Does anyone look at the city from the suburbs and say...

[smarty]

I feel Boston is a city without real planning. As professorsenator says, we are being forced to choose between two. If better planning occurred, there may be other options. We do not think out of the box.

Just look at public transportation system between Boston and Worcester (or Nashua, NH; Providence, RI). Almost non-existence. MBTA is a joke. It is faster to drive (may be cheaper if you fill a car with people) into Boston than taking public transportation.

I suggest looking at other city like Oregon, Vancouver on Bostonchannel.com/Chronicle. They are able to create a city like living quarters (tall buildings) but with large parks and open spaces just below. Many other countries created satellite cities with supporting transportation systems.

[mustmove]

I love the burbs. I don't think the popularity of the burbs is due to some failure of urban planning. The burbs work, and are the best solution for many people. As a qualifier I grew up in the burbs(LI), lived in Cambridge and Eastie, also rural VT. I'll take the burbs any day. A big criticism of the burbs is lameness, and that is true but the burbs lameness is also a plus. From lameness comes freedom. Live in the country and you spend so much time dealing with life(travel for shopping/work, hauling wood etc.) that you don't have time to enjoy the good parts of the country. The city still smells like urine and probably always will.

[LeavingMA]

I have no problem living away from the city. I live right near Leominster and there is plenty of shopping and restaurants to choice from. Worcester is only about 20 minutes away and offers more opportunities. Plus, I can get to the beach or mountains in an hour or two and if I want to go to Boston I can go to Boston for the day.

I understand why some people might like to be near the city and each person has their own preferences. I think out in the suburbs you have the best of both worlds...city and rural. Plus, who says their is more to do in the city. Many people like doing things outdoors. I just went ATVing, where can you do that anywhere near Boston. I own two cars and really like to go out driving down winding and fun roads. You just can't do that in the city. I'd be stuck in first gear, hitting the gas and then brake at the next light...or hit more traffic. Even if you go to a bar, I'm one who just likes to relax and have a few drinks. I don't need to be in Boston to do that, and then pay $6 or $7 for a beer. Nevermind if its a weekend and I would have to pay some ridiculous cover if I wanted to watch college football or something. Sure there are more people in the city, but who actually talks to you or cares what you are doing. And if you work a normal 8-4 or 9-5 job during the week, most of your time is spent either at work or at home. I'm not one for on-street parking and paying $1,600 for an apartment the size of a closet just to say I can walk to some restaurants and take the T. I'll drive when I have to and enjoy my comfort and money where I live now.

I always like the medium sized cities that still feel like a town atmopshere better than actual cities. Cities like Boston and NYC are fun to visit to me, but I don't need to stay or live there.

[clevedark]

Yes, I am stymied by the public transportation in Boston, but I'm spoiled by spending the first 40 years of my life with transit in and around NYC.

It takes so darn long to take the T anywhere, and parking is so expensive, and there's that stupid residents only parking rule in most neighborhoods that I rarely take advantage of anything in Boston besides things I can walk to, things I've bought tickets to, or things that I absolutely need to go to.

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by smarty

I feel Boston is a city without real planning. As professorsenator says, we are being forced to choose between two. If better planning occurred, there may be other options. We do not think out of the box.

Just look at public transportation system between Boston and Worcester (or Nashua, NH; Providence, RI). Almost non-existence. MBTA is a joke. It is faster to drive (may be cheaper if you fill a car with people) into Boston than taking public transportation.

I suggest looking at other city like Oregon, Vancouver on Bostonchannel.com/Chronicle. They are able to create a city like living quarters (tall buildings) but with large parks and open spaces just below. Many other countries created satellite cities with supporting transportation systems.

This is an interesting perspective. While the MBTA is without a doubt flawed, it still sees some of the highest ridership in not only the nation, but the world. There's plenty of room for improvement (it will never be NYC... nowhere has a transit system like that), but it's better than what you'll find in most places including your example of Vancouver. In the U.S. Only NYC, Chicago, D.C. and possibly San Fran have a better transit system. Boston's commuter rail is pretty extensive (and widely used) given the size of the city. It needs work, yes, but it's not as bad as we often like to make it out to be. It may be faster to drive, but it's rarely cheaper (when you consider all costs of owning/operating a car) and most often not easier. If the cost of driving forces many to carpool in order to save money, I can't say that's a bad thing.


Now, where I really feel a bit differently is your stance on planning. I feel that Boston's greatest asset is it's LACK of planning. The confusing street grid in may be a pain to drive in, but for a pedestrian, it's fantastic. The meandering, windy streets provide vistas and areas unlike any you'll find in the U.S. Planned grids often lead to monotony (the exceptions being Manhattan, Chicago, parts of Philly) for pedestrians and can many times be too autocentric. A large part of what makes Boston so great and unique is its lack of planning. I wouldn't trade that for anything. Many of the most fascinating cities in the world (London, Rome, Prague, etc) grew up organically without a major plan. I love it. I'd hate to have the grid system of Phoenix or Houston. Give me the crooked streets any day.

I am fascinated with the fact that you brought up Vancouver. It's truly a wonderful unique city. I love it. It's a strange blend of Asian and American. One of the most densely populated cities in North America (outside of Mexico of course). However, I cringe every time I hear about the "tower in the park" concept. It seems everyone who reads about it thinks it's wonderful (understandably... on the surface it appears to be the best of both worlds), but this concept is nothing new and is, in fact, an epic failure.

