Good evening. We'd like to welcome you all to the September 9th, 2025 meeting of the Boston Civic Design Commission. The open meeting law requires that we notify the public that a recording of this meeting is being made by the commission staff and the
meeting is called to order. My name is Linda Eastley, co-chair of the Boston Civic Design Commission, and I wanted to say a big thank you to commissioners here tonight for sharing their professional guidance that helps to shape our city into a more beautiful,
sustainable, and equitable Boston for all of its citizens. Tonight, commissioners, we're reviewing two projects for recommendation and we'll also be reviewing a new project which is really in the form of an
institutional master plan amendment. And um we'll start with a roll call and then have Christina take us through that new project. So, commissioners, if you can say present as I call your name. Diana
Fernandez. I think Diana might have had to step out quickly. Jonathan Garland, present. Shauna Gilly Smith, present. David Hassin, present. Mick Young Kim, present.
Mimi Love, present. An Marie Lubenau, present. David Manfred, present. I don't know if Katherine Morris has uh joined us just yet. We'll come back for Katherine later.
David Nagahiro present. Laura Solano present. And myself, Linda Eastley, present. Um, the meeting minutes for August, the August 5th monthly meeting and the August 19th design subcommittees
are still being assembled, commissioners, so we will vote on those at a future meeting. So, we'll turn um it over to you, Christina, for a report from review committee introducing the Wentworth Institutional Master Plan
Amendment and the project at 550 Huntington. Thank you, Chair uh Eastley, and good evening, commissioners. Per the regulations of article 81 of the Boston Zoning Code, planning department staff have prepared the following recommendations for your consideration.
A proposed first amendment to the Wentworth Institute of Technology 2024 through 2034 institutional master plan seeking article 80D entitlement contemplates changes to the configuration and uses of three
buildings referred to in the approved IMP as the Pike Residence Hall, the Huntington Residence Hall, and the West Quad Academic Building, and an associated shared open space. An associated project seeking article 80B
entitlement contemplates development of the reconfigured Pike Residence Hall, referred to now as 550 Huntington Avenue, including 222,200 GFA of dormatory uses or approximately
964 student beds and associated open space. The proponent filed a joint IMPF and PNF on July 30th, 2025. Planning Department staff hosted a joint task force and public meeting on August 19th, 2025, and planning department staff
recommend the commission vote to review the proposed IMP amendment and proposed project. Thank you, Christina. Commissioners, is there a motion to review? So moved. And a second.
Second. All in favor, please say I. Jonathan Garland. Hi Shauna Gilly Smith. Hi David Hassin. Hi Mc Young Kim. Hi Mimi Love.
I Marie Lubenau I David Manf Freddy. Hi. Uh has Katherine joined us? Not just yet. David Nagahiro. I Laura Solano.
Hi. and myself, Linda Eastley. I we will review. The next uh item on our agenda is a planning update on the article 80 process from Chyros. Chyros, have you
joined us? Linda, Chyros is uh trying to log in, so to give him another minute or two to to hop on. That sounds great. I think we'll just pause uh for a quick second then Diana since the next order
of business will be um reviewing our first project. Christina, do we have any slides that Kyros will be using or is it just a Not this evening. We'll update. Okay, it should be a relatively quick update.
That sounds great. Hey, looks like Cyro's just joined and he should now be co-host. Great. I'm so sorry I didn't have and I apologize for delaying the start
of the meeting. We never get to have a pause at the beginning, Cairo. So, this is all good. Anyway, we just introduced you to give us an update for the kind of planning update for article 80. Yes. Well, first of all, thank you very much for allowing me to join your
meeting. I'm delighted to actually be able to uh be amongst friends and I also want to say an official uh hello and welcome to Jonathan and David who are our new commissioners. and I believe this is the first time I've had the
chance to sort of formally say hello to you. I know that you will both be great addition to this really important uh the you know com commission that we have. Um, I also want to not make sure that I thank all of you, many long-standing
members, for your longtime commitment to sort of elevating um, design and um, you know, the beauty of our public realm. And I want to make sure to assure you that uh that in
you know this effort that we've been embarking on in the planning department you know the course that the mayor mayor Woo set us on with Arthur to rethink about how we manage development and how our current processes sort of can be
improved is something that I know that you guys have been working on very hard and it's something that we're really totally committed itted to and and I know from time to time part of the the concern that I've heard not just from this commission but from other sort of
stakeholder groups is that some people think it's too fast. Some people think that we're not aggressive enough and this is sort of like trying to get it just right I think is the goal that we we have. Um I also want to talk a little
bit about sort of making sure that um uh I think many of you are aware that in the last board meeting um we adopted some formal changes to the zoning code that relate to the Boston Civic Design Commission. So one of them is raising
the threshold for mandatory review if that's the right word um from 100,000 to 200,000 square ft. But of course we are maintaining the the discretionary trigger for uh making sure that any project of
special significance gets um to be that we can bring in to the commission for its review. Um the other important uh formal change is that that the commission's recommendations and will now be presented to um the planning
department and to Diana um and to myself and and really sort of take um the the role that the commission had for many years started to do which was conducting the uh the design review and
development review. um in the commission and actually sort of like uh directing the staff to conduct the actual review um going forward to make your meeting and take make better use of your time.
Um I know that this that the goal of doing that is to first and foremost make sure that that the commission provides the highlevel guidance that you know that you know uh it relates to the role that the commission should have but and
and allow the staff to do their work under your guidance and hopefully that will also pro provide um a a better structure for the development and propo develop developers and prop project proponents to make sure that the article
80 process is more predictable, more um along timelines and also that it's more transparent. Um some of these additional changes that we're talking about will eventually be included in
zoning. Um, I think that right now I think there's general agreement and the feedback that I've gotten from Diana and others is that the commission actually would think about adopting some of these changes in in modifying its bylaws. And I know that
there's been a drafted bylaw in front of you. And the question um is about sort of how to uh implement some of these potential or drafted bylaws. Um I think
that we want to make sure that again the the the key issues of timeliness. Um I know that one of the controversial elements that have been uh put on the table is to have a kind of predictable
number of meetings for each of the projects as they come through depending on the level of complexity that they have. and and then also to make sure that um there is a way to make sure that if the proponents are not being
responsive that that you know the commission and the staff have an ability to make sure that you know additional meetings can be added. Um I want to also make sure that in order to implement these meeting um sort of suggested
limits that the staff make sure that the prop proponents are ready with the right kind of material so that you can actually look at and respond to what they're proposing. Um and also to make sure that they're responsive uh to you and to our staff. Um and then
there's also this question about how in this new framework when you're making recommendations to Diana and myself that we can clarify sort of a protocol and develop a system of you know how to couch those recommendations.
Um, you know, as I mentioned, I I know that I've heard um that there's some concern about whether these new set of draft uh bylaws um can work. So, I want to make sure that you know that the the way that we're thinking about it, I
think we've consulted with many of you, is to make sure that we uh do this thoughtfully um and do a trial test period of of 6 months to see how these bylaws can be
implemented. Um clearly on the one hand, we want to be more efficient. Uh we want to be more effective and and actually get the kinds of changes and improvements to the projects that you see by being more efficient but not
sacrificing at all um the high quality that has always been a result of the commission's participation uh in the process. And so, you know, this is one of those situations consultants will tell you, you can't get something fast and good at the same time
that's also cheap. And I hear on this case, I think sometimes some consultants say you can get two of them. And because you are all volunteers, we don't have to worry about the cheap part. We can make sure that we have the two high quality
and fast at the same time. But I know that this will require some change in culture and change in how we conduct our business. And I want you to know that um within this period of sort of pilot 6
months that I'm very much open-minded to your feedback. I want to make sure that we have if there's any questions related to some of what I've just talked about that should not be new to you. um to make sure that we we can talk a little bit about tonight uh but also make sure
that the communication lines to me is always open. Um I think that the another thing I I think I didn't mention is the question about sort of making um trimming the length of many of our commissions meeting by actually limiting
the amount of public um commentary. And I think that some of you have um raised a concern about sort of like eliminating public commentary from right now will is not the right way to do it. So we'll
we'll phase that in. Eventually I'd like to sort of have um the commission receive written feedback but to actually limit and have no public commentary for the commission meetings. Um but again
hopefully that we can actually still make sure that this commission can operate uh transparently open to the public while sort of making sure that issues of design are front and center
right and um I'm open as I said to uh more communication and feedback from you. So I know we can't do this without your partnership. So I hope that you are all as excited as I am about trying to
make sure that um we can um we can implement these changes and new culture successfully. So that's the the the the sort of the content that I have to share with you. Um happy to have some
discussion. I know uh Christina, you're probably going to you have already scheduled time, how much time we have for sort of back and forth, but I'd love to sort of make sure that if there's any pressing questions that I didn't address
or any particular issue that I didn't mention that, you know, the commission is sensitive to that I hear it here. Um but otherwise um and actually open to any other feedback that you have at this point. So thank you.
Thank you Kyros. And um since we've been talking about some of these uh changes and bylaws for um a series of months. I think that the idea Kyros is that originally we were going to kind of more formally adopt the bylaws either this
month or next month. And the idea now is that we would um almost beta test some of the suggestions for the next six months. So I think that's what's in front of us tonight, commissioners, this idea that we would be able to test some of these suggestions, see how they work,
and um be able to offer other insights as we're testing them. Commissioners, any questions for Chyros? [Music] I guess we're a quiet group tonight. Yeah.
I mean, I just go ahead. Go ahead, man. No, sorry. I I just think, Kyros, it is smart to beta test this rather than to try to put this into some kind of formal um process before we've tried it out
just because it's a big change. So, I really support that idea. Sean. Yeah. I I think that I mean I think what I'd like to do is uh to make sure that while we're testing this
that we are pushing to try to make sure that we can demonstrate that the testing is also yielding results. But if they're yielding the results that we didn't intend, that's also not good, right? and and I'm I recognize that,
you know, it's like let's be more direct and um and get direct earlier rather than to wait and and just, you know, get, you know, we what we're trying to do with the rest of the article 80 is to
make it bring up all of the potential issues earlier on in the process as soon as we see the proponent and then make sure that they can prepare the right kind of content, you know, in there as they come in front of you.
Yeah. Because I think there's a lot of words that were used in the last meeting that I think need to be defined further like when does a proponent become difficult and I think it can't be a a personal decision. There has to be some
criteria that proponents and the BCDC understand in order to make make it a fair process. um it can't be us as commissioners saying, "Oh, they're difficult. Let's make this longer." So, I think it it
just allays my any concerns I have by kind of treading carefully. So, I do appreciate it. Thank you. Sh, did you have a comment? Yeah. No, I I was actually just basically going to say the same thing. We had a we had a very we had a very
lengthy discussion at the last meeting and and I'm appreciative of um of this um of of your you listening to us and our discussion as well about the importance of getting this right, you
know, before we codify it. So, thank you. Yeah. So, as a footnote to both Mick Young and Shauna's comments, maybe Kyros, I'd suggest that you stop in and see us a couple times over the next six months because some of this might be questions as well as our observations
and and your observations that you're getting from from uh your staff. Yes, I will do that. And uh I I've been I'm relying on Diana, Christina, and Seth to uh to tell me which are the good
ones. And of course, it's like movies, right? You want to you want to catch the ones that have good reviews. And no, I'm kidding. meaning that you know I I want to maybe it's important for me to sit through one of them to see the full range and and really get a sense of the
you know whether when we have been championing this change in article 80 does the development community simply say that's great they're lowering their standard and therefore we don't have to be bring our agame and be serious as opposed to
this like look you better bring your agame because you know you're not that's the only kind of work that we want to see. Um, so I think that the the tone that we set is really important and I think that if you collectively as a
group, you know, like be the kind of like look, I mean, look, we'd love to get you, you know, real comments, but, you know, you you have to provide us with the right content and you have to be responsive and and sometime nonresponsiveness
is like, well, we're not going to explain to you why we haven't made a a a sort of change. I think that's really important so that you can see the context that is still responsive but it requires the willingness to explain
and Marie and then David and there's also uh something in our um in our chat as well about engaging the the public and one of the comments you made Kyros a few minutes ago um was about you know
how do we how do we hear the public and I think this is Lisa's comment too and I think that this um kind of approach of everything a little bit earlier works for public comments too. I think one of the frustrations that we've had as
commissioners is when we get public comment at the meeting where we are voting on a recommendation and we'd like to hear those public comments as early as possible so that we can assess them as part of our review um rather than at
the very end. So I'll just add that and then uh and Marie if you want to Sure. Thank you. I just want to add my thanks and appreciation for um responding to our our desire for some time to pilot this. I think the other um
comment I would add is would just ask you to consider or to help us understand you've talked about six months but um clearly we are all highly vested in this process. It would be really helpful, I think, to have to know when we can
expect to have time on our agenda or the process by which we can offer our reflections on what we've learned. Um, I know one of the challenges because there's been so much on the agenda for review is often um, uh, just sort of not
knowing when to anticipate these really important conversations, overarching conversations will happen. So I think just making sure that we all have that on the horizon together and understand in advance you know how best to participate in and providing our
thoughts on it. But again thank you for for your thoughtfulness so far with this. Thank you David. Well not to uh uh reiterate I want to offer my thanks as well. I think beta testing this is a really good idea. Um,
one of the things that um, and and I really appreciate the fact that the conversations we had really registered and and and we all want this process to be as successful as possible. One of the kind of technical things that I thought about after we hung up the phone the last time was that especially with the
threshold being raised and the nature of projects that have been coming through um often with uh very large site plans, multiple buildings on uh a single site. um is just thinking carefully uh having the
staff think carefully through um the the the time frame. For example, to assess four large buildings on a site plan in an hour. Um is that are done by four different architects.
um as opposed to any large project by a single architect um uh or a single landscape designer um is a very different it's a very different dynamic and so I want to um and and and that's where sometimes I feel like you know a a
proponent will run the clock essentially you know by the time everyone gets through their presentation etc etc there's never mind time for public comment there's very little time to really be able to digest these individual projects and we've seen more of those in the last few years. So I
want us to be um uh thoughtful about making sure that you know a really significant individual building um uh is that's given you know the an hour and
the appropriate uh response and a group of buildings or a development proposal um is somehow broken down or assessed in a way that um allows the same level of
conversation or the same level of commentary um because that's been something I've been concerned about if this is making sense to people. Look, I I think that the I I'm I've already registered that, you know, as we
have more PDA master plans, institutional master plans which are you know on a longer and different time frame that you know and the complexity of the proposal is at a higher level. I
think that clearly trying to figure out how many meetings is appropriate and try to through this period if we do have any complex um master plans coming in front of you. I I think that the Gillette certainly will would qualify as one. Let's see how
that goes. Um and so I'm open-minded about that. And I think that um I'm I don't have a I I mean I I think it would be good to to have you know what they would say is that if you don't have a deadline then nobody
sort of thinks about it. I think this notion is just to say, look, you know, your time if if we had to if you had to bill for your time, you would probably be much more careful about that. And and I think that just that your time is
really valuable. And I I think that um I want to make sure that we we can can really harness it and and and cherish it as opposed to just assuming that, you know, it's inexhaustible. Um, so and can I just say one thing about I I want to
make sure that I I said limit I I want to make sure that we're limiting live public testimony. So to the extent that participants public can provide commentary both in a written form and in
a chat form you know we can capture it so that what we what we want to do is not to extend the meetings um and try to make the meetings really primarily focused to the the input and feedback
that commissioners are providing. So, I think that now with all the sort of um transcribing and also with the chat function, there's ways to register public commentary as we go without sort of like having them sequential that they
could be, you know, um uh simultaneous but in two different forms that still could register and be um be contributing to the overall conversation. Thank you. And um I know we have Mimi
and Jonathan and also a reminder from Christina that she'd like to keep us on time here. So after Mimi and Jonathan, we'll why don't we close this section, but Kyros, thank you for offering to have your telephone line open or your
email open as as we continue to beta test this and and um fine-tune some of the ideas. Mimi. Yeah. And I'm going to keep this quick and again just to reiterate appreciate this time that we have to beta test because it's come up um in our
conversations. I want to make sure it doesn't get lost in translation. Chyros there is a genuine interest to regroup in person for some of these meetings. Um so that the dialogue is more natural than a function of raising hands and
being sequential. definitely drives out the the meetings. It makes them longer. And so, you know, to think about which meetings in person make more sense, whether it's subcommittee or or the monthly meeting. I do think that that should be part of the beta testing. And
I know the hybrid, you know, technology piece gets a little bit complex, but I do think that this commission has a genuine interest to do that. And so, I just want to make sure that that's, you know, conveyed. I second that very very strongly and I
think uh Diana will tell you that one of the things that I think the younger star think of me as a dinosaur because I actually want people to be in person um because I think that I think that the point that you make that it's very hard
in the to have a dialogue going because if you're on the mics just don't pick up the multiple voices that can overlap and to have that occur naturally where all of you can be or the majority of you can be in the room is something that I
strongly endorse and if this commission chooses to I would strongly endorse having a in-person component if it is a you know the monthly meeting um so that we can build that kind of commodery and
also the you know and the and and really sort of in some cases I think that the proponents actually do prefer that. But anyway, I'm definitely And have models. And have models. Yes. And have models. Whoa.
