BPDA Austin Street Parking Lot Development | Charlestown

-Approved

700+ Unit Master Plan Approved for Austin Street Parking Lots in Charlestown​


“Approval has been secured for the redevelopment of the Austin Street Lots in Charlestown, which is set to include over 700 residential units across four mixed-use buildings……”

“In addition to approving the PDA for the entire site, the Board approved the first phase, known as Building B, which will produce 123 income-restricted units.”


austin_street_lots_1.png


700+ Unit Master Plan Approved for Austin Street Parking Lots in Charlestown

700+ Unit Master Plan Approved for Austin Street Parking Lots in Charlestown
www.bldup.com www.bldup.com
 
stick n move said:
-Approved

700+ Unit Master Plan Approved for Austin Street Parking Lots in Charlestown​

Click to expand...
That's a slightly different render from what we've seen previously, showing a mixed use path, rather than a sidewalk. I prefer separation between bike and pedestrian infrastructure, but it's certainly quite a bit better to have this version than an outright sidewalk.
 
HenryAlan said:
I suspect the existing parking lots generate more pedestrian crossings of that access road than the apartments would. But as the developer points out in the article, the structures will be inward facing, and likely limiting pedestrian usage of that street anyway.
Click to expand...
All the foot traffic in those lots is occurring at the beginning or end of the work day, aside from the vagrants that is. Obvious solution to alleviate the BSG access road dilemma is running it directly along the Tobin onramp and combining the lots into one.
 
greenbeans said:
All the foot traffic in those lots is occurring at the beginning or end of the work day, aside from the vagrants that is. Obvious solution to alleviate the BSG access road dilemma is running it directly along the Tobin onramp and combining the lots into one.
Click to expand...
cant have the driveway of BSG meet Rutherford directly next to the Tobin ramp intersection.

one of the many reasons the other proposal was better (but not selected due to the bait and switch that happened). thats a ped bridge over the driveway:
Equilibria said:
DREAM and Onyx Development: https://www.bostonplans.org/getattachment/f4219712-78d0-4efe-b12d-1f1767d759f3

View attachment 42858
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Here I'm going to reach for the ca1993 FEIS plans for the Zakim. BSG was originally going to have a fully signalized direct connection to Rutherford on the site of the existing City Square Tunnel ramps. The original plan for this area called for filling in the Millers River basin, which got this halted by Cambridge environmental groups. However, a connection in the same vein would in principal remain entirely physically possible without any fill in the footprint under I93, (absent the connection to the Leverett Connector and subject to viaduct footing spacing) but that option was not the preferred alternative identified in 1993.

By realigning the westbound offramp to a signaling junction, Galvin Park would also become much less constrained, making it in of itself a worthwhile project. Additionally if If you did build the connection to Leverett, the absence of this intersection is also why there's a "missing move" from Rt1/the Tobin to I93 North, or I93S to Rt 1.
Screenshot_20211216-020805_Google Play Books.jpg
download (1).jpg
 

Attachments

  • download (2).jpg
    download (2).jpg
    459.2 KB · Views: 83
Last edited:
I wonder what kind of agreement BS&G has on Service Road. If it's a public road that they're using without any sort of agreement, I don't think they have any ground here. If they do have an agreement, it's perplexing the project got this far along and included as many crosswalks, bike-lane-crossings, and general public realm improvements to a road named "Service Road" on the backside of the development. Seeing as the developer had many face to face meeting with BS&G, and this is where they presumably landed, aka - the developer put what they want - I'm assuming whatever agreement they have over Service Road, if any, is pretty weak and likely only limits them to the number of trucks per day.

At first, I thought this was a ridiculous statement, but looking at their plans, I somewhat get their point. And anybody who has tried convincing a concrete truck driver to not add too much water to the mix will know that telling them to drive slowly and cautiously on the main entrance road to their plant is a losing battle. While I’d feel comfortable crossing as a pedestrian, and perhaps more alert as a cyclist, the broader strategy of public realm improvements on Service Road in this way does feel somewhat misaligned with its current functional use.

Without intimate knowledge, if BS&G wants meaningful control over how Service Road operates, the burden likely falls on them to secure a stronger, more explicit agreement governing access and use. I also appreciate that the Globe pressed for evidence supporting the claim of guaranteed fatalities, particularly given the existing condition includes a large parking area accommodating hundreds of in-and-out cars/pedestrians, albeit in a configuration that minimizes interaction with Service Road.

1776007311120.png


I also imagine that the billion-dollar North Station Drawbridge & Track Reconstruction project is going to be utilizing this road for access as well. Will be a busy few years of some serious equipment and machinery and general traffic going down that road.


Edit: And to be clear, the answer here isn't to block the development, but to reconsider pedestrian paths and infrastructure. The plant isn't moving - it has to be accommodated some way.
 
Last edited:
This is a nuisance lawsuit but scrapping this project would ultimately be positive for the city. This site is not fit for human habitation and anyone living near here is set up for major long term health issues. In other words, BSG is saving us from ourselves.
 
Jeremi said:
This is a nuisance lawsuit but scrapping this project would ultimately be positive for the city. This site is not fit for human habitation and anyone living near here is set up for major long term health issues. In other words, BSG is saving us from ourselves.
Click to expand...

Definitely, and while were at it we should also remove all of these buildings next to highways as well, just to be safe. Sure they wont want their houses removed, but were saving them from themselves.

IMG_5626.jpeg

IMG_5627.jpeg

IMG_5628.jpeg

IMG_5630.jpeg
 
Last edited:
This site is BETWEEN two highways and a huge gravel pit. 16 lanes of traffic on one side, 8 on the other.
 
Last edited:
Mhm, and Rutherford Ave is famously not getting any kind of road diet in the near future that would decrease the number of lanes
 
This is objectively a terrible place to build multifamily housing from a public health perspective, yet the general local and regional obsession with "neighborhood character" and not wanting to upset existing residents means so much of our much-needed multifamily gets plopped alongside major highways or arterial roads like this one. Residents in this building will suffer poor air quality and noise pollution that pose a real and lasting detrimental long-term impact to their health.

1776020556073.png
 
The “road diet,” if it ever actually happens (unlikely) will trim this portion of Rutherford from 8 lanes to a modest, dainty, 7.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top