General Boston Discussion

You're probably right with regards to NIMBY opposition and lack of political will. But it is physically possible to leave the existing Charles River Park buildings largely in place while infilling around them with small streets and density of varying heights. A few years ago I came up with this infill layout concept, which needs to be updated.
Beige color areas would be new development, and new streets are in red.
9178868724_1251710205_c.jpg
Wow, that's amazing. It would be incredible to see this come to fruition. So much housing could fit on those yellow polygons.
 
You're probably right with regards to NIMBY opposition and lack of political will. But it is physically possible to leave the existing Charles River Park buildings largely in place while infilling around them with small streets and density of varying heights. A few years ago I came up with this infill layout concept, which needs to be updated.
Beige color areas would be new development, and new streets are in red.
9178868724_1251710205_c.jpg
Ive gone in and drawn some new streets myself, its just too tempting not to try to fix. This is the type of actual visionary planning we need to see for places like the west end. Something like this should 100% be on the table. I know the existing residents would push back hard against it, but making it so idk 15% of downtowns total land area is no longer a gated community would have far reaching benefits for the city. Boston is tiny and opening up this much room downtown while at the same time drastically improving and fixing a dead part of the city would be huge. Just the amount of new housing that could be built alone is worth it, but then on top of that the new street/ped/bike connections, retail, food, and just having this whole area finally be a functional part of the city would be amazing… I wish we could still do stuff like this today.
 
-Interesting

The city of Boston is saying no to fake brick, a job-killer and a bad idea for our neighborhoods - by Chuck Raso​


“Compatibility with the architectural nature of their surrounding neighborhoods is a fundamental requirement of the Boston Planning and Development process for all new proposed developments. In Boston, the surrounding architecture is generally masonry. To achieve design approval, developer’s architects will often design an exterior that will appear to include brick. Renderings of these development plans can be misleading if it is not made clear the method of installation of the proposed facades.

This creates a challenge for the approving agencies and stakeholders. Without specific assurances that the buildings will be built using laid-in-place masonry, these stakeholders may not realize they are in fact approving a design that will be built using what are commonly referred to as prefabricated faux brick panels. These panels do not deliver the product or community benefit which meets the goals of the stakeholders……”


“We all want construction in Boston to generate good jobs – jobs that can sustain a family and give local workers a better future. The use of faux brick panels does the exact opposite, denying local workers key pathways to the middle class. It’s a bad idea and it’s a job-killer. We are asking elected officials, impact advisory boards, and other stakeholders to say no to the usage of these materials and no to the outsourcing effect that they create…….”

https://nerej.com/the-city-of-bosto...-bad-idea-for-our-neighborhoods-by-chuck-raso
 
-Interesting

The city of Boston is saying no to fake brick, a job-killer and a bad idea for our neighborhoods - by Chuck Raso​


“Compatibility with the architectural nature of their surrounding neighborhoods is a fundamental requirement of the Boston Planning and Development process for all new proposed developments. In Boston, the surrounding architecture is generally masonry. To achieve design approval, developer’s architects will often design an exterior that will appear to include brick. Renderings of these development plans can be misleading if it is not made clear the method of installation of the proposed facades.

This creates a challenge for the approving agencies and stakeholders. Without specific assurances that the buildings will be built using laid-in-place masonry, these stakeholders may not realize they are in fact approving a design that will be built using what are commonly referred to as prefabricated faux brick panels. These panels do not deliver the product or community benefit which meets the goals of the stakeholders……”


“We all want construction in Boston to generate good jobs – jobs that can sustain a family and give local workers a better future. The use of faux brick panels does the exact opposite, denying local workers key pathways to the middle class. It’s a bad idea and it’s a job-killer. We are asking elected officials, impact advisory boards, and other stakeholders to say no to the usage of these materials and no to the outsourcing effect that they create…….”

https://nerej.com/the-city-of-bosto...-bad-idea-for-our-neighborhoods-by-chuck-raso
Keeping in mind the author is president of Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen Union Local 3, it's effective advocacy on behalf of his union membership.

That said, while laid-in-place is objectively best, it's also expensive - I disagree with the authors thesis that panels cost more or have significant more embodied carbon. In an environment of housing crisis and rising construction costs, I'm not comfortable with an outright ban on prefab panel brick. I'm ok with saying no to the sort of molded plastic stuff you can get at Home Depot, but clay brick veneer panels, precasts or even prefab but hand-laid panels? If you say no to those sorts of brick siding materials, developers aren't just suddenly going to spring for the hand-laid brick - they'll just change to a different, less premium and less "compatible" (to borrow their terminology") facade system be it alcubond or hardieboard.
 
I think that real good brick buildings are in scale, and they look solid. Fake brick buildings generally look fake. Fake brick skyscrapers look cheeseball, and brick sidewalks are a tripping hazard. The city should stop insisting on this crap
 
As sophomoric as it is, I think we can all agree that we'd prefer to avoid this cheap and tacky siding infill that some developers prefer:

1735623038068.png


I think real brick looks better, and can future proof better since a lot of the buildings like those above can be built pretty cheaply. We should try to build a lot of new housing, but it's better if that housing can last.

Another thought, how about Timber? I would love to see more timber buildings in Boston, and that can incorporate real brick as well. Would break up the above.
 
So forgive me for now being a suburbanite who has no idea about this - but how does the high school system in the city work now? Excel was still just Southie High when I was that age, and as I went to BLS I never really thought about the place. But when they closed it down to turn it into Excel, where did all those kids go?
 
So forgive me for now being a suburbanite who has no idea about this - but how does the high school system in the city work now? Excel was still just Southie High when I was that age, and as I went to BLS I never really thought about the place. But when they closed it down to turn it into Excel, where did all those kids go?
Shuffled around to other schools. When I did my student teaching within BPS in Brighton I had students coming all the way from Mattapan.

On a more macro level "where they're going" is a combination of the burbs and never being born in the first place. https://www.bostonschoolsfund.org/enrollment-2023
 
Last edited:

Boston council approves loan fund to spur housing construction​


 

Back
Top