Go crazy. Models. Jonathan. That's great. Um, well, first, thanks again, Gyros, for this. And as everyone said, your willingness to work with us in the in the beta test and also uh for
your warm welcome to uh to David and I. I just wanted to quickly chime in. One of the things I'm interested in in learning more about is what the proponent reaction and and on our side the reaction to the number of meetings, you know, concept uh and how maybe the
focus becomes more about the issues, the actual design issues, the actual objectives because there are some teams that you can tell almost from the beginning they get it right. they structure their presentations in ways that they can take what are very large complex projects and break them down
into understandable bite-sized chunks and then others don't have that sense at times. So I think the more as you mentioned the tone the more we can think about structuring this especially coming out of the first intake meeting that the this is about the issues and so you know
milking the clock is not what we're emphasizing. we are we do want you to really get into the quality and the meat of the the subject matter uh and how that just gets balanced um across the board. Yeah, I appreciate that. And I think
that it, you know, in a way I I that the premise is that in between meetings to the commission that the staff is making sure that the the questions that the commission and the direction that um that the commission has set in the
initial meeting is carried through and actually responded to before they return. So, you know, we're not uh you know, it takes the commission out of the row of helping them provide free design services and advice to the point where
you are actually doing the primary work of saying, "Hey, this is responsive and it's positive. The direction is good." And in some cases, I'd love for it uh for all of us to be able to get to the point where, you know, when it leaves
the commission that that the the staff can actually take on the remaining work that still needs to be carried out. So, you know, think of yourselves as in a a review, right? that this is you you're you're doing the final review and the
student or the team gets to complete the project after the benefit of the the comments from the final review and then they're graded if that's the right word by our staff uh and then eventually before they go in in to the to the BPDA
board. So um yeah, quality control will be a key component of the work and again that's a sort of I want people and the proponent teams to really respect the commission sort of uh valuable time and not just sort of say
hey we can just outlast you because you know um right you know we we we don't want to be responsive right so um anyway really appreciate the feedback that you've shared with me and I will definitely
join for one of these meetings where I can really see how the conversation is going and so to get a flavor of whether you know what some of the experience is under this sort of new regime
or pilot I should say just to be clear our beta yes beta testing thank you so much Kyra thank you very much and um thank Thank you all. I I would love to um see you all in person as a group and I uh I
appreciate all of the support that you've shown um and willingness to work with our staff and to sort of like get to, you know, uh revise the bylaws and and actually eventually be able to um
complete the modernization of the article 80 development review procedure. So, thank you. Yeah, thank you so much for being thoughtful with all of the commissioner comments over the last few months. All right, I'm going to excuse myself. Thank you.
All right. All right. Good evening. All right. So, we will now turn to the three projects that we're reviewing tonight. And our first presentation is 990 American Legion Highway. It's back in front of the full commission. It's um
been in front of us. This is their third presentation to BCDC. We don't have any commissioners commissioners who are recused and we have three commissioners that are here tonight that also were at the subcommittee. So, commissioners Garland,
Lubenau, and Manf Freddy, we will invite you to offer comments first following the proponents presentation. And with that, um, if we can have the slides up, that would be great. Are folks from the proponent team uh
ready to begin presenting? I'm taking a quick scroll here. Like it looks like Philip Shen needs to be elevated. Oh yeah, good job. Get the video. And can you let us know if anybody else
should be elevated on your side? Uh Chris Christopher Sansson uh who is our architect. That's good. Okay, that's great. So, it's just uh Chris Sansson and I will be uh presenting. So, let me just share my
screen real quick. All right, great. So, can everybody see the pres presentation? I think it's pulling up right now. Okay, great. All right.
Okay. So, I see it shared, but let me know if you have any issues. All right. Okay. With that, um, excuse me. Could I could I request that you put it in full screen mode so it's a little bit bigger, please?
Full screen mode. How's that? Perfect. Thank you. Great. Sure thing, Laura. Okay. So, thank you guys for the introduction. Thank you, Christina. And thank you to all the commissioners for joining. Uh my name is Philip Shen. I'm with MQMF
High Park LLC which is an affiliate of Willowbridge Property Company and we are the proponent. I'm joined today by Chris Sansson with Hefner Architects and John Non right uh principal with the proponent. Now as a background um we have been working on this site for
approximately 5 years now and it uh it is located in High Park on the Roslandale border and is surrounded by a mixture of single family and multif family. uh retail and vacant land. Now, this site uh is about 14 acres in size
with a significant grade changes and challenging topography and it is currently vacant with a previously developed access road on site. Uh with the exception of the northeast corner adjacent to the shopping center here, there are significant natural setbacks on all edges. uh we have conducted
extensive studies on the existing conditions including geotech tree canopy and environmental studies as included in our FPIR and these analyses help inform the project design. Now the next slide is the program uh for those of you
unfamiliar we are proposing 204 units of workforce housing cross nine garden style buildings uh two to four stories each plus a resident amenity building and leasing center. The uh project aims to work with the existing topography and
as I said has a grade change of about 72 feet uh from the entrance on American Legion all the way to the southern edge of the site. Approximately 58% of the site is usable open space and we are planning a 226 parking spaces for
residents. That's 101 residence space under 125 tuck under garage plus an additional 23 parallel street parking spaces on the site driveway. Now the net parking ratio proposed for residents is about one space per unit. Uh to be
clear, we are not seeking any relief uh from zoning for this proposal. Now, as requested previously by the commissioners on August 19, we have a summary of the changes between 2022 and now, we were reviewed by you guys on August 2nd, 2022 and again August 19th,
2025. The major change between the two is that we removed residential units from the first floor to make it uh fully compliant with underlying zoning. Uh and uh because of that there were uh fewer tuck under garages in 2022 and in 2025
we uh uh replaced them with tuck under garages due to the removal of first floor units as you can see in the middle uh rows and the number of units has been reduced from 270 to 204. Um, our team at Hefner Architects made additional changes to the materials and design
according to the feedback we heard August 2020 August 19th 2025 uh from particular the commissioners Lumau and Garland and we will discuss those changes later uh in this presentation. Now for the next slide uh our architect
Chris Sansone will discuss the uh previously proposed site plan that the commission saw in 2022. So Chris, here you go. So, uh, as Phil mentioned, this is the site plan that we presented in August of 2022. Uh, so this was one of the
iteration, not the first, we went through several iterations to get to here. Um, but where we what we presented in 22, this uh was developed as a series of buildings laid out around this central roadway that uh bisects the site. Uh the roadway starts from
American Legion Highway, continues through and then connects to the easement that uh continues through the church parcel and ultimately connects back to Ruskin Road um for for egress and and um access to that back site. Uh
buildings were placed around the site to work with the existing topography. also minimize the the cut and fill, minimize excavation and the potential disruption to the neighbors. Geotechnical information and the existing tree survey as well as other information we received
through our uh you know due diligence period uh impacted the iterations of the site layout and influenced you know ultimately how we arrived at this layout and how we continue to develop uh the site plan. uh building topology was
selected that could be stepped in multiple directions based on the topography and the site constraints again with the emphasis on minimizing cut and fill minimizing impact to the existing uh site where possible. Uh the
grade from grade on this site rises from American Legion highway uh towards the back of the site. uh back of the site is you know anywhere from 50 to 70 feet above American Legion Highway. So there is you know substantial topography that
we are dealing with uh in this development. Um and then we developed these you know what we're saying human scaled point access blocks rather than single monolithic large corridor buildings to create
engaging active neighborhood within this community within this proposed site. Next please. Thank you. And um so I'll take this slide now. This is the newly proposed plan as of 2025.
Um, as of August and this month. Now, as previously discussed, the major changes are we removed the first floor units and remove some surface parking and replaced it with the tuck under garages due to the removal of the first floor units.
Um, now for the next couple of slides, we wanted to uh follow some of the directions from the uh commissioners at on August 19th uh of this year. uh including Commissioner Lubenau's comments uh about uh the existing
topography. So this is a slide with the existing topography and the buildings overlaid and um the uh topography is sloped and hilly on this side. On the northern Louis side in particular, there's a plateau and then uh we as Chris um uh discussed we um have small
east building step to allow for integration with the topography and reduce the amount of cut and fill and sight disturbance. Uh also there's a natural driveway and a route an existing driveway on the site and we are uh following that and creating a natural
driveway route that takes people from American Legion uh to the top of the project site. Um similarly as requested by um commissioners on August 19th we are showing an existing tree canopy here
which um um which uh is includes the existing trees and we will work to mitigate the on-site tree impacts to the greatest extent possible including the preservation of existing trees on site primarily occurring on uh the western
edge of the site the northern frontage along American Legion and also on the southeastern uh corner of the property which are all outside our proposed areas of disturbance from any grading activities. Um where construction allows
we will work to mitigate on-site tree impacts to the greatest extent possible. Um also per the previous BCDC meeting in August um we wanted to provide info requested about the site circulation. So
this shows the entryway on American Legion Highway. Uh there will be a median rate at this particular intersection on American Legion Highway on the site to facilitate turns to and from the highway southbound. Um we initially did not propose left turns out
but the city did request it. So we added this and we are proposing a traffic signal at this intersection and that has not changed between uh 2022 and now. um to pass it on to Chris Sandstone. He
will discuss um some of our design uh and materials responses to PE feedback from Commissioner Garland and Lubau. So on on the next few slides, what you'll see is uh side-by-side comparisons, you know, where we were previously versus what we are proposing
uh as of today. Uh so these are a series of perspectives looking at both the garages and the entries to one of the buildings. Um so we are focusing on just one building at this point. But the you know the intent is that we take um the
proposal obviously and apply to the other buildings throughout the site. Um you know after we we get some more feedback from um from the commissioners today. Um so sorry. So one of the projects that we
looked at that um uh Commissioner Garland had mentioned last time was the Washington Beach Apartments. Um so we we reviewed the project as as well as some of our other precedents that we had looked at previously. Um you know Washington Beach and kind of the the takeaways that we got from there. You
know less is more in a lot of ways. um simplified design, sort of a base material, um you know, bays and and accents, reduce the scale of the building where possible. Um so, as you can see on the left here, uh I mean, I I
think we where we were was busy. It was a lot of materials. Um so, where we went from previous to propose, we changed the color palette. We got away from the earth tones. Uh went more to, you know,
kind of grays, whites, blues, and and there are some red accents that you'll see on the overall elevations. Um uh crisp white trim to contrast the base color, uh where that occurs, but we've
also used the uh trim with the white panel to give sort of a more of a a larger bay. um you sort of on the projected bays on the the uh entries as well. Next slide please.
So again you can see sort of the crisp vernacular palette of colors the the uh on here you're seeing the grays, whites and the blues. Uh again, trim on the, you know, blues and grays where that occurs, but then also, you know, trim
with the white panel and windows to give it a self-contained bay, uh window at key elements, uh white garage doors at the the single car, uh residential garages. Next slide, please.
Time check to the proponent. You guys have one minute. Uh so on on this slide uh this highlights where the residential garages are on the site which uh is in response to some of the comments from the subcommittee meeting um a couple weeks
ago. Next slide please. So here you see the overall building elevations. Again, we focus on one specific building on this. Uh I mean, I think you can see on the left the
previous versions. Uh more materials, you know, definitely more of the earth tones. Um very busy. I think as as it was pointed out appropriately last time, uh you know, changed some of the roof design. We're more of a a hipped roof.
uh here on the proposed you know color palette which will take the color palette as we apply to other buildings around the site. You know we can you know sort of mix up the mix up the colors give some variation to the buildings around the site uh sort of individuality to the buildings uh sense
of home. Uh as we're going through this, uh all the buildings are single point access, single stair blocks, uh single car garages where we have access from the the streets and the driveways on the site, you know, residential balconies,
single hung windows. Um foundation step as you can start to see on on the building elevations. Foundation step uh where we can step the buildings to again work with topography, work the site. Uh, next please.
Uh, and then here we're going to get into some of the more uh detailed uh drawings and elevations. Stair tower on the left. Previous um you know I think what we've done is we we you know change the color palette, change the
design again, bring it more to uh residential scale, residential feel. Um next please. And then more of the material enlargements. Uh you know on the left again we outlined all the the different materials that we had before. I think
we're up to like 15 or 16 different materials in the previous versions. Here we're proposing you know we're going down it's all board and batlap siding. uh you know the the sort of make the colors blue, red, gray and white throughout the site whereas you know I
again it was busy before we simplified it looked at uh you know the precedents that we had mentioned and the the ones that commissioner Garland had mentioned simplified it you know really brought it down to more of a residential scale residential feel.
Bill next please. All right thank you. Um, thank you Chris. Appreciate it. And that's the uh end of our uh presentation there. So, appreciate it. Thank you Phil and Chris for the
presentation. A couple of notes for the commissioners. Um, the first is that there was an I A letter and illustration that was circulated to the commission and so um I think many of us have had a
chance to read that. And the second note is that we have kind of elapsed our review time for this project and so we will be needing to make a recommendation coming out of our comments today. And
with that I'll invite the commissioners that were at our subcommittee um and Marie Jonathan and David Manf Freddy to get us started on comments tonight. Okay. Um I'll start out. Well, thank you
um Philip and team for the presentation and Chris. Um a couple of couple of insights. Um although I I believe there's still more refinement to be made, you know, between the proponent and the city staff, which I certainly
encourage. Um, a couple of things I wanted to, um, just point out. Uh, generally if you go back a couple of slides, um, I do appreciate, you know, removing the earth tones, uh, throughout, I think that that's, if you
go back even, yeah, this is a good one. You know, removing the earth tones, I think, was a was a positive move. Adapting to primarily all punch windows, uh, namely, I think that thing is a stair tower that you were showing there. Uh, and so getting rid of the almost
what looks to be curtain wall, glass or or larger scale window wall and just keeping it to this more simple New England architecture I think is the goal. Um, in terms of more simplification, um, you know, looking back at examples like Washington Beach
and others, um, I still feel like there's a lot of break between colors and materials. You mentioned board and batten and and at times clapboard sighting. Uh so for example the one the the top right image if you just looked
at that entire uh uh higher building I know that you have a split split situation because of the grading but that entire thing you know could be a color and could be one material palette not you know three colors with three material pallets for example and the one
to the uh lower you know on the other side of it could be a contrasting or complimentary again one color, one material palette. I think that will go a long way to even making the entire development feel less large uh because of the there's just seems to be still a
lot of start and stop of materials of roof line complexity. So I think even another layer of simplification would be uh very very much encouraged from from my standpoint. Uh and if you go forward one image or maybe back um or actually
go back two please you had shown Uh is it one more back? Maybe uh this is a good one. Uh actually go back. Is there do you have one more after this? Okay. Yeah, this one. So I think having some sort of a
durable masonry at the base of the building. Maybe not the entire story, but at least from window sill down to grade. It sort of looks like there could be siding that's going down in into the earth. And I know that you're going to have some degree of foundation wall and
probably some masonry there. So, just maybe keep that in mind. It would be good to see how that looks. Um, and then also judging dimensionally, I'm not sure that the roof line is is thick enough. So, there could be some refinements there. Um, beyond those, I think
continuing to, um, you know, really try to get this into a simplified New England architecture pallet, looking at projects like Mstead Green, Washington Beach, really taking cues at um, not ex not their exact execution, but just how they took uh, you know, a subdivision
like this and and disseminated the parts. Uh my last comment is it looks like you have multiple window frame colors and I trust that you'll simplify that and probably go with one or the other. Thank you so much Jonathan
and Marie or David. I'll I'll jump in. Um, you know, first of all, want to thank the the development team's efforts to add much neededed housing to the city uh and to
tackle a challenging site. Um I guess my I I still have remaining questions about the degree to which when I think about our role in evaluating the projects in response to this how they how they meet
and respond to the surrounding context there sort of three key questions I have you know sort of how this connects and responds to the adjoining neighborhood and I appreciate the clarification as to the vehicular
connections, but um I'm still a little unclear as to the degree to which you are responding to some of the concerns raised by the neighborhood for you know uh what has been kind of maintaining some important pathways through the
site. Also the issue of topography. I think what would be really, you know, what we often see when we review projects like these that are tackling some pretty challenging topography are site sections. And when I look at what you've proposed, I I and it was quite
frankly very hard um at the scale I'm always looking at to not only read the topographical lines, but to understand how the architecture meets the landscape. So I would encourage you to um develop that and share that with the
planning staff. Uh and then also this question about the building, you know, how do you respond in an architectural way and I always, you know, when I teach students, um you know, talk with them about the importance of precedence. Jonathan offered a precedent. I think
actually being able to see how you are interpreting that it's uh hard given what um what you've shown us to evaluate that. Um and I will just add I I um with all due respect to Jonathan, I actually
prefer the earth tones just because I feel like we see a lot of gray and white multifamily housing in the city. So I would encourage you to um you know in response to his suggestion to simplify maybe perhaps think about how you all um
how you incorporate some diversity maybe in texture that those little details make a difference. Um, I'm really saddened to see the introduction of the tuck under garages. That just seems to be um
uh really in contrast to what we typically seek um to offer. But appreciate what you were trying to accomplish in terms of moving this project through the uh development process. Um and I do I think I really
appreciate Jonathan's suggestion of thinking about a masonry base. So those are my my comments for now. Thank you. And Marie, I just wanted to piggyback on a couple of your comments as other commissioners are thinking. Um
so this is an unusual project because we had three years in between uh seeing it. And so uh we've had a lot of time to think about it and and you know you as a proponent team have as well. I think what really strikes me are a couple of
things. Um, one is that this feels like a very suburban solution um for an urban site. And I wish that what we were seeing today was um a site, as Anarie
discussed, that had some um kind of nods to the context to the neighborhood that was able to consolidate some of your footprints, your housing footprints, and allow this site to have um some
consolidated and really meaningful open space. and all of the circulation that would come with that. I think when we saw this project first a handful of years ago, there was the introduction of at least one pedestrian path that helped to kind
of knit one side of the development to existing neighborhoods. And I thought that that was a um a really great addition. I am not seeing that now. And I think there was also uh attention to some more affordable housing in the
previous scheme. And so um while I'm sure that there are improvements that can be made through the the planning staff, you know, I think this is not just not typically what we would uh want to see in the city um both for open
space and also for the consolidated um housing that allows that to happen. We have a lot of hands up now. Um, so we'll I know we're running a little bit behind today, commissioners, and so we'll try to take these comments fairly quickly and then get public comment and then um
create a recommendation. David Mad Freddy, thank you. Um, am I not muted? Okay. Um, I'm going to follow your thoughts a little bit. Um, Linda, I think that I appreciate the proponents response to comments you heard at the last
subcommittee, but they are they are responses um that I think are to architecture um materiality um the color and I think um what I heard
Linda say and what I feel is that the real issues here are planning issues. Um there are issues about um how to use this quite unusual site in a way that builds community um that makes connections to surrounding uses that
reflects the topography. There's a lot of perspectives like this where uh if you just showed me these two drawings, I'd say, "Oh, that looks like a flat site." Um there's a lot of topography here. Uh, but when I look at
the site plan and I look at these drawings, I don't feel that I don't feel that topography in your in your architectural or planning response. And I agree with um with Linda that the ratio of open space, the the numbers are
impressive and meaning the amount of open space, but it's seldom uh and in very small scale comes together in creating meaningful places. Um the the idea of a scheme where the housing can be clustered in a way that
opens up meaningful um um open space that makes pedestrian connections primary as opposed to the car. And I completely agree with with um uh Ann
Marie. Uh this is a great comparison here. The putting the all the cars on the ground floor and the garage doors and um just highlights the the primacy of the car over the pedestrian. Um, I
think that um I think my my concerns go well beyond color and material and roof forms uh as to whether um there's a site plan here that really really fits the
site and fits what um what the city um city wants to build housing. We want to support housing um but uh in ways that that support community. Thank you, David. Mimi. Yeah, David, I really want to, you know,
second all of your comments. If we go to a site plan, I don't think that the comments really are small comments in terms of the architecture either. I really do think it's a planning um uh an overall planning approach that feels
inappropriate for this site. and if the proponent can go to a site plan. I was particularly struck and this is the the first time I'm seeing this project in this setting and possibly the last time we're seeing this project as well. And so I apologize if these comments seem,
you know, uh different from what you're hearing from previous uh commissioners. I was really struck by something you said. You said that the tree survey influenced the sighting of the buildings and I just don't see how that tree
survey that you shared with us I think would lead you into a different direction in terms of massing and planning and thinking about open space if that tree survey you know was really part of the thought process. This feels
like a a planning study that was done outside of context, outside of thinking of topography. And I'm just really struck by the amount of building and uh asphalt that we're seeing on a site that right now is
completely a dense um covered area of of with a complete tree canopy. And perhaps, you know, there is a different approach to the architecture to preserve some of that the natural qualities of the area um rather than this approach.