The "Tower in the Park" concept was something created by a man named Corbusier. He felt that the perfect urban landscape would be towers in a park setting providing density (something we all know is needed for a thriving urban environment) while maintaining the natural aspect of trees and parks. It would be a "city with nature." The reality is the complete opposite. See, cities are defined by their streetscapes. Imagine Boston without the winding streets of the North End, the dense canyons of the Financial District, the aristocratic boulevards of Back Bay, the Cobbled pathways of Beacon Hill. Tower in the Park does away with everything urban. It eliminates streetscapes and the pedestrian activity that provides the buzz of urban living. While urban places like Boston have their open spaces (i.e. North Square, Copley Plaza, etc) that provide meeting places for city dwellers to gather in the middle of the urban jungle, Towers in the Park do no such thing. They eliminate all sense of urban order which provides the city with the life that defines it.

Like I said, Towers in the Park are not new. If you want to see examples, look no further than Boston's West End. A neighborhood which was designed on Corbusier's principles. While that neighborhood is essentially in the heart of Boston, it has little to no street life while its neighbors like Beacon Hill, North End, Bullfinch area and the Financial District are abuzz with activity. The reason is that there is nothing in the West End to engage a pedestrian which is the problem with the whole tower concept. If you want more examples, look at housing projects all across the Northeast. Many are designed along these lines and most are desolate wastelands... not providing what they were intended. The "park" that was supposed to provide respite to those in the towers is more of a tundra... an area that's avoided and empty. Co-op City in NYC may be one of the best examples of the failure of this concept. You drive by it on I-95 and most of us look in awe at the massive expanse of towers in the "park" spanning for what seems like miles. They provide stark contrast with the vibrant urban neighborhoods that dot the area adjacent and any local there will tell you to stay away. Stuyvesant town in Manhattan may be the only example of this concept that's even remotely successful. It works because it's surrounded by such wealth that gentrification was bound to claim it and it's so close to the heart of the city. It's still inferior to all of the adjacent urban neighborhoods, but it's not as terrible as most tower in the park complexes... particularly those a few miles further from the city center. However, the neighborhood around it survives in spite of Stuyvesant, not because of it.

Height and towers aren't the problem... a tower can have a base that not only fits in but enhances the streetwall and activity. You can see this all over the financial district (the new 45 Province building is a great example as is what's going in at Russia Wharf). It's the concept of towers in the park that is terribly flawed and anti-urban. It's backwards. Those complexes would work better in a suburban environment. Look in google maps at Co-op city and see how awful it looks compared to the rest of the area. Same with Stuyvesant town in Manhattan... it's the antithesis of urban... a blight on successful cities.

[missionhill]

Boston without real planning? No sir. Boston and suburbs have been planned up, down, and sideways. Zoning is everywhere. Wetland regulations are strong. Design review is big, as the Globe story about Menino's ediface complex made pretty clear. Even today, the Back Bay is one of the greatest examples of comprehensive city planning in North America. The South End, also built according to plan. Olmsted laid the Emerald Necklace over Boston in the 1870s and '80s, and Charles Eliot followed with the metropolitan parks, reservations, and parkways. Olmsted also laid out the Beacon St and Commonwealth Avenue parkways out to Chestnut Hill. The Charles River Basin is a totally planned and constructed environment. Everyone gripes about the mid-20th century planning, but boy was there a lot of it--Government Center, West End, Charlestown, New York Streets, Villa Victoria, Washington Park Urban Renewal Area... Kevin Lynch's high spine concept took shape according to plan. The highway system was planned, debated, and then partially de-planned under Gov Sargent; which was then followed by all the subway relocations/extensions of the '70s and '80s, and the CA/T project. the South Boston waterfront has been subject to 20 years of urban design plans.

Maybe the end result is not what you'd like to see but don't think there hasn't been lots of planning.

The big difference compared to many other cities is lack of a street grid, but those are historic artifacts today, in any case. Manhattan island has a nice one but it dates back to 1811. The rest of the NY metropolitan area is no more grid like than Greater Boston. At least Boston is organized like a wheel with a hub and noticeable spokes. Lots of local confusion but you can grasp the basic pattern pretty easily.

[lrfox]

MissionHill, you bring up a great point and one that I omitted from my post. Much of Boston IS planned. The Back Bay is just about the perfect example (have you seen blueprints for the original plan? There was an Island planned in the Basin with even more Back-Bay style homes) of excellent planning. It was a neighborhood planned for an area that was made out of infill (Where Back Bay is used to be water) so the planners had the unique opportunity to completely plan a new neighborhood and they executed it with stunning success.

South Boston's Waterfront is a different story. There are lots of parking lots down there as well as old, sprawling rail yards that provide the opportunity for large scale development. Fan Pier is under way, the Convention Center area has a lot complete and is still growing and the Seaport Square project seems as if it's getting on track again.

The problem is that all of these plans really look a lot like Suburbia. Wide streets, too much pointless greenspace, and cheap, uniform veneer facades. It seems as it it will have all the charm of Scottsdale, AZ (minus the weather). I'm not a big fan of what they're doing over there, but it's an example of "planning" nonetheless.