Boston 2024

John

When was it originally published? It's about a future 1975, clearly written sometime before, but I can't see a date on my phone screen. In guessing mid 60s
 
Thanks. I had heard of Expo 76, had not known it had started life as Freedom 75. Since that article used that name, it suggests it was written between 67 and 69, unless the name Freedom 75 was kicking around for a while before the official brand announcement. To have projected all those gains in that time was real optimism. But then he throws in 2060? 2075? at the end. Was the whole thing sarcasm with straight face, until a wink at the end? He was projecting the end of racial strife by the mud 70s. I'm old enough to recall those years - ok, not as an adult - and I don't remember anyone in my neck of the woods (southern PA) predicting that.

Still, really interesting take, and JohnAKeith, thanks for the reference to Vrabel's book. I may need to go look that up.
 
May 21, 1967, special section to the Globe or in the Magazine.

The Globe did an article just last week on the event and how it cratered and fell apart. (Louise Day Hicks was one of the chief opponents.)

Dreams and doubts collided in plans for global 'Expo' - Mark Arsenault

The Vrabel book is interesting and worthy of a read but if you know Boston history you might not find too much you don't already know about. The chapters are rather brief and not "scholarly". He tries to shape each protest as generating from one or more Boston neighborhoods. So, there's the East Boston mothers against Logan expansion, the Allston-Brighton fight over housing, JP against Southwest Highway, the South Boston fight over busing, etc.
 
Which brings us to the second obstacle: ourselves. New Englanders are traditionally proud of their independence... or their individualism. And that's fine, our course. But just this once, we must all unite behind a single effort to win this prize for New England. We must think and act like a unified region... not a collection of separate states and cities.
Click to expand...

Act like a region... and Boston gets all the prizes. No wonder this failed.

*********************************************

This is phenomenal! It reminds me of the 1966 Plan for Lower Manhattan and Paul Rudolph's work on the Lower Manhattan Expressway. The 1960s were the last time that people really thought that large scale urban renewal plans like this could work. Obviously by 1970 the tide had changed so it's no wonder this died. Is MIT planning on releasing this as a book?
 
Last edited:
Thanks to Evan Falchuk's United Independent Party, we finally know what the "legacy" of the Olympics could be at Widett Circle.

The full backstory: Falchuk's party put in a public records request for documents that Boston 2024 used at a March 27 private meeting with Governor Charlie Baker and his cabinet. Here's everything that they've received so far.
Click to expand...

111.png


The full breakdown of proposed spacial use in the area following the Olympics would be as follows:
Hotels: 720,000 square feet
Residential: 3,975,000 SF
Retail: 870,000 SF
Office: 1,550,000 SF
Click to expand...

Full article with more diagrams that have been released: http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2015/...alchuks-partys-public-records-request-photos/
 
^ They're still planning on decking Cabot Yard too? How exactly are they doing this massive decking with no public financing? This city can't even handle relatively easy decking over the Mass Pike. Widet and Cabot aren't even below grade.
 
BussesAin'tTrains said:
^ They're still planning on decking Cabot Yard too? How exactly are they doing this massive decking with no public financing? This city can't even handle relatively easy decking over the Mass Pike. Widet and Cabot aren't even below grade.
Click to expand...

Where's those obelisk Pike-style ventilation stacks sticking up in the middle of the complex like a diesel-belching Charlestown monument? Couple of those things become non-optional--and very tall amid the building heights--if they're going to be doing that much decking. Is this an exercise in fun with AutoCAD or are they actually trying to accomplish something?
 
Nope. Can't deck that (it's physically possible, but not plausible). Even if you could, the deck required to support "Olympic Boulevard" during the Games wouldn't be sufficient to support buildings afterward, so you'd have to have someone (likely public) overbuild the deck in advance.

If the Widett site has any hope, the renderings with the decking need to go away. Now. Start showing what it can actually look like, with approaches and circulation on Dot. Ave. and development potential on the city lots and in Widett itself.

