Allston-Brighton Infill and Small Developments

18 Unit Multifamily Gets Greenlight in Brighton​

An 18-unit Passive House project has been approved to replace a vacant single-family home at 434 Washington Street in Brighton. The ground floor of the building will have retail space opening to Washington Street……”

434 washington

https://www.bldup.com/posts/18-unit-multifamily-gets-greenlight-in-brighton
 
-Approved


279-283 North Harvard Street​

1732068831662.jpeg
















https://bpda.app.box.com/s/mldr7vuv8fq176jytz9ovh4wu02fuexo

“The proposed project would raze the existing distressed single-family dwelling and preserve, repurpose, and expand the existing structure of the Hill Memorial Baptist Church into a four (4) story building with 49 units of income-restricted senior housing units and a new connected structure with program space for the residents of the new development (the “Proposed Project”). The basement of the former church building will provide a public space for continued and enhanced community use, and the overall development program will incorporate an extensive array of open spaces, with at-grade surface parking for 15 vehicles accessed from Easton Street.”

https://bpda.app.box.com/s/74wys4wtekwiciw5z72ve4ji6ep5361h

Existing site:
1732069050099.jpeg

IMG_1291.jpeg

IMG_1292.jpeg
 
Looks great. The only thing that bugs me about this is that they moved the façade further back from the street, meaning that it no longer is consistent with the existing street wall. Aside from that, build baby build!
 
Its ugly for sure but like anything in life there are tradeoffs to burying utilities. On one hand theyre better protected from the elements, but on the other hand theyre much harder to get to, cost many times more to repair, and are disruptive and time consuming to repair. The installation and ongoing maintenance are both exponentially more expensive for buried utilities. In many places that trade off is worth it, in others it may not be.
 
stick n move said:
Its ugly for sure but like anything in life there are tradeoffs to burying utilities. On one hand theyre better protected from the elements, but on the other hand theyre much harder to get to, cost many times more to repair, and are disruptive and time consuming to repair. The installation and ongoing maintenance are both exponentially more expensive for buried utilities. In many places that trade off is worth it, in others it may not be.
Click to expand...
I don't believe the tradeoff in cost is what you are suggesting.

By protecting the utilities in underground conduits, repairs become much less frequent. The cost of an individual repair may be higher, but it is compensated by the reduce frequency of repair. In utility dense areas, where larger conduit that can accommodate repair personnel are used, the repairs may be equivalent in cost.

The reason it is not done more routinely is up-front cost. We are hard wired against lifecycle cost savings that cost more up front.
 
JeffDowntown said:
I don't believe the tradeoff in cost is what you are suggesting.

By protecting the utilities in underground conduits, repairs become much less frequent. The cost of an individual repair may be higher, but it is compensated by the reduce frequency of repair. In utility dense areas, where larger conduit that can accommodate repair personnel are used, the repairs may be equivalent in cost.

The reason it is not done more routinely is up-front cost. We are hard wired against lifecycle cost savings that cost more up front.
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree more. In urban areas, it is almost uniformly cheaper to bury utilities.

However, I will note that it is typically most cost-effective to do this work when the entire street is being repaved, instead of block-by-block. While the developer is throwing in some sidewalk improvements, that's quite a bit short of the full-depth replacement you'd like to see when burying lines (unless I missed something in project docs). The utility consolidation is certainly a step in the right direction, but what you'd ideally like to see is every project on the street throw some money towards burying utilities and that money get spent the next time N. Harvard gets repaved. Or, the city could just fund it outright instead of relying on developer contributions.
 
JeffDowntown said:
I don't believe the tradeoff in cost is what you are suggesting.

By protecting the utilities in underground conduits, repairs become much less frequent. The cost of an individual repair may be higher, but it is compensated by the reduce frequency of repair. In utility dense areas, where larger conduit that can accommodate repair personnel are used, the repairs may be equivalent in cost.

The reason it is not done more routinely is up-front cost. We are hard wired against lifecycle cost savings that cost more up front.
Click to expand...

Let me clarify, because it was received the wrong way, which is my fault. When I said “The installation and ongoing maintenance are both exponentially more expensive for buried utilities” I wasnt saying the total cost of maintenance of buried utilities is more over its lifecycle compared to overhead lines, I was saying that the ongoing maintenance on underground utilities (when it is done) vs overhead utilities is exponentially more expensive. That is one of the tradeoffs, its better protected underground, so it needs less maintenance, but when it does the cost is exponentially more (reportedly 4-14x more). Overhead lines are extremely easy and very cheap to repair, but the tradeoff is that they are much more susceptible to storm damage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top