Amazon HQ2 RFP

[stellarfun]

The NY Times asked some experts what this Amazon / JP Morgan Chase / Berkshire health initiative i all about.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/30/...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

No real clarity from their answers, but the opinions seem to center on digital approaches in some form. If their collective guess is close to the mark, that would boost Boston's chances. IMO, the only other finalist that could match/exceed is New York with its medical schools and affiliated hospitals. (I'm counting UMass Medical and Brown in the Boston cluster as there within 50 miles or so.)

 

[dshoost88]

The City of Los Angeles has a relatively high population density because it explicitly excludes all of the suburban areas outside of it (similar to Boston). That's why all of my posts have been talking about LA County which includes the suburbs of LA.

The City of LA has a relatively high population density because it has 4 million residents living in a 467 square mile area. Period.

My assertion that Atlanta is not urban is on point: it is not urban. The home of the Falcons not only has one of the lowest population densities of any major US city, but also boasts Walk Scores, Transit Scores, and Bike Scores across the board under "50". Its auto-centric Downtown is dominated by multiple 10-lane+ interstates and surface parking lots; the city's own Wikipedia page concedes that "automobiles are the dominant means of transportation in the region."

Please stop subjugating the forum to cherry-picked data measurements that propagate your misinformed perspective. It is inappropriate practice to mix and match different data sources, no matter how well the intentions. And it clouds others' ability to make properly informed determinations about the facts presented to them.

 

[Justin7]

Although the distance from NYC to Philly, roughly 100 miles, is about the same as Boston to Hartford.

Agreed. Lehigh Valley to either, sure, but not NYC to Philly.

We were discussing CSAs though, not city to city. My point was that plenty of people commute from the NE portion of the Philly CSA to NYC and from the SW portion of the NYC SCA to Philly, which makes CSA population not the best statistic for measuring a workforce.

 

[FenwayResident]

The City of LA has a relatively high population density because it has 4 million residents living in a 467 square mile area. Period.

My assertion that Atlanta is not urban is on point: it is not urban. The home of the Falcons not only has one of the lowest population densities of any major US city, but also boasts Walk Scores, Transit Scores, and Bike Scores across the board under "50". Its auto-centric Downtown is dominated by multiple 10-lane+ interstates and surface parking lots; the city's own Wikipedia page concedes that "automobiles are the dominant means of transportation in the region."

Please stop subjugating the forum to cherry-picked data measurements that propagate your misinformed perspective. It is inappropriate practice to mix and match different data sources, no matter how well the intentions. And it clouds others' ability to make properly informed determinations about the facts presented to them.

Are you reading my posts? Do you understand my point? I never said Atlanta as a whole was urban. But if you take any given "unurban" area (LA County in my example) there can be pockets that are urban despite the overall area being unurban.

Maybe LA wasn't a great example because you seem fixated on its urban core. Despite that, there are many, many parts of LA that are car-dominated, without public transit and are distinctly not urban. There are also pockets that are distinctly urban.

That's my entire point! You can't say "Area X has a population density of Y therefore it is not urban enough for Amazon." Would Midtown in Atlanta not be sufficient? Downtown? Inman Park?

If you want to make an argument about public transit, wide streets, car usage, that's fine and great. But using population density is misleading at best.

 

[tangent]

Don't know about Atlanta, but most of Greater Boston is car centric and not very urban either... like most big modern cities that grew in the 20th century.

That said Boston and Cambridge have some high quality urban core areas that are great for walkability because of their colonial roots and well connected by trains, trolleys and buses.

 

[tysmith95]

Don't know about Atlanta, but most of Greater Boston is car centric and not very urban either... like most big modern cities that grew in the 20th century.

That said Boston and Cambridge have some high quality urban core areas that are great for walkability because of their colonial roots and well connected by trains, trolleys and buses.

I always wonder what Boston would look like if they didn't rip out all of the streetcar lines besides the Green Line. In the early 20th century the transit system in Boston was world class and very robust.

Honestly I think in America post WW2 urban planners ruined cities.

 

[HalcyonEra]

I always wonder what Boston would look like if they didn't rip out all of the streetcar lines besides the Green Line. In the early 20th century the transit system in Boston was world class and very robust.

Honestly I think in America post WW2 urban planners ruined cities.

