Downtown Crossing/Financial District | Discussion

^statler ^cden4 ^davem

I didn't even think of that last night, but widening the Tremont sidewalk on the retail side seems like such a PERFECT idea. So good it must have been said before on ArchBoston.
 
davem said:
And it isn't the fun kind of businessmen and tourists crowd like in Midtown Manhattan, its the aforementioned addicts, crazies, and high school kids from DTX milling around that give the whole strip a run down feel.
Click to expand...

There are no addicts, crazies, and high school kids in Midtown Manhattan? Is there some sort of invisible fence that keeps them out?
 
I think the green line may prevent a trees from being planted in some
places along Tremont.

They should definitely remove a lane of traffic along Tremont. Widen the sidewalk across from the common and widen both sides after Boylston St in the Theater district. Traffic will adjust to a lane loss in the area. The section of Washington St in downtown crossing can also stand to lose a lane for wider sidewalks.
 
statler said:
There are no addicts, crazies, and high school kids in Midtown Manhattan? Is there some sort of invisible fence that keeps them out?
Click to expand...

Its just the ratios, wander around the proportionately more crowded midtown and then come to Tremont st. One feels seedier. I have actually done this (although not for the purpose of this argument, it was just a really nice day): Over the summer I walked from my hotel on East 31st to Penn Station, took the Acela to South Station, and then walked to meet someone on the common after stopping for my dunkin fix. Less people on Tremont and yet it just felt gross.
 
Tremont-on-the-Common is the primary source of blight on this block. The building is unsalvageable as urban fabric, and should be imploded.
 
davem said:
Its just the ratios, wander around the proportionately more crowded midtown and then come to Tremont st. One feels seedier. I have actually done this (although not for the purpose of this argument, it was just a really nice day): Over the summer I walked from my hotel on East 31st to Penn Station, took the Acela to South Station, and then walked to meet someone on the common after stopping for my dunkin fix. Less people on Tremont and yet it just felt gross.
Click to expand...

There are a majority of Suffolk and Emerson Kids walking around in that area. But the Edge of the Common you see some serious drug addicts that look extremely desperate near Tremont.

Tremont St and the edge of the Common has bad feel. Bad construction on Tremont St and some real shady people on that part of the Common.

Get rid of these people and you have a much BRIGHTER area. The construction on the Tremont side wouldn't even matter.

Davis Square Transformation is a perfect example.
Actually take a look at Baycove at North Station area. That is a good example.
 
Speaking of the scruffy side of the common...I just visited the newly restored area around Brewer fountain. The redesign is fantastic (though I wish bluestone pavers had been used in lieu of asphalt). But the appeal of the area is harmed by the prevalence of drug users and derelicts who occupy many of the new benches and hover around the area smoking cigarettes.
 
The Tremont side of the Common should be a tree-lined, stone-paved promenade. This will draw more non-derelicts and help change the area to a more favorable ratio.
 
sidewalks said:
Speaking of the scruffy side of the common...I just visited the newly restored area around Brewer fountain. The redesign is fantastic (though I wish bluestone pavers had been used in lieu of asphalt). But the appeal of the area is harmed by the prevalence of drug users and derelicts who occupy many of the new benches and hover around the area smoking cigarettes.
Click to expand...

Sidewalkr -- the major magnet to the druggies and such is the Paul Rudolph monstrosity a few blocks away -- that service should move to Roxburry -- the building should be imploded and a super tall built on the site
 
How about suggesting that a super-tall be built and the shelter be relocated within the new tower.

I don't get this out-of-sight out-of-mind viewpoint. If poverty and/or homelessness exists, why shouldn't it be completely evident in our day-to-day lives?
 
whighlander said:
Sidewalkr -- the major magnet to the druggies and such is the Paul Rudolph monstrosity a few blocks away -- that service should move to Roxburry -- the building should be imploded and a super tall built on the site
Click to expand...
Wow, this is why you're on my ignore list asshole. I have to remember to log in before opening any threads.
 
gooseberry said:
Wow, this is why you're on my ignore list asshole. I have to remember to log in before opening any threads.
Click to expand...

Can't imagine I made your X-Mas list either.
I love this website. It's like that HBO series Boardwalk Empire when an all out riot breaks out on the strip.
 
