HomeMy Public PortalAboutWATERTOWN_BLDG_B_Arsenal_Project_Design Review_5_18_17_Gamble_Associates_UPDATE_7_6_171
BUILDING B DESIGN REVIEW JULY 6, 2017 UPDATE ARSENAL YARDS
678 Massachusetts Avenue Suite 502
Cambridge MA 02139
May 18, 2017 UPDATED JULY 6, 2017
Steve Magoon, Director
Gideon Schreiber, AICP and Andrea Adams, Sr. Planner
Community Planning and Development
149 Main Street, Watertown, MA 02472
Sent via Email
BUILDING B – ARSENAL YARDS
PHASE 2 SITE PLAN REVIEW
This Memo represents a Site Plan Design Review of Phase 2 Building B for the Arsenal Yards Project. The
review is based on the Drawing set dated May 9, 2017. A follow‐up meeting was held with Boylston
Properties, the Town, PCA and Gamble Associates on May 16, 2017. THIS REVIEW INCLUDES THE
UPDATES FROM THE JUNE 13, 2017 SET.
General Comment: The hotel and integrated parking structure are the first new buildings to be
constructed on the property in Phase 2, following the selective demolition of the 1980’s portion of the
complex and the rehabilitation of Buildings A and E. Therefore, Building B sets a precedent for the
quality of new construction and character of the public realm that will be advanced with the future
buildout of the Master Plan.
Recommendations:
1. Landscape character: The connection between Arsenal Street with the River Green warrants
more development. The design language of the River Green should be continued along both
sides of the street that leads to Arsensal Street and across to Building E. Reinforcing the
pedestrian connection between the Arsenal Corridor and the Charles River is a significant
ambition of the town. Continuity and consistency of the landscape treatment (tree planting,
material palette, planters, etc.) will reinforce a sense of Arsenal Yards as a unique destination.
We understand the design team is working on this.
2
BUILDING B DESIGN REVIEW JULY 6, 2017 UPDATE ARSENAL YARDS
2. Ground floor public interface: Ground floor tenants need their own layouts and there are grade
changes, but efforts should be made to encourage more building entrances along Arsenal Street.
3. Pedestrian/bicycle/vehicular interface: The bicycle path along the western edge of the parking
structure is narrow. Efforts should be explored that provide additional space and/or planting
buffer between the path and the sidewalk/roadway. THIS HAS BEEN UPDATED WITH A MORE
GENEROUS BIKE PATH AND BUFFER.
4. Corner condition: The single exterior column on the northeast corner is an anomaly. If it cannot
be removed with a cantilever structural condition (PREFERRED), then the vertical element
should be celebrated through cladding or contour or scale.
5. Terraces: The second floor exterior terrace overlooking Arsenal Street would benefit from
landscaping and, although the interior courtyard on level three is not visible from the public
right of way, creative solutions should be sought for this shaded, exterior environment upon
which hotel rooms will view.
6. Architectural expression: The proponent has expressed an interest in differentiating the
character of new buildings so as to clearly distinguish them from the existing, historic buildings.
The uses of the new buildings themselves are also different from one another: Building B is a
hotel, while Buildings C/D are residential and future Building F ‐ while also residential ‐ is a
different construction type and also contains an integrated parking structure. Moreover, each
individual retail tenant may or may not customize their individual storefronts. Therefore, a
certain amount of “eclecticism” (DEVELOPER’S TERM) in the architecture is envisioned, even
preferred, by the development and design team to instill the area with vibrancy and artful vibe.
The Design Guidelines for Watertown’s Commercial Corridors (which form the basis for this
review) were written to address individual buildings rather than a collection of buildings in a
precinct such as this. Considerations should be made for further simplification of the
architectural palette of the new buildings which define an enhanced public realm. THIS
REMAINS OUR AESTHETIC POSITION. SHEET (A2.05 – POTENTIAL PALETTE OF MATERIALS)
IDENTIFIES TEN (10) DIFFERENT MATERIALS FOR THE “B” BUILDINGS. THIS IS BEFORE
VARIATION IN COLOR IS INTRODUCED OR GRADATIONS OF COLOR. OF THIS PALETTE, THE USE
OF FIBER CEMENT PANELS/CLAPBOARD ARE THE LEAST CONVINCING.
An alluring aspect of the historic Arsenal Buildings are their simplicity. They are clad in a single
brick material WITH LARGE OPENINGS OF GLASS, celebrate their monumentality and limit
3
BUILDING B DESIGN REVIEW JULY 6, 2017 UPDATE ARSENAL YARDS
façade articulation. New buildings on the site need not be “timeless” and “restrained” (OUR
TERMS) in their expression, but they should add value to the venerable old buildings that are
already there. The most interesting urban environments tend to be where new and old come
together. This can be achieved by difference, but greater recognition of the “host” buildings A
and E will bring the overall aesthetic of Arsenal Yards into greater coherence.
End of Memo.