Open Space | Turnpike Parcel 21 | Chinatown
- Thread starter goldenretrievers
- Start date
bigeman312
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2012
- Messages
- 2,160
- Reaction score
- 1,753
Consider me of the opinion that parkland, housing, commercial, retail, etc, or any combination would be much better than an open gash of interstate. I love that there's some movement on these parcels. It appears that they are planning one parcel for parkland and three for development. I'd be hard-pressed to find a reason to view that as anything but a major win for the city.
If I were god-emperor, I'd use this as an opportunity to re-design Washington Street. The parkland parcel is adjacent to Washington Street. By adding center-running bus lanes and separated bike lanes, the city can truly "address the longstanding physical division in Boston’s historic Chinatown and repair and enrich the public realm."
If I were god-emperor, I'd use this as an opportunity to re-design Washington Street. The parkland parcel is adjacent to Washington Street. By adding center-running bus lanes and separated bike lanes, the city can truly "address the longstanding physical division in Boston’s historic Chinatown and repair and enrich the public realm."
Honestly the best thing the city can do is just cover up each parcel above the pike from Mass Ave down to Chinatown, doing it all in one fell swoop. Then let each parcel get bought out, developed as a park, or whatever else but anything stitching these neighborhoods together is better than what it is now. I would think materials-wise it would make more sense to get it all in bulk and just move down piece by piece. I'm not an engineer, but it would seem that if a developer needs to add reinforcement below then it can be done as needed later, but maybe I'm wrong. Covering these gaps is far more doable (and necessary, imo) compared to the much wider ones they're doing out by Fenway. I know it's because of who purchased them, but now that the ball is rolling, the city is doing very well these days and can certainly turn a profit on pre-covered developable parcels.
Does the NEC here add a bunch of complexity/cost to decking? I'd think dealing with the catenary would be tricking to not disturb schedules since the existing support structures are so tall and it would need to be redone on the decking's ceiling.
The trench is much wider here than it is in the Fenway area (70-80 feet wider). In order to pre-build the decking before a real development starts, the city would have to install deep foundations capable of resisting the huge forces associated with a large development because that's the kind of work that you don't want to do twice. They could then deck over the highway but leave the column stubs for future development.
Charlie_mta
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2006
- Messages
- 4,051
- Reaction score
- 5,251
It's shortsighted that they don't move the side roads to the center of the corridor so that the deck could be less hefty, carrying a roadway for a good part its width rather than buildings. Also, this would enable a good portion of the new buildings to be on terra firma rather than over the Turnpike and railroad.
Even if the traffic patterns could be worked out somehow, this idea would involve new buildings constructed directly abutting the non-lot line sides of the new high school and all the buildings on Herald St.
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 6,801
- Reaction score
- 7,577
Of course that's what they should do
.The grant will produce a study, and hopefully the study considers that option. Fortunately, the grant covers more than just one parcel, so they can be considered as a corridor.
I drew a cross section of the Pike and side streets to illustrate why I don't think this is a particularly effective approach.
There are five places that you can place deep foundations within the cross section of the Pike:
1) North of the eastbound lanes
2) Between the traffic lanes
3) South of the westbound lanes (north of the CR tracks),
4) Between the CR tracks and the NER tracks
5) South of the NER tracks
I think that Marginal and Herald Street removal plan would eliminate having to drive/drill piles at locations 1 and 5, but will still require it at 2, 3, and 4. Alternatively, you could just shave the parking lane off of Marginal and Herald Street and install the piles from street level. This would also eliminate 1 and 5, but leave 2, 3, and 4, and wouldn't require a new street running down the center of the development.
Just as an aside, piles installed in the Pike are no more or less capable of supporting structural loads than piles installed anywhere else. It's just a matter of shutting down lanes during the installation and testing phases.
HenryAlan
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 3,671
- Reaction score
- 3,202
In this scenario, is the assumption that the partial air rights development on either side of the merged, air rights Harald/Marginal St. would leave an alley or pedestrian mall type space between it and the existing buildings? Or would the existing buildings be bulldozed to make room for land scrapers that are almost entirely on terra firma?
The idea doesn't make sense and any study would come to this conclusion in twenty minutes. If you want to take advantage of the relative ease of developing on real land to help cover the pike, it would best be done by allowing radical increases in density to the north of Marginal and south of Herald. For example, tell Druker that he can build to 3x the allowable FAR at his enormous Herald St. garage if he also covers up the Pike.
Eh, I think it underestimates how much you could cantilever from terra firma while narrowing Herald and Marginal streets. Undeveloped as yet parcels like the Drucker garage could just take the road space too. There's also areas like along Hudson St, that would be real land parcels if they took some of the street space.
If anything, people on this thread are wildly overestimating how much a building can be cantilevered. It’s not a magic trick - the overturning forces still need to be resolved and there are real-world limitations. In fact, this cantilever proposal is probably more cost prohibitive than just doing all of the foundation work in the Pike trench.
Herald St is about 40’ wide. Let’s say you take all of it and built right up to the property line with all the new developments there. Assuming you aren’t immediately sued to death by rightfully angry property owners, you can build on your new 40’ strip of land. If you really pulled off some engineering wonders, you could maybe get a 40’ cantilever over the tracks. Then you do the same thing on Marginal, cantilevering 40 feet over the Pike. You’ve covered up a 40 foot wide strip of the trench on the north side and on the south side on the trench. That only leaves a 130 foot wide strip of uncovered land in the middle, the size of a 10 lane highway. How does that get covered? By doing deep foundation work in the Pike ditch!
lainpimicaja
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2021
- Messages
- 127
- Reaction score
- 447
Nothing much new to share in this story in the Globe, but some good context about how the city is thinking about the process: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/03/22/business/stitching-hole-chinatown-with-park-over-pike/
stellarfun
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,611
- Reaction score
- 1,348
The Globe article states that the Federal planning grant will be used to study parcels 19, 20, and 22, as well as 21. It might be possible that if you built on 19, 20, and 22, you might get linkage payments to help pay for a park on 21.
^^^ From the Globe
Parcel 21 is at image center, Parcel22 20 is to the left of the Herald St. / Shawmut St. sign.
Parcel 22 is similarly sized to Parcel 21. Parcel 20 is about twice the size of either 21 or 22. Parcel 19 is a small triangular parcel.
^^^ From the Globe
Parcel 21 is at image center, Parcel
Parcel 22 is similarly sized to Parcel 21. Parcel 20 is about twice the size of either 21 or 22. Parcel 19 is a small triangular parcel.
Last edited:
lol "linkage payments" from projects that at best will barely pencil. Parcel 14 is asking for subsidies!The Globe article states that the Federal planning grant will be used to study parcels 19, 20, and 22, as well as 21. It might be possible that if you built on 19, 20, and 22, you might get linkage payments to help pay for a park on 21.
^^^ From the Globe
Parcel 21 is at image center, Parcel 22 is to the left of the Herald St. sign.
Parcel 22 is similarly sized to Parcel 21. Parcel 20 is about twice the size of either 21 or 22. Parcel 19 is a small triangular parcel.
Interesting that they're restudying the triangular parcel (Arlington, Tremont, Marginal) that would've been the park in Columbus Center. It should be built on tbqh, else it'll just be a green patch surrounded by exhaust.