And I apologize that that's very different than the feedback that we've been hearing, but I really feel strongly that this approach is not appropriate for the site and what the city of Boston is is, you know, the agenda of the for the city of Boston. Those are my
comments. Thank you, Mimi. Laura, thank you. Um, this is the uh first time that I am seeing um this project and um I should mention that I'm one of the
three landscape architects that's on the on the committee. Um and I would like to second comments about the site plan. Um, when I look at the amount of topography on here, I'm um
baffled as to how this plan can actually work with the topography and the amount of walls and grading etc. that's going to be uh required to do this if if it can be done frankly. Um, so in in
looking back at I I went back and I looked at the previous presentation, but I also looked at what Crane Ledge Woods is this site and it's an extraordinary site. You have have picked a site that
is unlike any other or few in the in the city of Boston. It has all of the things that contribute to making neighborhood, to making exciting architecture, to creating a space that community can
really gather around. And there's amazing trees, there are outcroppings, there are paths, and the topography is by far the most noticeable aspect of this project. and I cannot see how the
buildings work with the topography. So instead of having the site plan overlaid on existing topography, what really needs to be seen and evaluated is how the proposed topography is going to work
with both the buildings, the roads. There is a lot of flat space and even though you step buildings, each of those buildings is still a very large footprint of flat space and I don't see
how you've um managed to do that um again without walls or other extraordinary measures. So the the overlay of the existing trees on this plan needs to be taken to the next step
to the to the step that actually shows that this is a possible plan that it truly can be um constructed because um what I fear is that as you move forward
you're going to discover some hard truths and it's going to um both uh be costly and timely and um difficult to fit these buildings in. There's
the the relationship between buildings and open space and parking. I I just can't see how it's going to to work. Um so let's see. Um,
so I I don't know whether or not you I I would be uh curious to know if you have uh prepared a um proposed grading plan that's overlaid with the trees. Um I don't know if you have something maybe
in an appendix that could be shown. Um but I haven't seen it. Chris or Phil, do you have anything um that addresses Laura's question? Uh this is John Non, one of the
principles, and I'll let Chris jump in. Um uh yes, it's a very challenging site. There's a tremendous amount of topography, and we've successfully built on sites like this, um in a number of different communities in the Northeast and throughout the country. in fact tens
of thousands of units. So, we're extremely experienced in in developing and taking a site. Um, unfortunately, anyone looking at this is is not that very helpful in terms of where the plantings are going to go. But um for those who have been to the site uh it is
basically a former quarry um a previously defunct 80s condominium project and there's very little to any old growth trees on the site. In fact, Bartlett went out there and did probably
the largest tree survey in the city of Boston um at the request of the the planning staff. So we were hyper sensitive to the topography uh to grading issues to access issues. Uh unfortunately the connectivity to this
site is American Legion Highway. The rest of the boundaries on the the parcel on the south for example is I so steep you can't get to the quote single family neighborhood below.
So it is a challenging site but um you know we we we expect when we're done and in 15 20 30 years from now there will be a substantial tree growth there and uh landscaping. Um so we we did take uh
great time on analyzing the topography, the cuts and fills and balancing the site. So we limited um tearing up the site. If you recall, this site was a proposed Walmart site uh during the Monino administration. So, it's gone
through a bunch of reiterations. Um I know there's probably some frustration about the planning of the site. This is the zoning for the site. So, I don't think we should be given a burden uh of that. That's the city's underlying
zoning as a right. We've been confronted with the dilemma here because if we do a nonaz of right project, we won't get permits. We'll get litigated for variances. So what we've done is unfortunately designed a project that's as of right. Uh I can assure you
the concept rendering you're seeing are only concepts. cliff the architecture of the buildings and the details of the buildings will be much more enhanced with working with the design staff um at the BPDA as the project moves along and
we're committed to designing a quality project here. This is again we've been doing this for almost 60 years. So I can assure everybody the things we do and we things we've done in the city today are well executed, well planned and well thought out. And we do have a very deep
professional design bench um who've been working with us on this project. The crux is the neighborhood wants this to remain open space which is their right I suppose and unfortunately we've been put in a corner to design an pure aerite
project and this is what it looks like. Thank you for the Thank you for the comment, Shauna, and then David, and then we'll see if there's any public comment as well. And I I will um try I'll be quite brief. I think I think most I share many of the
I'm a landscape architect as well. Um also with a with an urban design background. Um and my concerns are very similar to to that of my colleagues. it with such an exceptional site, it doesn't feel like the site plan has been
derived from the site. If you see if you see developments in ski resorts, you see they're they're either going with the slope or against the slope. And this is kind of a a a where it feels a very flat um planning strategy. And since we
haven't seen either sections or a physical model or a digital model of the whole site, it it does make me concerned about the the level of true comprehension and thought that's been being put into that. Um, I'm I'm also I
I I understand what you just said that there that it was an old quarry and may not have a lot of existing trees, but if as you said the trees helped derive the site plan, we should see them. I'm I'm also concerned that or it does raise a flag. I'm not saying it's it's a
concern, but the there was no presentation by the landscape architect, which also which also causes me concern because it's not about landscaping around a building. this is a site with, you know, w with um it's a very significant large site and a significant
impact with within the city. So, so I also do share the many of the same concerns my colleagues had. Thank you, Shauna and Laura. Thanks for your comments before her. Uh David Hassen, thank you. I'm I'm um I'm I will also
keep my comments brief. Um I think that I haven't seen this project in many years. I am familiar um with the issues uh surrounding uh the process that brought us to this point. Um uh I have to say that uh I
don't have a sense of the project based on the materials that have been presented. Um as Shauna mentioned there are no sections or maybe Laura I can't remember. um no sections, uh no model, no fly through, uh no nothing that uh
would give me a clear sense of what it's like to experience this site, to move through the topography, to move through this community. Um, and um, and maybe you're about to show me that, but um,
um, I I can't help but think that when I uh, see the clear cutting of the trees, noting its history as a a Walmart uh, site pad and um, the amount of grading change that's going to occur here, that
this is essentially a clear-cut site, cut and filled to accommodate a suburban style. um residential development. Um and I think it's a shame um I think it's a shame that that we're
at this point um where um you as the developer feel that that that this is your only way forward. Um and I think that uh the buildings themselves will will have a lot of uh there will be a
lot of retaining walls. There will be a lot of knee walls. There will be a lot of uh jagged siding on concrete foundations. There's going to be a lot of garage doors. Um it's uh and as um uh someone mentioned, uh we don't really
have a landscape plan to show how any of that's going to be mitigated. So, I'm very uncomfortable with the proposal um within the city of Boston. I could understand how this um might happen elsewhere in the region.
Um and then on an architectural level um which is um seems like a a detail relative to the issues that I have been brought up and that I'm bringing up. Um, I I don't think that
there's a if the desire is to move into a more traditional vernacular style of New England architecture, I don't think there's a clear understanding of that vernacular style. And I would ask uh the
proponent and staff um to um perhaps uh direct the architect um to other examples um of uh vernacular New England style architecture um that have um uh
clearer connection back to uh historic forms and proportions um than um uh if that's the desire for the project than I'm seeing currently. I think that the original design um was leaning into a uh
uh contemporary spirit. Um the shift to the vernacular style uh feels like it's in an uncomfortable in between place. And so I think that on the level of the site plan, it feels like a complete missed opportunity. Um, and I'm really
concerned about its execution. Um, again, I don't really fully understand the project, but right now I'm I'm I'm very I'm I'm disappointed and concerned. I'll leave it there. David, thanks for your comments. Um, and
all the commissioners, I think there are a lot of helpful ideas here. Christina. Um I think it's time to see if there's any public comment and then we can come back as commissioners and see if we can uh create a motion.
At this time, we'd like to invite any members of the public in attendance who may wish to contribute public comment to raise your digital hand and I'll call on you. If you're calling in by phone, press star 9 on your dial pad 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 2 minutes. I am seeing Crane Ledge Woods. Are you able to uh unmute yourself and identify yourself by name? Yeah. Hi. Thanks. Good evening
everybody. Frank O'Brien with Crrame Ledgewoods Coalition. Just very briefly, thank you to the BCDC for your thoughtful design comments. Couple of quick things. One, the the applicant was really compelled to do an as of right project by the way that the BPDA
approached the the design. We did not support the the two sort of high-rise approaches for the some of the site and design issues that the commission raised. And secondly, just to confirm, you all may know this already, but this project is under an order from the land
court that the developer and Jubilee owner successfully prosecuted that there's a deadline basically to go to the board next week. So, we thank you for your thoughtful consideration of the concerns that you've all raised. Thank you, Mr. O'Brien.
Um, Rick Yoder, we see you next. We've promoted you to co-host. Are you able to unmute yourself? Yes, thank you. Um, there is I want to thank you all again also for your time. I know what it's like volunteering time after a while it seems like as a full-time job. Um, as a
community uh uh leader, I know what you're talking about. Um this project is is not supported by hardly anyone in the city. Not the mayor's office, not the surrounding
neighborhoods. Uh there's the even the pro um the people who want to support a building of houses. There's no organized group that supports this project. Um it's it's going to be detrimental to
this neighborhood. that the huge loss of this 14 acres as a a beautiful wooded potential uh public space for the neighborhood that needs one uh as a workingclass blue collar uh neighborhood that will not be able to hardly anyone
here will be able to afford the uh rents that are proposed in this project. It has a gentrification aspect to that. Um, and just a small detail I wanted to point out is it
the the question of old growth trees. There aren't any, almost aren't any at all in eastern Massachusetts to red herring. There is uh second growth, third growth, I don't know. They're beautiful trees. It doesn't matter. It's not a historical monument. It's trees. It's a forest and
um it needs to be saved. and they and the it's it's a design that just destroys the whole thing. There's no answer to how are they going to really deal with the potential flooding problems or the effect of having to blast on the people that will live below
the uh ledge that's uh right there along 1300 ft of the western side of this uh in terms of loosening boulders. It can come roaring down on them. There's no answer to these questions. Uh I I think this uh this this plan
should be turned down and we have a alternative uh proposal that the city the mayor's office buy the land and keep it uh reimburse the owner and the developer for a fair market way so they
don't get burned on this. uh there there is uh other alternatives to this proposal and I I hope uh we can all see that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Yoder.
Kelsey, um Laser or Lasser, apologies. Are you able to unmute yourself? Yes. Yeah, it's Laser. Um thank you. Um I am in a butter of the property at 60 Colin Street. It's one of the ones kind
of closest to the site right at the bottom of the Crane Ledge Hill. I am also a registered architect practicing in Boston. And I just wanted to uh kind of thank and and echo the commission's comments on the inappropriateness of the
development. I also wanted to add that I my initial reaction to the the kind of aesthetic cosmetic changes that were made. um I feel like were worse than the original proposal. I also in the latest
um submission to the BPDA was very disappointed to see a lot of the um kind of initial concessions and community give backs of the um public access path and the preservation of more of the trees that were kind of clawed back and
redacted from their latest proposal. So, um, overall I I do oppose the development. Um, and I thank the commission for their comments. Thank you, Miss Laser. Commissioners, at this time, I see no
additional hands raised. Um, so I'll turn it back to you uh for next steps. Thank you, Christina, and to the public who um have made comments today. We are at the point where we need to make a recommendation. And David Manfred, I see
your hand up. Thank you, Linda. I would like to make a motion. Um and my only preface will be I think that the project um simply doesn't achieve the city's clearly stated goals for uh development of residential
um housing in the city of Boston. And my motion is that the com that uh BCDC uh cannot recommend approval to the BPDA board. Thank you, David. Do we have a second? Second.
I'll second that. Thank you. Um commissioners, if you are in favor, please say I. Jonathan Garland, I. Shauna Gilly Smith. David Hassin.
Hi. MC Young Kim. Mc Young, are you still with us? Am I? Thank you. Can you hear me? Mimi Love. Hi. And Marie Luvenau. Hi, David Manf Freddy.
Hi, Katherine Morris. Hi, David Nagahiro. Hi, Laura Solano. I and myself, Linda Eastley. I I think for the proponent, you've got a
lot of uh good feedback and you'll be working with the um planning department on next steps. Thank you all. Our next project is the Austin Street
lots. I am recused from this one and so Mimi, I will hand it over to you. Thank you, Linda. And we'll assume you'll just be in the background with your camera off and uh rejoin us um for the next
project. So, we have up for um a final uh review and recommendation um the Austin Street lots. This is a two-part presentation, I believe, a master plan and then followed
by phase one to review one of the buildings, the last design commission. It's been to six meetings. Um, this may be the sixth one. Um, apologies if I get that number wrong, but the last meeting
was on July 15th. And um those in attendance of the last subcommittee meeting were Jonathan Garland, uh Shauna Gillis Smith, and Mick Young Kim. So we'd love to hear from you first. And with that, I think we'll pass it on to
the proponent. Great. Thank you everyone. I'm going to share screen and we have a lot to cover. We will go as quickly as we can. So, we are Thank you for the ongoing input on our project. First off, it's
much appreciated. We're going to review the master plan for both parcels in article ADC and then dive into phase one, building B for the large project review. We've met regularly and frequently with the city and stakeholders to establish
the design. A few highlights include suggestions to strengthen the pedestrian connection across the sites, develop rigorous but flexible design guidelines, and to further clarify the design, the landscape design approach.
New Rutherford Avenue is like a string of open green spaces with the planned improved boulevard as a connecting necklace. Our design reinforces this urban pattern. Neighborhood linkage will be improved, including pedestrian and bike
connections to the tea across Austin Street and to Point South. The overall project will create just over 700 units of housing in four buildings with minimal surface or below grade parking. Grandfloor uses include a 2,000 square
ft community art gallery at the curve of Austin Street with artists live cell units spilling out onto the arts and culture lawn. Buildings C and D will orient around open fields with 14,000 square feet of early childhood education
and a 46,000 square ft community recreation space. The proposed buildings range in scale between 7 and 13 stories. Sorry, building B includes uh 123 residential units.
The design mitigates across a range of notable constraints, not least is the design around the existing industrial truck use on middle road and service roads. Mark, thanks Kendra. Um, our work with the
BCDC began in July of 2024 presentation which shows four 90 by90 fields on the south parcel as requested in the RFP for this uh project. Uh in this version we showed a complete streets alternative to middle road process going forth from the state centered on negotiating the
industrial needs of a butters on service road. By the presentation in June of 2025, this had been resolved to have the existing street alignment and curbs of service and middle roads remain as is within the existing curb lines as a way of accommodating the vehicular access and needs of users in the four
buildings. Driveways and short-term parking areas were configured, reconfigured, and one of the four 90 by90 fields became an open lawn on the north parcel. And the next one for the mid 2025 mid June 2025
subcommittee, the landscape was further developed and a pedestrian ribbon path shown here in yellow was introduced to both parcels to provide linkage within the parcels. Following commissioners Manf Freddy and Love's suggestions, a clear identity was developed for both parcels. Following Commissioner Kim and
Gilly Smith's suggestions, we reshaped the areas between the playing fields and the buildings. Having a new community input on the need for flexibly sized spaces rather than the full field dimensions. The recreation field uh shape was altered, offering a wide range
of practice field sizes and better landscape spaces between the fields and the buildings. In the next one, with those changes, we have further refined the proposed master plan, clarifying materials, planting, and placemaking, further adjustments to the multi-purpose field on the south parcel,
and the development of the pedestrian ribbon pathway and plaza. Next, coming from this BCDC process, character and programming intent was clarified with arts and culture becoming the identity of the north parcel and play and sports for the south parcel. Next,
this diagram shows the resolution of the pedestrian ribbon pathway and its primary plazas on both parcels, as well as the extent of large sculptural light beacons unifying both parcels as a singer single master plan project along New Rutherford Avenue. Next,
through the BCDC process in concert with the planning department, we have also refined the pedestrian and bike routes across the site. A 12-t wide shared use path now lines the west, south, and east sides of the north parcel shown here in orange. These combine into a single
route along New Rutherford Avenue to make connections to the Miller River Literal Way and points uh in Charles Town shown in orange. Next, in the topic diagram, the vehicular circulation remains as is from the June
2025 presentation with passenger vehicles both entering and exiting only from New Ratherford Avenue with access to the building a garage being the only exception. The bottom diagram shows a servicing of all buildings through a mix of driveway and street use as shown, avoiding the
proximity of the industrial driveway to the west and the large topographic change on the south side of the southern parcel which made uh which made the connection to the Miller's River Bikeway problematic. Next here, some of the details of the larger
guidelines are shown in summary with lighting types illustrated in the top diagram and ground plane materials in the bottom diagram in response to subcommittee requests for clarification of these elements. Next, the full site plan of the north parcel
shows the interdependence of the ground floor program. Artists live work cell spaces and gallery of building A flowing out onto the common space of the terraces overlooking the lawn while the lobbies of both buildings connect to plaza spaces and those are shown in purple.