You give the planners too much credit. All of the streetcar manufacturers were bought up by the auto companies post WW2 and they ceased making them. Obviously to push an "affordable" auto onto everyone. This didn't just effect the cities, as virtually all towns in relatively dense areas had robust trolley lines too. Watch the documentary "Who killed the electric car." It's a bit dated but goes in depth into the auto and oil industries suppressing electric cars (had them in early 1900s), all the Tesla inventions, trolleys and the railroads. Basically they buy up every patent they can get their hands on and shelf the technology. It also completely destroys the California government with its hypocritical policies. Thankfully the trend is shifting now, but the documentary presents a fascinating history on how we got to where we are on transportation.

 

[tangent]

I always wonder what Boston would look like if they didn't rip out all of the streetcar lines besides the Green Line. In the early 20th century the transit system in Boston was world class and very robust.

Honestly I think in America post WW2 urban planners ruined cities.

Planning cities around cars or trains or planes or electromagnetic tubes or whatever is a mistake... cities are about being able to walk around and not having to travel some place else far away in order to do something.

The need for transportation is something to be minimized for both efficiency and quality of life. A necessary evil in whatever form.

If anything I wish HQ2 would be conceived as a mixed use project including housing and to be something that is part of the city and not some campus you need to go to.

 

[tysmith95]

Planning cities around cars or trains or planes or electromagnetic tubes or whatever is a mistake... cities are about being able to walk around and not having to travel some place else far away in order to do something.

The need for transportation is something to be minimized for both efficiency and quality of life. A necessary evil in whatever form.

If anything I wish HQ2 would be conceived as a mixed use project including housing and to be something that is part of the city and not some campus you need to go to.

Agreed. Although one of the worst concepts that dominated the 20th century is the concept of zoning. Having separate residential, commercial, and office zones was the dumbest idea. It is really the biggest failure of the 20th century. And it's really a 20th century thing, cities before them were predominantly mixed use.

One zoning issue that I still hate is wealthy suburbs aversion to any multi family developments. 40B helps though.

 

[jass]

Don't know about Atlanta, but most of Greater Boston is car centric and not very urban either... like most big modern cities that grew in the 20th century.

The commuter rail network exists, something Atlanta lacks. DC has commuter rail, but it is extremely bare-bones.

This is one area where Newark excels. Philadelphia as well.

 

[tysmith95]

The commuter rail network exists, something Atlanta lacks. DC has commuter rail, but it is extremely bare-bones.

This is one area where Newark excels. Philadelphia as well.

Philly has a NSRL that they built in the 80s. We spent 20 billion on a highway in the 90s.

 

[Rover]

The commuter rail network exists, something Atlanta lacks. DC has commuter rail, but it is extremely bare-bones.

This is one area where Newark excels. Philadelphia as well.

From the looks of it, its just 5 regions with large commuter rail systems:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_commuter_rail_systems_by_ridership

NY metro is gigantic. Chicago is easily #2. Boston/Philly about the same and then a drop off to SF. Surprised how small DC's system is.

 

[tysmith95]

NY metro is gigantic. Chicago is easily #2. Boston/Philly about the same and then a drop off to SF. Surprised how small DC's system is.

BART in SF is a weird combination of rapid transit and commuter rail.

I think Boston's robust commuter rail is a huge asset and is really unrealized. I would love to see a European style regional rail system electrified with increased frequencies, plus increased density around stops.

 

[HalcyonEra]

Agreed. Although one of the worst concepts that dominated the 20th century is the concept of zoning. Having separate residential, commercial, and office zones was the dumbest idea. It is really the biggest failure of the 20th century. And it's really a 20th century thing, cities before them were predominantly mixed use.

One zoning issue that I still hate is wealthy suburbs aversion to any multi family developments. 40B helps though.

That originally emanted from a desire, and really a need, to live away from industrial zones, which were quite filthy up until the late 70's with rise of the EPA and thereafter most manufacturing moving overseas. The problem is it was never logically adjusted back and now there is a heavy nimby presence to any zoning changes.

 

[tysmith95]

That originally emanted from a desire, and really a need, to live away from industrial zones, which were quite filthy up until the late 70's with rise of the EPA and thereafter most manufacturing moving overseas. The problem is it was never logically adjusted back and now there is a heavy nimby presence to any zoning changes.

I mean to be fair you are seeing some great mixed use zones being built today, for example a place like Assembly. Ignoring architecture, which is meh at Assembly, I believe that the neighborhood is turning into one of the best examples of a well planned mixed use development.

 

[jass]

I think Boston's robust commuter rail is a huge asset and is really unrealized. I would love to see a European style regional rail system electrified with increased frequencies, plus increased density around stops.

