Allston Green | 24 Linden & 8-20 Pratt Street | Allston

Updated design:

bpda.app.box.com

20200721 Allston Green St BCDC Presentation.pdf | Powered by Box

bpda.app.box.com bpda.app.box.com

Gotta love the kneejerk reaction to height (14 stories? Oh the humanity!) but the total number of units went up so meh. Facade treatments are nice, though.

Here's what I don't get - a taller, thinner building will actually look less hulking than a wide one half as tall. Seven stories is still big when you're standing next to it, so what did you really accomplish here? The developer, of course, would love to build wider and shorter, since it's cheaper.

1595436876210.png
 
More units is good, very good. Reduction in height AND units is unacceptable, height only is fine and expected/predictable. Im reallllllly hoping with the changes in office space needs, the pace of city development stays high and it just shifts towards getting to building all of those... tens of thousands of middle class, affordable, condo, apartment units all over the city that havent gone up yet.
 
Equilibria said:
Updated design:

bpda.app.box.com

20200721 Allston Green St BCDC Presentation.pdf | Powered by Box

bpda.app.box.com bpda.app.box.com

Gotta love the kneejerk reaction to height (14 stories? Oh the humanity!) but the total number of units went up so meh. Facade treatments are nice, though.

Here's what I don't get - a taller, thinner building will actually look less hulking than a wide one half as tall. Seven stories is still big when you're standing next to it, so what did you really accomplish here? The developer, of course, would love to build wider and shorter, since it's cheaper.

View attachment 6327
Click to expand...
Are they planning to rip out the scrubby sumac and plant this alpine forest or is this just rendering "window dressing" of the rail bed?
 
The need to add frames around every two stories is really tiresome. We've been seeing the same shit for like 20 years now.
 
Absolutely - - the darker/richer exteriors are a definite upgrade. The massing is still blocky, however.
 
Painting on-street, unprotected bike lanes in the door zone in 2020 is outdated and dangerous and demonstrates that Boston is not committed to becoming a cycling-friendly city.

And unfortunately, we have the Boston Fire Department to thank for that on this project. The proponent wanted to put in a parking-protected bike lane along this stretch of Linden St, but Boston Fire vetoed it because of concerns that they wouldn't be able to u-turn their ridiculously oversized fire trucks on the street.

1599778928334.png


Fire departments are oftentimes some of the biggest opponents of sustainable and safe street design, because they are concerned more about their ability to procure and use giant, oversized fire trucks that are expensive and unsafe. Other developing countries are light years ahead of the US in right-sizing their emergency vehicles, including fire trucks, and last time I checked the Netherlands and Japan don't suffer from an epidemic of house fire deaths. We need to purchase and use emergency vehicles that fit the streets and city we want; not design our streets to accommodate massive fire trucks that aren't needed 99% of the time they are in use. This one-size fits all approach is insanity.

1599779219304.png


1599779245366.png
 
The new update is pretty good, but I really liked the original proposal. More height abutting the Pike should be seen as a virtue.
 
#bancars said:
Painting on-street, unprotected bike lanes in the door zone in 2020 is outdated and dangerous and demonstrates that Boston is not committed to becoming a cycling-friendly city.

And unfortunately, we have the Boston Fire Department to thank for that on this project. The proponent wanted to put in a parking-protected bike lane along this stretch of Linden St, but Boston Fire vetoed it because of concerns that they wouldn't be able to u-turn their ridiculously oversized fire trucks on the street.

View attachment 7101

Fire departments are oftentimes some of the biggest opponents of sustainable and safe street design, because they are concerned more about their ability to procure and use giant, oversized fire trucks that are expensive and unsafe. Other developing countries are light years ahead of the US in right-sizing their emergency vehicles, including fire trucks, and last time I checked the Netherlands and Japan don't suffer from an epidemic of house fire deaths. We need to purchase and use emergency vehicles that fit the streets and city we want; not design our streets to accommodate massive fire trucks that aren't needed 99% of the time they are in use. This one-size fits all approach is insanity.

