Beton Brut
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,380
- Reaction score
- 327
Boston vs San Francisco: Cheers vs Full House
- Thread starter KentXie
- Start date
JohnAKeith
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 4,320
- Reaction score
- 61
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
I think this thread should be moved.
I'll bite on this one. Boston may be somewhat unique (dunno) in that it is a city where its entire downtown is almost completely off-limits to development. The financial district is just about the only place you could propose a tower ... the "spire" seems to be going in that direction from the FiDi up to the Prudential - more a thermometer than a spire, in my opinion.
There's plenty of land to build on within the city limits. You just can't convince people to live (or work) there. (Would improved public transportation help with this? Doubtful.)
I can't get real estate clients to even consider the other side of Mass Ave, much less Roxbury, Dorchester, JP, or Hyde Park / Roslindale / West Roxbury.
The South Boston Seaport District is the perfect place to build mid-price mid-rise condos and apartments and would work if not for a couple issues - the density would be off-putting to some (existing South Boston residents, for one) and, apparently, the finances require that what is built is big and expensive and, in the current and future economy, must include "24-7" life - offices, residences, and nightlife options.
Similar to Vancouver, you could build enough towers to house 8-10,000 people, in the Seaport District. No, I don't support that because I'd get to sell the condos, I support it because it's a logical way to expand the city and remain appealing during the coming years.
What happens when all the old people who are moving into the city die or change their minds? What happens when the "urban pioneers" decide they've had enough and take their wives and high-school aged kids back to the suburbs?
You might figure, well, if those people say "good riddance" and take off, it will mean lower home prices and a return to normalcy in the city. Maybe. I am not an urban studies scholar, but my guess is that when a city/town starts having prices go down, a lot of other bad things happen. (For one thing, property tax income would go down, which would affect Boston more so than many US cities, since our base is highly dependent on it.)
When people moved out of the industrial towns, did they get better? No? Nor did cities like Peabody or Melrose, is my guess.
I think this thread should be moved.
I'll bite on this one. Boston may be somewhat unique (dunno) in that it is a city where its entire downtown is almost completely off-limits to development. The financial district is just about the only place you could propose a tower ... the "spire" seems to be going in that direction from the FiDi up to the Prudential - more a thermometer than a spire, in my opinion.
There's plenty of land to build on within the city limits. You just can't convince people to live (or work) there. (Would improved public transportation help with this? Doubtful.)
I can't get real estate clients to even consider the other side of Mass Ave, much less Roxbury, Dorchester, JP, or Hyde Park / Roslindale / West Roxbury.
The South Boston Seaport District is the perfect place to build mid-price mid-rise condos and apartments and would work if not for a couple issues - the density would be off-putting to some (existing South Boston residents, for one) and, apparently, the finances require that what is built is big and expensive and, in the current and future economy, must include "24-7" life - offices, residences, and nightlife options.
Similar to Vancouver, you could build enough towers to house 8-10,000 people, in the Seaport District. No, I don't support that because I'd get to sell the condos, I support it because it's a logical way to expand the city and remain appealing during the coming years.
What happens when all the old people who are moving into the city die or change their minds? What happens when the "urban pioneers" decide they've had enough and take their wives and high-school aged kids back to the suburbs?
You might figure, well, if those people say "good riddance" and take off, it will mean lower home prices and a return to normalcy in the city. Maybe. I am not an urban studies scholar, but my guess is that when a city/town starts having prices go down, a lot of other bad things happen. (For one thing, property tax income would go down, which would affect Boston more so than many US cities, since our base is highly dependent on it.)
When people moved out of the industrial towns, did they get better? No? Nor did cities like Peabody or Melrose, is my guess.
Ron Newman
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2006
- Messages
- 8,395
- Reaction score
- 9
Melrose? I don't think that was ever an industrial town.
Pittsburgh may be an example of a place that got better after losing a lot of its industry.
Pittsburgh may be an example of a place that got better after losing a lot of its industry.
commuter guy
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2007
- Messages
- 859
- Reaction score
- 80
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
Agree that S.F. has less scars in its core, however my impression was that outside of the core, e.g., once you cross Van Ness heading west, S.F. has a lot of neighborhoods like the Sunset or Richmond that are full of nondescript one and two story rowhouses, often with a garage on the ground level. In Boston typical comparable neighborhood such as East Boston, Allston, JP Dorchester, Southie are full of the typical three family which seems to be more vertically oriented.
