Don’t wait for an elucidation from him. His modus operandi is to ring the doorbell and then run away. He makes blanket statements without explanation - it’s what he does. He’s been asked over and over to give the “why” to his kneejerk pronouncements, but he has no interest in actual understanding and discussion. He’s only here to emote.
Allston-Brighton Infill and Small Developments
- Thread starter kz1000ps
- Start date
Don’t wait for an elucidation from him. His modus operandi is to ring the doorbell and then run away. He makes blanket statements without explanation - it’s what he does. He’s been asked over and over to give the “why” to his kneejerk pronouncements, but he has no interest in actual understanding and discussion. He’s only here to emote.
“Type IIIB wood-framed construction” says it all.
I’ve spoken at length as to why these buildings end up so bad. If you want criticism free cheering of gluing thinset brick to plywood, maybe you’re in the wrong place.
Last edited:
I’m in the right place, son. And, as we can all see right there, was 100% successful in actually making you state a “why” for your usual Ding Dong Ditch posts. There’s hope for you yet, if you can grow up.
Last edited:
You’re lost but you don’t know it.
millerm277
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2013
- Messages
- 577
- Reaction score
- 786
Ah, so complaining about the most cost-effective form of construction in the country, and one of the only things that's actually helping the housing shortage + getting more units built and more people to be able to live in cities.
"Cost effective" is the spit-shine word for "cheap." Build cheap buildings, get a cheap city.
millerm277
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2013
- Messages
- 577
- Reaction score
- 786
Most buildings have always been built to the lowest common denominator of their day.
Brighton's full of triple-deckers that were the cheapest thing you could build when they were built (and are even more flammable than these). Still looks like.....a vibrant neighborhood full of people to me.
Koopzilla24
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2022
- Messages
- 457
- Reaction score
- 1,359
You're confusing Type III with Type V (of the infamous 5 over 1) construction. Type III construction uses a non-combustible exterior material like brick and stone around fire-retardant-treated exterior wooden framing members. The A vs B is whether or not the interior framing members need flame-retardant. B means they do not. This is typically allowed when the exterior material is very fire-resistant, brick, stone, etc, as opposed to say steel or glass. Type V on the other hand is combustible material "with low or no fire-resistant construction." These have the lowest occupancy and height limits and require sprinkler systems even if only 2 stories. Type V allows whatever the cheapest thing you can build that is up to code (which is plywood in the US) whilst Type IIIB requires some kind of fire-proofness built in.
In addition, dont be perturbed by the term "glulam" lumber. It's different from plywood and is legitimate wooden framing members, but reinforced with glue, making them stronger, capable of more complex shapes, and longer lasting than plan lumber.
The lowest that they could get away with. We’ve lowered standards so deeply that nearly nothing built here would be legal in any world city.
The type III here just means that the exterior is going to be drenched in fireproofing chemicals.
And you can build vibrant neighborhoods and indeed whole cities without building a single structure worth caring out. Indeed, we’re doing it right now.
This city and its developers certainly have some questionable tastes when it comes to current architectural motifs (e.g. the seemingly permanent obsession with offset windows and certain color palettes). But in terms of the materials and construction methods, I just don't see you being able to do much better than what we're getting now without a wholesale reset of the real estate market. Land, materials, labor, rents, and values have reached a certain equilibrium where higher-quality styles/materials just won't make financial sense for the majority of projects. I don't like it either, but that's simply the reality. "Okay" projects like this one here are worth cheering on because in most cases the only alternatives would be worse, not better.
You can go 200 miles southwest and see countless examples of simple residential buildings (in the Bronx, deep Brooklyn, Flushing) being built with sound construction materials.
You need not look further than 101 Washington, right in Brighton. 6 stories of CIP concrete construction, permitting a much heavier facade of actual masonry, not a brick wallpaper.
Many NYC residential buildings are built under zoning allowances that Boston simply doesn’t have—larger FARs, more leniency on lot-line walls, and economies of scale that let builders standardize products across boroughs. Boston builders aren’t choosing inferior construction; they’re building within a regulatory and economic box that NYC doesn’t impose in the same way.
If Boston were allowed the same zoning flexibility and scale as those outer-borough projects, you’d see plenty of solid, efficient mid-rise residential here too. The comparison sounds easy—but it’s not actually apples to apples.
If Boston were allowed the same zoning flexibility and scale as those outer-borough projects, you’d see plenty of solid, efficient mid-rise residential here too. The comparison sounds easy—but it’s not actually apples to apples.
You’re describing what I’m describing. We are saying the same thing. (Except this type of papier mache construction is simply banned in New York, even for projects of this same density.)
We might be talking about the same topic, but we’re definitely not making the same point. I’m explaining why Boston’s development patterns are the way they are and why they don’t mirror that other city 200 miles southwest. You’re using those same patterns as evidence that Boston is somehow unlivable.
Not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison, my friend.
Not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison, my friend.
I know why they are the way they are. I have built these buildings before. The point is that we need not build a whole city of dreck. There are places where this isn’t happening and we must learn from them.