Harvard - Allston Campus

I didn't realize anyone in their 20s could afford to live in Beacon Hill. If anything, I think the high percentage of childrenless families in those neighborhoods reflects the wealth and seniority of their inhabitants - people clinging to family fortunes, or people who have amassed significant wealth over time and whose children have grown up and moved on. Certainly there are ample backyards - and plenty of cute little parks - sprinkled throughout the South End, so I don't think it has too many inherent built disadvantages for families vs. a three-decker neighborhood. I mean, rowhouse Brooklyn is chockablock with families. Cost and other demographic factors (school quality, perhaps?) drive more families to the suburbs than urban form.

Meanwhile, quite a few of the 20 and 30somethings who are comfortable living in highly urbanized neighborhoods have been pushed out by housing costs to relatively low density parts of Somerville and, yes, Allston. They don't tend to value their spacious lawns all that much when they do; you must know that there's been an epidemic of lawn-pavings for parking spaces in your area.

I don't support levelling the city's detached-home neighborhoods, no. But I think a slow evolution of the sort going on in Queens, where detached homes are slowly being replaced by rowhouses and apartment buildings, would be a positive shift for the city. At the least, I think we should develop the city's empty outskirts (the sort of strips one finds on Western Avenue) in the most intense and aesthetically pleasing ways as possible.

I don't know why a South End-esque neighborhood abutting yours would cause that much concern. These two types of architecture coexist very nicely in some parts of the city - look at Coolidge Corner, for example, a neighborhood that at least feels like it has plenty of families.
 
Davis Square also has a scattering of brick apartment buildings among a larger number of older detached wooden houses. The apartment buildings built in the late 1920s are quite attractive. (I live in one of these.) But the second wave, built in the 1960s or 70s, look awful. The latter buildings are entirely devoid of ornamental detail.
 
Last edited:
Lawn paving is its own issue, I think. That is absentee landlords minimizing maintenance costs or, when done to create front-yard parking, a manifestation of too much density for the layout of this neighborhood (too many cars and not enough on or off street parking).

In the abstract, I have no problem with a South End-esque neighborhood. My concern with the massing of the Charlesview proposal is that physically it looks like a low-income fortress that isolates its residents from the rest of the community. The few tiny pieces of usable open space are only for little kids and people who want to play half-court basketball. It doesn't seem like a particularly attractive development to me. And as I have mentioned, if we are going to make these increases in density on dozens of acres let's also plan at the same time for the transportation improvements that will be needed.

If A/B North ends up looking more like Fuller St in Coolidge Corner that is fine with me.
 
Harry Mattison said:
My concern with the massing of the Charlesview proposal is that physically it looks like a low-income fortress that isolates its residents from the rest of the community. The few tiny pieces of usable open space are only for little kids and people who want to play half-court basketball. It doesn't seem like a particularly attractive development to me. And as I have mentioned, if we are going to make these increases in density on dozens of acres let's also plan at the same time for the transportation improvements that will be needed.
Click to expand...

This was the point I was trying to make. It is one thing to infill brownfields, it is another to make the same mistakes of the past but with more ornamentation.
 
Hmm, If I didn't know better I would say Harvard purposely neglects its properties in Allston.
 
czsz said:
Brownstone Boston is not only the height of urban planning in this city, but integral to the city's brand and image. If one moves to San Francisco, it is not unlikely one will be able to live in a neighborhood that looks and feels like the conventional image of "San Francisco". If one moves to Boston, however, living on a street of brick rowhouses clearly appears to be a privilege afforded only by the insanely rich. I don't think many people are attracted to this city by the prospect of inhabiting a utilitarian triple-decker. We should be expanding opportunities for people to afford, and participate in, Boston's most attractive face to the world.
Click to expand...

