Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What is that breaking ground over across the Green Line tracks from N Station?
I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Do you mean Cambridge Crossing (pardon the awful marketing language) which is well-underway (finally seems to be moving steadily after changing developers and master plans a bunch)? It's large scale and will amount to a ton of residential, retail, and office space. The Lechemere station is going to be moved into the middle of this project as part of the Green Line Extension.
Quote:
Funny you mention this, as I'm working right there at the present moment and get a 360 view of pretty much everything you are talking about. The Bullfinch Triangle, I think that's pretty much all parking for the jail and other state property? Perhaps it could be a long term goal in relocating all of that, I'm sure they could figure a way for that to pay off given the value of that land. That would be a huge undertaking though I'm sure, and unfortnately we don't have the greatest leadership at the helm. I'm certainly not the most imaginative when it comes to developing small plots like that, but to my untrained eyes I see a lot of challenges in developing that site. Would a high rise be a go there, for instance? Then again, I probably couldn't have envisioned the Hub on Causeway either.
This is the Bullfinch Triangle. It's a historic old neighborhood and there's plenty of room for infill development in all of surface parking lots which were once historic buildings. I don't know if you'd do high rises here, but infill that's contextual (comparable height and scale to neighbors) would be a net win.
The surface lots, the jail, and the old Spaulding building are a different area (no specific name, but technically the West End). I agree it's definitely on the distant horizon. I don't know about high rise, but honestly, it's one of the few areas in the city you can actually go tall between the lack of height restrictions from the airport, and the lack of powerful adjacent neighborhood groups, if you ever see 800ft+, it'll likely be here.
Quote:
With all that said, I continue to be baffled at the amount of overdevelopment taking place in the downtown. It's becoming a case of "wait...wait...there is still some sunlight making it's way through over there...how can we stop that???" The Manhattanization of the city is something I find quite disturbing, in my opinion Boston is rapidly losing its sense of self and the historic feel and identity. You can go on with the "NYC is denser", but it's hard to compare that to a city that was built on converted cow paths. Even cities throughout the world that are much older and denser, just seem somehow designed to take on a lot more weight.
I still think we're a long ways from Manhattanization. We're not even at San Francisco, Philadelphia, or Oklahoma City-ization (OKC has a taller building than Boston). If you're defining "downtown" as the Financial District and Back Bay, we're definitely limited with space (though there is some) and there's actually not a ton of development going on in those areas. If you move just beyond that, there's a lot of room. Look at the Convention/Expo Center in the Seaport. It's surrounded by an parking lots. This is immediately adjacent to downtown, and you have acres of surface parking (enough land to fit the entire current Financial District). You don't need to build supertalls here (which is good, you can't due to FAA restrictions) to vastly increase the amount of living/working space in the city. The land along 93 between North Station and Assembly has the Orange Line and Green Line and is ripe for development still. There's a lot of room. Keep in mind, Boston is still almost 200,000 people short of it's peak population.
How do you feel Boston is losing historic feel and identity? I look as what's happening as an effort to gain some of it back. Huge swaths of the historic, dense, walkable city were leveled to create the West End/MGH area, the Central Artery, Government Center and the Government Center Garage, etc. Knocking down the hulking Gov't Center garage and replacing it with new city blocks and pedestrian-scaled development is a return to Boston's roots. Removing the hulking elevated highway and adding parks and parcels for development is another return to the city's roots. It's hard to walk down the Greenway, Northern Ave. or Seaport Blvd. and argue that it's somehow worse than the surface parking and rail yards it replaced. Is the Hub on Causeway worse than the parking lot that preceded it? Is Assembly Row or Cambridge Crossing worse than what was there before? This stuff is thoughtful development and the city has room for a lot more of it. It's fixing old wounds, not creating new ones.
Quote:
So yes, I do realize there is room for a LITTLE more (not talking about projects already in the works. I'm talking in relation to what's already there, you are certainly not going to increase it ten fold without totally re-inventing the city Hong Kong style.
I don't know if it'd take "ten-fold" literally, but you can accommodate tens (potentially hundreds) of millions of square feet of development near the city center without touching a single historic building or constructing anything taller than the John Hancock Tower.
