50 West Broadway (former Cardinal Cushing HS)

Here's what was demolished to make way for this thing:

50_west_broadway_demolished.jpg


Not perfect, but definitely workable, no?

If my memory serves me correctly, I'm pretty certain those buildings lining A St. were apartments.

I think the additional housing is great, but I wish they did a better job.

BTW, that "courtyard" facing Broadway is ridiculous. Looks like the entrance to an outpatient clinic.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, definitely workable. And I completely forgot about the apartments along A St. I'm sure they needed to tear down the school in order to put the underground parking in place. Because they obviously needed underground parking given that the complex is a wiffleball throw from the Broadway T Stop.

Agreed on the entrance courtyard. I have no idea what they were thinking there.
 
WTF!!! There was probably way more residential capacity in what was torn down. SHAME
 
I'm not even sure how to explain the design aesthetic of the new building.

"They considered the cheapest-looking, and most-frequently used exterior details in Boston and just threw them together?"

I got nuthin'. The building is a mess.
 
It looks like this is quite the net negative; the old cluster of buildings appears to have been chock full of potential. That potential isn't returning to this site any time soon.

Once again, I can't help but see yet another illustration of how this city's planning priorities are unbelievably backward -- it seems the BRA will jump in to destroy any project with actual potential, while historic preservation is nowhere on the list of planning priorities (not exactly surprising, given that the city planning commission is called the Redevelopment Authority).

The dichotomy of planning priorities seems almost self-contradictory: on the one hand, there's often no effort made to preserve the city's actual history; yet at the same time, the city tries to cut anything ambitious down to size (other than, of course, Tommy's Tower) in the name of preserving the "historic feel" of the city, and replace it all with cookie-cutter suburban PoMo groundscrapers and cheap materials. So we don't get any new, worthy projects while we lose our architectural heritage as well. Lose-lose proposition.
 
The old buildings were fairly rundown and the "campus" had a poor layout. In the 80's we aptly called it The Cardinal Cushing Home for Unwed Mothers.

It would have been nice to save the buildings but even though it was old, it was ugly. You had late 1800's buildings mixed in with central casting 1940's Catholic School construction. Different floor layouts, not up to snuff for the way apartment communities are now run. Unless you of course want to run it as a charity and don't bother with profit.

As far as the parking goes, for the most part you need a car in Southie, and there is no parking in the area. All the new construction in the area has parking, and street lots have gone away or are going away. I lived in South Boston for two years. It is noble to take the #9 but are you going to wait 45 minutes on the weekend for it? The Red Line doesn't go New Hampshire. It doesn't go to Newport. I never wanted to take two hours to get back from Arlington when my car could do it in 15 minutes.

As far as the metal bars on the windows. Welcome to South Boston. I know very few people that have not been broken into while living there. You have one of the larger "developments" in the city just two blocks from here. It may be overkill, but it is a sense of security for the tenants.
 
but isn't this next to Broadway station? I don't see why you'd need a car here any more than you'd need one in Davis Square.
 
Will we ever put bricklayers back to work? Are there any developers left who give a damn?
 
Are there any developers left who give a damn?
Click to expand...
They give a damn alright - about how much money they make. It seems like the explosion in institutional investment in development has pushed more developments to stress the bottom line over quality or legacy. Alot of big developers now are glorified "permitting guys" who project manage but have very little skin in the game (see Hynes @ Filenes). They bang out a building, stabilize the cash flow and flip to the next institutional investor. Their big upside is what's left at the end of the cash flow waterfall. They're not holding onto the property so what do they care what people think of it in 10 years.

I just went back and read the original article in this thread. They got tax-exempt financing for this!
 
Ron Newman said:
but isn't this next to Broadway station? I don't see why you'd need a car here any more than you'd need one in Davis Square.
Click to expand...

It's been said a hundred times Ron, not everybody can and/or wants to get where they have to go by public transit.
 
^^If only this country had set aside some land for people who wish/have to live like that.
 
Like a reservation? God forbid people do what they want in what's supposed to be a free country.
 
My point was that a majority of the built land in the country is autotopoia. It is ok to build a few small plots here or there that aren't fully auto friendly. Choice works both ways.
 
Those places do exist. They're called Boston, New York, Washington, Chicago, San Francisco, Portland, etc - despite certain disappointing developments that get built in those cities.
 
Well, the market and reality suggests the opposite. If the developers thought this could be a success without a garage I'm sure they would have given serious thought to that strategy. There are plenty of shitty walk ups all over Somerville, Brighton, Malden, Dorchester and Cambridge in close proximity to transit for people who prefer the car-free way of life.
 
Guys, this is a collective action problem. Developers build (and planners incentivize development) autocentrically, forcing people to need to drive, which creates market pressures independent of peoples' wants and desires.

In most of even "urban" Boston, it's a pain in the ass to do things like buy groceries without a car, because the city is built largely just below the kind of density that makes this tolerable. Hence all the garages built into developments, supermarkets with massive surface lots, etc.
 
I'm pretty sure that if we all had the choice to have a parking space with our apartments, we'd take it. Plus, having the garage will alleviate any additional cars that will be looking for street parking in this neighborhood. I lived in Southie for four years so I know how vital parking is for the area.

Also, I'd be willing to bet there would have been no way in hell this project got approved without providing adequate parking. Any developer would love to build a project and have no parking requirement.
 
czsz said:
Guys, this is a collective action problem. Developers build (and planners incentivize development) autocentrically, forcing people to need to drive, which creates market pressures independent of peoples' wants and desires.

In most of even "urban" Boston, it's a pain in the ass to do things like buy groceries without a car, because the city is built largely just below the kind of density that makes this tolerable. Hence all the garages built into developments, supermarkets with massive surface lots, etc.
Click to expand...

It may not be true everywhere, but where I live in Washington Square I'm within easy walking distance of four supermarkets: Star Market, Whole Foods, Stop&Shop and Trader Joe's. Certainly, buying groceries without a car for me is far from a pain in the ass. And there's certinly nothing that forces me to bring my car out. However, what's tolerable is all relative. I'd rather tolerate the cold walk to Trader Joe's than fight for a space in their (laudable) joke of a parking lot. But Whole Foods, which is the same distance from me, has a Dinseyworld-size parking lot - so I cold-start my car to purchase green organic products from there.

My point is that being car-less need not be a pain. It only looks like a pain in comparisonto the convenience offered to cars at certain venues. I've elsewhere proposed an excise tax on non-disabled parking spaces for retail establishments and businesses as a function of distance from public transit. Whole Foods, which sits yards from the B line, would quickly disown 2/3 of the lot, and the building owner would bring in a developer to build a condo. Smile.
 
^ Instead we should be incentivizing all supermarkets and other vital services to be near transit. If performing vital tasks becomes infinitely easier on foot, demand for parking will shrink.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top