Green Line Extension to Medford & Union Sq

Charlie_mta

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
3,148
Reaction score
3,072
Yeah, sorry to break it to you, but it’s been gone for a while now. 2 years or more.
I haven't been out there since the new construction. Apparently the GLX needed the room. But at least the doorway entrance was preserved.
 

ant8904

Active Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
709
Reaction score
324
Apparently the GLX needed the room.
The building was found structurally unsound. I think somewhere in this thread's many pages that as mentioned or maybe it was in the Somerville Development Thread or both. But Googling again, I am still able to find this article that mentions it and this one on preservation (but I have to say, it's a lot harder now than a few years ago).

So this is a mix from memory and the two articles above
  • The building was bought by the city in 1999
  • Plans to renovate kept getting shelved and the building was just kept around with some usage with city storage.
  • GLX did expressed they rather just tear it down for easier staging with offer to do it at their own expense (at this point, GLX also was still planning a glass building rather than value-engineered plan we're getting now).
  • Historic Preservation Commission voted to keep the building in 2014
  • Various groups wanted to see it renovated then set up with GLX
  • And somewhere before 2018, the building was found too structurally unsafe to save
  • And 2018 was planning and start of the preservation of the lion head and the tear down of the building began.
Personally I would have liked if the building was saved. Especially it it was turned into some kind train station with mixed-use businesses and community. But the mix of GLX taking too long and the city failing their maintenance of the building means it was too late.

I remember feeling really annoyed when I heard the Homans building was being torn down after so much discussion on renovation. The city owned the building and thus so much energy was spent on how to renovate it, but apparently nobody did any maintenance while everyone argued over it.
 

ant8904

Active Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
709
Reaction score
324
And that's why it was so frustrating that it was tore down. It was owned by the city. Generally everyone involved expressed they wanted to see the building renovated, maybe when set it up to be used by GLX in someway.

But despite "everyone" is in agreement, that the city owns the building so "we" can do what we want, and no visible opposition - apparently we just kept "agreeing" with each other until the building decayed the the point that it can't be saved.
 

Charlie_mta

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
3,148
Reaction score
3,072
And that's why it was so frustrating that it was tore down. It was owned by the city. Generally everyone involved expressed they wanted to see the building renovated, maybe when set it up to be used by GLX in someway.

But despite "everyone" is in agreement, that the city owns the building so "we" can do what we want, and no visible opposition - apparently we just kept "agreeing" with each other until the building decayed the the point that it can't be saved.
I'm thinking that at least the front face of the building could have been left in place and incorporated into a new building. The structural integrity of the building was gone, yes, but new framing and basically a new building behind the original facade would have worked, I'm guessing. Of course an engineering assessment would determine the feasibility.
 

Arlington

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 10, 2011
Messages
5,376
Reaction score
2,006
http://roster.transithistory.org calls it the "Inner Belt Carhouse".
I don’t think so. The Inner Belt Carhouse is the name given the new, wired, multi-LRT capacity (gray/green colored?) vehicle maintenance facility or the greater “place of overnighting”Transit History calls it a carhouse as a historical parallel, and inner belt after the highway era name.

In the post by @Dr. Rosen Rosen asked about a low, unwired, dark brown “Lincoln-loggy” building reached at the end of Cambridge Crossing’s Morgan Ave, which I d say looks like a combination of things:

AC420F3A-FA83-474C-A6E4-E51B3EAABD74.png



I see a crew break facility (white roof, with smoking bench outside) that also can store equipment inside. mostly a pergola-lattice of joists instead of a roof.

Is it even an MBTA parcel? Could be a Cambridge Crossing outbuilding (it seems their style) or an MWRA access point or some other entity.
 
Last edited:

Dr. Rosen Rosen

Active Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2021
Messages
649
Reaction score
3,084

bigpicture7

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2016
Messages
2,855
Reaction score
4,612
June 27th

And 10 days later..... July 7th
Great shots, as always, kz. It is worth noting that this former Lechmere incline was built absolutely fortress-like. It took them roughly a month and a half to demo it, pounding away at it pretty much daily. Would have lasted many hundreds more years if left alone, probably. Incredible.
 

BeyondRevenue

Active Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2020
Messages
424
Reaction score
814
Good looking alternative. Slat sides are way better than exposed steel boxes on slabs. One page brief. State-wide rule.

Side notes:
Page 6 - (among others). Every time I see the Somerville/Cambridge/Boston town lines meandering randomly through a series of contiguous parcels, it shows we just don't have our act together. I realize there may have been a waterway there a hundred years ago and that's why It Is How It Is. I just know Somerville won't maintain their section of that street, Boston will not be helping out with the slice they own, and Cambridge is losing out on what should be straight property tax revenue. Is there a state surveyor in the house who can show us how to draw a straight line?
Page 24 - Shadow studies on one-story buildings make me slap my forehead and want to punch a NIMBY.
Page 13 - 7 people walking around a utility pump station at the end of a cul-de-sac next to a railyard under a concrete overpass = fringe user scenario. Dress them as unhoused addicts and it's almost believable. What? Were there no spray-painting kid avatars in the CAD PeoplePak?
Overall - This really seems like a massive Legislatively Required Design Documentation dookie. I'd assert the plan prep is more expensive than the actual build will be!
 

Top