commissioners, uh, would now be a good time for us to see if there's any public testimony before reconvening and talking next steps.
>> Yes. >> Okay. And I'm confirming if folks can see my screen. I did confirm that this is indeed 305 Brooklyn app. So, apologies for the typo before at 395. >> Can we see it? So,
>> uh, you do or do not see it. >> We do. We do see it. >> Okay. At this time, we'd like to invite any members of the public in attendance who may wish to contribute public testimony to raise your digital hand and I will call on you. If you are calling in by phone, dial star 9 to activate the
raise hand function and star six to mute unmute yourself. Please state your name and any relevant project affiliation information. And please keep comments to two minutes. Okay, Dolores,
uh you should be able to unmute yourself. Good evening. My name is Dolores Bookan. I live at 452 Park Drive, which is in a five minute walk of the of the location of this project. And uh I I recognize
that under the new uh zoning changes by the BRA, recommended by the BRA, I wouldn't have the opportunity to talk um about this project at this stage of the BCDC's review. I spoke against that as well as the increase in the thresholds
of the BCDC's um jurisdiction over projects but apparently the zoning commission didn't agree. Um I think this discussion while interesting on an architectural design level misses the forest for the trees or perhaps more colorfully the rearrang
it's about like rearranging the deck tears on the Titanic. This project and these buildings are massive. The impact on the skyline is is nothing but incredible. And what is the point? Other
than the bar's goal to have the a high spine, you know, through the city and through our neighborhood, there is no need for the amount of commercial space here while our downtown buildings in Boston are not fully tenanted and our
downtown businesses are suffering and the core of our city is in distress. In terms of lab space, the demand for it has significantly and precipitously dropped. So why after all the public comment in opposition to the shadow
impacts of this project on the emerald necklace is the proponent and the bar still pushing for 30 plus story buildings. I I asked why in the court in the in this presentation the proponent did not show you what these buildings
would look like from the perspective of the park which of course is one of the signature issues of this project. Um, I I want this BCDC to have a role here in protecting our public realm. And besides
the fact that I'm sick of massive rectangular buildings and this architectural discussion interesting, the point is that the scale of these projects is much too high and the height of the buildings is not necessary in order to accommodate the uses because
there is no commercial or market purposes. Thank you. >> Thank you, Dolores. Uh, one clarification there um with regards to the zoning change that was adopted um by the BPDA board and then
the zoning commission. Uh changing public testimony was not enshrined in the zoning. Uh that is a practice uh that we have that we're looking at um different ways to uh address. So, I just wanted to clarify that that was not in
the zoning. Uh, but uh the intent is to uh look at how we change public testimony during BCDC um meetings. Okay, I do see another hand. Marie, um you should be able to unmute yourself
now. Hi, thank you. Um, hi everyone. My name is Marie Fukuda. I'm a member of Fenway Civic Association. I'm co-chair of its part parks and open space committee and I've been following this project um, pretty closely. Many of my concerns echo
Dali Bugdanian's um but my question that I had been asking theth from the beginning had been how the July 11th request for supplemental information was informing the presentation here as well as the considerations of the BCDC. And
the reason I was curious about that was so many of the comments talked about um the desire to see study massing and articulation changes and I didn't know if any of these had been presented. Um I would urge that the criteria follow some
of the things in that supplemental request that criteria should be first the minimizing of shadow. um those requests had been echoed by both the parks commission and the office of historic preservation in their comments and I feel like it's something that this
committee could really take and um examine carefully and make sure that the design responds to it. um specific comments. I have continued concern for the building C2, which is the one that faces the riverway. And indeed, as Dolly
mentioned, there had been a request for renderings coming uh from the riverway and the park side. The comment letter that in the request for supplemental information called that building bulky, oversized, and overly sheer towards the
fence. and my experience as a park user does give me a lot of concern for the building uh facing that side. And then um yeah, I just think finally I'd like to make sure that this committee is
working fully within the article 80B process which we were all told would have lots of review. Um I I don't attend these often, so I'm not very familiar with how you your commission is looking at the article 80 comments of the
planning department, but I think everyone u me and the community for sure would be served to know that all of these departments are working together. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Marie. And I can address the question that came up regarding
uh the request for supple supplemental information uh which the city issued to the proponent on July 11th uh which included uh the request for um a lot of additional information including environmental studies uh as outlined in
article 80 uh which included shadow uh glare wind studies. Um the our understanding is that the proponent is working on that right now. Uh and that that information as it comes back to the city uh may inform and uh may affect
change uh to the design of the project and that would be presented uh in future subcommittee meetings to BCDC. Any additional public comments? Okay, seeing no more hands, I will stop sharing, ask the proponent to put back
up a drawing uh and ask the commissioners for uh thoughts on next steps as well as any other specific recommendations for the proponent as they continue to uh refine the project. Maybe I'll just chime in and say, you
know, I think our comments um were somewhat in sync. Um and so I would um go back and look at each building, you know, with the comments that we we
articulated. Um I think there are you know thoughts on material changes whether it's like C1 at the base and even thinking about R1 there's a corner condition that we talked about with C2 but I do think that
our our comments um in my sense gave clear enough direction where you could come back with the next iteration um and then we could you know review. I think we have one more meeting, Seth,
before the full commission. So, I do think that's going to be a robust agenda where we'll want to review this. We'll want to review landscape um as well. So, I think, you know, we don't need to see necessarily studies, and I appreciate the appendex with all
the studies this time, but I I really feel like we should be tightening up options and not really um looking at, you know, a lot of exploration at this point. Commissioners, any other thoughts you'd like to add to that?
Um, I would just like to make sure that next time around because it has so much effect on the landscape and the neighborhood that we also see any um of the studies that you talked about, Seth, relative to shadows or wind or any of
those um sort of comfort issues. >> Yes, that's definitely a good addition. >> Certainly. Okay, commissioners. Hearing no additional comments at this time and in lie of a formal vote, it's my understanding that the proposed project is recommended for additional review at
design review subcommittee. There are no provisos at this meeting because there's no vote occurring. And with that, I thank the uh proponent. I thank the public in attendance. I thank uh the commissioners for their time uh and expertise.
>> Thank you. >> You Thank you everybody. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Have a good night. Thank you all very much. >> Have a good night.