Evolution of the Cleveland Circle project design -- and last chance to get it right

[Eva Webster]

Note: You will see that I pasted some colorful pictures farther down to illustrate some design issues — but the info in the narrative directly below will help you better understand where the whole Cleveland Circle project stands right now.

——————————-

If anyone is wondering why the Cleveland Circle project, which was approved by the BRA Board nearly a year ago, is not under construction yet, let me clarify that it is not the supposedly “NIMBY" neighbors that can be blamed for this delay.

Last fall, we learned that the original developer, Boston Development Group (BDG), would not be building the project after all — instead, they sold it to a bigger development firm named National Development.  NatDev has kept the hotel use (in the building that will be built along the D-Line tracks), but it has changed the program in the building facing Cleveland Circle and the Park — from condo-ready apartments to high-end, they say, rental senior housing.

Since I always hope for homeownership, I wasn’t jumping up with joy — but on the other hand, senior housing has its virtues — it creates less vehicular traffic, and it is a more stable and quiet use than regular housing (which in this location could very well end up being owned by absentee investor owners who would rent units to transient residents — while we need more people willing and able to grow roots here, just to have a more balanced neighborhood.)

When the BDG project was approved last year, it actually had an elegant, classical and timeless design on the main public side of the building (as seen from Cleveland Circle and Cassidy Park).  The community fought very hard for that design — it was one of not too many things on which we were able to prevail (while the building itself grew from 4 to 6 stories — and not because we asked for it).

But after NatDev entered the picture, they brought in their own architect who made significant changes to the previously approved design. Most of the changes were positive (especially a creative way in which they “decluttered” the tight interior courtyard) — but unfortunately, the general appearance of the residential building, as it would be seen from Cleveland Circle, has been a step backwards.

The new design is disappointing because it is too edgy, and no longer has the classic timelessness that would play well with the Circle’s existing architectural character.  Additionally, in the new design the residential building lacks the logical focus/orientation toward the Circle that it previously had. 

Due to all the changes that NatDev made, the project has to be approved by the BRA again (and this time, with a PDA designation).  The developer of course wants this to happen ASAP — but from the community perspective, things are not entirely ready. There is still more work to be done on the design, to get proper language in the PDA that protects us from surprises in the future, to weigh in on some transportation issues, and to ensure that the Cooperation Agreement has the best Community Benefits package that can be realistically achieved.

This is all very hard work — and the IAG is doing all we can to accomplish those things. My purpose in writing this message is to ask, one last time after 4 years of this protracted saga, that everyone in the community give us your support.  Please do whatever you can — whether it’s a short email/phone call to Councilor Ciommo’s office, or just speaking out in today’s BAIA meeting —  we need people to say that the outstanding issues need to be addressed (and they shouldn’t be rushed) before the project goes to the BRA Board.

Now — some more details on the design issue.

I have pasted below images that show the evolution of the project’s design on the side that faces Cleveland Circle:

 

The first design in 2012 — everyone hated it because it had metal cladding and was not respectful to Cleveland Circle’s character.

2013 design — a little better, but bland and lame.  Note that the building still has 5 stories. (The balconies close to Cleveland Circle were later eliminated because of traffic noise in that spot.)

2014  BRA-approved design — but rejected by the community.

2014 final design — fought for by the community, and achieved with Councilor Ciommo’s help. Note the nice looking bay windows overlooking the Park.

2015 current design — drastically different from the design the community wanted and approved last year.

The broad façade you’re seeing above (current design) is not facing Cleveland Circle — it’s the side of the building that faces Chestnut Hill Ave. and overlooks the trolley yard.  The inverted 90 degree corner seen here is the part of the building that is closest to Cleveland Circle.

Alas I don’t have a current drawing showing well how the inverted corner and the long facade along Cassidy Park appear together from Cleveland Circle — but the drawing below gives you a general idea how the building will look from the Park (currently that the randomly spaced balconies on the two upper floors have now been eliminated, and there is more definition at the roofline).

 

As you could see, all previous (2013 and 20014) designs had a prominent façade oriented toward Cleveland Circle.  This was something that the community requested, and the previous architects agreed was needed to anchor the building in Cleveland Circle (so the building would have a “face” turned to the Circle, like buildings on the other side of the intersection).

The current design no longer has a façade that acknowledges Cleveland Circle — instead, it has this odd-looking inverted corner (which still has 6 ft. deep, protruding balconies).  The balconies are directly above what is supposed to be a publicly accessible outdoor seating area (the only publicly accessible area along Cassidy Park that the neighborhood has been left with — and rather small, only the size of 4 parking spaces).

Additionally, this design will cause the public seating area to be mostly shaded (because one wall of the inverted corner faces north, and the other one east) — while people will be sitting wedged between these two 6-story tall walls — and with protruding balconies above their heads.