Next, this diagram shows the proposed landscape programming and activities of the north parcel with ephemeral activities such as food trucks, art events, passive lawn games that animate the arts and culture intent of this northern parcel. Next, the pulse site plan of a south
parcel similarly shows the interdependence of landscape and ground flooror architectural program with the parcel bookends of education and recreation of building C and building D with its community rec center. social
spaces spill from both both and mix with residents uh moving in and out of the building from the bu from the building lobbies which are shown in purple on this plan as well onto the plaza spaces that are framed by and connected with a pedestrian ribbon path. This path makes connections across the parcel to the
neighborhood and the Miller's River uh bikeway. Next, uh this is an illustration of the flexibility of the fields as shown in the different sizes as requested by the community. So here you can see how these can be set up for different uses for different age groups um and different
soccer or ball practices. Next, this diagram shows the landscape activation of a south parcel with both athletic and recreational use, spectator spaces, passive and active activities. Key to the field space is the proposed
Miwoki forest that forms a dense edge between the fields and the new Rutherford Avenue, giving both spatial and acoustic separation from the street. Next, these series of landscape precedents convey the character of landscape spaces we are proposing in the project with a
focus on creating landscape spaces for interaction and play. Next, and similarly, these images show how we're thinking about planting design for the plazas, edge spaces, and the Miwoki forest along New Rutherford Avenue. Kendra will now walk you through the master planning ideas for the buildings
on site. Thanks, Mark. The buildings will draw from the greater urban character of the city, responding at two scales. First, drawing from the edge buildings at Charles Town's perimeter, the larger backdrop buildings will convey a planer
and regular architectural language. Second, the smaller building scale and texture will be inspired by neighborhood fabric, including robust material choices, textures, and applications. These forms will convey a transitional
character with contemporary materials in historic interpretations. Building heights comply with plan Charles Town. The building's rear massing expresses a simple form and screens the highway from view. Lower volumes along New Rutherford relate to
the neighborhood scale at six and seven stories. The buildings on both sites face inward and frame the open space as both middle and service roads continue to carry the industrial vehicles. So the buildings are inward-f facing. They
relate to one another like a family. Each has a role to play and they complement each other and support in different ways. The component parts respond to their programmatic use and their location on the site. All buildings express a strong
base, grouped windows, and attic story. The backdrop buildings consist of regular patterned facades designed for the larger scale of the highway. These incorporate the edge expression with a regular grid of windows in a planer facade. The northern site expresses the
arts within using large format windows and doors to engage and celebrate artists work. The southern site will convey sports and play utilizing textures and patterns to announce the uses inside. The northern and southernmost buildings A and D frame the
site as bookends, while the two interior buildings B and C will bracket Middle Road with textured materiality, detail, and layering. Last time we meted in subcommittee,
Commissioner Garland raised a question about our Chameford corners. So, we've defined rules for them. Directly along the new Rutherford Street edge, the building's shameferred corners provide visibility to turning vehicles and on site they invite pedestrians in. At
Austin Street, the icon iconic corner element at building A will address both the northern intersection as well as the lawn and plaza. Primary building entrances will be marked by a canopy to engage meaningful open space and are
cited away and protected from Rutherford Avenue. The master plan design guidelines establish standards for the scale massing and materiality across all phases of this project, ensuring consistency while allowing design
flexibility. as an attached exhibit to the master plan. These will be included as part of the project's approval. So, I'll take a take a breath here, but I think we've been asked to move right
into um building B article 80. Thanks, Mimi. Okay, so moving into the first phase, building B. Building B's primary visibility, entrance, and access will be from New Rutherford Avenue, reinforcing the series of open spaces along this
future boulevard. The first phase delivers 123 affordable family rental apartments in a 126,000 ft building along with landscaped open space and public realm improvements. Trinity is in the midst of discussions
with the city for overall site conditions during the interim condition. This is the fully built out site. Ground level uses and the protected courtyard entry or protected courtyard
entry orient to the lawn and the courtyard with the lobby fronting onto New Rutherford with direct bike lounge access from the shared youth shared use path at the corner. Back of house spaces are positioned along the service road to
support moveins, move outs, and loading. Mark. So, the site plan um for building B uh shows how the new landscape emerges from building B. An intimately scaled and heavily vegetated courtyard garden immediately adjacent to the building's lobby connects to the more public open
lawn and its adjacent plaza, both of which form the major space of the north parcel. The driveway connects to New Rutherford Avenue and provides short-term parking spaces that serve the landscape spaces and as pickup and drop off spaces for the building. The shared path is shown here in three perspective
vignettes that illustrate the character of these circulation spaces as well as how the building meets the landscape along these edges which Kendra will describe further in a moment. Next, like the playing fields on the south parcel, the open lawn is separated from the shared path in New Rutherford Avenue
here by both low shrub plantings and trees planted along the street edge and the lawn's perimeter. This perspective and the top precedent image illustrate the idea of the large lit beacons that further enrich the new Rutherford Avenue streetscape. Next,
looking from the building's courtyard, this view shows the shade loving vegetation that encloses the courtyard space, furnished for social interaction, and provides a view out to the larger community spaces across the driveway. Next, proposed catinary lighting brings a sort
of festive atmosphere to the plaza that is directly connected to the open lawn and accommodates hard surface uh and infrastructure for event programming like food trucks or small-cale farmer or artist markets. Kendra will now explain how the human scaled spaces of the landscape are framed by like-minded
strategies for the building. Thanks, Mark. The building massing reinforces the basic diagram. The taller portion of the building is a backdrop for the new community with a planer regular window grid. The bracket
character of the lower stepped volume inords includes masonry depth and patterns to enliven the scale for the pedestrian. The lobby and bike lounge express the creative use celebrated through vibrant
materials and patterns on the interior. The building's base is grounded with contemporary masonry texture, while a crisp attic story and metal panel tops off the design. This transitional approach draws from Charles Town's architectural character interpreted with
a modern sensibility. This 52 podium structure offers a cost-effective yet durable solution. Masonry is carried up to the fifth floor, the maximum 30 ft over the podium allowed by this construction type to convey a sense of permanence. Above the
attic story metal panel contrasts with contrasts with the masonry with contemporary detailing. The front bracket volume includes a warm masonry material while the backdrop building consists of a cooler and lighter tone. Together, these elements offer early
residents a secure and sturdy home, even as the broader site continues to develop. Commissioner Gilly Smith asked us to consider the proposed building's proximity to the highway. As an equivalent example, the ink block buildings are located a similar distance
from I93. Proposed measures include the passive house envelope, acoustic windows, fewer windows along this facade, resilient clips in the exterior wall system, and the central ERV with MV 13 filters bringing conditioned fresh
air to each living room and bedroom. The taught facade along the highway is kept planer and minimally windowed with masonry patterns deployed as larger compositional elements to establish an order and rhythm.
The existing view looking south from Austin Street. We'll walk around the building now. The proposed perspective is from the same corner, presenting a welcoming courtyard defined by warm textured m facade that establishes a sense of place. The full build includes
six-story volumes along New Rutherford. As the first building to be built, the structure stands alone will stand alone for some time. It needs to feel complete and resilient anchored within the evolving site.
The design is intentionally understated. A simple transitional envelope that doesn't demand attention, but sets a thoughtful tone for future phases where there's room for a more contemporary voice. The building's main entry, marked by a
prominent canopy, opens directly into the courtyard. The colorful lobby connects and activates this shared outdoor space. Views around the building highlight the masonry base with depth and articulation. Soldier coursing at heads
and sills reinforce regular window spacing. The corner entry anchors the bike lounge featuring large ground flooror windows that showcase its use. Responding to the site's large radius curbs and pedestrian connections, the
faceted corners articulate their uh relationship to the site. The building massing is further articulated by an inset that creates a visual break between the forms, further differentiated by masonry tones. At the intersection
with Middle Road, the bike lounge forms an active entry marked by a playful canopy inviting and celebrating bike use. Turning the corner, material depth and the interior grade change creates a separation between the public space and
the private residential spaces. Inside tall, deep framed windows with spandrels elongate the window openings. Views around the buildings. Views around the building showcase robust materials with sturdy base and paired vertical
windows seated on the caststone base. This regular rhythm of windows in the planer facade reflects the typical edge building character found throughout the Charles Town perimeter. We propose a contemporary masonry wrap with punched windows as a buffer to the
highway. Windows are sized for passive house construction, but they also limit views of track traffic on the highway. At a bicyclist's scale, material depth and layered plantings create an engaging pathway and
create a buffer to the trucks and vehicles on the roadways. Building B defines and protects this intimate courtyard while framing the lawn and plaza with warm materials, creating a flexible, meaningful year-round space for residents and the
community to gather and connect. Thank you. Thank you, Kendra and um Mark. Commissioners comments as Shauna, thanks for getting us going. Yeah. Um and I have was not at every
subcommittee, but I was at quite a few of the subcommittees. I I want to start out by thanking um Kendra and Mark and the team for being so responsive to many of our comments working working through the project. Um Shauna, can I just ask do you want Kendra to have an image up as you talk?
Is there particular one? Maybe let's start let's start with the master one of the master plan images. Sure. Um I I think one of the from from an open space perspective, I think one of the big um sort of unlocking keys was
the flexibility with respect to the to the ball fields. the early the early versions of the project were really dominated by the ball fields and having that um both I think probably from your clients the client perspective but also working with with the city of Cambridge
it really has made a significant difference to be able to sculpt the for the open space not to be subservient completely to the to the ball fields but but also allow for flexibility with with play. Um, I also also appreciate the
clarification of the pedestrian and vehicular um, uh, realms by the introduction of this ribbon. I think last last time we met there was a little bit of blurring about what was what was pedestrian and what was vehicular and so so I
appreciate that very much. I I um, thank you for really clarifying the um, the the particulate um, sort of barriers, Kendra. Um and and Mark also for the thickening of the landscape at the edges. You know, the the Miaak Miaaki
forest is an is an interesting way to to thicken um to thicken the edges. So So I really I really appreciate that. Uh I'm just going to go through quickly because this has already been quite a long night. So I'm not going to go through everything, but but I do I do appreciate the major moves within within the open
space. I myself from an architectural perspective am still kind of uncomfortable with the hexagonal gallery but I understand that is not a component of you know of the overall master plan. I think where I see this as a signature
element um anchoring the corner in the future I think is an important thing to to look at when that building comes back to subcommittee but but not part of the the the big picture from from my perspective um to or not part of the big picture
today in terms of the the overall master plan. Um, can we flip now to the building? And and again, I I actually am very happy with with the way that the project has been has been developed over over the meetings. I know you've gone
through um through quite a few meetings. Um I still think and and I appreciate the the detail that you've put into the open space um Mark with with your team. I still think it would be nice for there
to be more of a signal that this is the arts and culture. Um the this is the arts and culture element. I think the the entry to the lobby and to the colorful bike room, I think the the canopy feels low and it feels compressed. I think, you know, I'll let
the the architects or others comment on on the building. Um, but I think something that was more expressive and engaging. I think the furniture choices are nice, Mark, but I but that would be the thing that I would would push
further. Even the scale of the pylons in this view seems not to be giving that real indicator that this is kind of a major art and culture element. Um, can you but I but I appreciate some of the things I appreciate were, you
know, the discussion we had about the um I don't know if it's Middle Street, the the units along Middle Street, their um how exposed they would be to the street. I think that the idea of bringing the I won't be able to describe this correctly, but bringing the window
apparently down, but also making the the base solid I think was of the window was was quite solid. um sorry it was quite effective and again I think that we're going forward thinking about how that edge really is
defined in the you know in the interim condition because as we we described it could be the interim could be could be there for quite a long time but but in general I I'm very appreciative of the progress you've made. Thanks Shauna Mick Young.
Yeah, I um I do want to mention from the last subcommittee meeting that we where we saw this project and we saw both the master plan and the individual project there's been a a big evolution. So I
just want to kind of talk about how like what the expectations of BCDC should be and there are eye level perspectives. There's um clearly articulated rendered plans of the landscape and so just want
to say how much I appreciate seeing this and um how important it is for us as a commission to see see this information. Um I I I think overall like uh in the master plan I think that it's come a
long way. So I think there's a clear sense of what that original mark that idea of the ribbon moving through the landscape and I I can really see it and I really appreciate it. So I'm not going to reiterate everything that Shauna said. I think that the the piece that we
both brought up last time was to see more information about the project and I think you you have successfully shown that. Um I'm going to pull out just for a minute and just talk about something that may be part of a master plan that you've already done that I didn't see in
subcommittees somewhere along the way. But when I see the renderings, it sort of uh brings up something that I'd like for you to consider as you're moving forward. I don't know what the next steps are here. Um is that is there a kind of um guiding principle of the
vegetative um planting design of the project. So I love the Miaaki forest. I love that idea. And I I was ho hoping that that could then be tied into some larger um
set of guidelines not only for this project but the master plan as a whole for biodiversity, sustainability, daylighting, storm water, all of these things which I see in some like this one I see a little bit of it and others I
see and I know this is a reflection of probably the software that you use to do the rendering. ings, but I just would ask as as you all move forward on this really impactful project, it takes over
a large um zone of this part of Boston and it's a real opportunity to show a new way of of um uh creating a a landscape, an urban landscape that um
that talks about these really important things that address important issues of climate change and flooding and all these things. So would love um as you're moving forward I mean I think this project is great so um as you're going
into DD and CD to really think about these things but um I really appreciate all of the transformation and as Shauna said the responsiveness of the team. Thanks Mc Young Jonathan Carlin. Oh, thanks, Mimi. And and I second
everything Mick Young and and Shauna pointed out. I also appreciate the responsiveness. It was very clear uh to see especially the landscape progress from the last time being somewhat more conceptual to a little bit more refined.
And then on the building, some of the major changes even you can see in this image is the top left from the June 3rd where it seemed like there was a chamfered uh volume or a chamfered edge on the the bigger volume that faces uh
service road. And to see that now as a as a flat orthogonal bar, I think it really actually creates a hierarchy of of special specialty with the chamfer on the lower volume because it really does play into that more pedestrian scale, I think it will help open up view
corridors into this open space. And as Shauna mentioned, the more it can speak and be a little bit bolder on the arts and culture vibe, thinking about um you know, nights and weekends and activity and what's going to bring people to the area. Um, but to me at least the the
clarity in the diagram is helpful to understand the purpose and the use of the chamfers that they're not at every edge, but they're at special points when you're trying to create a strong pedestrian invitation um into the site. I I also appreciate the use of the
texture and the materiality of the brick using some of your appreciating some of your examples um that I saw in the references. And I would encourage you even as you go through your VE process, you know, um th this kind of affordable housing work can be tough budget-wise,
but I really do encourage you to try to hold on to the texture because I think it is in this case key to the idea of a highquality um you know set of set of architecture and um and I appreciate that. Um, and then lastly, I just think
again the dichotomy of the the larger I think you showed it on slide 26 of your master plan package, but just the the the juxiposition with the um backdrop versus the bracket and the backdrop front, you know, facing service road and
then this more kind of sculptural set of buildings on New Rutherford uh makes a lot of sense. Uh lastly, I I definitely second Shauna's points about not the building in front of us, building A being hexagonal. Um I do like the idea
of an iconic something that can really catch uh catch your eye there or hold the corner, but perhaps maybe not um hexagonal and I know that's something for uh further reviews, but thanks again for all the progress I'm seeing.
Thanks, Jonathan. David Hassin. Um, Jonathan's comments were really terrific. So, I'm going to um basically uh just very quickly say that I saw this
project very early on and I want to compliment Kendra and Mark on uh obviously a very long successful collaborative process um both amongst yourselves and with the BCDC on a really
terrific um foundational diagram um for the project. um that I think will really help um the uh future buildings um uh achieve the vision that you've described
which is as Jonathan was saying you know the this backdrop building with these um uh foreground buildings which is the place where really if um on the VE subject I think it's really important that those frontist piece buildings those lower buildings that are on the on
the street front really hold on to their character as much as possible. Um, and I I think it was just a very thorough, thoughtful presentation and I'm very excited to see how this project is has evolved and um I look forward to seeing
it built as soon as possible. Thanks, David. David Manfred. Um, I I completely share my um my colleagues enthusiasm. I I just want to mention a couple things. One, I agree
with Jonathan. I on the evolution uh of of your um elevations and and your restraint in um the use of materials to a very tight pallet and the and in fact
the pallet of material corresponding to the massing of the building. Uh I think that's a that's a paradigm that that um uh sets a really good example. I only have one question and maybe I completely
missed this and I apologize if I do. I did and it starts with this and maybe if you can go to a site plan the the connection between um Rutherford and I don't know what the name of service road that's why I don't know the
name of the street. um um feels very driveway like to me. Uh and with the perpendicular parking, I'm almost I don't mean to be critical. I'm really
I'm really getting to a question. Um it feels almost like coming through a parking lot. I feel quite suburban about it. And I wonder if if you didn't take an attitude of something more and the circle too. uh something more like com
the the the criteria of complete streets. Um that this is this is Charles Town. You're in the city. Um Rutherford Avenue is a very uh unfriendly way, but someday it
will be fixed. I hope um we'll all see that. and um and and so I I I resist the the kind of suburban quality of that. But here's the and then here's the the question though. Is it true that that
there is no parking beyond what I see on the surface? Is that a true statement? That's correct. There's no parking for this building except for what you see and what what is on um those spaces are short-term parking. I believe we talked
about a 2-hour limit. So, we're we're doubling down on bike use and train use. Well, so second question, are you thinking about that strategy consistently across all phases?