Quote:
Originally Posted by massnative71
Absolutely! Suburbs have to be part of the solution.
I agree 100%. Not just the suburbs, but the non-downtown neighborhoods with good transit and highway access need to shoulder some of the load too. Assembly is doing a good job at this (2 new buildings just broke ground there in the past few weeks). Cambridge Crossing is also doing a good deal of this. Watertown (Arsenal Yards), Brighton (Boston Landing), South End (Ink Block), Somerville (Union Square) and Dorchester (South Bay and others) all have large scale stuff happening now or in the pipeline. Smaller stuff is happening all over the outer neighborhoods. Eastie has seen a ton of development by Maverick, and there are a lot of proposals for Suffolk Downs which has two subway stops on the Blue Line which has plenty of capacity. So there's a lot happening outside of downtown and a lot more potential there.
In the actual burbs, you have some happening like University Station in Westwood, continued growth around Legacy Place, continued development in Waltham Center, Growth around Alewife in Cambridge/Arlington, SouthField in Weymouth (which is moving way slower than it should be) etc. But you need more. Places like Lynn Center, Mishawum or Anderson in Woburn, Norwood, Framingham, etc. all have plenty of room for growth and should continue to develop around the commuter rail.
That said, literally everything in the city or the burbs depends on continued T improvements. That needs to be a priority. If the system sucks, then all the development in the world around the stations won't do any good.
I wonder if the One Dalton Four Seasons building will have a lighted logo on top, or even an unlighted one.
I thought I saw a Globe article a few years ago mentioning how some agency or someone in the city wants to give the skyline more pizzazz by relaxing a strict, I believe, anti-logo policy. Weren't logos, other than the Pru, traditionally not allowed? The State Street building sign, when on Franklin Street, had a large lighted white sign on top, but it was removed when they moved to One Lincoln; I think that building does have a State Street lighted sign, similar to the original.
We're seeing more lighted logos now in the Seaport on new buildings, which I rather like -- but others may not?
I wonder if the One Dalton Four Seasons building will have a lighted logo on top, or even an unlighted one.
I thought I saw a Globe article a few years ago mentioning how some agency or someone in the city wants to give the skyline more pizzazz by relaxing a strict, I believe, anti-logo policy. Weren't logos, other than the Pru, traditionally not allowed? The State Street building sign, when on Franklin Street, had a large lighted white sign on top, but it was removed when they moved to One Lincoln; I think that building does have a State Street lighted sign, similar to the original.
We're seeing more lighted logos now in the Seaport on new buildings, which I rather like -- but others may not?
It looks as if One Dalton will have a subtle, illuminated Four Seasons Logo (just the tree, no text) on the top. At least in the renders: https://www.bostonmagazine.com/prope...dalton-boston/ . The current website seems to have the same logo up there (you can see it in the diagram about 1/2 way down the page), so I don't think anything has changed since that article came out in 2016.
The One Lincoln building has the state street logo, but that'll go soon too as State Street is moving again to the new building that's going up where the Congress Street Garage is. This is, in my opinion, the prettiest new tower that Boston is getting to-date, and renders indicate it'll be lit up nicely at night (though I'm not sure how "State Street" would look across the top of that one. Work has already begun to prep to Demo the garage over Merrimack/Congress Street.
I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Do you mean Cambridge Crossing (pardon the awful marketing language) which is well-underway (finally seems to be moving steadily after changing developers and master plans a bunch)? It's large scale and will amount to a ton of residential, retail, and office space. The Lechemere station is going to be moved into the middle of this project as part of the Green Line Extension.
This is the Bullfinch Triangle. It's a historic old neighborhood and there's plenty of room for infill development in all of surface parking lots which were once historic buildings. I don't know if you'd do high rises here, but infill that's contextual (comparable height and scale to neighbors) would be a net win.
