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

Blackbird said:
I don't think it's any private entity's responsibility to fix the local roads and subway system.
Click to expand...

If the proponent wasn’t proposing underground parking under literally every building (net 3000 new spaces) I would agree with you. Their own analysis predicts the addition of 1500 new peak hour vehicular trips, enough to overwhelm Columbia point even if the roadway network wasn’t already stillborn. Since they are choosing to incentivize vehicular travel by providing those spaces, l think it is completely reasonable for the proponent to pay (more) for mitigation.

Typically, developers pay for the design and construction of mitigation measures, but that $14 million is for design costs too. So that $14 million would net about $11 million in built improvements.

Or put another way, just under three new red line cars. Not trains, cars. Except that $14 million is to be split four ways between the City, DCR, MassDOT (Highway) and MBTA. So assuming an even split the T would get the money to build 80% of a new red line car. How so very generous.
 
Another thing to note is that their congestion analysis doesn’t look as bad as actual operations since the existing network operates at LOS E or F already. If one just glanced at the results, a degradation of one letter grade from an E to an F or holding constant at an F doesn’t look that bad. But just like on a test, there’s a huge difference between receiving an F for a 59% or for a 10%.

One of the central tenants of traffic engineering is that congestion increases exponentially per vehicle added to a facility past critical density. So 1500 vehicles added to a network past critical density is, well a 10% on your midterm.
 
Last edited:
Highwayguy said:
If the proponent wasn’t proposing underground parking under literally every building (net 3000 new spaces) I would agree with you. Their own analysis predicts the addition of 1500 new peak hour vehicular trips, enough to overwhelm Columbia point even if the roadway network wasn’t already stillborn. Since they are choosing to incentivize vehicular travel by providing those spaces, l think it is completely reasonable for the proponent to pay (more) for mitigation.
Click to expand...

That's a good argument! I'm all for less parking at the site!

bakgwailo said:
When a new IKEA moves in they generally shell out for intersections and traffic mitigations
Click to expand...

Source?
 
Blackbird said:
Source?
Click to expand...

Its required per the enviromental impact process. Per DOT's TIA guidelines, DOT may require mitgation measures if,

"Generation of 2,000 or more new ADT by motor vehicles on roadways providing access to a single location or Generation of 1,000 or more new ADT by motor vehicles on roadways providing access to a single location and construction of 150 or more new motor vehicle parking spaces at a single location."
 
Last edited:
Highwayguy said:
Its required per the enviromental impact process. Per DOT's TIA guidelines, DOT may require mitgation measures if,

"Generation of 2,000 or more new ADT by motor vehicles on roadways providing access to a single location or Generation of 1,000 or more new ADT by motor vehicles on roadways providing access to a single location and construction of 150 or more new motor vehicle parking spaces at a single location."
Click to expand...

Wouldn't DBC check those same boxes?
 
Blackbird said:
Wouldn't DBC check those same boxes?
Click to expand...

And then some. Point l was trying to make is that a decent size market basket going in may be required to pay for roadway improvements. $14 million is way more than what most developers pay; however DBC is so large it still isn’t enough imo.
 
5FEA563B-25C6-48D2-AAFB-6F93A258AA59.jpeg
362E3CFD-1599-46E8-AE79-81203BD29EA1.jpeg
How many units were there back then?
 
Boston02124 said:
View attachment 21556View attachment 21557How many units were there back then?
Click to expand...
Read a book on Columbia point a long time ago. I believe the original project had about three times as many units as Harbour point, which replaced it. Supposedly they didnt have to evict a lot of tenants because by the time of demolition so many units had become condemned due to lack of maintenance. The book kind of played it off like this was inevitable, but obvs the lack of maintenance was a policy decision. Can get into the politics behind that but maybe thats a hot topic for a different forum. I do think mixed income is probably a better model, although I like the new ones where they make the density higher instead of lower.
 
This project always seems like it's trying very hard to be a cross between the Seaport, Assembly Row, and Cambridge Crossing, and destined to capture the worst elements of each. Also, they really should brand it as Dot Bay City, rather than Dorchester Bay City.
 
HenryAlan said:
This project always seems like it's trying very hard to be a cross between the Seaport, Assembly Row, and Cambridge Crossing, and destined to capture the worst elements of each. Also, they really should brand it as Dot Bay City, rather than Dorchester Bay City.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree with that... the worst element of Assembly Row is the massive permanent wall of parking garages and at least I don't see that here.
 
I hate the buzzcut/similar heights of all the buildings in Dorchester Bay City. Some height variability would have made it a bit more authentic and interesting instead of suburban and boring.
 
Equilibria said:
I'm not sure I agree with that... the worst element of Assembly Row is the massive permanent wall of parking garages and at least I don't see that here.
Click to expand...
That's a fair point. In theory, what I suggested they are trying to do could be a great result. And the parking aspect is a good illustration. I just kind of expect them not to pull it off to the full extent of the ideal.
 
They really have to tweak the surrounding streets to make this field connected. Even with JFK right there, the massive unfriendly streets you have to cross make it feel much further.
 
Charlie_mta said:
I hate the buzzcut/similar heights of all the buildings in Dorchester Bay City. Some height variability would have made it a bit more authentic and interesting instead of suburban and boring.
Click to expand...

I really can't tell anything from the latest link. However, in prior ones it's a few floors taller than the seaport and at least 1 building broke 300'. I sure hope that is still the case. For better or worse, the tallest building in a given neighborhood tends to visually define that neighborhood, which is why it always kills me that the tallest buildings get cut so often.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top