Dorchester Bay City (nee Bayside Expo Ctr.) | Columbia Point

HenryAlan

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Messages
2,991
Reaction score
1,560
I know we've discussed this before, but it's a huge disappointment that there will be no direct street connection with Harbor Point.
 

Scott

Active Member
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
945
Reaction score
376
I sincerely can't see what the benefit would be. Harbor Point residents aren't going to drive to Dot Bay City and DBC residents aren't going to need to drive to HP very often. There are a number of pedestrian connections planned. Maybe if HP is redeveloped someday but right now I don't see why you would want to
 

HenryAlan

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Messages
2,991
Reaction score
1,560
I sincerely can't see what the benefit would be. Harbor Point residents aren't going to drive to Dot Bay City and DBC residents aren't going to need to drive to HP very often. There are a number of pedestrian connections planned. Maybe if HP is redeveloped someday but right now I don't see why you would want to
It's generally good to complete the street grid. I doubt people would drive between the two with a road connection, but they would walk. Without that connection, walking will require a significant out of the way diversion and much longer distances. It's almost certain that people won't want to do that walk compared to the direct route. It's similar to the suburban sprawl zones where it can be too far to walk from your house to a store that is a mere 50 yards away because there is no direct route. Same concept pops up in the design for Dorchester Bay City.
 

Scott

Active Member
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
945
Reaction score
376
In general but not in this case. There are multiple pedestrian connections. Are you suggesting they open up HP for auto traffic? That would turn HP into a driveway for DBC which is not going to fly, otherwise it would be a pointless dead end.
 

DZH22

Superstar
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
10,372
Reaction score
22,843
Also this will ruin the waterfront here, not enhance it.
Welcome to the forum. I assume that the waterfront will stay exactly the same as it is today, which is reflected in the very first picture on the latest link shared in post 287. That sounds like a NIMBY argument (which is reinforced by your user name) that doesn't really hold water in the face of the evidence presented.

On the other hand, your transportation concerns are 100% valid. That area is already kind of a mess.

Not sure whether or not it's oversized. It's part of Boston, and all of Boston is growing. It's not like there's a ton of empty land here either. At this point, demand will never be met without vertical growth that is "oversized" for all sorts of locations but remains within the urban footprint.
 

Charlie_mta

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
3,055
Reaction score
2,869
This is way over sized for that location. The transportation connections are not as good here as it seems on paper. Also this will ruin the waterfront here, not enhance it.
If development were to be prohibited because of traffic congestion, then all of the Alewife area development, Cambridge Crossing, and many other developments in and around Boston would have been cancelled. At least Dorchester Bay City is near transit, as is Cambridge Crossing and the Alewife area. That's the most important consideration. There will always be automobile congestion, no matter what, so that alone shouldn't stop development. It can be mitigated with expanded transit, bus lanes, etc.
 

DZH22

Superstar
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
10,372
Reaction score
22,843
It can be mitigated with expanded transit, bus lanes, etc.
To be fair it's essentially impossible to install bus lanes in a rotary. Alewife is also a complete disaster because they can't feed cars onto Route 2 fast enough. Basically anywhere that 1 traffic light backs up to the next traffic light becomes pandemonium. In this case they really need another outlet onto 93 so all cars going that way don't have to feed into the rotary. But then of course, 93 south of the city is often at a standstill itself.

The true conundrum is that you can't ease demand in one area without causing issues in another, in this case with all the increased congestion. So it's either more traffic, higher prices, or in our case both as there is not enough total supply, but too much supply forced into the wrong places because the right places under build. Eventually there will be a complete rethinking of transportation in general, but the pace will likely be glacial. We are talking about a multi-decades overhaul which doesn't really solve any of the problems of today.

My fear is that the population can't keep growing forever, locally, nationally, and especially worldwide. Resources aren't infinite, and neither is available land. When I was born there were 4.6 billion people in the world, and now we're up to 7.8 billion. I just don't see how any of this is sustainable in the long run, but I likely won't be around to see it play out.
 

Suffolk 83

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2007
Messages
2,706
Reaction score
1,418
This is way over sized for that location. The transportation connections are not as good here as it seems on paper. Also this will ruin the waterfront here, not enhance it.
The biggest problem with this is they want to rely on JFK and K circle being rebuilt by state/local agencies while saying hardly a thing about kicking in money. They didnt create the issues but they will exacerbate them greatly. Instead of just saying "its over sized" people should be asking for real concessions from the developer (ie real $$ for improvements, not $5 million)

"Ruining the waterfront" is a joke- nobody uses it as it stands so in theory there's nothing to ruin. Also nothing is changing on the waterfront boardwalk
 

DZH22

Superstar
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
10,372
Reaction score
22,843
"Ruining the waterfront" is a joke- nobody uses it as it stands so in theory there's nothing to ruin. Also nothing is changing on the waterfront boardwalk
There's a very nice, moderately used walking path from Carson Beach to the JFK library. It's better than the Castle Island walk IMO, but part of that opinion is based on the skyline view from there being better. Still it's a really nice spot to bring a date for a stroll along the water.
 

bakgwailo

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
1,359
Reaction score
618
Honestly let them go denser/taller for them to cover all the infrastructure improvements. The entire area is essential cut off from everything else anyways on the other side of 93. Add in mixed use/ground floor retail and the Harbor Point people greatly benefit, too.
 

Suffolk 83

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2007
Messages
2,706
Reaction score
1,418
There's a very nice, moderately used walking path from Carson Beach to the JFK library. It's better than the Castle Island walk IMO, but part of that opinion is based on the skyline view from there being better. Still it's a really nice spot to bring a date for a stroll along the water.
I'm well aware, I live within walking distance and I walk it- I'd personally call it lightly used unless it's a nice weekend day in the summer.
 

HenryAlan

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Messages
2,991
Reaction score
1,560
My fear is that the population can't keep growing forever, locally, nationally, and especially worldwide. Resources aren't infinite, and neither is available land. When I was born there were 4.6 billion people in the world, and now we're up to 7.8 billion. I just don't see how any of this is sustainable in the long run, but I likely won't be around to see it play out.
Perhaps, but it can certainly grow a lot compared to current numbers. Just as an example, if Boston had Parisian density, there would be 2.5 million people residing within the city limits, rather than 700 thousand. We'd need quite a few more rail lines to support such a population, but we can definitely manage closer to Parisian density along rail lines that already exist.
 

Top