This design can still be improved, but everyone’s voices are needed for this to happen.

Best,

Eva 

[drh...@bu.edu]

Hi Eva,

There was article in the Globe on this project last week:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/west/2015/07/29/brookline-approves-hotel-senior-housing-circle-cinema-site/tEA1HwhnuFgbBr3DngYuPN/story.html

The article has a rendering that doesn't seem to match any of those you sent back in May. Have there been changes to the project that resulted in this?

Thanks,

David

[Eva Webster]

Yes, David — good catch; the design has changed for the better, much better!

The building will have a prominent, well-designed and memorable facade which will be oriented to, and therefore properly acknowledge Cleveland Circle.  This façade is slightly concavely curved (meaning, it’s not just a flat wall, as most buildings are – since it’s cheaper to build flat walls and straight lines than anything that has a curve to it).

Before, in the version that the BRA approved a few months ago (despite my protestations in the BCDC hearing in City Hall), we had two boxy, rectangular buildings that were meeting at the spot close to the Circle in a way that created a weird-looking inverted corner, which would be always in a shadow, and would look stylistically/architecturally very disjointed from the rest of Cleveland Circle.

In the new (and now final) design, gone are also the ugly, randomly spaced 6 ft. deep protruding balconies (the project will have plenty of balconies, but they will not be randomly spaced, or protruding over Cassidy Park and other public space as they were in the previous design.)

Also, the iconic CIRCLE sign will be positioned on the new building in a way that permits maximum visibility in Cleveland Circle.  It is supposed to be illuminated at night, so I think it will become a real landmark.  (Kudos to the Two Susans who lobbied for preserving the sign — my role was only in getting it optimally positioned/oriented on the building and lit up.)

It took a lot of work behind the scenes to get those positive architectural changes because the Design Review at the BRA was satisfied with the design as it was before (with the inverted corner, and randomly protruding balconies).  I knew it had to be fought, so I did.  But I don’t want to take exclusive credit for that.  This victory was possible only because I had a voice as an IAG member (and I had been nominated to the IAG by Councillor Mark Ciommo).  When it looked like things were lost, Mark nudged the developer to reopen the design issue (after the BRA had already approved the unsatisfactory design), which made my dialog with the developer possible.

Given the very complicated and difficult circumstances of this project (which forced many compromises), I don’t think that anyone is 100% happy with all the aspects of what has been approved.  But we with the Cinema closed since 2008, we need development on this parcel — and I think that this project is 100% better because of all the work that many neighbors put into the process.  I’m deeply grateful for that.  Those of us who are trying to lead can only do so when others in the neighborhood do their part as well.

Best,

Eva

P.S. By the way, I just learned that the 180 Telford St. project in North Allston is undergoing BCDC Design Review in City Hall tomorrow — but the BRA public meeting for this project is next Monday (which will be AFTER the BRA Design Review — making it harder for the neighborhood to have a say regarding the design).  I have not seen the proposed design of that building, so I don’t know if we should have any concerns (I hope it’s fine).  But I think that given the Samuels Assoc./Elkus Manfredi architectural fiasco in Barry’s Corner, I think we cannot afford to be passive on design issues.  

[Charles Denison]

Just curious, what was your objection to balconies facing the park? I'm trying to think what's bad about that, but I can't come up with anything other than they may cast a tiny little shadow up against the building edge, which is hardly anything to be concerned about.

Charlie

[Bret Silverman]

Someone please clarify the artist's picture for me. Are we looking at the site from beacon street heading west to newton in the rendering? Or from beacon street heading east to Boston? Or from some other vantage point? I'm curious because I don't understand the positioning of the brick building to the left of the main structure in the pic.

Perhaps someone crafty could post the artist's rendering and overlay some street names with arrows and directions. That would be very helpful. 

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cleveland Circle Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cleveland-circle-co...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to cleveland-cir...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cleveland-circle-community.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Eva Webster]

Bret,

The drawing that you saw ( http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/west/2015/07/29/brookline-approves-hotel-senior-housing-circle-cinema-site/tEA1HwhnuFgbBr3DngYuPN/story.html ) shows the project as you would see it if you were standing on the traffic island that has the Cleveland Circle clock, and looking toward the Cinema building (your line of sight would be going diagonally over the part of the Applebee’s parking lot that is close to Chestnut Hill Ave.)

The large 6-story building with the CIRCLE sign at the top is going to be built in the Applebee’s parking lot (including where the Applebee’s building stands)  — so it will be very visible from Cleveland Circle, and also from Cassidy Park (there is a long façade along the Park, which you cannot see in that drawing).