Agree that S.F. has less scars in its core, however my impression was that outside of the core, e.g., once you cross Van Ness heading west, S.F. has a lot of neighborhoods like the Sunset or Richmond that are full of nondescript one and two story rowhouses, often with a garage on the ground level. In Boston typical comparable neighborhood such as East Boston, Allston, JP Dorchester, Southie are full of the typical three family which seems to be more vertically oriented.
blade_bltz
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2006
- Messages
- 808
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
Ok, I was making a separate point in response to some of the numbers being thrown around to justify the comparison.
One great reason for comparing SF/Bos is their shared legacy of pervasive NIMBY activity. Yet SF seems better poised to get over that hurdle than Boston. The latest boom, as well as the support for Transbay, is evidence of that.
@ commuter guy - Yep, neighborhoods like the Sunset are basically as you described. I'd be happy razing most of it. Still, there's lots of charm there, just like in the Boston nabes you listed. We can all agree that neither city is exactly Brooklyn. The one big difference is that nothing within SF city limits comes close to a place like West Roxbury or Hyde Park, both of which take up huge swaths of Boston.
PS. CHEERS ALL THE FUCKEN WAY
Ok, I was making a separate point in response to some of the numbers being thrown around to justify the comparison.
One great reason for comparing SF/Bos is their shared legacy of pervasive NIMBY activity. Yet SF seems better poised to get over that hurdle than Boston. The latest boom, as well as the support for Transbay, is evidence of that.
@ commuter guy - Yep, neighborhoods like the Sunset are basically as you described. I'd be happy razing most of it. Still, there's lots of charm there, just like in the Boston nabes you listed. We can all agree that neither city is exactly Brooklyn. The one big difference is that nothing within SF city limits comes close to a place like West Roxbury or Hyde Park, both of which take up huge swaths of Boston.
PS. CHEERS ALL THE FUCKEN WAY
P
Patrick
Guest
what's all this mention of the Cities being tiny? aren't the metro areas of both well within the top 10 or 15 in the country? That isn't what I consider tiny. But if we are comparing them to Shanghai or Tokyo I see the point. These cities surely are not tiny by american standards. They are two of the most urban areas in the U.S., population figures aside. San Jose has more people than either city and is was less urban.
As far as expanding in an orderly fashion, SF is much more focused on transit improvements, it seems, which may explain what some on here have been complaining about in terms of rapid growth. I'm no expert on either area's mass transit, but I know SF is heavily investing in overhauling key components of its BART system to facilitate major downtown redevelopment while at the same time ensuring traffic doesn't increase. Someone correct me if I am wrong.
As far as expanding in an orderly fashion, SF is much more focused on transit improvements, it seems, which may explain what some on here have been complaining about in terms of rapid growth. I'm no expert on either area's mass transit, but I know SF is heavily investing in overhauling key components of its BART system to facilitate major downtown redevelopment while at the same time ensuring traffic doesn't increase. Someone correct me if I am wrong.
I'm 99.9% positive most people meant tiny in terms of physical footprint (Square mileage). They are, obviously, large cities and metro areas.
Boston02124
Senior Member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 6,825
- Reaction score
- 5,971
a freind sent me this pix last week
Boston 02116(AB) sent me this taken yesterday
Miami
Pierce
Active Member
- Joined
- May 29, 2008
- Messages
- 461
- Reaction score
- 1
Boston02124
Senior Member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 6,825
- Reaction score
- 5,971
empty but impressive! also by Boston02116! yesterday Miami to Boston
that 1st shot even makes SF look small IMO!
Boston02124
Senior Member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 6,825
- Reaction score
- 5,971
boston02116 and I want to starta Miami thread can we move these pixs please!
The only urban place in Miami is Miami Beach --and it's not even legally a part of Miami.
Those condos may not be as empty as Bostonians would like to think:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/03/11/1525583_new-life-in-the-big-city-as-condos.html
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/03/11/1525583_new-life-in-the-big-city-as-condos.html
P
Patrick
Guest
From http://www.archpaper.com/e-board_rev.asp?News_ID=4338
Density Uber Alles
In comparison to the Transamerica Pyramid, 555 Washington Street looks small, but its approval would immediately threaten lowrise neighbors to the north.