That's a fair question. We're We're currently Abby, do you want to answer that? Sure. So, um, across the site, we have allowed for the programming of of parking in the other buildings, underground parking, um, as well as
surface parking on the southern portion of the site. Um, when we responded to the RFP, it was um, the BPDA asked for um, no more than a point4 parking ratio. So that is what we are
adhering to. Uh we're under that. Um the question about service road is a great question as well as middle road. Uh we initially when we first came to see you I think in 2024 uh proposed you know
more of a complete streets with street parking and um um you know really design. uh when we got comments from abutterss from the state um the MBTA we we recognized that we really need to
maintain uh service road as it it is in order to allow for the uses that are there right now to be um operational MBTA Boston sand and gravel. So really we turned ourselves um on the lots of a
more insular design um had the building space in and we are leaving service road to the um the entities that really need it as access. So and and I I I I did remember that part of your last um subcommittee. So
you are you are being very intentional about making this not a complete street so that you don't attract um any any other traffic besides people who are live here or visiting here and if they're visiting there better be vis
better be a short visit. Yep. Very intentional all with um safety in mind and uh to respect the the uses of our butters. Understand? Thank you. So, Abby, did I understand that in the
short term the southern parcel across Middle Road will be parking to service this building or did I just interpret that? Did I just make that up? Um, the southern parcel where buildings C and D are uh those are remaining um
will be remaining parking. As far as I understand, they'll be they will maintain be owned still by uh the city. So, okay. So, they're not going to be dedicated parking spaces for building B? Not my understanding. No. Okay.
Um, Laura Solano, thank you. Um, thank you for the presentation. Um, I think I have never seen this or if I have, my memory fails me. Um, I just have two uh very uh quick
comments and then a question. I'll ask the question first. So, um, Kendra, you mentioned that, uh, building B and the associated landscape would be there for as alone for quite a while. What what is
that timeline? And the reason I'm asking has to do with what is going to be the edge of the open lawn for the future cultural center. what is going to hold
that edge of the site in the time that this building um is alone. So I can also respond to that Laura. Um we are still u discussing the interim
conditions with the BPD BPD. Um our hope as um is that it is not there for long. We want to be uh that to be the next building out of the ground. if not on that than building D or both at the same
time. Our goal is to build housing um and to build it quickly um because of the the serious need in the city. So um we are discussing potential interim conditions, but again our intent is is
for it not to be an uh a parking lot uh for a long time. And Commissioner Solano, if I can address that from the city's point of view. As Abby mentioned, uh we are in discussions. It's it's a couple layers including how uh this large site is
going to be ground leased, how that's going to be staged. uh what happens in the first phase then to the you know footprint of building A uh you know the city is very interested in trying to get uh or getting early activation in some
manner of that site and and not having it used uh as a parking lot. Uh but as Abby mentioned, we're we're in ongoing conversations of exactly what scope uh that might be uh and to the extent that we can achieve that as well as making sure that the connections uh are made
along uh Rutherford A uh from building B up to uh Austin Street and beyond as well as uh pedestrian access from the uh parking in the south lots uh to the north uh left on page uh where a lot of folks park to go to the Bunker Hill
Community college. Got it. Thank you for that. Um the other uh comment is in the open lawn. Um I can't remember which commission which commissioner mentioned this, but I would claim that open lawn and make it very
apparent um by form or um meaning topography and plants that it is a really special place. And I I understand we're really looking at diagrams, but as you start to develop the project, I would I would
love to see that reflective of the the culture um of arts. And then last, I just would like to underline David's um uh comment about the um drop off. Um,
again, I think as you go forward, the the location of that, um, roundabout drop off, you know, is uncomfortably close to building B. And I'll just throw that out there. Again, I know that we're
at a diagrammatic place, but I'm wondering whether or not a different form in there might be better. So, I'll leave it at that. I I saw Christina's um high sign to us to carry on, but thank you for the presentation.
Thanks, Laura. David Nagiro, I'll keep this brief. I know the music started. So, um I'm maybe pairing to the what Jonathan was mentioning about the richness of the materiality of the brick. Um and if you can go to maybe
image 18. I I too share the sentiments of the um commissioners with Mark and uh Kendra and the progress having gone through the past presentations and the recordings. I think there's a lot that has changed in a very positive way.
One of the things that uh thinking about uh the materiality and the hierarchy of the materials, the richness of uh the front building versus the background buildings, I appreciate that kind of layering and the hierarchy of thought. I would just challenge uh Kendra on the
tops of the metal panel to think about maybe a little bit more detail and texture. you have that richness of the masonry and the patterning that you're using that really uh will create a great pedestrian scale and uh hierarchy of
material use. But when you're repeating the window pattern on the upper floor with a metal panel that has looks like, you know, 4x8 sheets of metal panel, I think that that module can be broken down in a way
that really, you know, celebrates the top of the building. it doesn't get simpler. It gets a little bit more um detailed and maybe textured. So my challenge to you, Kendra, is to think about your precedent image that you showed, not only the historic ones that
really celebrate the tops, but the ones that uh even in your contemporary version, if you go back a little bit, it has the scale of the uh the panel joints broken down more. So you really feel um a kind of a crafted top which I think
will really help that. Um yeah, if you keep going to your precedent there it is. Don't go back. I like back four slides or or I don't know. I think it's back in the um
sorry I think it's in the master plan phase. Yeah, we just went past. But you know what I'm saying is that because the the masonry and the metal panel are co-planer, I think there should be more of a distinction at the top of the building because it runs the
risk of reading very flat. And yeah, this is the one. That was it. It was that one. You just add it up the one before. Yeah, that's what Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The uh the panel joints are broken down a little bit more and there's a richness. Absolutely.
Although the two are co-planer, you really appreciate that the top has some richness to it. And I think uh the top could benefit from that kind of thinking whether it's a you know a depth of corrugation or or more panel joints. But just having that richness, I think will
really allow the top to have a a better presence against the skyline. Thank you, so David. I'm I'm happy to follow up with that because I I agree um with that comment. I also want to make the comment
for the chamfer. I think you finally convinced us that the chamfer is probably, you know, can work at the brackets. I'm going to say uh so if we could just go to a b to one of those perspectives of where we see the chamfer
that's along the bracket. The one thing that I would love for you all to think about when you're thinking about this chamfer is the brick detail where you know there if there could be some detail
or some exploration of of how that angle comes together. Is it a zipper brick detail? is it, you know, I'm I don't want to pretend to design it for you, but it right now it just looks like a shape brick that's not really taking advantage of that geometry. So, I even
think little subtle details like that in addition to what David has raised, I think could really uh amplify the building and and you know, maintaining all of that texture of the corbling is really um exciting to to see. Just just stepping back because we are talking
about the chamfers. Um, I do think that your diagram of the book ends, the bracket and the back building are perfect, you know, guidelines for future development. And in in in regard to
that, if you could go to like slide 11 where you have a site plan, I do think that building B and C talk to each other in terms of brackets, but buildings A and D are not aligned as bookends in my
opinion. And it comes down to that octagon shape of the gallery. Yeah. Stop. And so if if there's a way to think about in your future how the book ends relate more to each other, I think it
would really enhance this diagram. That's just um a thought, but I but we I was at most of the meetings except for the last one and it's really been great to see the evolution of the site plan. It's so tight and you all packed in a
lot and program it nicely and it's going to be, you know, great to see it develop. So, I appreciate you working with us and I think we frustrated you at sometimes continuing to ask for guidelines, but I do think these guidelines are, you know, in excellent
shape for um whether this project, you know, takes 20 years to develop or or five. I think the the the guidelines are really sound. So, I I appreciate all of that attention to to it. Um, I am a little bit worried about the interim site condition uh primarily because it
could be that we only have building B for a while. And so, that's a thought. Do we want to see the interim condition once it's finally um not to slow anything down in the process, but just to see where the interim building lands
would be something that's at least on my mind. And with that, I see that the Frank in particular has been very patient. Um, but I think Christina, we're ready to go to public comments. Is Christina there?
Yes, I am here. Uh, commissioners, at this time, we'd like to invite any members of the public who wish to contribute public comments to raise your digital hand. And I'll call on you. If you're calling in by phone, press star 9 on your dial pad 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. Frank Murray, are you able to unmute yourself? Yes. Um, good evening everybody.
My name is Frank Murray. I'm an I a on the project uh Charles Town resident. Thank you to the BD uh BCDC and to the Trinity team for uh hosting the meeting tonight. Um great great presentation. Uh we've had some IG meetings uh over the
last couple of months and obviously all the way back to 2024 and and I I I appreciate the project. Obviously the need for housing is very important. Um and and and I fully support it. Uh my only um concern or one of a few concerns is is the building materials on the
project. uh they seem very strong on the outside but on the inside uh the promulgation of noise uh I think this is a very unique site where um it's sandwiched between Rutherford which is a highly traveled
truck path and and and always uh cars you know course behind it is the expressway and then the ever 247 concrete plant that is going on uh I just think there's a lot of promulgating noise and I think the future residents
of this building deserve an airtight noise proof um soundproof kind of uh building um as well as air quality. Um I just think that there's so much going on around it that that needs to seriously be taken into consideration when uh this
goes in for final review. So again, thank you to the team, thank you to the BCDC, and uh I hope I hope those concerns will be uh addressed. Thank you. Mr. Murray, uh Dan Jaffy, are you able to unmute yourself?
There I am. Uh just two small points. Uh along the roof line there with the sheet metal. How about treating it more like a manered roof with uh like uh tiles uh slate tiles uh or some pattern similar to that uh would be maybe more
effective. Uh so it's not big panels or smaller distinct elements. Uh and the second one is uh for for uh for David uh um we are looking at trying to open up a transit solution within the Charlestown
community which we're hoping to also integrate into this site so that there will be a path into the community with a micro bus solution uh to get to the shopping centers and other uh resources within the community. So there will be
more transit uh capabilities than just walking and biking. That's it. Thank you, Dan. So commissioners, do we have a motion
to approve? Yeah, and I'll second. All right. Awesome. Thank you. With that, I'll call on everyone. Jonathan Garland. Hi Shauna Gillis Smith. Hi David Hassin.
Hi Mc Young Kim. Hi and Marie Lubenau. Hi David Manf Freddy. Hi Katherine Morris. Hi David Nagahiro. I Laura Salano
I. And myself Mimi Love. I Congratulations. We're excited to see this move forward and um look forward to having it go quickly for you.
Thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you. Right. All right, commissioners. Next up on our agenda is a new project, a new but familiar project. This is uh Wentworth
Institutional uh you know IMP. We reviewed that in 2004 to the tail end of 2004. They're coming back with an amendment and they're also um focused on one building at 550 Huntington Avenue.
So, this is a two-part presentation again where we're going to have I think them run through both presentations and we'll have time to give feedback after. But I think with that we're going to probably pass it to planning first.
Great. for comments. Yeah, thanks Ted. Thank you. Uh nice to see everyone. I'm Ted Schwarzber, uh assistant deputy de director for planning review. I'll be sharing two staff slides on the planning and zoning context. The proponent will present their slides and then my
colleague Seth Riseman will present additional staff slides. Uh I want to remind folks uh it was uh recently reviewed by you in the 2024 actually uh not not 2004 um review process uh for
their IMP update and uh that was the approved IMP on the left. Uh in that one there were uh seven buildings spread across the campus uh three academic buildings, three residential buildings and a front door. Uh and then uh we're
back a year and change later for the proposed amendment on the left. And I want to call everyone's attention to that outline in pink. Uh that's the area of campus that we'll focus in on uh this evening. Uh we won't be uh looking at any changes to the rest of the campus.
And uh as you can see in the difference in that area between the image on the left and the right that the uh academic building uh in blue has now been flipped uh to face Huntington Avenue and two uh dorm buildings are now uh interior to
the campus. So uh if we could go to the next slide, we'll zoom in on that area uh on the west side of campus. Uh so uh here I'll differentiate what's in zoning and what is a guideline. Uh and I'll start along the bottom of the page. This
is along the pike. Uh so in the memo that went to the the BPDA board with the IMP last year, uh it noted that the pedestrian pike must be at least 12 feet wide, clear to sky, uh with a typical width of 20 ft. Uh and that was in the
board memo. Uh and then um related to um the pike uh there are three items that are actually in the zoning uh that got adopted into the uh zoning overlay as uh guidelines for design. Uh so in that overlay it says that development along
the pike edges should frame and activate the pike. Uh and then uh something that was uh approved in the current IMP uh number three um is that the residential forum can serve both as a refuge for
students while also creating a new nexus and point of connection for the campus. Uh that was something that was adopted into zoning. Uh as I noted on the previous slide, uh the uses will be flipped. Uh so this is an area that uh the commissioners will want to focus on and uh understand how the changes affect
the open space around these buildings. Uh and then moving up to the top of the page um the current overlay notes that buildings lining Huntington Avenue should activate uh student and public and community oriented uses along that
edge. Uh and then finally um two considerations uh from uh a design guidelines plan the 215 avenue of the arts plan. This is not adopted zoning. This is uh design guidelines. Uh but those guidelines recommend that um uh
shadows be limited to two hours max per day on the opposite side of Huntington Avenue as noted by number five. Uh and then jumping back down to the bottom of the page back to the pike. Uh this uh non-zoning guideline also recommends active uses along the pike. Uh so this
image is showing you uh what's been approved and what's on the books right now. And uh after me will be the proponents uh to present their vision for an IMP amendment. Thank you. Thanks Tad. And thanks correcting the year. I know that we just reviewed it
last year but uh I appreciate that. And we have L uh Linda Eastley joining us again. So thanks Linda for jumping back on and the proponent. Do we have them?
Yes, I will share the screen. Okay. Can everybody see the screen? Yes. Okay, great. Uh Sean, you gonna kick us off? Yeah, sure. I'll just note one thing that we have that bar at the top that shadow I think it's
probably our faces up there or something. That's the uh let's see this is there we go better. Yes. Excellent. So I'll I'll frame this off. Um my again
introducing myself. My name is Sean Finn. I am the interim vice president of uh campus operations here at Wentworth Institute. Thank you for uh everyone's time. Um to frame why we are here back again. Wentworth IMP was approved in
October of 2024. It included as as noted in in the introduction uh six future proposed projects including three dorms. Uh the Pike Residence Hall being one of them, the new Baker Hall and Huntington A dorm. Um I think it's probably important to note because it has come up
in some other questions. Essentially every administrative person that was involved in the 2024 IMP is no longer with uh Wentworth Institute. So that helps explain why we we are one of the reasons why we are here. Uh building uh what part of this process the building
dorms only greatly enhance student sense of belonging and community but it leads to greater retention rates as we know. It obviously keeps our students out of local housing markets. Um the uh the initial submission uh IMP was uh uh
vetted and uh approved and now we're at that first dorm project. Um after extensive extensive internal discussions with the new leadership um and bringing on an external uh real estate advisory form looking at economic analysis
changes in micro and macroeconomics. it became clear that constructing the initial Pike residence hall as defined um wasn't going to meet the the the needs of of the campus and the and the strategic goals. The goal switched to uh
making sure that we could bring on the entire first year class into the Pike Residence Hall, which is 964 beds, significantly more than than what would was in the initial um IMP. Uh and that would advance the city student housing goals as well. Uh building the first
dorm would also avoid having to displace temporarily at great expense um the 200 students who now live in Ed Ro uh Edwards and Rogers Hall on Huntington A. Um making this more feasible. Um we've partnered with Belffor uh Batty
Campus Solutions to build this new dorm. uh and enables us to utilize tax exempt bonds backed by housing fees for construction construction dorm and uh and consequently we've we filed the IMP uh project notification on July 20 uh
end of July uh I think it was the 25th or the 27th if I recall. So that frames I think that gives you the frame of of why while while why why we're here again. Um and I think I'll hand it back off to Matt now. Okay. Thank you Sean. Uh I'm Matt Pierce. I'm the lead designer from
Perkins and Will and I just want to thank you all commissioners and staff for your time and attention uh this evening. Um as Ted noted, you know, there are two items on the agenda. We'll start first with the IMP amendment. Uh going through the goals of the IMP amend
the IMP and how the amendment is consistent with those goals. Then a comparison of that 2024 IMP to the amendment first kind of looking at it on a kind of macro scale and then zooming into uh that area of detail um that Ted referenced and then item two is
specifically the Pike residence hall design itself. Um so um starting off you know these are some of the priorities that Wentworth established that were um uh topics that initiated this this amendment to the IP and that is uh one getting more beds on
campus sooner and of course you know housing is a big concern a big topic of discussion in the city and getting relieving pressure on the market rate housing in the neighborhood would be a great benefit. Um along with that um getting more housing online sooner is also creating uh an environment for
student success. So that's um where the idea of uh accommodating the entire first year class in one building and giving them a foundational li uh living experience and kind of community building experience uh became an objective uh for the institute. um as we
developed um this amendment to the plan and and the changes. One of the things that um we thought we can improve upon was the connectivity and the uh uh character of some of the outdoor spaces. I know there was a lot of discussion in um the 2024 IP about especially this um
outdoor space that was on the north side of the Pike Residence Hall and we felt uh as we repositioned and reconfigured that Pike residence hall that there was an opportunity hopefully to improve uh the connectivity of those open spaces to the uh pedestrian pike and also to solar access um and and uh pedestrian comfort.
