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

[KentXie]

^^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 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.

It's funny how you would refer prioritizing a tiny section of the neighborhood (Braintree Street) while de-prioritizing the adjacent area of the Allston/Brighton neighborhood south of the station, "maximizing" their return, because it does the exact opposite.

 

[dwash59]

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

Why are you acting like this is an either-or? Plenty of urban blocks have retail on multiple sides. I'm sure the people in the office building on Braintree street wouldn't mind some more retail. And the residents of the buildings going to use the train station aren't looking for their buildings to look like warehouses on their way out.

We should stop this nonsense that there have to be completely dead sides to buildings.

 

[KentXie]

Why are you acting like this is an either-or? Plenty of urban blocks have retail on multiple sides. I'm sure the people in the office building on Braintree street wouldn't mind some more retail. And the residents of the buildings going to use the train station aren't looking for their buildings to look like warehouses on their way out.

We should stop this nonsense that there have to be completely dead sides to buildings.

I'm not acting like an either/or. What I'm saying is they can put entrances to retail anywhere as long as the one place it should NOT place the loading docks be the one facing the neighborhood. My annoyance is the members coming here saying we should prioritize the commuters. No we should be prioritizing the residents of the neighborhood first and foremost.

It comes off like if an out of town developer is hyping how they are bringing a Whole Food to a low income neighborhood to replace a small grocery store instead of Market Basket because they sell better quality groceries just because some suburban commuters want to pick up asparagus water on their way home. And to clarify my point, I'm not using this analogy to characterize Allston/Brighton but to instead portray how tone deaf some of the members are when suggesting we prioritize the commuters.

P.S. that analogy btw does apply to the Whole Food in Charlestown that replaced Johnny Foodmaster but that's a whole 'nother story.

 

[jass]

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

Who is talking about reorienting?

The right word is redesigning. This isnt budget big box store. There shouldnt be any back of house.

 

[odurandina]

Project looks solid.

Anyone know a possible target completion date?

 

[stick n move]

The only reason to even be back there is for the MBTA stop. The stop is placed directly at the end of a short street with residential on both sides, some retail, and some trees. You walk down that street and right at the end is the egress. That stretch of road behind these buildings is next to 6 lanes of highway, train tracks, and a station. Im gonna have to agree with Kentxie that since these are back there, it makes sense to have the garages and services back there.

The side streets still have residential and retail to be more lively, and the main strip serves the neighborhood. When you step off the train station egress, your right at the street with residential, trees, and retail for only 1 block, then onto guest st. I think for the situation its designed perfectly fine, this is how its being built, and its going to work fine.

 

[Equilibria]

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.

To add to that... those places faced away from the Pike before there was a Pike - they were built to face away from the Boston & Albany tracks, which were loud, smoky, etc.

Even ignoring the highway, there's a big difference between facing a streetcar line or subway headhouse and facing a diesel full-size train corridor.

 

[dshoost88]

If the consensus on here is that Allston Yards is a perfect proposal with zero need for improvement to final design, then I’ll withhold any additional comment to be submitted during the design review process for this project... except this:

No matter how urban the scale of a project, a development that triples the number of parking spaces across 16 acres and adds no constructive design consideration for the transit infrastructure abutting it cannot be called a transit-oriented development.

 

[stick n move]

It does show design consideration for the transit though. The station egress is purposefully oriented so that when you step down off the steps of the station and onto the sidewalk to head over towards this area, a tree lined street is whats directly in front of you in your line of sight. Then within 25 feet your across the street and onto the sidewalk, with residential on both sides, retail at both ends, and 1 block to walk until your on the main drag. People looking forward crossing the street are going to be looking down a tree lined street, with the buildings off to each side.

New development being built up around a new transit stop thats only 1 block away is transit oriented, even if the layout is designed to blend in to and align with the existing neighborhood.


This is the backs of the buildings, yes


But your standing literally right behind these buildings, its going to be like this when your there

 

[dshoost88]

It does show design consideration for the transit though. The station egress is purposefully oriented so that when you step down off the steps of the station and onto the sidewalk to head over towards this area, a tree lined street is whats directly in front of you in your line of sight. Then within 25 feet your across the street and onto the sidewalk, with residential on both sides, retail at both ends, and 1 block to walk until your on the main drag.

New development being built up around a transit stop and not more than 1 block away is transit oriented, even if the layout is designed to blend in and align to the existing neighborhood.

