thats not accurate at all, as shown by the flood maps. only a small portion of the BH site is even in the 2070 1% flood zone.
The state notes a 20% flood risk for the brand new buildings by 2070. Only 45 years away. That map is horrendously overly optimistic. Boston is already enduring steaming Amazon-like summers where overnight lows are 8 - 10 degrees higher then they used to be in the late 1800s, with dews stuck in the 70s (low 20s Celcuis) for weeks on end. Projected active hurricane season this year. Federal elections with a high chance of going south. The T and city budgets going broke. Good luck reducing emissions to get that optimistic scenario for the first map.thats not accurate at all, as shown by the flood maps. only a small portion of the BH site is even in the 2070 1% flood zone.
not sure if its intentional for a narrative or ignorance but here it is, 2070. most of Charlestown is actually pretty well protected except the neck and the infill areas of the Navy Yard and Marine terminal area.
View attachment 52603
and if you want to get into more detail:
Experience
experience.arcgis.com
^^^ Excerpted from the NPC/DEIR Certificate of May 1, 2020; p. 17.
Nitpick: 1% annual chance storm/"100 year storm" is 1 in 100 chance in any given year, not 1 every 100 years.
Sure, and (1 - (1 - 0.01)^100yrs) = (64% chance of happening every 100 years), which in this sort of estimation game is close enough to 100% that it's reasonable to say "basically guaranteed to happen every hundred years" because the implications for building should be the same whether it's 64% or 100%.
I can't tell if this heap of random facades belong to a single building or if we're looking at multiple buildings, but the street-level of this/these building(s) is/are absolutely atrocious -- even worse than the street-level of the old housing projects being replaced.1/18:
It’s really nasty stuff. They can’t just decide on one facade palette - they need to use all of them.
Yes. Its soooo bad. This is why people hate new development. There should be less regulation on massing and more regulation of aesthetics.
I genuinely believe that a significant amount of NIMBYism is healthy and correct revulsion toward the design of these kinds of buildings. They make arguments about traffic and infrastructure and equity and whatever, but some part of it actually stems from the completely accurate prediction that the building will be inalterably ugly.