The surface lots, the jail, and the old Spaulding building are a different area (no specific name, but technically the West End). I agree it's definitely on the distant horizon. I don't know about high rise, but honestly, it's one of the few areas in the city you can actually go tall between the lack of height restrictions from the airport, and the lack of powerful adjacent neighborhood groups, if you ever see 800ft+, it'll likely be here.
I still think we're a long ways from Manhattanization. We're not even at San Francisco, Philadelphia, or Oklahoma City-ization (OKC has a taller building than Boston). If you're defining "downtown" as the Financial District and Back Bay, we're definitely limited with space (though there is some) and there's actually not a ton of development going on in those areas. If you move just beyond that, there's a lot of room. Look at the Convention/Expo Center in the Seaport. It's surrounded by an parking lots. This is immediately adjacent to downtown, and you have acres of surface parking (enough land to fit the entire current Financial District). You don't need to build supertalls here (which is good, you can't due to FAA restrictions) to vastly increase the amount of living/working space in the city. The land along 93 between North Station and Assembly has the Orange Line and Green Line and is ripe for development still. There's a lot of room. Keep in mind, Boston is still almost 200,000 people short of it's peak population.
How do you feel Boston is losing historic feel and identity? I look as what's happening as an effort to gain some of it back. Huge swaths of the historic, dense, walkable city were leveled to create the West End/MGH area, the Central Artery, Government Center and the Government Center Garage, etc. Knocking down the hulking Gov't Center garage and replacing it with new city blocks and pedestrian-scaled development is a return to Boston's roots. Removing the hulking elevated highway and adding parks and parcels for development is another return to the city's roots. It's hard to walk down the Greenway, Northern Ave. or Seaport Blvd. and argue that it's somehow worse than the surface parking and rail yards it replaced. Is the Hub on Causeway worse than the parking lot that preceded it? Is Assembly Row or Cambridge Crossing worse than what was there before? This stuff is thoughtful development and the city has room for a lot more of it. It's fixing old wounds, not creating new ones.
I don't know if it'd take "ten-fold" literally, but you can accommodate tens (potentially hundreds) of millions of square feet of development near the city center without touching a single historic building or constructing anything taller than the John Hancock Tower.
I agree 100%. Not just the suburbs, but the non-downtown neighborhoods with good transit and highway access need to shoulder some of the load too. Assembly is doing a good job at this (2 new buildings just broke ground there in the past few weeks). Cambridge Crossing is also doing a good deal of this. Watertown (Arsenal Yards), Brighton (Boston Landing), South End (Ink Block), Somerville (Union Square) and Dorchester (South Bay and others) all have large scale stuff happening now or in the pipeline. Smaller stuff is happening all over the outer neighborhoods. Eastie has seen a ton of development by Maverick, and there are a lot of proposals for Suffolk Downs which has two subway stops on the Blue Line which has plenty of capacity. So there's a lot happening outside of downtown and a lot more potential there.
In the actual burbs, you have some happening like University Station in Westwood, continued growth around Legacy Place, continued development in Waltham Center, Growth around Alewife in Cambridge/Arlington, SouthField in Weymouth (which is moving way slower than it should be) etc. But you need more. Places like Lynn Center, Mishawum or Anderson in Woburn, Norwood, Framingham, etc. all have plenty of room for growth and should continue to develop around the commuter rail.
That said, literally everything in the city or the burbs depends on continued T improvements. That needs to be a priority. If the system sucks, then all the development in the world around the stations won't do any good.
Chelsea and Everett are the 2 fastest growing municiapalities in the state. Everett needs some transit investment though if it keeps growing like it is. Probably going to hit ~50,000 by 2022.
Chelsea and Everett are the 2 fastest growing municiapalities in the state. Everett needs some transit investment though if it keeps growing like it is. Probably going to hit ~50,000 by 2022.
They definitely need more. The SL3 just opened this past summer and it has it's own right of way through Chelsea, but it's still a bus, and it still has to run the same route as the SL1 though the seaport. So most Chelsea riders are still stuck with inconvenient commuter rail or the overcrowded 111 (if you're ever at haymarket, watch that thing board - it's chaos no matter what time of day).
