What I've been talking about is the dangers of "single use districts". The LMA is another example of a mainly "single use district" and that's not a good thing.
The opposite of a "single use district" is not an "every use district." The opposite is "multiple use district."
Speaking in general, you don't need to have a district appeal to everyone in order for it to be successful. Just enough to have reasonable number of people in the area at all times of day (and at least part of the evening), almost every day. When there's only a single use, that almost always means that the people participating in that activity all have similar schedules and have a tendency to all leave at around the same time. Like a suburban office park. Or a downtown (e.g. financial district) in a typical American city.
We're obviously stuck with a number of single-use zones, and I don't know if much can be done about it. Sadly, we went through a phase of history where city planners seemed to relish creating single-use districts. But we can try to avoid creating new single-use districts going forward.
Just to take up your example of Brighton -- that's a relatively large place, so I cannot talk about it as a whole. Parts of it are single use residential without any other uses nearby. I don't generally have a reason to ever go there. That's intentional -- the residents wanted the suburban experience and they got it by excluding all other uses. But other parts of Brighton are mixed between residences, retail, commerce and even some industry. Maybe I personally don't have reasons to go to some areas but other people do. And not just the residents. Remember, a successful city district doesn't need to appeal to everyone, just multiple types of users. And maybe not everywhere wants or needs to be a successful city district.
But Comm Ave @ BU should be. And as a person "who needs to be there" I can assure you that it doesn't work. One of the reasons I'm glad I got my bike now is so that I can get the hell out of here quickly when need be.
To your earlier point about Bay State Rd, I am well aware of BU's holdings there, and across the Pike in Brookline, where I grew up. Having watched the changes deeper into Allston (having "Allston Village" as everyone calls it now - I guess the chamber of commerce wins on that one - go from a more eclectic mix that included BU kids to a full-on BU stomping grounds, I certainly worry about further incursion by BU into Brookline and Boston, and both municipalities have thankfully, as you noted, been fighting this more recently.
However, I still disagree about the points made on here about single-use districts in general, and about this area in particular. The LMA, as a specific example, does bother me, because it truly is a dead zone now. The buildings are not only all large, but very corporate/institutional and lacking some of the older variety that BU has - brownstones and of course, their main building. Not that there were ever places here that I would actually "go to" for the sake of going, but at least ten years ago, there were two stragglers of local business - Rebecca's and the flower shop - now replaced by the new research building that everyone on AB is so gah gah about. And the Walgreens, that closes at 10 or 11, used to be a 7-11 that was 24 hrs. Another loss, even though they're both chains.
But the Comm Ave corridor is different. Like I said, I grew up hanging around both the LMA and Comm and feel very differently about the two places. If there were more retail here, would I like it more? Yeah, probably. But this stretch of Comm, in my opinion, was never very nice and certainly looks much better now since they rebuilt the roads, removed the lane and landscaped the sidewalks. And this area, very much unlike the LMA, does still retain several local businesses, like the coffee shop, the barbershop, the noodle place... And when I happen to be around St Mary's, or Cottage Farm, I will still walk over to that coffee shop, despite there being other options on Beacon, because I like it. It just happens that Im not in either area very much these days.
And other than the commercial node around Babcock and the south corner of Packard's, the whole stretch of Comm from Amory to Harvard is totally dead - MORE dead, with less street life, than in front of BU, more depressing, shittier to walk or bike on...
I'm not sure it even bothers me that the financial district is empty beyond 9-5. I used to love to go to London City on the weekends - it was totally dead and the old, mercantile architecture felt majestic in the emptiness. Boston's CBD is smaller but still retains some of this feeling.
I support the argument for future development that encourages small businesses and a good mix of use. Sometimes, dead zones dont work, like the LMA. I just dont think Comm by BU fits that designation. Could it be better? Yes. But it's alright, and in my opinion, better than more outbound segments of the same road that are not owned by BU.
PS -Re: the statement about Brighton residents who "wanted a suburban experience" - most of nether Brighton was developed in the late 19th and 1st half of the 20th century - the development fit the location at the time; the thoroughfares were commercial like any streetcar suburb and the rest went residential. It IS a suburb because it was.
but it's less of a priority out in the less central regions. Comm Ave is weird because it was developed very intensively (some of the most densely populated census blocks outside of Boston proper) but with very little mixing of uses. In past centuries that kind of density would have come part and parcel with lots of services and retail for the population, but apparently not Comm Ave in 1920. Something to ponder, but now we're really getting off-topic...