Actually, it's not. The station steps lead you to the middle of the block. So as designed, the steps lead you to a vehicular dead-end, a mechanical suite, a truck loading bay, and parking garage entrance. The station's elevator would lead you to a crosswalk and a tree-lined West Street, except that there's a fence on the MBTA property that blocks anyone from directly accessing it.

 

[dshoost88]

FYI, there's a Volume II of the DPIR. I'll read more today, but it includes information regarding transportation on the site of Allston Yards.

Link.

 

[jass]

Actually, it's not. The station steps lead you to the middle of the block. So as designed, the steps lead you to a vehicular dead-end, a mechanical suite, a truck loading bay, and parking garage entrance. The station's elevator would lead you to a crosswalk and a tree-lined West Street, except that there's a fence on the MBTA property that blocks anyone from directly accessing it.

Correct, additionally nothing indicates that the Everett Street wall will be activated and not just look like a giant parking garage.

This view:
https://goo.gl/maps/gcHXngPv7uL2

 

[millerm277]

No matter how urban the scale of a project, a development that triples the number of parking spaces across 16 acres and adds no constructive design consideration for the transit infrastructure abutting it cannot be called a transit-oriented development.

I think you have a narrow view of things/are overly fixed on a buzzword.

It's currently a strip mall with a surface parking lot. It'll become a bunch of taller buildings with people and commerce in them located right at a rail station. With less of the physical lot occupied by nothing/parking. And it will interface with the surrounding neighborhood pretty well.

It is a "transit-oriented development" in the same sense that most commuter rail ones are. It builds a bunch of housing within walking distance of a train station. It is not likely to generate a bunch of car-free households, but it is likely to generate more than the average who do not use a car for their daily commute. Which is the primary concern from a traffic/infrastructure perspective.

I'll also point out that it functionally is just a minor CR stop at this point. There are no commitments from the state to Indigo/any sort of timeline. Off-peak service is very low-frequency.

 

[dshoost88]

I think you have a narrow view of things/are overly fixed on a buzzword.

Narrow view?

Show me someone else who studies Boston's built environment through the lens of how new developments interact with goals identified in the Commonwealth's Commission on The Future of Transportation Report, the Imagine Boston 2030 Master Plan, Transit Matters' Regional Rail Document, Boston Region MPO's Long Range Transportation Plan, Boston's 2019 Climate Action Plan, and the private sector's reasonable needs to grow.

Then show me someone else that voluntarily attends Boston Civic Design Commission meetings, weighs in at Institutional Master Plan task force meetings, provides written comment in support of transformative large-scale real estate developments, participates in bicycle/pedestrian advocacy across multiple communities, engages other planners to proactively consider non-vehicular transportation considerations in their approval processes, and who writes letters to the editor of various publications constructively prodding decision makers to consider alternative solutions to issues in our built environment.

A narrow view is being presented with 1,400 parking spaces next to a transit station in an urbanizing Boston neighborhood in the year 2019 and saying, " Well, it's just a minor commuter rail stop at this point," and "it is not likely to generate a bunch of car-free households."

A holistic response to Allston Yards from the BPDA would sound something like, "Hmmm, we have the capacity now and forecast in the future to accommodate more commuters in this neighborhood by transit and non-vehicular modes; therefore, we'd like you to encourage residents, shoppers, and office workers at Allston Yards to take advantage of those modes. The most effective way you can do this is to limit the number of new parking spaces at the development--maintain the 450 spaces that serve the grocery store (via below-ground garage as proposed) and re-purpose the space at the other three buildings as to further activate the streets and transit around it. This would be consistent with Plan Goals X, Y, Z, etc. and elevate Boston Landing from 'just a minor commuter rail stop' to a bi-directional destination in its own right... a value add for your project and the neighborhood around you."

 

[millerm277]

A holistic response to Allston Yards from the BPDA would sound something like, "Hmmm, we have the capacity now and forecast in the future to accommodate more commuters in this neighborhood by transit and non-vehicular modes; therefore, we'd like you to encourage residents, shoppers, and office workers at Allston Yards to take advantage of those modes. The most effective way you can do this is to limit the number of new parking spaces at the development--maintain the 450 spaces that serve the grocery store (via below-ground garage as proposed) and re-purpose the space at the other three buildings as to further activate the streets and transit around it. This would be consistent with Plan Goals X, Y, Z, etc. and elevate Boston Landing from 'just a minor commuter rail stop' to a bi-directional destination in its own right... a value add for your project and the neighborhood around you."