Courtesy Heller Manus
This Thursday, the San Francisco Planning Commission will again take up the proposed 38-story 555 Washington Street tower, designed by Heller Manus for developer Andrew Segal. During the last meeting, in which the commissioners failed to reach a consensus, venerable community activist Sue Hestor asked them, ?Does ?new urbanism? say that we have to fight suburban sprawl by putting 400-foot buildings everywhere in San Francisco?? Hestor has a point. For far too long smart growth has meant density ?ber alles on both sides of the Bay. The result is a dog?s breakfast, for the most part, much of which has little to do with walkable urbanism and nothing to do with urbanity. It?s time to get nuanced about density. As 555 Washington demonstrates, density?s context is not just the block itself?the immediate environs?but what is influenced and perhaps threatened by its increase.
The 555 Washington tower disregards current zoning for the block it shares with William Pereira?s 1972 Transamerica Pyramid, still the tallest building in the city. Next to it, the new tower doesn?t look so big, of course, and it comes with a packet of ground-level amenities. For Heller Manus, best known for political acumen, the design is OK: cribbed from the late-modern playbook, but OK. All of this has won it an endorsement from SPUR (San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association), an important advocacy group in San Francisco.
So far, so good?I can imagine the trail of logic that brought SPUR on board. It all seems fairly harmless, and if it violates the planning code in the process, well, the code?s out of date anyway. So why should the Planning Commission hesitate to move ahead with 555 Washington when it takes it up again in mid-March? Here are three good reasons for them to slow the tower down and reconsider its larger context.
1. Put a halt to case-by-case rezoning
Dropping a housing tower into the Pyramid block continues a sorry tradition of case-by-case rezoning in San Francisco. Back in May 2009, San Francisco Chronicle critic John King?addressing the 555 Washington tower specifically?spoke up for ?a re-imagined, focused plan for the financial and retail district.? He also noted the price the city pays for not having one: ?As long as downtown is up for grabs, in effect, count on the process to grow more strident and cynical.? San Francisco?s Planning Department may be hobbled by the downturn, King observed, but isn?t the real opportunity of a downturn to plan intelligently for the future?
Given the state of the housing market, there?s no urgency at all to approve the tower. By delaying it, the commissioners can avoid repeating the travesty of exempting Heller Manus? Folsom/Spear Towers, now the Infinity, from the Rincon Area Plan. (They were approved, and then a new Rincon plan was announced?with a dotted line around the towers that suggested that its eastern boundary had been quickly redrawn.)
2. Add density to the core, not the edge
The Pyramid block is on the northern edge of San Francisco?s Financial District, considerably past California Street. To its north, the buildings are much lower, an eclectic mix whose tenants benefit from its current density. This is where you find two of the region?s best bookstores, City Lights and Stout?s, and many of its best dealers in the decorative arts. You want urbanity? It starts here, yet the area clearly thrives because of its proximity to the financial district. Shanghai, facing the same dilemma, has opted to preserve similar areas like the Puxi district, recognizing?as Singapore did not?that they are irreplaceable. This is why SF?s planning code sought, a generation ago, to preserve the area. Let?s give its framers some credit for foresight.
The question 555 Washington raises is not whether it?s inappropriate for its site, but what happens next. As UC Berkeley?s Peter Bosselmann, a professor of urban design, once pointed out to me, adding density at the edge puts pressure on the lower-density neighborhoods that adjoin it. He was talking about the Rincon area, but the comment is even more applicable to the north end of the central business district, where recent and proposed projects along Kearny Street are also testing the higher-density waters. A generation ago, KPF?s building at 600 California had to step down to blend in with lower buildings to the north. Today, a developer doing the same project would be likely to use the occasion for mixed-use, assuming the planning code holds. If enough exceptions to the code get approved, the current edge is unlikely to hold.
3. Focus on urbanity, not just density
The question to ask of density is what does it really contribute to the city? This takes in everything: scale and mix, design quality, effect on microclimate, synergy with surrounding uses, transit access, etc. As we rezone, so shall we reap. Instead of giving 555 Washington a pass, the Planning Commission could send a powerful message to the city and the developer community: no more case-by-case exceptionalism. There?s never been a better time than now?the lull before the resumption of business as usual?to take a comprehensive look at how the central business district should grow, gaining rather than losing urbanity, and how much added density, if any, the districts north of it should absorb. These are the real and pressing issues. The tower can wait.
John Parman
John Parman is a writer and editorial adviser to The Architect?s Newspaper.
Density Uber Alles
In comparison to the Transamerica Pyramid, 555 Washington Street looks small, but its approval would immediately threaten lowrise neighbors to the north.