I'm not suggesting they be hidden away...but let's be honest. The environment around Brewer fountain is less appealing to most pedestrians, in comparison to say the public garden lagoon. Most people find the prospect of being accosted by a homeless person to be a negative when it comes to choosing a place to eat a ham sandwich during their lunch hour.
 
statler said:
Tremont-on-the-Common is a disgrace. Absolute first on my list of buildings that need a complete renovation and/or demo-rebuild.
Click to expand...

That was built by Ron Druker's father (how do you think Junior got to be a real estate developer?). When the city (the BRA, mayor's office, etc.) speaks about good old Ron, they always mention with nostalgia and pride that his dear Daddy was the hero who built Tremont on the Common. No joke.
 
Sicilian said:
I don't get this out-of-sight out-of-mind viewpoint. If poverty and/or homelessness exists, why shouldn't it be completely evident in our day-to-day lives?
Click to expand...

If one isn't responsible for someone else's poverty or homelessness, as often these conditions are the fault of the person living in poverty or homeless due to their own personal bad decision making, why should anyone care and have to be bothered by it?

I do feel bad for the mentally ill that got kicked into the streets when the state decided against operating proper mental healthcare facilities, however those that wound up in the gutter by being a screw up deserve what they got. There are consequences for being a screw up and to not penalize failure is a recipe for disaster. Harboring guilt complexes for one's own honest success is a waste of time and counter productive.

The hard working lunch hour crowd should be able to sit in a park, their taxes pay for, without being harassed by some penniless drunkard or drug addict that never worked an honest day's work in their life. Of course the homeless which aren't causing trouble should be allowed to say, it is a public park, but the city shouldn't be turning a blind eye to vagrancy and aggressive panhandling.
 
I'm thinking about starting a forum where we can discuss Boston's built environment. It is a topic that seems to pop up on this board from time to time, so I thought there might be some interest.
 
statler said:
I'm thinking about starting a forum where we can discuss Boston's built environment. It is a topic that seems to pop up on this board from time to time, so I thought there might be some interest.
Click to expand...

If you do, please email me the link.
 
^Lurker

I questioned the idea that the homeless should be moved to Roxbury out of sight of Bostonians and in sight of Roxbury denizens rather than co-existing here. As others have suggested, area improvements at Tremont could improve conditions for all and the ratio of residents to homeless might far exceed the current ratio.

I didn't state that anyone should turn a blind eye to vagrancy in a public park or aggressive panhandling.

As for personal responsibility, I don't have a major argument with your point of view. I do tend to believe a society is healthier if there is some level of support -- beyond charity -- to tend to those who fall through the cracks. Maybe we should agree to avoid another political quagmire here.

On a final note, Boston residents (and in some cases BIDs) pay for parks through property taxes. Some parks are paid for privately. I'm not clear how workers in Boston are taxed to pay for parks -- do you mean sales tax? Income tax? I'm interested how you claim that a commuter from Malden to Boston pays more for Boston Common's upkeep than a homeless guy. I ask this seriously because City Hall claims to have no money for parks and upkeep.
 
Statler,

At this point in time there aren't enough development projects proposed, or at a point in construction where we can be discussing photographs, can you really expect everyone here to stay amused strictly on topic?

RailRoad.net very strictly moderated everything into the ground and now it's rare to have more than a thread or two regularly updated.

Is all the opining about everything even tangentially related to architecture, due to the sluggish development cycle, really that bad in comparison to reading a relatively dead board? Is it healthier to remain strictly on topic on every post or to maintain a lively discussion in the interim?
 
It's been said before, just as classless, that "if you turn the lights on, the rats scatter", and it's true in this case. If there was enough street-level activity, there would be no room for the vagrants everyone mentions. That's just an observation, not an opinion of what should or should not be there. I don't think the loiterers are there b/c of what's nearby; nature abhors a vacuum and they fill it. It's as bad in Copley Square.

The arrival of Emerson and Suffolk students has turned the general area into one of more vibrancy and activity. I don't blame TOC on its own since there are plenty of other empty storefronts. The sidewalks roll up early on Tremont Street.

I have run the perimeter of the Boston Common a couple hundred times during the past five or six years and I dread the path from the State House to Park Street and from Park Street to the corners of Tremont and Boylston because of the "derelicts".

I got my ass kicked several years ago when I wrote about the mentally ill / drug addicts in Copley Square, so I'm reluctant to enter into the conversation again. Suffice it to say, I think you can be both for better treatment of the sick / addicted and still complain about having to endure them on a daily basis. It's not a lack of compassion that drives us to complain, it's a lack of patience!

Which Paul Rudolph monstrosity do you speak of? The Lindemann Center?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top