Um there's also there was a um uh also kind of a topic of much discussion in the IMP about um the pedestrian experience between uh Rugle Street and south down to the Pike. And I think the IMP was left at a point at which staff uh had hoped that it we could get to a
better resolution and that maybe a better solution would come along when the uh PIPs the PIPS uh advance. And we're at that point now and we think we we think we do have a solution especially with a lot of work with um planning staff on improving the coordination of pedestrians and pedestrian first circulation along with
vehicles. Um as Sean mentioned, you know, and and Ted, flipping the use of the building on Huntington Avenue to uh an academic use is uh partly motivated by uh desire to have the um achievements and innovation of Wentworth on display
on the Avenue of the Arts. And that's really much very much in keeping with the uh um uh the goals of the Avenue of the Arts guidelines. And finally, financial feasibility. The scale of the building was really important to making it uh financially feasible as are uh the
factors that also play into this kind of um repositioning of other buildings which has to do with um what buildings have to be demolished in what sequence in order to enable the projects. Uh so first we'll start off again kind of recapping the IMP goals and how we
are still uh we feel like what we're proposing in the amendment is consistent with those. Um the strategic priorities that were established were greening the campus, revitalizing academic facilities, increasing housing capacity and also replacing outdated housing and
celebrating the image and identity of Wentworth. And some of the guiding uh principles within the IMP which still hold true are creating a strong civic presence uh creating an inclusive urban scale connection between publicly accessible outdoor spaces and building community
partnerships. Um and in that uh 2024 IMPP um with a focus on the outdoor spaces um campus spaces um there was developed an idea that there were you know four major zones of outdoor outdoor space that each
would fulfill a different a different role within the campus. So um that north space uh the front of essentially the front of went withwithall on ruggle street really being a place of engagement uh introducing in one of the uh pips uh a new entry and an
improvement of the streetscape along rugles and that being the place of engagement. Um also on the south side of Wentworth Hall that uh central quad which is a large existing space being really a place for largecale gatherings and celebrations things like commencement. Um as we move to the
eastern quadrant of the campus, really focusing on a smaller scale gathering and smaller scale activities. And then in this area on the western side adjacent uh between the um Pike residence hall and the existing treehouse that space and this is the focus of you know changes in the uh in
the amendment to the IP really being focused on a place of recharging, a place of respit um and small gatherings and a way of really connecting with nature in an urban environment. Uh so now we'll go through a few slides um just comparing kind of on the macro
scale the um 2024 IMP and the amendment. Uh so again on the left hand side I think uh Ted covered this well you know left hand side was the improved IMP and on the right hand side this uh zone here highlighted is really the focus of the amendment. So nothing beyond those
boundaries is uh changing within the IMP amendment. And then uh just zooming in a little bit on that local area where these changes are. As I mentioned earlier, the considerations for phasing and uh buildings being demolished and having to
be vacated uh really had a um a big role in uh thinking about a different way of configuring the building. So you see here for example on Huntington Avenue when we looked at the we're posed with the challenge of um accommodating the first the entire first year class in a larger building. We looked at that
Huntington residence hall which was established in the IP which was the larger capacity of the residence halls at 850 beds. Um that came up a little bit short of the first class but it also posed a challenge in terms of vacating Edwards and Rogers um which are right here which have roughly 200 beds between
them. That was a challenge to demolish those, lose those beds during the time of construction and that led to this consideration of um creating a larger residence hall in the location roughly of the Pike residence hall as it was envisioned in the uh uh the IMP. And in doing so, we also wanted to look at um
way a way of building this larger Pike residence hall in a way that didn't require the demolition in the short term of uh this academic building, Kingman, which is just to the east. Um so if we focus on open space on these slides always the approved IMP from 2024
is on the lefth hand side the amendment on the right hand side. Uh and the big change in the open space here is really um that uh green space that fronted uh the pike and had southern access. that was on the east side of the um uh treehouse uh and also had a component
that was connected with that which was a point of a lot of discussion um in the IMP uh which was this green space that was on the north side of the pike residence hall and in shadow uh and not directly connected with the pike. Um, and then the amendment to the IMP, that
same green space, 80 feet from u, and 80 feet in width uh, from the, uh, treehouse remains. And really that space that was on the north side of the Pike residence hall gets moved over to the east side of that uh, new Pike residence hall. And that allows us to create a space that again also gets southern
access, southern sun, and also connects to the activity of the pike, which is so vibrant. And the total amount of open space is is very similar between uh the uh approved IMP and the amendment. Uh when it comes to um service and
vehicular access, uh what was proposed or what was u approved in the IMP in 2024 was um an underground parking garage uh that connected several buildings uh with two up to 200 cars in that underground parking garage and all those cars uh entering and exiting from
Rugles. Uh this would also be where uh loading would happen. So servicing the buildings would happen uh in this area as well and uh would be uh materials would be conveyed uh through the parking garage to the other buildings underground. Uh but this did pose a
challenge uh in terms of getting people making a a high quality pedestrian connection from Rugles down to the Pike. Uh so in the amendment uh to the IMP uh that 200 uh car underground parking garage goes away and is replaced by a
much smaller 17c car uh kind of visitor parking area um over to the right here and a uh dedicated loading area between the Pike Residence Hall and that uh future academic building on Huntington. uh that would be serviced above grade
and um and materials can be conveyed as they are around the rest of the campus by uh golf carts and such. Um between the Pike residence hall and the smaller uh residence hall to the east. Um this is a section which I think is
really uh really um helps you understand clearly the massing and its relationship to the open space. Uh in the approved IMP, this is the treehouse. So of course over here on the left, that Huntington residence hall up to 250 ft in height, the 80 foot uh wide open space that
fronts onto the uh the Pike, and then the Pike residence hall at 190 ft quite close um in proximity to the academic building to its east uh which was envisioned up to 150 ft in height. And then in the amendment uh with the uh
larger Pike residence hall, but also reoriented to be more of the north south axis with the uh narrow end of the building facing the Pike. That same uh open space again 80 ft wide between the treehouse and the Pike residence hall still fronting on the the Pike with
great solar access. uh that Hunt Huntington academic building having a smaller footprint. And um and then importantly over on the right to the right hand side, this is where that green space that was north of the Pike in 2024 has been moved and kind of um
reconstituted to the east side of the Pike residence hall, creating a quite large green space again facing south with great solar access and connection to that activity of the pike. And I think one of the things that this diagram shows well too is a nice cadence of kind of alternating open space,
building, open space, building that I think will create a uh a really kind of pleasant pedestrian experience and cadence as you move uh east and west along the pike. Uh we'll zoom in a little bit closer to the area of detail here again with a little bit more u um detail here. This
is the approved IMP. Again, that Huntington residence hall. It had a smaller mass uh on Huntington Avenue, the taller part of the building set back from Huntington, the Pike residence hall running parallel to the Pike uh and then the academic building to the east with a relatively uh tight space between those
buildings. And then in the amendment, the larger footprint of the Pike residence hall that kind of shifts in its massing to um uh partly to reduce to uh manage the massing of the building, but also as a response to the sort of intersection between the campus and neighborhood grid and that diagonal uh
line of Huntington Avenue. And in this case with that smaller footprint of the Huntington Academic Building and also a smaller footprint of the uh Quad Residence Hall to the east and then these two uh south facing green spaces on either side.
Uh this this is the same diagram that Ted shared earlier really just highlighting the change the change in uses. The gold color is the uh location of residential uh uses and blue being academic and of course those those um swapping to be academic on Huntington Avenue. Uh and looking at that from a
more threedimensional point of view, you can see um that greater height in the 2024 version of the uh Huntington building, the lower Pike residence hall, and then when those uses change, uh the Pike residence hall gets taller. Uh the
other residence hall uh to the east gets smaller. So really, the capacity overall stays the same. Total square footage, total number of beds stay the same. They're really just being redistributed between between buildings. and none of the height uh proposed in this is exceeding anything that was um that was proposed or accepted in the IMP
of 2024. Um so one of the things um in our uh discussions with planning staff uh they had asked us to share you know other alternatives that we had explored um in in meeting this need for increased number of beds and that kind of cohesive first year experience. So on the left
hand side again the um 2024 IMP and the first thing we looked at of course was can we use that location of the u the Pike residence hall the same footprint and simply increase the height and really trade height between that and the other residence hall um to get that first year entire first year class in
that footprint in the same location that was in the IP. And the result of that is uh you know if we go up to the 280 foot maximum height limit at this distance set back from Huntington uh that gets us got us to about 644 beds which was 2/3 of the first year class and it seemed
really unfortunate to you know have this really foundational first year experience but not have the enable the entire first year class to have that experience because it really is going to set up the students for success and the relationships that will carry them through their education at Wentworth.
Uh so another thing we looked at is if we were to reorient the building, we rotate it 90 degrees so we stretch it, give it a bit of a longer footprint and stay uh beneath the height limit and get to the um uh 964 beds that would accommodate the first year class. And
you could do that, but we felt the result of that was um not very sensitive from a massing standpoint. Um and that really led to the progression to this idea of the sort of split massing of the building. Uh which has the advantage of breaking the building into two parts
that are unified by this central core. But it also internally works in a way that's very um uh very effective to this goal of creating community and different scales of community within the building. And we'll get into that later as we get into that specific building design.
Um, if we flip around to look uh from the other side, so we're looking over Huntington Avenue looking south. Uh, this just shows that this was the mass that was uh approved for the Huntington academic building. Uh, a lower piece fronting on Huntington, the taller mass set back. And then on the right hand
side, that change in use to academic with really the objective of um getting uh the identity and the innovation of of Wentworth on display on the Avenue of the Arts. And what's shown here really is is is not a building design at this point. It's really a um kind of a zoning envelope that is in compliance with the
setbacks that are um uh suggested in the Avenue of the Arts guidelines. So we definitely uh we definitely uh intend that will you know evolve and and grow as that uh project develops in the future. Um, flipping back to the south, looking
north, you know, in the 2024 uh there is the MW MWR parcel to the south, which um uh pinched a little bit the the width of the pike uh in this area where the uh pike residence hall is parallel with the pike. And we think that uh it's an
improvement when um the pike can widen in that area to kind of alleviate that pinch point. We maintained a minimum of 20 feet uh width open to the sky at every point along the pike and in many cases are wider than that and along with that to alleviate that pinch point is this sort of stepping ground floor
pavilion uh which I think has a dual advantage of relieving that pinch point but also creates a nice pedestrian scale and kind of um area for engagement along the active frontage of of the residence hall. Um dimensionally this um this is a lot to read in a slide right now but a
couple key dimensions just in the differences between the the plants the 80 foot um set back from the pipe I'm sorry from the u uh treehouse which we've maintained uh the 40 ft from the uh treehouse on the north end also maintained and then this um uh open
space on the north side of the Pike residence hall at 115 ft wide. we are at roughly the same width u at this new kind of u version of that open space as it moves over to the east uh during the IP uh review process we know there are a lot of these kind of
massing uh ground level views that were that were useful and comparing those this view on the left we're looking west on the pike uh right here in the foreground is that academic building further away is the u um Pike residence hall and the space between those
buildings was uh rather tight at 32 ft. Um, and in the amendment, this is the open the new open space, which is basically that relocated uh open space. Now, right over here on the right, almost off the frame, is the smaller eastern residence hall poses a PIP and
uh the um uh Pike residence hall as proposed with that kind of stepping back two-story podium uh or pavilion um that turns and orients itself with a narrow side perpendicular to the pike. We move a little further west down the pike. Uh
we're now right up at the Pike residence hall. So this is that pinch point I was talking about. It's really the the pike the paving does continue through and the pike itself continues through. There's an agreement with Wentworth and the MWR today. The pike kind of passes over that corner and it would continue to do that.
Um uh but as you can see here we have the kind of active use ground floor uh running parallel to the pike and then the amendment um the tower stepping back again presenting the narrow face to the pike and this um kind of serrated edge um of the twotory volume of active use
student commons uh that engages with the pike. And then if we flip around from the other side uh the tree houses to our left here we're looking to the east. This was that 80 foot separation between the buildings. The active use is fronting on that green space. And then the proposed amendment again that tower
rotates 90 degrees. And uh this in this case on this west side of the building the ground level use at this end is dining. Um and that would be a very transparent space that would engage and activate the uh the open space to its west. Uh looking at the uh pedestrian
circulation and the coordination between vehicles and pedestrians that I mentioned earlier. This was the path that was um kind of described in the 2024 IMP which as I said the the I think the planning staff didn't feel like was sufficiently resolved and the hope was that as projects went forward that could
be improved upon. We're really hugging the the existing buildings to basically stay out of the way of the 200 cars coming in and out uh to the underground parking garage and to service vehicles in this area. So the route between Rugles and the Pike was a bit uh not necessarily so clear. Uh and in the
amendment we propose to um again have that much smaller 17 car visitor lot over here uh that does not cross the uh pedestrian path. The pedestrian path can connect with that existing corner park at the corner of Huntington Ruggles and then have a really straight uh clear
line that is also at minimum width the 20 ft that um was prescribed for the pipe and at many points wider than that. And then the loading functions, excuse me, for these buildings would the trucks do need to cross over this path. Uh, but the volume, we've dug in a lot deeper
into uh the volume of traffic and loading and things like that. And we feel like it's it's quite low. Most of the surface happens early in the morning and we will uh as we get later into the presentation, we have some detail of this area and uh Michelle Crowley, our landscape architect, can talk about how
we're uh handling that that area to make that really pedestrian first and safe experience. If you flip around again, this is just that same same topic from the other side. So again, just really having to walk around the perimeter of the buildings in the past uh to really avoid the volume of cars that are coming in
and out and now greatly reducing that number of cars and separating that from that pedestrian path and still maintaining that pedestrian connection uh uh on the north end of the treehouse as well. Matt, excuse me. I'm mindful that we're going to lose uh Commissioner Lubanau at
8 and we still have Seth's presentation. So, it would be okay. Actually, um I have to leave at 8:00 as well. I'm so sorry, Mimi. I didn't know it's been around this long. Okay, we're going to start losing commissioners. So, okay, this is um the last slide of the
imp. So, I'll see how quickly I can go through the uh Pike Residence Hall specifically here. So, um Well, can I just ask a question about that? Um yes, before we get into the design of the residence hall, shouldn't we be
discussing the IMB strategy? Um um so relative to that residence hall, David, I think it's a fair question. I know that we need to hear Seth's comments on both the IMP and the article 80 uh proposal. Um so Seth, I'm going to
defer to you. How would you like to comment? because I mean I have some questions about the the site strategy and diving right into the architecture of the building. I I just it's up to you but I'm I'm just I share those concerns
and and definitely hear you all on that. I think similar to the Austin Street project we had uh originally set that one aside where we would do the ADC first um discussion and then uh the specific building. I think uh here with
Wentworth um you know we were following sort of the precedent set by Austin Street in sort of looking at the master plan jumping into the building and then being able to discuss both um with the idea that even if there are uh sighting concerns it's useful uh to get the full
picture of the building so that we can have a you know robust and efficient discussion on both matters. This seems like a bigger change in incighting. I don't maybe this will have to be teased out in our comments, but
Marie, I I agree with that. It it's so what I'm worried about is losing commissioners. And I actually think in the, you know, model of making fewer meetings, we really do need commissioners comments. So, Seth, could
we get you to give feedback from, you know, your perspective on the IMP and we go into an IMP discussion before we lose commissioners? Yeah, because I have the same problem. Yeah. Okay, let's let's do that because I'd like to get as much feedback from the
commission as possible. Thank you. And I'll share uh two quick uh master planning uh slides and design review and then the uh road map for the project. Uh so the staff have uh been focusing on uh the relationship of pedestrian service
and passenger traffic particularly at the north south path between Rugles and the Ped Pike. Uh so how can the site and buildings be best configured to further reduce the intersection of pedestrians and service activities as well as create safe and highquality pedestrian experiences? The west courtyard is
intended to serve as a space of respit and recharge. How can uh challenges including shadow, wind, and proximity to the service court be mitigated through the building and site design to best support this goal? And then how do all the buildings create engaging and acting
edges to each of the quads, the pedike and other pathways both during the interim conditions and the full build? Next, please. I think you all remember this being a very uh talked about uh section of the master
plan uh during the first IMP and the separation and relationship between the towers has always been a key feature and challenge of this area. Uh and that open space uh was always challenged. We've talked about uh potentially a winter garden or something else uh in the area
that was going to be most affected by shadows. How can the massing of all three buildings create the best relationship to each other and the existing context at the scale of both the ground level pedestrian experience as well as urban form making? And then how does the proposed assemblage of buildings look and feel from key vantage
points both near and far along Huntington, Ruggle Street, and the Pet Pike in both directions. Um the next one is uh just some brief comments on the architecture itself which we'll skip over for now and if you could go to uh
two ahead Lizzy please. Uh the road map uh for this as this is both an IMP amendment as well as a ADB uh building. This would be a five meeting um maximum. Uh as the proponent
uh is on a tight timeline to deliver uh the student housing. Um we're looking to commit to double sessions. Um so not just one hour but two hours in subcommittee so that we have meaningful discussion on both uh the IMP amendment and the ADB building um for the next two
subcommittees. And the proponent is committed to working very hard uh with staff in BCDC um to see if there's a way forward um that uh you know we have a meeting of the minds so that we can move beyond or uh a sort of meeting for uh in
subcommittee and go to full committee uh to be determined through the process and again this is the sort of live road map uh that we have. Excellent. And so what I would like to do is to have Anmarie um followed by Mick Young followed by
David. If the three of you can really hang on and give your comments to the IMP, if the rest of the commissioners can stay on and listen to the presentation for the the building, the article 80 uh project B project. Um we can then
combine our comments for the IMP building then. And if I could ask the proponent to bring up uh one of their slides for the IMP. So Ann Marie, if you want to get us going here. Thank you. So I would say this is a a great case study um in respect to the
proposed changes to our process. I think in this case I understand the intent or the goal of moving along um the IMP amendment and the building design at the same time. However, what has been presented, at least from my standpoint,
represents a s a significant change and there are um significant implications on the quality of the spaces, including the concerns that we addressed um in the review and the approval of the IMP. Um I
support the the shift to an academic building on Huntington Avenue. Uh, but I think you clearly made the case about the role as as Seth reaffirmed of the the green space being a space of recharging and therefore I think of a sense of shelter. And I think that the
the the change in the or the the the um the massing the sighting of the pike proposed Pike residence frankly compromises that. So I would really like to as this goes to submitti subcommittee recommend that we approach
this a little bit differently and actually come to agreement in terms of the changes to the site plan before proceeding with the architecture because I I think there just too many implications. Thank you. Yeah, I agree with that. I I think the
the the piece of it that I'm still trying to wrap my brain around is the relationship of the buildings to the landscape. and it feels like it's lost a bit of cohesion from the approved IMP to here as obviously there's a great deal
of complexity in the issues that you're trying to solve with egress vehicular access but I think there is an opportunity this fall to look at this and to make sure there was something really nice about having a kind of central quad um that sort of linked all
of these bu buildings together and It did feel more to me in the master plan that the proposed IMP buildings kind of worked with the existing buildings in a way that now it feels less like a master
plan and a series of interventions done by individual architects. So I think there there's maybe some work to be done to make sure that everything feels a little bit more cohesive and there's a little more flow in the landscape. um
experience. Well, David, yeah, and I can just piggyback on that. I completely agree um with both Anmarie and Mick Young. I think I I want to look at it from two perspectives before we I I'm I'm very confident that that the architecture of the proposed building
will be something that we can talk about and refine and so forth. Very good firm. It's going to be good building. Um, I think that I'm more concerned about um the organization at the ground as Mick Young was talking about the the sort of clarity of the original diagram, the way
that the original IMP resolved the grids um of Huntington and the campus as they came uh together. And I'm going to pull back even further and say that I I'm hoping that when we can talk about the
IMP in the last few months, we have approved a new um set of buildings for um you know massing uh options for buildings for Northeastern down Huntington Avenue. The very large project on the fields uh opposite
Wentworth have also been approved. And I'm beginning to lose my sense of what Huntington Avenue is and is going to become um from uh the perspective of a cohesive boulevard um and how the the
the uh uh height and street wall uh is being handled as a comprehensive idea about Huntington Avenue from Wentworth all the way down um to uh Massav. And I'd really like to and and that's made clear to me when I look at the massing
of the new massing and I see this cluster of buildings with the new Huntington academic building. I agree. I support that the shift in in use. But this new building um and the new dorm building and the treehouse um uh look very much like a loose collection of
projects that are have an for me somewhat uncomfortable relationship to each other and almost no relation to Huntington Avenue in any uh coordinated way. So both from the campus side out
and from Huntington Avenue back, I would like to get a better sense of the urban design really um of these uh towers and large projects um uh as part of the morphology of this cityscape uh before
we even get into the how they hit the ground. Yeah. So that's that's my uh my question. Yeah. Just building on that, the other thing it would be great to see is a shadow study. Uh the Pike residence seems like it's going to make some of these greens really difficult to grow
any of the the trees or anything like that that would make it feel like an oasis. So, be great to understand the phenomenology of the site, but and it could be that, you know, this is I'm sorry. It could be that this is what makes the most sense, but I think that
we need to zoom out a little bit. And I really would like to get some, you know, wire diagram or whatever you want to call them, views, uh, isometric views up and down Huntington Avenue. And this is where a model would be so incredibly helpful, um, to see this site plan in
relationship to uh, what is being built of very massive buildings and what is being built just literally down the street and its relationship to, you know, institutions like the MFA and others. I I I I just don't have a good sense of it. I'm It's too focused.