Courtesy Heller Manus
This Thursday, the San Francisco Planning Commission will again take up the proposed 38-story 555 Washington Street tower, designed by Heller Manus for developer Andrew Segal. During the last meeting, in which the commissioners failed to reach a consensus, venerable community activist Sue Hestor asked them, ?Does ?new urbanism? say that we have to fight suburban sprawl by putting 400-foot buildings everywhere in San Francisco?? Hestor has a point. For far too long smart growth has meant density ?ber alles on both sides of the Bay. The result is a dog?s breakfast, for the most part, much of which has little to do with walkable urbanism and nothing to do with urbanity. It?s time to get nuanced about density. As 555 Washington demonstrates, density?s context is not just the block itself?the immediate environs?but what is influenced and perhaps threatened by its increase.
The 555 Washington tower disregards current zoning for the block it shares with William Pereira?s 1972 Transamerica Pyramid, still the tallest building in the city. Next to it, the new tower doesn?t look so big, of course, and it comes with a packet of ground-level amenities. For Heller Manus, best known for political acumen, the design is OK: cribbed from the late-modern playbook, but OK. All of this has won it an endorsement from SPUR (San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association), an important advocacy group in San Francisco.
So far, so good?I can imagine the trail of logic that brought SPUR on board. It all seems fairly harmless, and if it violates the planning code in the process, well, the code?s out of date anyway. So why should the Planning Commission hesitate to move ahead with 555 Washington when it takes it up again in mid-March? Here are three good reasons for them to slow the tower down and reconsider its larger context.
1. Put a halt to case-by-case rezoning
Dropping a housing tower into the Pyramid block continues a sorry tradition of case-by-case rezoning in San Francisco. Back in May 2009, San Francisco Chronicle critic John King?addressing the 555 Washington tower specifically?spoke up for ?a re-imagined, focused plan for the financial and retail district.? He also noted the price the city pays for not having one: ?As long as downtown is up for grabs, in effect, count on the process to grow more strident and cynical.? San Francisco?s Planning Department may be hobbled by the downturn, King observed, but isn?t the real opportunity of a downturn to plan intelligently for the future?
Given the state of the housing market, there?s no urgency at all to approve the tower. By delaying it, the commissioners can avoid repeating the travesty of exempting Heller Manus? Folsom/Spear Towers, now the Infinity, from the Rincon Area Plan. (They were approved, and then a new Rincon plan was announced?with a dotted line around the towers that suggested that its eastern boundary had been quickly redrawn.)
2. Add density to the core, not the edge
The Pyramid block is on the northern edge of San Francisco?s Financial District, considerably past California Street. To its north, the buildings are much lower, an eclectic mix whose tenants benefit from its current density. This is where you find two of the region?s best bookstores, City Lights and Stout?s, and many of its best dealers in the decorative arts. You want urbanity? It starts here, yet the area clearly thrives because of its proximity to the financial district. Shanghai, facing the same dilemma, has opted to preserve similar areas like the Puxi district, recognizing?as Singapore did not?that they are irreplaceable. This is why SF?s planning code sought, a generation ago, to preserve the area. Let?s give its framers some credit for foresight.
The question 555 Washington raises is not whether it?s inappropriate for its site, but what happens next. As UC Berkeley?s Peter Bosselmann, a professor of urban design, once pointed out to me, adding density at the edge puts pressure on the lower-density neighborhoods that adjoin it. He was talking about the Rincon area, but the comment is even more applicable to the north end of the central business district, where recent and proposed projects along Kearny Street are also testing the higher-density waters. A generation ago, KPF?s building at 600 California had to step down to blend in with lower buildings to the north. Today, a developer doing the same project would be likely to use the occasion for mixed-use, assuming the planning code holds. If enough exceptions to the code get approved, the current edge is unlikely to hold.
3. Focus on urbanity, not just density
The question to ask of density is what does it really contribute to the city? This takes in everything: scale and mix, design quality, effect on microclimate, synergy with surrounding uses, transit access, etc. As we rezone, so shall we reap. Instead of giving 555 Washington a pass, the Planning Commission could send a powerful message to the city and the developer community: no more case-by-case exceptionalism. There?s never been a better time than now?the lull before the resumption of business as usual?to take a comprehensive look at how the central business district should grow, gaining rather than losing urbanity, and how much added density, if any, the districts north of it should absorb. These are the real and pressing issues. The tower can wait.
John Parman
John Parman is a writer and editorial adviser to The Architect?s Newspaper.