Charlestown Infill and Small Developments

Charlie_mta said:
I like the plan, and thank you and Paulc for posting it. I would have done a few of the street alignments slightly differently, but all-in-all the plan provides pedestrian friendly, dense neighborhood development on a human scale.

Let's get the dozers revved up and build the damn thing.
Click to expand...

Please oh please oh please put a footbridge to the T fare lobby out the other side to Perkins St. So much new apt./condo density has sprung up on Brighton and Caldwell Streets replacing all that blighted ex-industrial, and this little sliver of Charlestown shouldn't be cut off from the Square and all the transportation fanning out of it. I used to live about 8 blocks up Perkins near Franklin St. and on my walk down Perkins to the T every morning rued the sight of the station platforms barely 50 feet away as I rounded the corner to go 2 blocks out of the way with the walk of shame under the dank 93 overpass. It would serve the Square's density very well to be able to get across that wall from the packed mass of residential framed by 93, McGrath, Broadway, and Washington.
 
I like this plan overall as well.

One (smallish) point in the BRA document that shines light onto the BRA's preferences in, ahem, "architecture":

The BRA makes clear its preference for alucobond-sporting landscraper blocks on page 31. Here the BRA dismisses "fake" historical buildings - which seems to imply traditional/classic New England architectural forms made of natural materials (embodied in their telling by the masonry Mashpee Commons, which I have never seen).

The BRA claims that "residents" do not want "fake historical" buildings (though when "quoting" residents they can only say that some people want this, but most want a mix of historical and newer forms). However, the BRA goes much further than this interpretation in its editorializing: it offers a large number of put-downs of "fake historical" architecture and heaps praise on the BRA's preferred type of architecture. Per the BRA, buildings that look like "The Victor" (maybe it is the Victor shown, maybe something else; these all look the same to me) do a better job of "articulat[ing] buildings and creat[ing] a more interesting building form."

Looking at alucobond specifically, the BRA editorializes: "Metal panels can provide interest and lighten the massing of a building." Again, they try to pin this on citizen sentiment, though again it's clear that citizens don't necessarily support alucobond so much as the BRA is injecting it: "While
some residents expressed a dislike for metal panels, others felt that, used appropriately, they can provide interest and help to lighten the appearance of a building."

// Ugh. It really is time for this vile organization to bite the dust...
 
It's a TOD "right?" They should be proposing building height/density 2 to 3 times this. What is going on in The Fenway area should be the goal for Sulivan Sq. Where is the vision??? Oh, it's the BRA doing the "planning".
 
I wish it was a little denser and had some commercial on the corner to compliment the Ironsides on the opposite side, but that aside, it was nicely done.
 
This replaced that little park on the corner of Warren & Park, correct?

Judging by the other comments here, I'm in the minority when I say I don't like this. The buildings themselves are nicely done but the layout is super-awkward. It reminds me of one of those suburban "let's look old and like we're in a city!" developments, which has old style buildings but little tiny lawns masquerading as rec areas adjacent to private surface parking.

The brick homes on Warren St look very nice, but the rest of the development is a total waste IMO...would have been much better if they laid it out differently.
 
Funny story about Warren Green. There was a public amenity component to the RFP. The Warren Green developer got points for promising to have a public green in the middle. When the development finally opened my wife and I wandered back there to check it out.
1. We got dagger stares from some of the residents. Apparently they weren't aware of the public component.
2. The green has been shrunk to an absurdly small size by the overly large driveway and a series of AC condensers. And, to make the space completely unusable, the developer built an artificial hill on it.
 
AmericanFolkLegend said:
Funny story about Warren Green. There was a public amenity component to the RFP. The Warren Green developer got points for promising to have a public green in the middle. When the development finally opened my wife and I wandered back there to check it out.
1. We got dagger stares from some of the residents. Apparently they weren't aware of the public component.
2. The green has been shrunk to an absurdly small size by the overly large driveway and a series of AC condensers. And, to make the space completely unusable, the developer built an artificial hill on it.
Click to expand...

Dagger stares? If I get a spare hour this summer I am going to take my 250lb, 45 year old, out of shape rear end of to C-town and sunbathe on the public amenity I paid for which enabled this development to be built.
 
National Park Service Seeks to Lease 2 Buildings in Navy Yard

The National Parks Services are calling for RFP’s for two properties located within the Charlestown Navy Yard.

Building 125 located on Baxter St. and the old Hoosac Stores Warehouse on Constitution Road will be offered for lease by the end of the month. The Boston National Historic Park will be accepting proposals for both properties in an effort to repurpose the historic buildings.

Building 125, built in 1905, sits on Pier 3 and was previously used as a navy paint shop. The two story, red brick building is just over 10,000 square feet in size with large glass windows to bring in natural light

Hoosac Stores Warehouse is a much larger facility at about 60,000 square feet. Built in 1895, the six story, red brick building was once used as a storehouse for goods being transferred from steamship to rail before the Navy Yard closed in 1974. The building sits adjacent to the USS Constitution.

This is not the first time the NPS has issued an RFP for the Hoosac Warehouse. In 2005 they accepted a proposal from the Architectural Heritage Foundation to redevelop the building as the new home of the North Bennet Street School. Based out of the North End the school teaches craft-making and other trades. The deal never came to fruition.

The NPS is hoping to see individuals and organizations submit unique proposals that will work well with the Charlestown Navy Yard’s vision to preserve the historical landmark.

“We are looking to get the building back in action. The best way to preserve these properties is to renovate and restore them,” said Sean Hennesssy, Director of Public Affairs at the NPS.
Click to expand...

http://charlestownbridge.com/2014/0...vice-seeks-to-lease-2-buildings-in-navy-yard/
 
Olivia Browning just announced they will close...leaving that entire building at least the retail portion (former citibank) empty.
 
My thoughts on the Mock-up

  • Rigid Insulation is cheap and combustible. They should reconsider this.
  • Tyvec as a water barrier is a 20 year product. Buyer beware.
    [*)Good for them for buy real brick returns (except they are terrible for energy performance.
  • Quions!!! (nothing says traditional architecture like fake quions)

I
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top