Excellent. Um, Ann Marie, do you want to chime in with your comment? Oh, sure. And just to build upon David's comment, you know, how how does all of this, the evolution, the buildings, this project contribute to the idea of the Avenue of the Arts. It's a a concern
I've had, a serious concern I've had as we've reviewed buildings that um, you know, frequently look like buildings that could be anywhere. And this is there's been a very intentional there's intent in naming this avenue of the arts and what is the responsibility of new
development to to upholding that that vision. Thank you Marie McY and David. Um, any other commissioners who have a tight timeline this evening? Because I would like to go back to the presentation and
Christina has comments or suggestions here. Just want to say that if we lose any other additional commissioners, I believe we would lose quorum. So if every if if there's anybody else that has to leave, we should make a recommendation on next step after um
after we conclude here. Christina and all I know the the goal was to go through the building. I like David kind of shared the confidence of the in the architecture team and I actually think it might be better to focus more time on the IMP
discussion. I I second that. I'm happy to do that as long as it doesn't throw off our schedule or if we have to reintroduce the building the ADB piece at a at a monthly meeting. That's what I worry about. But can Okay. Yeah, that would be
Christina and Seth weigh in on that. Yeah, I would urge you to make a recommendation to review both in subcommittee and not re, you know, so that we're not faced with reintroducing them later. Well, can we make a a motion to introduce both in subcommittee, but to
uh review the to review them in sequence, like to have a a subcommittee meeting about the IMP before we review the building. David, if I can suggest that perhaps make a motion to review both and then we can discuss operationally how to
actually achieve this in the best way possible. I don't want to I don't want to preclude something just on a formality, but I No, no, fair fair enough. But I mean, maybe is that something that we can do now because before we lose commissioners
so that we make that recommendation and then um people can um Yes, I think that's what Christina is suggesting. Okay. Well, I'm happy to make that that motion. Go ahead. I'll second it. Sorry. To clarify, the motion is to send
both the IMP and the 550 Huntington Avenue to subcommittee for further review. Correct. Great. Second. Excellent. So, let me call in everyone that I see on the screen. David Hassin, yes. David Nagahiro,
yes. Katherine Morris, yes. Laura Vano, yes. David Manfred, yes. Thank you, Jonathan Garland. Yes. Shauna Gillis Smith. Yes.
Linda Eastley. Yes. Did I call on you, Laura Solano? Yes, I did. Okay. You did. Yes. Okay. Yes. And yes, I usually have my script and I'm doing it off the screen and um and myself, Mimi Love. Yes. So I think we will send
both the IMP and the building to subcommittee. But I do want to en encourage more conversation um at least around the IMP and we will hold off the presentation of the building itself this evening. So Mimi just to clarify that's we'll
continue the conversation on the IMP um and then we'll jump into uh the presentation for the building. So that gets into the record and then any comments u regarding initial comments regarding the building. Okay, that is extending our evening. So
commissioners, additional comments, are we sticking with the IMP then for comments at this point? Okay, that's what I'm hearing. I have a few I have a few additional comments, Mimi. Um go ahead.
So, I I really like this introduction of the north south um pedestrian passageway. I think it helps to clarify, you know, a really complicated campus where you're not always sure where
you're heading because of the different geometries of the buildings and um and the kind of triangular shape of the site. My concern with that north south and also with the pedestrian pike which is roughly east west is I really want to
understand how it feels to walk along those passageways and to be in what I think will be canyons um between the buildings. And so I'd love in subcommittee to have a better understanding not just dimensionally. I
really appreciated those diagrams, but actually three-dimensionally how it'll feel to be between those buildings. Um, a second comment I have is about open space and I agree that it is um great
that that many are now south facing. I know that we had always struggled with the open space that's northish of the former Pike Residence Hall. The challenge that I have with the open space um is the is the sameness. It
feels like the the scale of each of those spaces is um nearly the same now working from Huntington and working our way east to the Quad Residence Hall. And I wonder if um if there are
opportunities there, not just to kind of give them different names about engaging and so forth, but to actually make those spaces different or maybe to even include the north south pedestrian passageway um that's between the quad and the Pike
residence halls as kind of an extended open space from face of building to face of building. The third question I have is about the Pike Res Hall and I know we'll learn a little bit more about that in a minute,
but um the concern is that the kind of northern or western kind of leg of the Pike Residence Hall where the words Pike Hall um extend over that geometry actually steps over what I think is a
datim along the pike. And I'm curious about that and would love to talk more about that in subcommittee by kind of stepping over the datim that is established by buildings to its kind of west and east. Um I think it creates an unnecessary
pinch point. And similarly with the Pike Resaul, I'm concerned that, you know, before the Pike Resaul when it was more of a a bar was sponsoring kind of a really nice
pedestrian Pike on one side and then sponsoring this open space on the other side. And now the Pike res hall on its north side is sponsoring a service court. And so I want to understand, you
know, can we improve that relationship between the Pike Resol um knowing that there are complexities of course with service and all of that. And then um the last comment I had was something that David Hassen brought up
and that was that we need to zoom back out and really understand Huntington Avenue including all of the proposed projects up and down so that we have a sense in three dimensions um and also in terms of materiality you know what this
new avenue will look like and I think that's going to be really important particularly as we think about the new academic building um but also to understand all of those in context with these proposed buildings in general.
Thanks. Awesome. Thank you, Linda. David Manrey. Yeah, I think um Linda picked up a lot of things that I wanted to say. Um I actually think there are some very nice things in the new plan. Uh like Linda
said, the north south connection uh is so much clearer. Um, and I I in some ways the plan I think um um makes that Pike residence hall feel like it has an enormous footprint that
would be a great wall east west but it when you look at it threedimensionally you realize it's actually these two bars passing going past each other with the the connector in between. I I Mick Young's comment was really
good. We really need to see shadow studies. I I always worried a lot in the approved IMP about the Huntington residence hall that it was kind of a clumsy podium tower relationship
trying to stretch out to Huntington Avenue to make street wall and create presence and then also then um um contorting itself to to be the north side of that quad. uh and and and I do
remember the shadow studies on this space which were also kind of troubling. So I think the I think the shadow studies are important. I agree with with Linda about I like the north the south facing outdoor spaces but I do worry
about the sameness and I I don't understand um the the relationship of the buildings to the spaces meaning the the treehouse uh the space u the Pike residence hall
uh how shadows will impact them and how they will feel and I guess that all goes back to please pull out and show us more Huntington Avenue. Show us more uh of everything that currently under construction all the way down to to the
Huntington Theater. Uh and then planned, including the things we've seen on on um the um north side of uh east side of campus. um I can't remember the name of the field but the two new uh life
science buildings and see all of these things in context. I remember at one point and it may be when we were looking at those life science buildings, we saw um a long street section um maybe almost
from Copley Square to Longwood. Maybe it wasn't quite that long, but you had a sense of um the Avenue of the Arts, Huntington Avenue, having a series of of towers
um of of midsize towers at irregular but widely spaced um um relationship to each other. And I wonder what's happening to all of that now. So again, um uh I think
we want to see more context. Thank you. Thanks, David. Shauna, thank thanks everyone. Thank Thank you Matt for the the presentation. So, um I have a couple comments and many of them most of them have already been touched upon. I do agree that the north south
path is a good good idea um stronger. I think it could should be made more robust because it kind of feels like you're it's floating in the little bit of this sort of asphalt um sort of service and parking area. So just even thickening it would help. I'm
I'm also concerned about the the service court sec feeling of the the Pike residence hall. It felt the amount of asphalt feels like it's grown instead of shrunk in the um in the amended plan.
Um, I I also agree with with Linda on the um the one wing of the of the the northern wing of the residence hall poking out into the the pike and making a real
pinch point along that pike. Um, which is already at a pinch point. So, it's really emphasizing something. Uh but the the most significant questions I have are I know it's been discussed looking at the relationship between the three buildings the academic
building and the pike and the treehouse at the level of the ground plane but I'm also very curious of that relationship at an upper level at a 10th floor level for example looking out from the treehouse to the three other two
buildings looking out from the residence hall to the other two buildings and the academic feeling because I don't get a real sense of how close those are and in in the it feels quite in the um AXO it
looks very constrained and and um compressed and so getting a feeling of what that really is from the upper levels of where the students will be you know looking at each other I just don't have a good sense of what that feels like.
Thanks Shauna Jonathan Garland. Thank you. Um and thanks Matt and team for the presentation. Um I I generally would say I think there's nice things about both. Um you know the site in many ways especially as seen in the amendment
plan. It sort of strikes me like it's a Rubik's cube. You know you have to kind of twist the thing and turn it multiple ways to figure out the right urban plan. Um, I tend to think that the approved IMP to me at least seeing it for the
first time, I wasn't involved in the last one, it just seems to have more cohesion and the idea that um there is this essence of a quad, this sense that you've arrived, this sense of place with that middle green. I also appreciate how
in that plan the um the interior wall of the treehouse can actually participate in that outdoor room and so it's a way of stitching the new development with the existing context uh which I think is important um under and I appreciate that
you're looking at an academic building on Huntington A but something about the podium and tower relationship on the approved one seems to do the job of negotiating the street wall of Huntington while also reorienting the building to have a more formal u building edge to that to that
quad. And I converse that with the new plan where if if I'm a person at the Pike coming into that open space between Treehouse and Pike residence, my focal point is basically this obtuse angle of the new academic. So I think it's
something about the resulting aspects of the buildings feel disjointed and the leftover space which unfortunately we're saying is open space feels like it's being sacrificed. Uh and then lastly or so so on that note
I think the the idea of a grid or a grain you know I know that there's multiple angles here but where's where is the predominant sort of grid and grain that can be appreciated and then lastly I I'm not a total fan of the
north south pathway I I I sort of I applaud for the effort on it and sort of trying to make that connection but I would just question is needed. Um, something about the approved plan seems to be there's a clearer understanding of
what is pedestrian safe space versus where to cars go because I can see that line kind of clearly drawn at the northern edge of the Huntington resol. And again, putting myself in the space, if you're walking on this pathway in between almost two large asphalt pieces,
you know, what does that feel like? to Shauna's point, perhaps you can widen it and really make it feel owned by the pedestrian, but I I'm not sure. Um, but those those are my comments. Thanks. Thanks, Jonathan. Lara Lano. Um, the comments so far have I think
have been um really um important to considerations, but I will say by turning the Pike Residence Hall for me, it's kind of shaken up the idea a little bit. um about the
the possibilities. Um I like the north south, but only only if you can fix the middle of it. Um the middle of it just goes it's almost as long as the piece that goes from Pike residence out to the
Pike. Um and that will not be a pleasant experience. So thinking hard about that um is important. the sameness of those spaces is, I think, a mistake. Um, and
there hasn't been much thought, maybe because it's so early, about how that north south walk might connect into the other side of the pike. Is there some connection there that actually could
help with the scale and um the sense of embedment of as you're walking around the campus? I think that there could be a nice discussion between the treehouse and the Pike residence. Um, I think that it's
going to take um some more uh manipulating of the building. Um, the idea of these three bars sort of passing by each other is a is a nice idea. Um,
but I'm not so sure that the configuration shown is exactly it yet. Um, I think the motion that it has in plan is not necessarily what it's going to feel like. um walking. So I'll stop
there and just say that I think when you come back to um the uh subcommittee that you have a lot of perspectives that will help to see what these spaces feel like on the ground and in particular
pick those spaces that are not necessarily um successful now. for instance, the the walk through the service area because I think in making those you yourself will
um come up with other ideas about how that connection can be fixed if at all and if not then what? Um so I'll leave it there. Thanks Laura. David a super fast suggestion. Could we
possibly have like a model we could walk around in or fly through of everything next next time? I think that would be really helpful. Sorry. We we do have a physical model. We're happy to, you know, happy to bring it. Yeah, I think but I also think I think so that we could actually see it like
even if it's a SketchUp model or Rhino model would be would be helpful. Sorry, David. All right. Thanks, David. Yeah, I think um a lot of good things uh said uh from Jonathan uh Laura um David Manfrey. I
think you know I do have a I am challenged a bit but I think there are some really good things that actually come from it and it it kind of addresses the thinking about the hierarchy of how the spaces work together. the pike is such a prominent sort of circulation strategy and how these individual pieces
of uh landscape work off of it is what I'm trying to figure out because there is there is no hierarchy it seems like between them. The Nolley plan is very effective in thinking about those positive and negative spaces and it does kind of uh challenge the relationship
between the academic building and the Pike residence and how these spaces really work. I think Jonathan was right on with coming from Huntington and how you enter into the site and that sort of pageantry of how those spaces work together. There's that cohesiveness of
the uh approved IMP that seems to be lost in the new one. At the same time, the building seems to respond much nicer uh in the uh amendment than uh than it did before. uh the functionality, the clarity, the legibility of the plan
makes sense for servicing and entry sequence in the the new plan uh that I think is maybe challenged in the older plan. I think what would really help is if you could actually take the ground plane and visibly see the activation
points uh of the the ground floors of all these buildings surrounding it. It'll be very telling on how these open spaces will really work because when you realize that back part of Williston is I think more of a service or something um
and the whole green space is kind of set up to you know fronting it. I don't know if that really contributes to the activation of that space. So understanding the ground plane and the how the ground floor plans work I think will be very telling. The other is eye
level perspectives. It's easy to really appreciate uh the massing uh when you're looking at it from axonometrics, but the relationship of scale and that canonization and those things that I think everybody was concerned about. The other is coming from down Huntington
Avenue looking over Williston uh past Rugles and that kind of uh you know that grid or that kind of um alliance uh uh alignment of the building towers I think will be also very telling. What's nice when you come down currently is the
treehouse has a lot of presence on um off of Huntington and you know trying to understand the impact of the new Huntington academic building and that relationship I think is uh needs to have a little bit more care between the two to really make sure that that building
doesn't get compromised at the same time. Thanks David. I I think you got a lot of excellent comments so far and I do think that there's an interesting tension between the two options and I'll just iterate that there was this east west
grain that crossed Huntington into tying in the residences on the other side of Huntington into the campus that worked really well from the approved IMP. But I do remember we really really struggled with that open space and plan. that looks, you know, like one cohesive
space, but we worried so much about how much shadow it was going to get. Um, and so I do think that there is merit in the proposed orientation of the building. Maybe not the building footprint the way it's working right now, uh, but just
because we have a lot of questions about it. Um, but I do think that those open spaces are going to get receive a lot more light and I do think that there's ways that they won't be as similar to each other. I think the way they're rendered right now, they seem similar in
proportion, but I think the massing of that center core and the right bar step back to actually increase the size of that open space as compared to what's between the treehouse and um the Pike Hall residence. So, I do think that
there's a way to create differentiation between the open spaces. I think my biggest question and concern is the serviceability of this building that loading dock. I mean, this is probably the pragmatist in me is like these are
students, 900 students moving in and out and I'm just curious given this embedded pedestrian, you know, location. What does this look like in a very, you know, dense part of the city? And I think there was some relief when the residence hall was on
Huntington Avenue in my mind. So again, we don't really have to drill down on that today, but that is a real concern of of mine. This this building has no backside or it does towards a loading, but I really do think that's going to be eventually a front two. And so what does
that look like? Um cuz I do think that that one single open space in the approved IMPP actually helped resolve some of that natural flow into the quad. Um that I think is now a little bit
compromised by by the building being at the center of that that consolidate, you know, that space. Um I mean I think those are my comments. I think you're going to really have us scratching our head with this one. Um can I toss in a comment? Um, sure.
