Faneuil Gardens | 55 Faneuil Street/266 North Beacon Street | Brighton

I'd like a better understanding of the composition of the income restrictions on the net-new units, the language here seems fairly vague/confusing as to what that will be.

Sounds like a promising plan, though.
 
Isn't this EXACTLY what we've learned NOT to do with public housing (or any housing)? Courtyards ringed by unlovable boxes. Woof.

There is some sort of human instinct that this form ought to be great, but it never is. One linear courtyard down the center of the parcel, spilling out onto busy Beacon St, would be far more inviting than these nooks and alcoves. Maybe the commercial and amenities will save this, but it looks like its off to a terrible start.
 
Isn't this EXACTLY what we've learned NOT to do with public housing (or any housing)? Courtyards ringed by unlovable boxes. Woof.

There is some sort of human instinct that this form ought to be great, but it never is. One linear courtyard down the center of the parcel, spilling out onto busy Beacon St, would be far more inviting than these nooks and alcoves. Maybe the commercial and amenities will save this, but it looks like its off to a terrible start.
It looks like (judging from the plan view layout) that they're trying to place some green space next to each wing of each building. It looks like a jigsaw puzzle, but well intentioned. .
 
Shockingly bad urban form.

I'm having a hard time understanding why this is being treated as a superblock when the surrounding neighborhood fabric would recommend 3-4 blocks.

I'm surprised to see surface parking increase from 132-154 (vs new structured) - the amount of developable land dedicated to this surface parking verges on 20% of the project surface area! At least the # of units increases from 258 - 441.

Also, apparently the parking lots deserve a better streetwall than the streets themselves? Why the aversion to a 'normal' street grid?
 
It’s probably due to the legal requirements for funding the redevelopment of a public housing complex.
 
It’s probably due to the legal requirements for funding the redevelopment of a public housing complex.
Boston's other public housing redevelopments (Bunker Hill, Mildred Hailey) don't look like this. Neither do the ones in Cambridge and Somerville. What this does look like is the awful Harvard ERP.

Also - the buildings are color-coded? Are you serious?
 
Isn't this EXACTLY what we've learned NOT to do with public housing (or any housing)? Courtyards ringed by unlovable boxes. Woof.

There is some sort of human instinct that this form ought to be great, but it never is. One linear courtyard down the center of the parcel, spilling out onto busy Beacon St, would be far more inviting than these nooks and alcoves. Maybe the commercial and amenities will save this, but it looks like its off to a terrible start.
Building Apartments around courtyards is actually a good thing, though the execution in this case is quite flawed. But imagine something more like this:

1706794950125.png
 
It looks like a little college campus with lots of pathways for students to rush from one class to the next rather than a place for people to live. I look at the courtyard and wonder if I had to spend an hour outside in that space, what would I do. I actually think it's a plus to use interior buildings as baffles to prevent the yard from being a single open space, but each of the four spaces should offer something different. Why not a couple of picnic tables where a parent could have a birthday party? What about a small vegetable garden? There's probably enough space to set up a broad jump with soft playground sand so teenagers could safely hurt themselves. The thing is to make it about people. It doesn't have to be "urban" space as long as it's inviting and social.
 
I think it looks all right. Shove all the cars off to the side out of sight, create a central axis for pedestrians and bikes, with more intimate spaces on the side (effectively breaking up the super block into two medium-sized blocks, with a car-free divider). The filing says the four public spaces will have programming, and one picture makes it looks like there might be a small soccer field in the NW corner. I think there’s potential, if it’s executed well (big if of course).
 
Shockingly bad urban form.

I'm having a hard time understanding why this is being treated as a superblock when the surrounding neighborhood fabric would recommend 3-4 blocks.

I'm surprised to see surface parking increase from 132-154 (vs new structured) - the amount of developable land dedicated to this surface parking verges on 20% of the project surface area! At least the # of units increases from 258 - 441.

Also, apparently the parking lots deserve a better streetwall than the streets themselves? Why the aversion to a 'normal' street grid?
Roads are really expensive to build. I agree there should be more here--the superblock is pretty much the symbol of failed public housing. But I suspect that BHA doesn't want public streets in their property and/or can't afford to build them. But imagine real streets with parallel parking instead of isolated surface lots. We've known better than this for decades!
 
Someone, ANYONE, please stop this crap from being pooped out on Brighton.
 
Roads are really expensive to build. I agree there should be more here--the superblock is pretty much the symbol of failed public housing. But I suspect that BHA doesn't want public streets in their property and/or can't afford to build them. But imagine real streets with parallel parking instead of isolated surface lots. We've known better than this for decades!
Respectfully disagree with ya on this. Road(s) through the middle would drastically reduce common area space (think about how wide a two way road is with parallel parking on both sides) and significantly isolate buildings, thereby reducing neighborly interactions. Seems to me the intent/goal here is to create a welcoming and social (but also quiet/peaceful) area for residents/guests while also encouraging walk-thru traffic by non-residents - cars would destroy all of that. I'm not suggesting the design is perfect, but I certainly appreciate the space prioritizing people over cars. I also think it's important to note the very wide openings at the northern and southern sides of the site which prevent it from being boxed in like some older affordable developments which can make things difficult from a security standpoint.
 
From a materials/finish point of view, I'm curious to see how this turns out (assuming it won't get VE'd into trash). It's an interesting idea, but my worry is that the walls covered by each material are otherwise so featureless and flat, it'll wind up feeling hostile and monolithic, like a 1960s middle school. The fact they're painting entire boxes in one material doesn't help.

EDIT: Staring at the plans a bit more, two things jump out at me: Despite the architects' stated intent, the windows are still reading as being on a grid, instead of dancing across the facades; add in the fact the window openings aren't very deep, and these facades could likely read as single, overwhelming planes.

From the BCDC meeting presentation earlier this month:

1718917505194.png


1718917535534.png
 
Last edited:
Its pretty weird how they screwed up the bcdc website and accidentally put the new franciscan childrens hospital pdf for all 3 updated projects.. fanuel gardens, 2 charlesgate west, and the childrens hospital. Hopefully they catch it and fix it soon.
 

Back
Top