Yes the bones are there but the service is not.

Lowell should look like Stamford.

This is being built 25 miles from Manhattan in a city of 50,000 because there is frequent commuter rail service.

What was the last time Framingham got anything?

 

[tysmith95]

Yah you got places like Lowell, Salem, Lynn, etc that have commuter rail service and tons of potential. But the commuter rail is infrequent and from the north side only goes to one corner of the city requiring a transfer to get to most office buildings.

Apologizing for making the Amazon HQ2 thread into an unrelated zoning and general transit thread.

Still the NSRL is essential. Philly's version provides more hourly trains then south station on only two tracks each way.

Still I would love to see the state have a vision and find a way to build the NSRL, electrify the rails and increase service. Combine that with a revised 40b that incentives the building of units next to the commuter rail lines. Towns like Andover are building 40b next to highways when it has a great town center with a commuter rail stop. Also increase the cost of driving (at least in eastern mass).

 

[HalcyonEra]

Yah you got places like Lowell, Salem, Lynn, etc that have commuter rail service and tons of potential. But the commuter rail is infrequent and from the north side only goes to one corner of the city requiring a transfer to get to most office buildings.

Apologizing for making the Amazon HQ2 thread into an unrelated zoning and general transit thread.

Still the NSRL is essential. Philly's version provides more hourly trains then south station on only two tracks each way.

Still I would love to see the state have a vision and find a way to build the NSRL, electrify the rails and increase service. Combine that with a revised 40b that incentives the building of units next to the commuter rail lines. Towns like Andover are building 40b next to highways when it has a great town center with a commuter rail stop. Also increase the cost of driving (at least in eastern mass).

No need to apologize as this is speculative thread. And the zoning issues severely impacts the ability to build the required housing that Amazon would ultimately require. It cannot be expected that all of that new housing would come from Boston it's adjacent cities. It's a very complicated issue that has it's roots at the core of our provincial area.

And to Jass - Framingham has never gotten squat. But that stems more from it being a town with very diverse needs, desires and nimbyism throughout rather than having a plan. Now that it's a city maybe they can get their act together. The list of missteps over the past 30 years could fill an entire website - General Growth originally wanted to enclose Shoppers World and not rebuild Natick Mall but that was killed and now they have a glorified strip mall missing the lifestyle center boom while Natick continues to allow vertical building around the mall (there is another 10 story apartment building proposed there), they pissed off Dr. Bose so much after he built his HQ that he did not include the amphitheater which would have been really cool and instead expanded into the old NEC space in Stow, the old GM plant redevelopment plans were scrapped into a used car clearinghouse, the list goes on and on and on. They are though, finally pushing dense development in their core downtown by the rail station and hopefully having a mayor and city council will lead to better decisions.

 

[Ruairi]

Yah you got places like Lowell, Salem, Lynn, etc that have commuter rail service and tons of potential. But the commuter rail is infrequent and from the north side only goes to one corner of the city requiring a transfer to get to most office buildings.

Apologizing for making the Amazon HQ2 thread into an unrelated zoning and general transit thread.

Still the NSRL is essential. Philly's version provides more hourly trains then south station on only two tracks each way.

Still I would love to see the state have a vision and find a way to build the NSRL, electrify the rails and increase service. Combine that with a revised 40b that incentives the building of units next to the commuter rail lines. Towns like Andover are building 40b next to highways when it has a great town center with a commuter rail stop. Also increase the cost of driving (at least in eastern mass).

yup, that sounds great. I moved to the States 11 years ago and couldn't believe the age and condition of the commuter rail system here. The trains looked (and still look) like antiques. And then I saw the cost of using the system. Nuts! Still tho, at least there is a system.

 

[tysmith95]

yup, that sounds great. I moved to the States 11 years ago and couldn't believe the age and condition of the commuter rail system here. The trains looked (and still look) like antiques. And then I saw the cost of using the system. Nuts! Still tho, at least there is a system.

You have the right of way, tracks, and stations.

San Francisco is electrifying 51 miles for 1.9 billion dollars. Though in SF it's looked at as a debacle. However I don't expect anything better in Boston. So it ain't cheap in the short term. Long term it'll save some money though.

My opinion, start with electrifying the most important lines (Beverly in, Worcester out to Auburndale (preferably the whole line), Fitchburg out to 128 or Brandies, Fairmount, and the system out to PVD is already electrified.