And you can stop right there, because we don't have any of that. We have a minor commuter rail stop on a line with utterly useless service off-peak, and a single bus for service with limited service off-peak as well. Or a half-mile walk to some of the most heavily loaded buses in the system.

It can't be a "bi-directional destination" (via transit) because there isn't the service frequency for anyone other than peak-hours commuters.

Is the MBTA prepared to commit to running Worcester Line trains every 30 minutes all day/any of the Indigo stuff right now? No.

Are they going to badly delay the 57/66 by dragging them on an even more roundabout route to provide direct service there? No. And they're already overloaded and delay-prone, so I question that capacity claim.

Maybe you can get a couple more 64 runs.

-----------

Answer me this:

Do you believe that that any entity is willing to commit to drastic transit improvements? With a signed contract and fixed schedule? If the answer is no, then as a developer who is building on an intended timeline, you're building to what will actually sell your units and office space with the existing conditions.

Not wishful thinking of great transit developments (which I support) that might happen some time far off in the hazy future.

In some mysterious future year when someone actually builds out that that Indigo/frequent all day service, it might have enough transit that I would be much more inclined to agree with you. It doesn't have that today. It almost certainly won't when the project is completed and they want to sell the units/fill the space.

 

[stick n move]

Actually, it's not. The station steps lead you to the middle of the block. So as designed, the steps lead you to a vehicular dead-end, a mechanical suite, a truck loading bay, and parking garage entrance. The station's elevator would lead you to a crosswalk and a tree-lined West Street, except that there's a fence on the MBTA property that blocks anyone from directly accessing it.

Id expect the fence to go away at that time, but I guess well see. This picture works better. Your over a little bit yea, but your right near the street leading you to guest st, its really not bad. Anyways it is just a commuter rail stop, so its nice to have, but not the same type of catalyst that a subway station would have been. I think its a good addition though with the station, also allowing room for expansion with maybe indigo or something in the future. The new buildings going up seem pretty nice and it seems like it will be a fairly well done neighborhood for what it is. Im glad to see the way its turning out. It wont please everyone, or be perfect, but I think its going to turn out pretty good and serve the surrounding area well.

 

[SeamusMcFly]

And you can stop right there, because we don't have any of that. We have a minor commuter rail stop on a line with utterly useless service off-peak, and a single bus for service with limited service off-peak as well. Or a half-mile walk to some of the most heavily loaded buses in the system.

It can't be a "bi-directional destination" (via transit) because there isn't the service frequency for anyone other than peak-hours commuters.

Is the MBTA prepared to commit to running Worcester Line trains every 30 minutes all day/any of the Indigo stuff right now? No.

Are they going to badly delay the 57/66 by dragging them on an even more roundabout route to provide direct service there? No. And they're already overloaded and delay-prone, so I question that capacity claim.

Maybe you can get a couple more 64 runs.

-----------

Answer me this:

Do you believe that that any entity is willing to commit to drastic transit improvements? With a signed contract and fixed schedule? If the answer is no, then as a developer who is building on an intended timeline, you're building to what will actually sell your units and office space with the existing conditions.

Not wishful thinking of great transit developments (which I support) that might happen some time far off in the hazy future.

In some mysterious future year when someone actually builds out that that Indigo/frequent all day service, it might have enough transit that I would be much more inclined to agree with you. It doesn't have that today. It almost certainly won't when the project is completed and they want to sell the units/fill the space.

So you don't have a narrow view, just a short sighted one?

It's not that now, so why design it for the future?

 

[millerm277]

So you don't have a narrow view, just a short sighted one?

It's not that now, so why design it for the future?

It's putting a bunch of new, denser development at a T stop, on a site currently occupied by a single-level building and a surface parking lot. It will lead to better transit ridership numbers particularly during peak commute than exists today. I call that a large improvement, even "transit-oriented development". I like the plans for the site as-is much better than I like the existing state of the lot.

------------

However, there isn't sufficient transit service to the area today, or on any schedule we could reasonably ask the builder to develop their plans on the basis of.

I don't believe it's reasonable to demand the builder to build something unappealing to the market today because one day far in the future we might establish better transit and then you wouldn't need so much parking.

 

[Equilibria]

IAG Meeting presentation (yes, I know the link says Motor Mart - it isn't):

http://www.bostonplans.org/document...tor-mart-garage-impact-advisory-group-meeting

 

[stick n move]

Had some extras I never threw up cuz its a pain in the ass but I just combined what I had with the new ones.