I don't think it would be absurdly difficult to convert the SL3 right of way to rapid transit and run a blue line spur along the current right of way. The challenge would be the 1/2 mile or so from where the Silver Line ROW ends (at the TownPlace Suites by Marriott) and the the Blue Line tracks (around Wood Island). You could potentially extend that spur along the rail right of way to about Sweetster Circle in Everett.
Alternatively, you could potentially run an Orange Line spur along the same set of tracks (branch off between Sullivan and Assembly and cross the river by the casino) and down the Silver Line Right of way as well. That would be easier from an engineering standpoint since it's all existing rail/SL3 right of way (a BL spur would require taking residential and industrial land), but it's a lot of backtracking for riders from Chelsea.
So yes, I do realize there is room for a LITTLE more (not talking about projects already in the works. I'm talking in relation to what's already there, you are certainly not going to increase it ten fold without totally re-inventing the city Hong Kong style.
You don't need to totally re-invent the city. You just need to build much higher density anywhere walkable to the obvious list of transportation hubs. It doesn't need to be 1,000 foot towers. It can be 200' to 400' buildings with ~500,000 square feet. Get people out of their cars and into public transportation.
I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Do you mean Cambridge Crossing (pardon the awful marketing language) which is well-underway (finally seems to be moving steadily after changing developers and master plans a bunch)? It's large scale and will amount to a ton of residential, retail, and office space. The Lechemere station is going to be moved into the middle of this project as part of the Green Line Extension.
This one right here, I thought Cambridge Crossing was on the other side (and almost complete)?
I still think we're a long ways from Manhattanization. We're not even at San Francisco, Philadelphia, or Oklahoma City-ization (OKC has a taller building than Boston). If you're defining "downtown" as the Financial District and Back Bay, we're definitely limited with space (though there is some) and there's actually not a ton of development going on in those areas. If you move just beyond that, there's a lot of room. Look at the Convention/Expo Center in the Seaport. It's surrounded by an parking lots. This is immediately adjacent to downtown, and you have acres of surface parking (enough land to fit the entire current Financial District). You don't need to build supertalls here (which is good, you can't due to FAA restrictions) to vastly increase the amount of living/working space in the city. The land along 93 between North Station and Assembly has the Orange Line and Green Line and is ripe for development still. There's a lot of room. Keep in mind, Boston is still almost 200,000 people short of it's peak population.
How do you feel Boston is losing historic feel and identity? I look as what's happening as an effort to gain some of it back. Huge swaths of the historic, dense, walkable city were leveled to create the West End/MGH area, the Central Artery, Government Center and the Government Center Garage, etc. Knocking down the hulking Gov't Center garage and replacing it with new city blocks and pedestrian-scaled development is a return to Boston's roots. Removing the hulking elevated highway and adding parks and parcels for development is another return to the city's roots. It's hard to walk down the Greenway, Northern Ave. or Seaport Blvd. and argue that it's somehow worse than the surface parking and rail yards it replaced. Is the Hub on Causeway worse than the parking lot that preceded it? Is Assembly Row or Cambridge Crossing worse than what was there before? This stuff is thoughtful development and the city has room for a lot more of it. It's fixing old wounds, not creating new ones. .
I'm talking about the urban canyon effect. I would rather see a limited number of super-talls while keeping the rest of the historic low rise blocks intact, than fill in every available gap with plastic sterile looking mid rise stuff. I didn't realize it then, but I'm beginning to have more appreciation for Menino's desire for balance. I CANNOT believe what has become of the area around N Station. Better than the West End, sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox
I don't know if it'd take "ten-fold" literally, but you can accommodate tens (potentially hundreds) of millions of square feet of development near the city center without touching a single historic building or constructing anything taller than the John Hancock Tower.
That wouldn't block out yet more vital sunlight?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox
I agree 100%. Not just the suburbs, but the non-downtown neighborhoods with good transit and highway access need to shoulder some of the load too. Assembly is doing a good job at this (2 new buildings just broke ground there in the past few weeks). Cambridge Crossing is also doing a good deal of this. Watertown (Arsenal Yards), Brighton (Boston Landing), South End (Ink Block), Somerville (Union Square) and Dorchester (South Bay and others) all have large scale stuff happening now or in the pipeline. Smaller stuff is happening all over the outer neighborhoods. Eastie has seen a ton of development by Maverick, and there are a lot of proposals for Suffolk Downs which has two subway stops on the Blue Line which has plenty of capacity. So there's a lot happening outside of downtown and a lot more potential there.