The 5-story, much simpler looking hotel building that you see in the drawing will be built on the Cinema’s front parking lot and on most of the Cinema building’s footprint (but it will not go as far the far end of the Cinema building).

The space that you see between those two buildings is a private access road leading to the interior of the project (in practice, it will work like a new street — I think it should have a name).

Hope this helps.

Eva

[Eva Webster]

On 8/3/15, 5:34 PM, "Charles Denison" <allstonbr...@googlegroups.com on behalf of cden...@gmail.com> wrote:

Just curious, what was your objection to balconies facing the park? I'm trying to think what's bad about that, but I can't come up with anything other than they may cast a tiny little shadow up against the building edge, which is hardly anything to be concerned about.

Large protruding balconies make the envelope of the building appear larger, and they also effectively infringe on the building’s setback — as they are hanging over the area which is supposed to be open/empty to provide a spatial buffer.  (Theoretically, one is supposed to be able to stand in the setback, look up, and see the sky — not have the bottoms of large balconies over your head.)

If the setback in this case was generous, having protruding balconies would not matter (from that perspective at least), but the setback of this project along Cassidy Park is small (especially in view of the 70 ft height of the building) — so it would be a disservice to park users to have 6-ft. deep balconies protruding into that space.  Additionally, the balconies railings would be “see-through”, so whatever some residents may keep/store there would be easily visible (it is less of an issue with fully recessed balconies because their contents are less visible).

Also, keep in mind that the narrow setback between the CIRCLE building and the Park will serve as a sidewalk and sitting area for residents and visitors of that building — so it would not be great for those folks to sit and walk directly under large protruding balconies.  (Anyone who aspires to evaluate a building design needs to think about such things.)

There is a reason why all classically designed buildings in Boston don’t have protruding balconies hanging from street-facing facades (although they often have bay windows, but those are usually no deeper than 2-3 feet, and they are fully enclosed, which makes them a part of the façade).

Exposed, protruding balconies can look visually disorderly, like appendages attached to the building, and they break the rhythm of the street (though it’s not an issue with tall, solitary towers — because such buildings never play by the rules of any street anyway).  With medium-size buildings that are to become a part of the existing streetscape, protruding balconies, if desired, are more appropriate in the back.

Just as an aside:  some of the balconies on the Watermark building (the Waterworks development) have an interesting design — they are partially recessed, and partially protruding (about 50-50). This produces a very user-friendly balcony space.  However, even if all balconies on that building were 100% protruding, their impact would not be a severe as on a building right in Cleveland Circle — because the Watermark has generous setbacks separating it from public property.

Eva

P.S.  I made a mistake (just sloppy, hurried writing) in my earlier posting today.  I wrote:  “the iconic CIRCLE sign will be positioned on the new building in a way that permits maximum visibility in Cleveland Circle”.  I think I should have written “…in a way that permits its maximum visibility from Cleveland Circle”.

[Eva Webster]

On 8/3/15, 5:34 PM, "Charles Denison" <allstonbr...@googlegroups.com on behalf of cden...@gmail.com> wrote:

Just curious, what was your objection to balconies facing the park? 

If you read my message carefully, you know that I didn’t have an objection to balconies facing the park, only to large protruding balconies.  The project still has balconies facing the park, but they are recessed.

[Charles Denison]

I see. It seems like it's not uncommon to have balconies facing the street (although it's not something we see in Boston a lot.) For example, Buenos Aires has streets where nearly every building has balconies on the front of it. Here are some examples:

 

Buenos Aires has beautiful streets, and I've always considered the balconies a part of that. As a resident, I'd love to sit outside on my balcony and watch people walking by, and I think many other people feel the same way. 

Charlie

[Leland Webster]

Would I want to look at that here in Cleveland Circle?

[Charles Denison]

Some people would probably be okay with balconies like that while other people would not. It's a situation where I think there's no clear right or wrong answer, since it's very much a matter of personal taste. But it brings up an interesting question. How much of a "right" do we have as citizens to dictate what other people should build on their own property? If a developer (or even an individual building a house for him or herself) wants to build a building with balconies on the front, as long as that is allowed by zoning, is it our place or even our right to force him or her to do otherwise, simply because we personally do not like the look of it? I think citizen participation is a good thing, and should be encouraged, particularly around public projects, but as to people building on their own property, especially when it comes to architecture and design, I wonder if sometimes we as citizens are given too much power and in some cases end up forcing people to build something they don't actually want to build. And if we do give other citizens that much power, how do we assure that we are actually getting an accurate assessment of how the people most affected by that project feel about the elements of it? It seems like some voices are much louder than others, and there are likely many people who are happy with what someone is proposing but don't want to take time out of their busy lives going to public meetings just to say that they support something.

Charlie

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cleveland-circle-community+unsub...@googlegroups.com.