View attachment 7102

View attachment 7103
Click to expand...

Another big problem in that render is the existence of the curbside parking spaces!!!!!! Get......Rid......Of.....Them.........

......and place the protected bikes lanes next to the curb. This city needs to stop babysitting cars.

Seriously, bring on the self-driving pods that house/refuel at the end of the shift at terminals around Rte 128. It's inevitable, efficient, humanistic and cannot happen soon enough.
 
Last edited:
If anything, they're going to need a long Uber/Lyft/drop-off/pick-up/delivery vehicle zone, NOT parking.
 
The architectural changes, for the most part, are good. better materials, darker in most spots.

The Linden Street plan remains an express design to maim and kill bicyclists. The planners of this will have blood on their hands and consciences for the rest of their lives.
 
Linden St. is narrow in the blocks by this project. The street is one-way between Cambridge St. and Farrington, where it becomes a two-way street. There can be no bike lanes on Linden south of Farrington without removing parking, and presently no bike lanes on Cambridge St., either.

As for fire apparatus, in the United States, dimensions are restricted by states and by the Federal government (mostly weight for the latter). Dimensions are summarized here:

Generally, the apparatus width is 98-100 inches

Modern ambulance width is typically 95 inches.

European apparatus width can be 102.4 inches. See, from a major manufacturer.

Other European manufacturers offer trucks with shorter width, e.g., 95 inches, but these tend to have limited pumping capacity and carry short hose lengths. Most European fire trucks carry a relatively short length of hose.

The standards for the amount of hose to be carried by fire engines in the U.S. are set by an organization headquartered in Quincy, the NFPA. The standard: reflects specs on the amount of waterflow (in gallons per minute) required to control a fire in a structure. These standards differ by country. See highly technical report.


The required waterflow rates dictate the diameter in inches and length in feet of fire hose to be carried by a fire engine in the United States The requirements are set out by a standard.

NFPA 1901: Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus (2016 edition) specifies the following hose and nozzles for pumper fire apparatus in Chapter 5.
  • 800 feet of 2½-inch or larger hose.
  • 400 feet of 1½-inch, 1¾-inch or 2-inch hose.
^^^ This primarily is what dictates the size of fire department pumpers in the U.S.
 
stellarfun said:
Linden St. is narrow in the blocks by this project. The street is one-way between Cambridge St. and Farrington, where it becomes a two-way street. There can be no bike lanes on Linden south of Farrington without removing parking, and presently no bike lanes on Cambridge St., either.

As for fire apparatus, in the United States, dimensions are restricted by states and by the Federal government (mostly weight for the latter). Dimensions are summarized here:

Generally, the apparatus width is 98-100 inches

Modern ambulance width is typically 95 inches.

European apparatus width can be 102.4 inches. See, from a major manufacturer.

Other European manufacturers offer trucks with shorter width, e.g., 95 inches, but these tend to have limited pumping capacity and carry short hose lengths. Most European fire trucks carry a relatively short length of hose.

The standards for the amount of hose to be carried by fire engines in the U.S. are set by an organization headquartered in Quincy, the NFPA. The standard: reflects specs on the amount of waterflow (in gallons per minute) required to control a fire in a structure. These standards differ by country. See highly technical report.


The required waterflow rates dictate the diameter in inches and length in feet of fire hose to be carried by a fire engine in the United States The requirements are set out by a standard.

NFPA 1901: Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus (2016 edition) specifies the following hose and nozzles for pumper fire apparatus in Chapter 5.
  • 800 feet of 2½-inch or larger hose.
  • 400 feet of 1½-inch, 1¾-inch or 2-inch hose.
^^^ This primarily is what dictates the size of fire department pumpers in the U.S.
Click to expand...


Sentence #3 of your post?

REMOVE the on-street parking.

Problem solved.

I fail to see the wisdom of putting an unprotected bike lane in the center of that street. The carnage will be epic. Seriously what universe did these planners fly in from?