Which is I remember from our conversations uh with Nor Eastern um that there was a very different character um uh the call it the um MFA side of Huntington Avenue has a pretty
consistent street wall um and a a a pretty consistent series of heights and so forth. whereas the other side has all has been much looser, has had highs and lows, has had green space that, you know, pushes up against Huntington
Avenue. And in some ways, I'm wondering if the if, you know, it could be that the Pike Residence Hall is the issue. Um, it could be that it's the Huntington Academic Building, um, that could could be released from the bondage of having
to hold Huntington Avenue, um, which may not actually be occurring along much of Huntington Avenue along that entire edge. So it could be that the the Pike Residence Hall is is a you know very
well-conceived building and the placeholder for the Huntington Academic Building is actually causing me at least some angst. And so I just wanted to throw that into the mix there because um I know the focus right now is on this residence hall building, but we are
approving an IMP and um that's where this larger context of uh the character of um you know like in the same way that the U treehouse has a looser relationship to Huntington Huntington, more object-like relationship to
Huntington Avenue. So, I just wanted to throw that in there as something that could be a way to think about the site plan. Excellent. All right. So, I think we're being asked to look at now the building
presentation. And Matt, if we could, given the comments you've heard, I really think if you could really expedite your review of it, um, it would be appreciated. It's getting to be a long night. Of course. Absolutely. Uh and I think many of the things that people have asked about or commented on there there
are drawings I think when we go through the pipe that will illuminate some of those issues. I I hope so. And thank you all for your comments on the on the IMP level. Certainly there's a lot of things people have asked about that we do have documentation or other studies that we can share going forward and there's a lot of things that people commented on that I think we can act on immediately.
So thank you. Um okay, let me look at the clock. I'll try to keep this quick as you said. Um so to go in just a little bit um of the thinking behind um how we uh uh got to this configuration the massing and um how it relates to the
site of the Pike residence hall. We'll go quickly through this, but you know, the building blocks of the organization of the building was really that first year class all in one building and um really splitting the massing into um each floor having one community, a
community of 35 students and each floor having two communities and those being connected, excuse me, by uh by that center core. And that's really the uh kind of the starting point for this. Um then we take when we think about those um the views out of those those um two
floors um and how they sit and how they reconcile relative to the kind of diagonal um uh Huntington Avenue. Um we shifted those bars apart from each other. So there's kind of an aspect of daylight and views and also in in kind of fitting the site and and manipulating
the massing of the buildings as well. Um so here you can see sort of that stepping in plan in relation to that diagonal um intersection of Huntington Avenue. And then really um the way that those buildings are connected or so the two sides of the building are connected to each other very intentional in terms
of um setting up this um this way of creating uh connections between students and between the community. So that center core that unites the two uh the two bars. um you arrive in the center of the core and you when you go to your room, you go either way to the uh east or the west, you always pass through the
social commons and that's your community space or the floor and those also have views both to the north and the south um from those floors. Um, and then when we looked at adapting that to the site, we kind of lowered the lefthand side, the west side of uh uh the western bar of
the building in respect to that green space next to the uh treehouse and then raised the other side um to get this sort of offset massing and a little variety and massing as well. And then when we get down to the ground plane, um really um there's a two-story base or
pavilion at the uh ground floor has a lot of transparency with really the dual uh objective of activating both those green spaces on the east and west with uh really active use spaces um that we'll get into in some plans I have and then also activating the pike with a lot
of transparency and and entries to those buildings. So really that leads to just this um kind of three levels of um connectivity of choreographing connectivity and relationship between the students. It's really connecting with the campus at the ground floor, uh connecting the
communities at the residential levels and connecting to the city at the skyline at the the space on the top of the building that has uh pretty fabulous views to the Boston skyline. um to understand a little bit better how the building works and how those ground floor uses relate to the open space. We have another composite plan later that
will show the landscape in relation to the ground floor. Uh but on the left hand side uh the ground level with the uh orange representing student commons that's uh kind of common space for the students for the entire building. Uh that fronts on both uh the looks out onto the east side and also out out onto
the pike. the main entry in the center here and the salmon colors of dining uh that also fronts on both the pike and the western open space. There's some residential director's offices on that uh floor and then mechanical spaces and loading in the north. Uh the second
floor, you can see there's quite a bit of two-story space which engages with the pike, those two open spaces to the east and west. Uh there's an admissions space on the second floor which really is a place to introduce prospective students to Wentworth and really put them in a place where they can look down and really appreciate the uh activity of
the Pike and how that engages with the uh the commons down below. There's some residential director apartments uh in the north end as well and some other commons uh uh in the kind of northwest quadrant. Um the typical floor which happens uh you know for the majority of
the building again is those two 35 bed communities on each floor. Uh the blue here are the um two bed rooms. So there's one community uh of 35 in the north, another one in the south. Uh that's that elevator board. You arrive at the center. There's also the stair and you always pass through these orange
commons. The commons are different. Um they offer different things kind of as you were talking about the variety of um what's offered in the landscape. Um that's something we'll definitely take to heart in the landscape. It is something we thought about a lot on the interior of the building that there are different types of these commons to kind
of induce students to uh cross over and form larger scales of community as they accesses other types of complimentary spaces. And then the top floor of the building uh the top of the uh the right hand side two floors higher than the leftand side uh this has a student commons and special event space uh with
a small exterior terrace and really great views of the Boston skyline. Um, so this is I think is a really uh uh helpful plan that has that composite that I'll pass on to um uh Michelle to talk about the landscape and how it relates to the uh ground plane.
Um hi everyone. I'll try to be quick. Um I'm Michelle Crowley, principal at uh Crowley Catrolandscape Architects. Um we are collaborating with the landscape team of Perkins and Will. Um so just to go through the site plan um our site is
to the north uh bound by Rugles. Um and then the academic buildings and maintenance buildings uh to the east. Um the ward street headworks to the south. And then as you know treehouse um
mass art treehouse and the residential halls and the fire station all to uh the west. Um I'm going to begin with the pedestrian circulation. And so if we go to the next slide. Um so one of the guiding principles of the IMP is
connectivity between public spaces. Um this updated design strengthens the north south pedestrian link from Huntington Avenue and Rugles down to the Pike to reduce conflicts with the occasional service vehicles entering the service area. We are proposing a raised
crosswalk highlighted in red. Both entering and exiting vehicles will stop here, giving pedestrians priority and ensuring safety. All turning movements for service vehicles will occur within the service court away from the
pedestrian paths. Continuing south, the Pike Prominade will become clearer, more vibrant, and better activated along its edges while maintaining a seamless connection from Huntington Avenue through to campus. We've also added a secondary quieter route through the the
courtyard um to the west um between Mass Arts Treehouse and then the new residence hall connecting Huntington and the current residence halls on Huntington uh back to the Pike. Next slide. From the IMP's earlier uh framework, uh
the Pike Residence Hall falls within the campus's recharge zone, spaces designed for human scale, small gatherings, and moments of respit. To support this character, we're pro proposing a series of social terraces, a continuous canopy
of trees to bring the tall urban space down to human scale, and activate edges along the pike with seating and planting that encourage community interaction. Next slide. The continuous canopy will be created
with a diverse mix of tree species suited to the shaded conditions between two tall buildings. These trees will provide wind protection, form a green ceiling, and create a comfortable environment for people to pause, recharge, and enjoy respit.
Next slide. Here's the overall landscape concept plan. Um, you can see how pedestrian circulation is activated along the pike and the north south connection with a continuous tree canopy in the courtyard
and terraces designed for community use. I'll walk you through just starting from the north and moving clockwise. Um, north the service court is separated from pedestrian paths to the east. Uh, the north south campus path connects the pike with the Rugles Huntington
intersection. Here we're replacing asphalt with planting beds using transplanted trees and plants from the existing landscape. On the south um we have a south facing front porch which is activating uh the pike outside the
student commons and both the main residence hall entry and the dining entry also connect directly to the pike. On the west courtyard, the diverse tree canopy creates a comfortable scale and green ceiling with storm water recharge
below. A dining terrace supports group dining or studying, while a quieter terrace to the north allows for small gathering or individual retreat. Today, this area is mostly a sea of asphalt parking. The new design will transform it into a welcoming green landscape that
supports community connection and recharge. Um, all right. With that overview, I'll hand it back over to Matt. He's going to share some renderings. Great. Yeah. So, I'll try to be quick here. Um, but I know people were asking for some ground level views. These are very obviously focused on the Pike
residence hall, but hopefully give a little context to some of the earlier discussions. So, uh, here we're on the Pike looking north. Um, in the center of the view is the, uh, entry to the residence hall to the left, entry to dining. Um, so this is all very
transparent twotory space. um engaged with the uh pike. It'll be very active people coming and going and really take the Pike from a place that a lot of people move through right now to a place uh introducing more places to stop and to engage. Um you can see where the uh the western bar of the residence hall
comes forward and then sets back quite a bit to that uh northern and eastern bar. Um if we come around and we look uh on the lefth hand side, we look west down the pike uh towards Huntington. Uh you can see the corner of this two-story corner of the student commons. Set back
is a um on a kind of mezzanine level overlooking that is that admissions area. Uh the stepping of the uh ground floor pavilion that's very transparent. We think that makes a really nice as Michelle was pointing out this sort of porch area, place to hang out near the entry. These sort of little eddies of
space that um create kind of nice pedestrian scale along the pike. And again, keeping uh the width of the pike um open to the sky, at least 20 ft wide and in many cases substantially wider than that. Uh if we come around and look to the east on the Pike, uh this is the
corner of the dining uh with the entry to the dining over here. Uh twotory uh glazed curtain wall area looking out onto one of those social terraces that Michelle was describing right outside of dining. Uh I also noted here that uh the um
extra facade of the building we're looking at between uh glass in the in the uh kind of social spaces and with a pre-cast um approach on the residential facade. And we're really interested in we think that for one ties in uh from a material and kind of tonal standpoint
with some of the more recent modern buildings of Wentworth such as CEIC and Batty Hall. also uh I think tonally can tie in with some of the uh kind of stone detailing of um some of the older more historic buildings on the campus. And we're really interested in, you know,
we'll get into this more obviously in um uh subcommittee means, but really utilizing taking advantage of the plasticity of concrete to use uh texture and relief to really articulate scale and kind of a dynamic facade with shading and something that really also
works um when we think about this on the skyline with with the treehouse, how those two things can coexist and have a complimentary relationship. Uh this right here is a uh view from the pike looking north along that pedestrian connection. So this is the uh uh
southeast corner of the student commons. This is uh on the lefth hand view here. We're showing the existing buildings which are uh I think on the on the order of 35 ft from the uh uh pike residence hall. This is where that pinches down to 20 feet which is again the kind of
minimum width of the that was prescribed for the pike and this is where the uh existing power plant is on the right hand side in the full buildout of the IMP where those existing buildings to the right are removed. We get this new open space and offscreen to the right uh would be that smaller uh eastern
residence hall. And then finally, last slide here. Um that view from Huntington Avenue from uh let me get my bearings right from north looking south here. Uh looking down Huntington with the treehouse, very colorful and expressive
building. Um and the parallel and similarly proportioned um uh presence of the Pike Residence Hall here. And again, we're really thinking how these things can be complimementaryary and coexist on the skyline together. And really maybe that the uh uh more muted tones and
cooler tones of the exterior of the Pike residence hall could be sort of invert the relationship of warmth on the inside and cooler on the outside in a compliment to the um uh treehouse. So and that is the Pike residence home.
Okay, that was fast enough for a meeting. Thank you, Matt. Commissioners, maybe uh if anyone has any, you know, comments. I I'm gonna just start with one because if you could get to a plan, I feel like the
layering of the equaleness of each bar and that center core, if there's a way to look at compressing that and my quick idea is the what did you call them? The residents lounges in yellow. There's a way to flip
them so that they're hiding the ends of the core. I go to a typical floor and maybe that's where I can easily I what I guess I'm trying to do is figure out if we can make the bars closer together so that we can have more
open space is where my mind is going. And you have elevations that are pretty blank where you have the end of the elevator core and the end of a stair and some mechanical space. Could those be programmed more actively? And if so, if
you turn those residence halls, they end up only concealing a stair. So, that's not losing a whole lot of daylighting. But that's just one idea of mine of how you could just try to tighten those. So, we can just think about um gaining a
little bit more open space even if the podium stays, you know, a little bit wider to meet your program. That's just my initial burning thought, but I'm going to pass it on to Jonathan Garland. Okay. Um, yeah, and I I neglected to
bring this comment up in the last round of comments under the IMP amendment comparison, but but one thing when I started to talk about things to like about both, one thing I appreciated here was um how the building massing does it
seems to bring more light and daylight and views, especially into the um uh outdoor spaces, you know, the open spaces on the landscape plans. Maybe I'm missing something, but I thought you had in the amendment another qualitative
outdoor space to the what would that be? To the east. And then in these plans, I don't think I saw that. It seemed like what is it? Seemed like Kingman Hall is pretty close. Hey, just to clarify, yeah, this is showing the um sort of phase one with a
which um still retains Kingman and Wilson. And if I go way back to the if you want I go back to the uh the IMP slides that's shows actually the uh you know future other residence hall over here with a much larger you know green space between them. I see. Okay. So that this is just for
the phase one uh look of it. Um yeah generally at this stage I mean I'm I'm really interested to uh so I I like it uh the design. I think the bigger issue for me right now is just resolution with the larger master plan. And the last thing I would say is pre-cast is
interesting. Um I think you know you may already be thinking about some challenges with respect to passive house and and thermal bridging and what that can introduce with pre-cast and and things like embodied carbon with concrete. But aside from that, I I
appreciate the um level of um design that you're putting into the envelope. Shauna. Um hi. Thank thank you both Michelle and Mat both the landscape and the and the architecture are quite elegant. Um what
I'm actually curious about is seeing both the architecture in the short term and in the long in the longer term conditions. So even if it just bringing the massing back with the you know with the new buildings both the new
academic building and the um and the new you know new building to the right as well. So both both when we ex when we see it in subcommittee I think that would really help the understanding of the both the short-term um success of the project and the and
the long-term success of the project. Um but but I think and actually one thing I wanted to mention, you guys probably know that because you're pointing these little blue arrows um to on the treehouse, but there's a knockout panel actually in the building to that was in
the treehouse building that was could open up onto the I think it's right it's right above those blue arrows I think. Yeah, it's right here. Yep. That's definitely something that Wentworth has been in discussion about. Yeah, I can just jump in there and just say we've met with um Mass Art and they
advised us that. So, they were really excited about the potential to um really make that area in between the Pikes residence hall and the treehouse um almost like a a more activated space and they are putting some sort of dining
facility in that area and uh we both use the same dining vendor so it's uh it's going to be coordinated. Makes sense. Thank you, Linda. Um, thank you, Mimi. You know, some of
the comments I made during the IMP section, I think still apply here. One of the things I really like about the building, the the main floor, the ground floor, is the relationship of the indoor and
outdoor dining. I think that that will be um incredibly successful. So, I appreciate you looking at it and having it on that kind of northwest side of the building. Um, I continue to kind of want
to understand the relationship between the Pike Hall and existing conditions and also future conditions. And I'm feeling a little bit more relaxed about kind of the canyon that I was imagining, particularly at the pinch point along
that north south pedestrian pathway. But I think it would still be really um great to understand that a little bit more. Mimi brought up two um points that resonated with me. So I just wanted to um call those out again. The first is
that it would be good to understand operationally move in move out day. And I think when we um we're looking at the landscape master plan, you know, just noticing that you have a series of transformers
along the service court side of the the Pike Resaul um gives me a little bit of pause because I think you will need to be able to access the building from that side. um if not daytoday um pretty
frequently. And the second um idea that she shared just now about bringing the two um towers together, I think is really interesting. And I know dimensionally you'll have to figure that
out in terms of the podium and what you're including for the commons and for the dining to make that all work because I imagine dimensionally you've got as little space as you can. But I think the idea of bringing those towers together, maybe widening the open space along that
north south pedestrian way and maybe even effectuating a little bit more space between the treehouse and the Pike res hall. um could be a really interesting study. And then last, I just would love to have you bring to
subcommittee um some more of the elevations of the building just so we can understand the materiality and the shadowing and and what the experience would be and and please um bring it for that service
court side so that we understand how the landscape or lack of landscape is um interacting with the building on that portion. Thanks. Thanks, Linda. I'm not seeing any other commissioners
hands. I do think we have to see if there are any public comments. So, maybe we'll take a little break. At this time, I'd like to invite any members of the public in attendance who may wish to contribute public comment to raise your digital hand and I'll call on
you. If you're calling in by phone, press star 9 on your dial pad 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. Commissioners, at this time I see no
hands raised, so we'll close the public comment period. Sorry, my camera's off. I'm just sitting in the dark. Could I make one one comment before we Of course. Um in in some in some previous presentations we've had some really nice simple walk walkarounds that
have really helped with complicated sites. Um it hasn't required you know for the most part it's the buildings are masked but you know you may want to articulate your own. Um but it it was really really helpful and I think because geometrically there's a lot of complexity in in this I think it would
be would be very helpful. Yeah, and maybe I'll just reiterate one of David Hassen's points too because I do think um understanding the phasing makes the orientation make sense, but I do think
understanding how that Huntington academic building plays into it and seeing options for that. not just coming with an extruded rectangle that sits back or whatever like really trying to understand the you know the orientation
and show us what you've studied would be really helpful in subcommittee um because while I think we had a lot of doubts about the orientation of the building I think we're understanding I'm understanding the phasing a little bit
more and so we want to um I think work with you in that regard Mimi, if I could just add something quick. Um, going back to something that Kyra said earlier, I think with our um ambitions to get projects uh approved in
a more um condensed um number of meetings. I think it it kind of is imperative that the team comes back to us with as much information as possible so that we can have a deep discussion. It's a very
complex project and Shauna's pleased that we be able to walk around um either through a 3D model or something else I think is really important. We can get a lot done if we have the right tools.
Yeah, I agree. I I think we voted. So I think if there aren't any other comments, um I think we have one more vote and that is to adjourn. Do I have a motion? So moved.
Do I have a second? Second. All right. So I'll call on each commissioner uh to adjourn uh Linda. David Nagahiro. Yes. Katherine Morris, yes.
David Manf Freddy, yes. Laura Solano, yes. Jonathan Garland, yes. Shauna Gillis Smith, yes. Myself, yes. Very happy to adjourn. Thank you all. I didn't think it was going to be a late evening, but it was a
great conversation. Uh, and I hope we gave you enough feedback. Absolutely. Thanks so much for your time. Thank you. All right. Thanks, everybody. Good night.