In the actual burbs, you have some happening like University Station in Westwood, continued growth around Legacy Place, continued development in Waltham Center, Growth around Alewife in Cambridge/Arlington, SouthField in Weymouth (which is moving way slower than it should be) etc. But you need more. Places like Lynn Center, Mishawum or Anderson in Woburn, Norwood, Framingham, etc. all have plenty of room for growth and should continue to develop around the commuter rail.
That said, literally everything in the city or the burbs depends on continued T improvements. That needs to be a priority. If the system sucks, then all the development in the world around the stations won't do any good.
Yep, the T needs to be totally re-invented. Having slow quaint choo choo trains that make 4 stops in one town, with tiny parking lots that are poorly linked to the highway system; does not cut it in this century.
With all that said, I continue to be baffled at the amount of overdevelopment taking place in the downtown. It's becoming a case of "wait...wait...there is still some sunlight making it's way through over there...how can we stop that???" The Manhattanization of the city is something I find quite disturbing, in my opinion Boston is rapidly losing its sense of self and the historic feel and identity. You can go on with the "NYC is denser", but it's hard to compare that to a city that was built on converted cow paths. Even cities throughout the world that are much older and denser, just seem somehow designed to take on a lot more weight.
This city may not have been "designed" to hold 1 million + people in 48 square miles, but theres no logical reason why it can't reach San Francisco's population. Both cities are 46-48 square miles , and San Francisco isn't exactly designed very well either. One quarter of San Francisco's area is either parks or neighborhoods that could not be developed on a grid pattern on account of hills/mountains, and the rest of the city that is uniform street patterns is plagued by hills everywhere. Boston has hills but not as many or as steep, and most of the city's streets are fairly reasonable and form atleast a somewhat coherent pattern. If we were including other cities, I would say Cambridge, Somerville, Chelsea, and Revere all contain fairly strong grid patterns as well. I think it just comes down to what people are willing to build/demolish.
I just ran across this thread and remembered an event from 1965. I was a Naval Aviator and served in the Dominican Revolution in April of 1965. Marious A. Gache and I rescued over 100 Americans in one week. We had the only helicopter in the nation. It was written up in all the papers. We flew off the USS Newport News. After a week, the USS Boxer showed up with lots of Army helicopters. Our ship left snd headed north to Boston for a liberty port. The ship's crew went ashore.
Vice Admiral Masterson was a three star admiral and we had become acquainted with him because we briefed him after most flights. After a week I was "Roger". The day after we arrived, the admiral came down to the flight deck on the stern and said, "Hey Roger, let's go fly." I asked, "Where?" Admiral says, "Boston." He said, "I got clearance to fly anywhere we want except over Logan Airport."
He had two big camera bags and lots of film. We flew by the USS Constitution right by the guns. We flew over Bunker Hill so the admiral could look down at the harbor to where the British fleet was in 1775. Then we flew over to the Prudenial Center which was under construction. We flew between the towers. Each tower had a helicopter landing pad.
"OK, Now what, Sir?" He said, "Let's fly over Fenway Park." It's only about a mile from "The Pru". I flew to Fenway and there was nobody there around 9 AM. The Sox must have been out of town. Well Air Traffic Control had said "Anywhere", so I flew down to the pitcher's mound and hovered four feet over it. Groundskeepers came running out and stared. I hovered to home plate, first base, second base, third and home. Then I said, "Watch this. I'll show you the path of a home run." I took off at a steep angle, over the mound, second base and out toward the old Citgo sign. (The new sign is bigger.) The admiral cheered. He was having a ball. He said, OK, let's go back to the ship. He thanked me for the flight and I never saw him again. The helicopter was a Bell UH-13P. You can Google it for a picture.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