1601580905587.png
 
Last edited:
stellarfun said:
Linden St. is narrow in the blocks by this project. The street is one-way between Cambridge St. and Farrington, where it becomes a two-way street. There can be no bike lanes on Linden south of Farrington without removing parking, and presently no bike lanes on Cambridge St., either.

As for fire apparatus, in the United States, dimensions are restricted by states and by the Federal government (mostly weight for the latter). Dimensions are summarized here:

Generally, the apparatus width is 98-100 inches

Modern ambulance width is typically 95 inches.

European apparatus width can be 102.4 inches. See, from a major manufacturer.

Other European manufacturers offer trucks with shorter width, e.g., 95 inches, but these tend to have limited pumping capacity and carry short hose lengths. Most European fire trucks carry a relatively short length of hose.

The standards for the amount of hose to be carried by fire engines in the U.S. are set by an organization headquartered in Quincy, the NFPA. The standard: reflects specs on the amount of waterflow (in gallons per minute) required to control a fire in a structure. These standards differ by country. See highly technical report.


The required waterflow rates dictate the diameter in inches and length in feet of fire hose to be carried by a fire engine in the United States The requirements are set out by a standard.

NFPA 1901: Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus (2016 edition) specifies the following hose and nozzles for pumper fire apparatus in Chapter 5.
  • 800 feet of 2½-inch or larger hose.
  • 400 feet of 1½-inch, 1¾-inch or 2-inch hose.
^^^ This primarily is what dictates the size of fire department pumpers in the U.S.
Click to expand...
And, Boston's fire apparatuses are comparatively small and pared down compared to basically anyone elses. See this article on Boston's pumpers, and this one on Ladder Trucks, for the design choices and why they were made. Boston's pumpers are 28' 3" overall length, compared to a suggested minimum length of 30 feet, per the apparatus manufacturers association. And while european engines are most definitely more compact, they rely on a different methodology of design and firefighting. I don't know if you can convince an american fire chief to give up what he knows best.

shmessy said:
I fail to see the wisdom of putting an unprotected bike lane in the center of that street. The carnage will be epic. Seriously what universe did these planners fly in from?
Click to expand...

Hyperbole much? I don't think you get this project without making concessions to the neighbors across the street, as that is all resident street parking. It's also a grand total of 16 parking spaces that won't turn over frequently. And, linden isn't that busy of a street nor that narrow. I just don't think theres that may car vs cyclist potential conflicts, especially one way, right turn only. Besides, you have to maintain the street width; it's city property after all, so you can't extend the plaza line out, and parts of the building would probably be too far from the curb for fire standards; or if you push the building out too, it may be too close to abutters across the street. I think the parking is fine, and I would be happy on that bike path.
 
Last edited:
Equilibria said:
Am I missing a reason they couldn't just flip the parking and the bike lane, as has worked in many other locations?
Click to expand...

This. What is with Boston and Massachusetts inability to grasp protected bike lanes by putting them between parked cars and sidewalk? It's a mistake I see repeated everywhere and I don't even ride a bike.
 
Theres literally an entire page on this issue in detail on cambridge.gov when discussing bike lane safety... I dont get it.

Link
 
meddlepal said:
This. What is with Boston and Massachusetts inability to grasp protected bike lanes by putting them between parked cars and sidewalk? It's a mistake I see repeated everywhere and I don't even ride a bike.
Click to expand...

I meant locations in Boston and Massachusetts. I think it's in MassDOT's design standards. It's confusing to me why they wouldn't do it here.
 
You can't just flip the location if the street isn't wide enough. A bike lane between parked cars and a travel lane can be 5', but a bike lane between the curb and parked cars needs to be 8' (5' + 3' buffer.)

Also, we will sometimes hear that that there needs to be 18' of pavement available in case an emergency vehicles needs to get around traffic. This is BS IMO as we have many streets where this is not true, but it is sometimes used as an excuse to keep the bike lane between the travel lane and parked cars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top