I would argue that the three-decker (the historic term) is quintessentially Boston. It was invented here and does not exist outside of New England. I don't think many people in this country have any idea what a three-decker is or why it came about, they don't see them when they visit Boston, but they should. It is a product of the streetcar. They are a big reason that we have the density we have. They make far better condo conversions than Bostons Brownstones. I used to live in the South End in the typical 800 square foot "floor-thru" brownstone condo conversion. I couldn't stand the darkness, the lack of outside space, the interior noise. I now live in a Dorchester three-decker and my quality of life has improved immensely. Not only is it one third larger at a fraction of the price but there are windows on all four sides (thirteen in all) rather than five windows on two sides of the condo in the S.E. There is a nice big porch in back and another in front. There is also a roof deck that I've never used. When these 100 year old buildings are sensitively converted, keeping the original moulding and built-ins, they make wonderful homes. And the best part is that you get to live in a real neighborhood where people are usually friendly (like the South End used to be) and you can park right in front of your house no matter what time you come home. Don't believe all the bad press about Dorchester. It's western Dorchester that has descended into chaos, but there are still many nice areas on the eastern side. And they are chock full of three-deckers, as Boston as you can get.
 
I would argue that the three-decker (the historic term) is quintessentially Boston. It was invented here and does not exist outside of New England. I don't think many people in this country have any idea what a three-decker is or why it came about
Click to expand...

It may be "quintessentially Boston," but not to anyone who hasn't lived here for some time (which you admit). That's the point; no one romanticizes Boston for its three-deckers; the positive public image of the city only embraces what lies inside Melena Cass Bvd.

And the best part is that you get to live in a real neighborhood where people are usually friendly (like the South End used to be) and you can park right in front of your house no matter what time you come home.
Click to expand...

True. One can make the same selling points for Belmont or Abington, though. These are essentially suburban values (lack of anonymous people on the street, light and air, ease of parking, etc.)
 
Harvard is not adverse to building and owning three deckers.

7grantextlg.jpg


16grantextlg.jpg
 
^ Of course it isn't. Tearing them down would be impolitic, and often it builds them to curry favor with the surrounding neighborhoods. It's telling to see what they do when given carte blanche, though. An insane number of Harvard people (even the low level administrators) are New York emigres who complain to high hell about how boring and suburban Cambridge is.
 
I lived in a Triple-Decker twice in my life. First in the late '60's when my parents rented next to my grandmother in Mattapan and saved enough money for a down payment on a house. Then in the early '90's I rented in a nice part of Savin Hill while I saved for a house of my own. I was offered my apartment at the time for $100,000 and SHOULD have taken it. Oh well...

My point is Three-Deckers have traditionally been an entrance into the middle class. You can buy one fix it up live on the first floor and have the yard. You can rent one at a reasonable price or buy a condo and you get alot for your money.

There are neighborhoods in Dorchester that are as dense as New York but have nary a building over 4 stories because they are almost completely residential and the economy of space allowed by 3 Deckers over row houses.
 
czsz said:
^ Of course it isn't. Tearing them down would be impolitic, and often it builds them to curry favor with the surrounding neighborhoods. It's telling to see what they do when given carte blanche, though. An insane number of Harvard people (even the low level administrators) are New York emigres who complain to high hell about how boring and suburban Cambridge is.
Click to expand...

Then they should take a job in New York if that suits them better. If Cambridge is boring it is because they are boring.
 
Ironically, a lot of them don't live in Cambridge, either. They seem to prefer Newton and Lexington.
 
Scott said:
Then they should take a job in New York if that suits them better. If Cambridge is boring it is because they are boring.
Click to expand...

But this is how cities evolve -- people emigrate to City X looking for a good job that they wouldn't have had at home. In this case, it's people who get a job at Harvard. Perhaps Columbia wasn't hiring or NYU didn't offer tenure-track. Call me crazy but perhaps they just wanted to teach at one of the world's most prestigious schools.

With an outsider's view, they begin to see what their new city lacks. In all probability they love the place but want to improve it, thereby doing everyone in the wider metro area a good turn. If they have the ability to do so, they change the city so that it becomes a more diverse place that caters to their needs, which may also be the needs of others in the community.

That's both a very American way of development as well as a pattern that can be said to belong to all cities across the world.

When people want to increase a city's population or the density of its neighborhoods, push the bounds of its architecture, open new restaurants, bars and businesses -- hell, that's what it's all about. Opposing that is selfish, provincial and ultimately doomed to fail.

I lived in Russia for a number of years, and I think it'd be great if Boston had not only more Russian restaurants and bars (though the bar is a fundamentally un-Russian idea, you get the drift) but also offerings from the Caucasus and Central Asia. I'd love to see an ornate, Russian Imperial-style building built to house a pan-Soviet restaurant, grocery store and cultural center. That doesn't mean I should move to Russia, does it? Would you be better off if people who have new ideas and want to bring new things stayed in Russia or New York?