As I've said before, that's better in every way. Not only does it avoid massive unnecessary costs, but it shifts focus onto an existing thoroughfare that could, like all city avenues, use some investment in pedestrian improvements and streetscape.

FWIW, the concept here isn't that different from what ABers have proposed for the Turnpike, it's just that we know that's not going to happen.
 
BussesAin'tTrains said:
^ They're still planning on decking Cabot Yard too? How exactly are they doing this massive decking with no public financing? This city can't even handle relatively easy decking over the Mass Pike. Widet and Cabot aren't even below grade.
Click to expand...

F-Line to Dudley said:
Where's those obelisk Pike-style ventilation stacks sticking up in the middle of the complex like a diesel-belching Charlestown monument? Couple of those things become non-optional--and very tall amid the building heights--if they're going to be doing that much decking. Is this an exercise in fun with AutoCAD or are they actually trying to accomplish something?
Click to expand...

Really nothing we didn't already know. The whole Olympics proposal for Widett is pie-in-the-sky thinking. There's a certain ...something... that would be better in this area. ;-)

These are just flashy concept images being presented to garner support from those without the technical know-how of the situation at Widett, but I wanted to get it on record in this thread.
 
datadyne007 said:
Really nothing we didn't already know. The whole Olympics proposal for Widett is pie-in-the-sky thinking. There's a certain ...something... that would be better in this area. ;-)

These are just flashy concept images being presented to garner support from those without the technical know-how of the situation at Widett, but I wanted to get it on record in this thread.
Click to expand...

The concept is not, their proposal is. Someone needs to tell them that, because it matters. The entire bid has formed itself around pushing this one idea as an iconic legacy of the Games, and it's not possible in the form that they're selling it.

To be honest, I'm not sure that Boston 2024 has the technical know-how to know that.
 
Equilibria said:
The concept is not, their proposal is. Someone needs to tell them that, because it matters. The entire bid has formed itself around pushing this one idea as an iconic legacy of the Games, and it's not possible in the form that they're selling it.

To be honest, I'm not sure that Boston 2024 has the technical know-how to know that.
Click to expand...

You think Rich Davey doesn't know?
 
Thanks for posting, data.

The map of parcel ownership at the Bostinno site is helpful.

There's three Commonwealth entities that will have to get on board with this. The plan that Baker has laid out for fixing the MBTA sure as hell doesn't include spending extravagant $ on decks over rail yards, so I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for baker to advocate that the Commonwealth should pay to deck over Cabot. The current Legislature? Um, no.

Also, there are two parcels owned by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, better known as Amtrak. That'll be a whole 'nother interesting air-rights acquisition conversation. I also don't foresee any money coming from Amtrak for decks over their parcels.
 
West said:
Thanks for posting, data.

The map of parcel ownership at the Bostinno site is helpful.

There's three Commonwealth entities that will have to get on board with this. The plan that Baker has laid out for fixing the MBTA sure as hell doesn't include spending extravagant $ on decks over rail yards, so I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for baker to advocate that the Commonwealth should pay to deck over Cabot. The current Legislature? Um, no.

Also, there are two parcels owned by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, better known as Amtrak. That'll be a whole 'nother interesting air-rights acquisition conversation. I also don't foresee any money coming from Amtrak for decks over their parcels.
Click to expand...
Image in question:

21.png
 
fattony said:
You think Rich Davey doesn't know?
Click to expand...

It'd be familiar territory for him not having control of his own ship because of too many chefs stirring the pot. If they don't have technical know-how on board by this point nailing these proposals to the ground around some semblance of build feasibility I somewhat doubt the powers that be notice or care that they're sailing without a rudder on that boat.
 
How the heck are they coming up with their cost predictions? Are they just complete BS? Do they just eyeball surface area and guess how much it would cost to deck? They should have ditched the Widet Circle idea by now... the longer they take to do it the more ingrained its going to get and the harder it will be to shift course. That's how boondoggles happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top