Allston Yards (Stop and Shop) | 60 Everett St | Allston

So they are calling this Allston Yards? What asshole came up with that confusing name?
 
Why the fuck do we need that much parking next to a commuter rail station?

I like the buildings though.
 
There a lot of residences and a grocery store. If it's all below the buildings, I don't see why that would cause such a harsh reaction.
 
mdd said:
There a lot of residences and a grocery store. If it's all below the buildings, I don't see why that would cause such a harsh reaction.
Click to expand...

I think his harsh reaction is because much of the ground level is devoted to parking, rather than retail or some other activated use. If you take the commuter rail to the Boston Landing MBTA station and exit onto either Arthur or Everett Streets, you want to make sure that the street experience as you enter Allston Yards is pedestrian-oriented. I think some attention to landscape architecture near the west MBTA entrance by Arthur Street could solve that problem.

Something that's unclear from this batch of renderings is the elevation change of Everett Street as it goes over I-90 and slopes south adjacent to the Allston Yard property. Seeing that Stop & Shop will occupy the 2nd floor of Building 1, do we know yet if there will be an Everett Street entrance to the '2nd level' of this development? That would be clutch.
 
Probably a symptom of the mere-exposure effect, but I'm starting to see Elkus designs and think "whoa, that's great!"
 
dshoost88 said:
Something that's unclear from this batch of renderings is the elevation change of Everett Street as it goes over I-90 and slopes south adjacent to the Allston Yard property. Seeing that Stop & Shop will occupy the 2nd floor of Building 1, do we know yet if there will be an Everett Street entrance to the '2nd level' of this development? That would be clutch.
Click to expand...

This rendering seems to say no.

 
vanshnookenraggen said:
Why the fuck do we need that much parking next to a commuter rail station?
Click to expand...

Well, if you live too far away from the station to walk, and wanted to get on the commuter rail... but I think it'd be more for Stop and Shop.
 
DPIR:

www.bostonplans.org/documents/proje...on-yards-draft-project-impact-report-volume-i

Pretty significant changes, but it doesn't look all that different. Supermarket has moved from the northeast corner to south of the Guest St. extension (probably because it makes the phasing way easier and takes deliveries off of the roads directly abutting the station). All of the concept drawings for the tall buildings have been replaced with new concept drawings that probably don't represent the actual appearance of the buildings either. Real drawings now exist for the grocery/mid-rise apartment Building A, and they're fine looking.

I still love the stub-end on Braintree St. in these site plans that says "your move, New Balance".
 
Equilibria said:
DPIR:

www.bostonplans.org/documents/proje...on-yards-draft-project-impact-report-volume-i

Pretty significant changes, but it doesn't look all that different. Supermarket has moved from the northeast corner to south of the Guest St. extension (probably because it makes the phasing way easier and takes deliveries off of the roads directly abutting the station). All of the concept drawings for the tall buildings have been replaced with new concept drawings that probably don't represent the actual appearance of the buildings either. Real drawings now exist for the grocery/mid-rise apartment Building A, and they're fine looking.

I still love the stub-end on Braintree St. in these site plans that says "your move, New Balance".
Click to expand...

Looks good overall—moving the grocery store south improves its walkshed, as it's that much closer to the residential neighborhood/Union Square.

I can't see why New Balance wouldn't make the Braintree Street connection once the later phases are done (but not much reason to do so before then).

I also love that they're including best-practices bicycle facilities in the plans (separated from both cars and pedestrians, protected intersections). These need to be the baseline for every new build.
 
This is great, its exactly what we advocate so hard for. Take an existing line, add a transit stop, use undeveloped land to build up transit oriented development, repeat. In the areas already with transit stops that are under developed, do the same. Assembly is another great example of an area that is outside the core, but transit makes it directly connected.

I love how mixed use it is and it has a sports city theme to it with New Balance, the track, Warrior Ice Arena, and Auerback center. Having these together in the same area is really cool vs having them spread around, especially the Bruins and Celtics. Its cool having a “themed” area like this, and also a very dense area able to be built up outside the core due to transit. Its cool how these different places dont have to be in certain downtown areas, as long as theyre each a stop on the train, they can be built up wherever and their above ground connections dont matter as much like with Assembly, as long as theyre built up along the train stations.
 
#'s highlighted from DPIR:
- proposed parking increased from 1,300 to 1,400 spaces... the no-build scenario (i.e. existing conditions) has 450 parking spaces
- Residential went down from 1,050 units to 895 units
- Office increased from 300,000 sq. ft. to 375,000.
- no change in retail aside from location of grocery store (and at 67,000 sq. ft., it's a whopper)
- Community green space increased from .5 acre to 1 acre

Can it be called a transit-oriented development if A) the development triples the amount of parking from what's currently there, and B) physically orients its building entrances away from the available transit? If I get off a train at a 'transit-oriented development', I expect to be greeted by retail, civic space(s), and building entrances. When I get off the train here, though, I will greeted literally by the ass of each building: mechanical areas, truck loading bays, and parking garage entries. That's cold.
 