I agree, Scott, that if college graduates want better nightlife and dining, they'll move to New York. But that's a bad thing. The flight of recent grads out of Boston is -- despite what old ladies living near BC or BU will tell you -- an economic canker sore. And for those of us who do move to NYC, many of us may hate Yankees fans or love the New England coast or are just plain loyal to the place where our families are and where we were educated and raised. If we want to see Boston grow and cater to our needs, why shouldn't it?

For over a decade, the Boston area has lagged the rest of the country in jobs creation and population growth. Clearly, people want to live here and develop the city. And in my opinion, you won't find any area better to do that than one like "Barry's Corner" that a. is sparsely developed and run-down, b. is extremely close to downtown and c. is already owned by an ambitious, affluent developer. Who but Harvard can guarantee they have funding these days?

Stifling ambitions to expand Boston's offerings as a city by saying "That's not what this neighborhood is like now" will mean irrelevance and death for the city. And for crying out loud, ALL of the city outside the very kernel of downtown is suburban. Walk 20 minutes in any direction from City Hall and you'll be in a "suburban" area. Where can the city grow? People shriek that Allston's off limits; so is the Greenway; the only option is to turn on historic structures that nobody cares about but give the city all of its charm. That's not exactly what I'd call good long-term strategy.

Here's my take on the above quote: "If Arlington suits people better, they should take an apartment there."

* Harry, I don't mean to direct this at you; you're clearly someone who's looking for suggestions and solutions for Allston. This was aimed at a general malaise of NIMBYism and inelasticity that I sense in so many people in town, from friends to Steve Bailey to Marty Waltz to the occasional comment on this forum.
 
czsz said:
An insane number of Harvard people (even the low level administrators) are New York emigres who complain to high hell about how boring and suburban Cambridge is.
Click to expand...

As an actual Harvard employee, I've found that to be patently untrue. Outside of faculty members, the VAST majority of Harvard employees are, not only from New England, but are from Greater-Boston. Think about it logically, most Harvard employees are low-level administrators. Why would someone move from NYC to Cambridge simply to be a low-level administrator?
 
I know quite a few administrators in the law school are actually former students who are either from New York or lived there for awhile after graduation before deciding they wanted a less hectic career path and returned to the warm fold of the university, where they are favored candidates over non-alumni.

Harvard also tends to recruit nationally for even the lowest level deanships. Don't underestimate what people are willing to leave behind in terms of city life - even if they do still complain about what they wind up with - for a whiff of Crimson on their resume.

It's true that a lot of the secretaries and accounting/actuarial staff are local, though.
 
For a comparison to the Charlesview proposal, check out these plans for the Max Pak site in Somerville, adjacent to a neighborhood of two-family houses. Note how the park is surrounded by roads, making it feel at least a bit more public than the courtyard in the Charlesview proposal. Also, the plan shows 234 parking spaces for 199 units, a ratio of 1.176. In addition, they are also providing 70 bicycle parking places (50 indoor, 20 outdoor). There will be a Green Line stop adjacent to the development in 2012 or so, and there is already bus service nearby now on both Highland Ave and Broadway.

http://blogs.townonline.com/somerville/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/maxpak.pdf
 
I was just thinking while reading this thread that if there was a solid proposal for increased public transit would neighbors be as up in arms? People are always complaining about increased traffic. As I see it Mass is doing itself a disservice by not investing in new transit, be it bus or rail.
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
I was just thinking while reading this thread that if there was a solid proposal for increased public transit would neighbors be as up in arms? People are always complaining about increased traffic. As I see it Mass is doing itself a disservice by not investing in new transit, be it bus or rail.
Click to expand...

At one point there was a lot of talk about Harvard footing the bill for, at the least, a part of the Urban Ring. I wonder if the timing is just wrong, both politically and economically.
 
Don't misunderstand I agree Cambridge is boring because it has gentrified and as a wealthy enclave it doesn't have the nightlife or interesting shops it had as a melting pot of twenty years ago.
 
If you're going to claim that Cambridge has less nightlife than 20 years ago, I'm going to need to see some academic research because, as an actual (past) Cambridge resident, I've found that to be untrue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top