Avalon Exeter | 77 Exeter Street | Back Bay

Re: New Tower(s) Planned For Prudential Center

Ned Flaherty said:
Untrue._ Regardless of when an existing complex was first built, adding towers to it at any time adds traffic (the towers? occupants)._ The developers already admitted to this.
Click to expand...

Yes but how much traffic it will add is the main question. It is inevitable that traffic will grow near any development but that's a side effect to a growing city with an incompetent mass transit. Most activists seem to exaggerate the amount and claim that the additional amount of traffic will cause a gridlock type jams. The fact that the Prudential Center is within walking distance of three Green Line stops (Hynes, Prudential, and Symphony) as well as two Orange Line stops (Back Bay and Mass Ave) along with a few T buses should keep the additional traffic to a minimum.
 
Re: New Tower(s) Planned For Prudential Center

^^^ I believe the best word to describe the additional traffic is marginal.
 
Re: New Tower(s) Planned For Prudential Center

Don't forget commuter rail and Amtrak also serve Back Bay station.
 
Re: New Tower(s) Planned For Prudential Center

Its kind of pathetic that we are debating traffic in a city. Cities are meant to have traffic. If you don't like traffic, move to Montana.

There are plenty of MT options, so if the traffic annoys you just take the subway or the bus...or walk.
 
Re: New Tower(s) Planned For Prudential Center

Nice to see Ned branching out to the other threads. He is one of the most dynamic posters.
 
Re: New Tower(s) Planned For Prudential Center

I'm going to have to say. All those buildings and traffic haven't stopped 8,000,000+ people from living in NY.

I know this isn't NY, and I never want to start another Boston V. NY thread (cept for Sox V Yankees). But, it remains a fact. The air there must be soooo much worse than here. Are we so special or smart in Boston, that we need to keep all density out of our city?

Also, if I understand correctly, isn't the damaging toxic air we're talking about coming from the tunnel below the complex? So if a new building (say Congress St. garage, Aquarium garage, or TNP) were to get built elsewhere in the city, the traffic on the pike would also increase. This would increase toxic fumes at the Pru regardless of these new buildings.

I don't like the approved buildings, but mostly due to height and looks, but this is an area to build.

I keep hearing about pollution in so many of these threads now, which is a good thing. But, it is not up to a developer of a single building or complex to fix this issue. If he builds a safe health conscious building, then he has done his job. He cannot and should not be expected to clean up the pike.

You do not fix the watre pollution problem by filtering the ocean. You change the laws, rules, and regulations regarding the vessels on the ocean, and sewage dumping rules, and the like. The problem is not the air from the pike, but the air from the cars. Cars, trucks, and trains are the problem, and not one a developer in the Back Bay has any power over. If jobs or residences in the city increase, no matter where, the traffic increases, and thus pollution at this (and all other) site.
 
Re: New Tower(s) Planned For Prudential Center

Patriots_1228 said:
Its kind of pathetic that we are debating traffic in a city. Cities are meant to have traffic. If you don't like traffic, move to Montana.

There are plenty of MT options, so if the traffic annoys you just take the subway or the bus...or walk.
Click to expand...

I agree. I mean c'mon, traffic here is not bad relative to other cities. And it is important to protect that unique element, but instead of arguing against the traffic that may be created by development, why not argue infrastructure and public transportation upgrades. We keep hearing about all this stimulus money going towards infrastructure and what is it going to take, a crash like the one in DC, to get the T on track. I take the T weekly and am convinced that this has to be the most inefficient form of public transportation in the country. Its poor service deters people from utilizing it.

Back on topic. I like the building, I like glass, I like historic preservation of beautiful buildings and development that incorporates this philosophy. But i also like to see beautiful buildings replace dead zones and ugly or decrepit ones.
 
Re: New Tower(s) Planned For Prudential Center

^^ It's already been mentioned but it seems the cars are going to emit less and less toxic emissions as time progresses. So as long as people/govt demand car compaines to keep reducing emisions, and making more electric cars the problem will eventually be solved. Having expensive, energy consuming scrubbers is not all that practical.
 
Re: New Tower(s) Planned For Prudential Center

BostonYoureMyHome said:
traffic here is not bad relative to other cities.
Click to expand...

I just experienced NYC traffic for the first time this weekend, and I must say it makes central Boston traffic (of which I've driven in plenty of times before) look like peanuts. Traveling 6 miles from the Lower East Side to the Prospect Park area of Brooklyn took an hour and a half, fighting gridlock the whole way. At that rate of 4 MPH, we coulda gotten there faster walking, let alone biking.

Point is, Boston's roads can handle more traffic without armageddon happening.
 
Re: New Tower(s) Planned For Prudential Center

kz1000ps said:
I just experienced NYC traffic for the first time this weekend, and I must say it makes central Boston traffic (of which I've driven in plenty of times before) look like peanuts. Traveling 6 miles from the Lower East Side to the Prospect Park area of Brooklyn took an hour and a half, fighting gridlock the whole way. At that rate of 4 MPH, we coulda gotten there faster walking, let alone biking.

