Search results

Should be much higher, but it is a 100% affordable development. The local non-profit behind this expansion (CCBA) could only amass funding for the 5 over 1 type expansion. No one in this neighborhood would have objected to more height here. But at 100% affordable, there is only so much money...

Understood, but you flipped the ridership scenario back around to visitors (the original intent) not residents of Sharon. I don't see how it works for residents to accomplish last mile trips.

I heard about the Sharon example. but I am really confused about how bikeshare can work to provide last mile train to home connectivity on a suburban setting. Bikeshare at the station: cool. I get off of my train and grab a bike. Ride bike 2-3 miles home: cool. Particularly nice if there is...

The brick work is also quite boring. Look at the difference in the design interest level of the old brick work of 41 Linskey Way (above) versus the very plain interpretation of the MIT Music Building. 🥱

Add in coordinated schedules with coordinated, cross-platform transfers and you would have a world-class system. With coordinated transfers, 2- and 3-seat rides stop being objectionable.

Surface NS and SS remain the Downtown termination stations. NSRL is for thru-running to a surface terminus further out.

Usually referred to as Central Station -- not really a central hub, but a connection to get the Blue Line connected to the Urban Rail network. It is deep and expensive to build, and often talked about as optional. But it does get all the rapid transit lines connected to the Urban Rail network...

Above, what the architects promised. Below, after VE:

Sage Green has been all the rage on design sites for the past year. Lemmings, one and all. :rolleyes:

Interesting perspectives. But the density of the Seaport area is much higher than Assembly. Those 20 story buildings (one or two? in Assembly) need more loading docks and parking ramps and arterial roads (particularly since we screwed up the transit option in the Seaport). Assembly has a...

Brick on the back side makes sense. I was misreading some of the photos as showing brick on the Arlington street façade, which would not be great (even though technically not the 'front".)

There is a fundamental flaw in your approach: not everyone agrees that housing production is a Good Thing. Because housing ownership is a primary driver of wealth accumulation in the US, many home owners don't want to see more housing production because it has the potential of reducing the...

Yes, I had them mixed up. Ground floor 'retail' has had a really checkered history in that stretch of First Street (as in not much luck).

I am sorry, I had One Canal Park and Two Canal Park mixed up.

The amount of limestone seems pretty limited. I am seeing lots of taupe faux brick panels. Pretty uninspiring.

The building owners of One Canal Park are probably going to object to you telling them to tear down their building, particularly after they just invested in a major biotech lab conversion. But sure, tell them to tear it down, because "reasons".

Maybe we could ask ourselves: "What is Everett doing right?" And then try to replicate the Everett model 20 times around greater Boston in appropriate locations (hopefully a few that already have transit access).

Massachusetts drivers are very sloppy drivers. You would get ticketed in California for the random way most Massachusetts drivers turn in intersections (wide swings, cutting corners, infringing on other travel or bike lanes....)

If the T shifts to battery-electric busses will the tunnel be utilized again?

I don't question that the Boston inner core should have as a goal car-free living potential. But outside the urban core, few of our towns are designed for that (a few town centers can work). It is part of the reason why we have such a housing crunch -- large lot zoning for single family homes.