Lol that is true but they also do that at Assembly. Id definitely call it transit oriented since the stop is only 1 block away from the storefronts. They do it this way to use the buildings to hide the highway, train tracks, big commuter rail station and other service components like garage entrances back here from the main strip. If its not an underground station that can have a headhouse come up on the main strip, it works better this way so the train tracks dont take up one whole side of the corridor along with a highway. This works great with the main throughfare of sidewalks, bike lanes, road...etc passing down the middle between the buildings with the services, train station behind.

The way its lined up you exit the station right on to a short tree lined street with residential on both sides in yellow and retail at the ends on both sides in pink, leading right to the main strip.


Only a 1 block walk after getting off between the 2 right buildings. Wont be bad.
 
Last edited:
dshoost88 said:
B) physically orients its building entrances away from the available transit? If I get off a train at a 'transit-oriented development', I expect to be greeted by retail, civic space(s), and building entrances. When I get off the train here, though, I will greeted literally by the ass of each building: mechanical areas, truck loading bays, and parking garage entries. That's cold.
Click to expand...

Yeah because you know, most of the Allston/Brighton neighborhood is on the side opposite the train tracks. That's kind of why it's oriented the way it is today. You can try to put two entrances similar to the Star Market at Packards but there's no reason for us to have it oriented the other way so that residents have to walk around the building to get to the entrance. The supermarket is built to serve the residents, not the train station.
 
dshoost88 said:
Can it be called a transit-oriented development if A) the development triples the amount of parking from what's currently there, and B) physically orients its building entrances away from the available transit? If I get off a train at a 'transit-oriented development', I expect to be greeted by retail, civic space(s), and building entrances. When I get off the train here, though, I will greeted literally by the ass of each building: mechanical areas, truck loading bays, and parking garage entries. That's cold.
Click to expand...

The train station side is never going to be particularly attractive (or quiet) with the Pike there, that's life.

I would much prefer to have the buildings face the rest of the area/neighborhood and make it more of a place than to have them face the transit stop for the sake of being attractive when you get off the train.
 
^^Mass Ave & Boylston Street seem particularly attractive despite the Pike there. Clarendon, Berkley, & Arlington Streets seem particularly attractive as well. Brookline Ave. Beacon Street. Commonwealth Ave. We've figured out life among the Pike in other neighborhoods, and those neighborhoods succeed at being more desirable because they prioritize the pedestrian despite the Pike.

I don't mean to sound like a diva, but I honestly think that Building D (westernmost proposed building) needs to reorient its ground level to accommodate a cafe or fast casual restaurant. Specifically, I think the Mech. closet and truck loading bay should be oriented on the east end of building--not west--and in their place should be a 1,500 sq. ft. spot for a Caffe Nero, Dunkin, Boloco, or something of that ilk. I'll accept that 'West' Street is a lost cause to steer pedestrian traffic, and I understand the merits of orienting the project principally along Guest Street; however, I think it's imperative that the development's experience reflects the considerable infrastructural investments that were made in this neighborhood by complementing those facilities with uses that would maximize their return.
 
dshoost88 said:
Can it be called a transit-oriented development if A) the development triples the amount of parking from what's currently there, and B) physically orients its building entrances away from the available transit? If I get off a train at a 'transit-oriented development', I expect to be greeted by retail, civic space(s), and building entrances. When I get off the train here, though, I will greeted literally by the ass of each building: mechanical areas, truck loading bays, and parking garage entries. That's cold.
Click to expand...

My thought as well. Transit users get garage entrances and loading docks.
 
dshoost88 said:
^^Mass Ave & Boylston Street seem particularly attractive despite the Pike there. Clarendon, Berkley, & Arlington Streets seem particularly attractive as well. Brookline Ave. Beacon Street. Commonwealth Ave. We've figured out life among the Pike in other neighborhoods, and those neighborhoods succeed at being more desirable because they prioritize the pedestrian despite the Pike.
Click to expand...

None of these streets have buildings that orient their front doors towards the Pike. Every street you list is nice and attractive, except for the places where they border or front the Pike. Those blocks are dead zones. Your list, if anything, reinforces the idea that fronting the Pike doesn't work.

Note, for example, that the only stretch of Clarendon that fronts the Pike is a lifeless parking garage. The only building on Berkley that fronts the Pike is boarded up. Buildings on Beacon and Comm Ave near the Pike generally face away from the trench, and the parcel on Comm Ave that most directly directly fronts the Pike is a parking lot. This building is probably the closest you'll find to any building on the streets listed that does orient itself towards the Pike, but its front door is still about 50 meters away and two stories up from traffic.

For another great example, look at Newbury St: it's attractive and urban where it doesn't intersect with the Pike, but an absolute dead zone just one block over where it does front the Pike. The Pike is the one and only reason why Newbury st east of Mass Ave is the shopping capital of New England but Newbury st west of Mass Ave doesn't have any retail.
 
jass said:
My thought as well. Transit users get garage entrances and loading docks.
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree. Re-orienting it means suburban commuters gets the benefits while local residents gets a big middle finger.

I live in this area. It makes absolutely no sense to re-orient it the other way. Who will partake in retail more? The residents who live nearby or the small number of suburban commuters that's on their way work?

Honestly, the members here suggesting that the loading docks be re-oriented to face the neighborhood comes off as outsiders that don't live in the affected neighborhood and don't know the purpose of the current orientation. This neighborhood existed before this station and the purpose of these retails are to serve the current residents, not the commuters that happen to get off here.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top