Point is, Boston's roads can handle more traffic without armageddon happening.
Click to expand...

I tried taking the bus down to NYC for the first time a few weeks ago....took us an hour and 20 minutes to make it from the top of Manhattan down to the Port Authority bus terminal......their traffic is the worst.
 
Re: New Tower(s) Planned For Prudential Center

Skip Grayhound. The Chinatown buses take the Manhattan Bridge over from Brooklyn and drop you at Canal Street, avoiding 100 blocks of Manhattan gridlock.

Just bring a fire extinguisher.
 
Re: New Tower(s) Planned For Prudential Center

I don't know if Ned is arguing that urban growth can necessarily be free of environmental impacts - but rather that if there is a specific, identifiable impact that is more significant than would be expected of a similar project located somewhere else, why not either a) question the reasonableness of a project in this location, b) mitigate the impact.

However, living in Los Angeles, where a lengthy ceqa (state regulation)-determined environmental review is demanded by the city (site plan review) of every project over a certain size, theres is clearly something not taken into consideration - assuming the demand for a given project, what would its impacts be that other location it will inevitably go to.

CEQA does not take into account (probably because it is too difficult to hypothesize) the exact impact of development pressure getting put out of LA to some peripheral location - however empirically we see the evidence. A dissapearance of prime agricultural land, longer commute times, car-dependent commutes, the worst regional air quality in the country (in the inland empire), the worst traffic (longest commutes) in the country, a chronic water shortage that could be addressed by more compact development patters.

So Ned, would these units and shops look better in Hopkinton, where they would remove land better suited for other uses (perhaps preservation), generate more car-dependent trips due to the suburban location, and put more cars on the turnpike into boston, causing the highway to pollute in the first place?

Do you think, in a city with an acute land shortage, that the amount of development afforded by turn pike air rights could simply go to another urban location where it would have fewer environmental impacts, but the same environmental benefits (fewer auto-dependent trips, less significant ecological impact etc)? And do you/would you aid the city in locating a suitable area for that development in the planning process as a constructive compliment to demonstrating the harm of it over the turnpike?
 
Re: New Tower(s) Planned For Prudential Center

First time I tried to cross the street in new york I almost got hit by a firetruck with the sirens on haha.
 
Re: New Tower(s) Planned For Prudential Center

[QUOTE= I take the T weekly and am convinced that this has to be the most inefficient form of public transportation in the country.

Far FROM IT. Have you ever been to Baltimore, Cleveland, Detroit, and Los Angeles?....just to name a few.
 
Re: New Tower(s) Planned For Prudential Center

riffgo said:
I take the T weekly and am convinced that this has to be the most inefficient form of public transportation in the country. Far FROM IT. Have you ever been to Baltimore said:
Yep, but cannot say that I have had the opportunity to use their public transit. Boston's has scared me away from all others.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Re: New Tower(s) Planned For Prudential Center

What exactly frightened you about the T?

I'm genuinely curious. I use it all the time and while there is a lot of room for improvement, I've never been afraid while using it.
 
Re: New Tower(s) Planned For Prudential Center

I've been rideing the T for 26 years now and it beats driveing to work or home anyday! I find it very reliable,It has it's bad days for sure but I rather ride than drive (I drive all day for work and Boston's traffic can really suck!)
 
Re: New Tower(s) Planned For Prudential Center

The T is great, as far as subways go. I don't take it because it's too expensive. Depending on your travel habits/frequencies, a shitty car can be a much smarter way to spend your money.

Back to the thread topic, isn't it odd that the Prudential Center doesn't have a major T stop? Considering it was built on rail tracks, it seems like a major design flaw from back in the 1960s. The Tower Records building stop doesn't count (not on-site), and the E line stop doesn't count either (I said "major" T stop).
 
Re: New Tower(s) Planned For Prudential Center

Back Bay sort of counts, as you can walk all the way from there to the Prudential Center without going outdoors. (That's only true since the 1990s, however.)

A few years ago, the Prudential E Line stop was connected indoors to the shopping mall. The station predates the Pru, as it was the former Mechanics Hall station.
 
Re: New Tower(s) Planned For Prudential Center

statler said:
What exactly frightened you about the T?

I'm genuinely curious. I use it all the time and while there is a lot of room for improvement, I've never been afraid while using it.
Click to expand...

Statler - You took the statement a little too seriously. The T does not encourage the use of public transportation (in my opinion). If parking downtown was not a concern I would drive my car everyday. I guess the number of times I have been stuck in a tunnel with no air conditioning and a clear inability by the operators to notify passengers as to the delay has put a chip on my shoulder. Simply saying "we should be moving shortly" every 10 minutes does not suffice.

Back to the subject. Back Bay does count but that place needs to be cleaned up. I was in there catching the Acela to New York one morning and some guy was just wandering around attempting to have conversations with people without any pants on...and no one stopped him? Maybe he is the new Tom Green? I didn't see any cameras.

Anybody have an idea as to how Boston Properties is progressing financially with this project?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top