Height Limits

Yes these rules are serious limits. Where else in downtown is there going to be room to build. With all of these historical landmarks there is no where else to build in downtown. My other question for you guys where does the finincal district ends? Its not a very big district. And is most areas in downtown, Office towers would not be consider class a offfice space.
 
There are so many low rise buildings downtown. If you set a new height limit, say 20 stories east of Washington St, that would give you more buildable space then the city needs ATM.

Then you have to think about the infrastructure in place to handle that many new workers. The T can barely handle what it has now so plopping down a few 600 foot towers will only bring in more traffic and people.

So what's the solution to the build-out problem? South Boston Waterfront. That is the whole point of the new zoning (new 10 years ago) and the Silver Line. Will it work? Only time will tell.

I don't see height limits as a bad thing. Businesses that are decentralized from downtown will help cut down on traffic and help revitalize other parts of the city.
 
WHAT? Decentralization is a good thing? I can't think of a worse philosophy in terms of planning for the future of Boston. Decentralization has hurt our infrastructure, wasted good land, driven up the cost of real estate, created shopping malls, increased the use of automobiles, destroyed the critical mass needed to make some core areas viable, lessened the overall quality of life in the marketplace...need I say more?
 
Unless we are going to invest in our infrastructure I don't see how the city can support more growth (anywhere really). The two places where it is publicly investing is the SBW and downtown with the Greenway but the latter is just putting a highway underground, not improving public transportation.

Also, what is Transit-Oriented-Development (TOD) if not decentralization around transit stations instead of highway off-ramps?
 
There's a difference between decentralization that pushes out to 495 and 128 and decentralization that focuses on TOD in Somerville, DOT, Longwood, etc.
 
I agree with Vanshnookenraggen that Boston's transportation infrastructure is pretty much maxed out.

While I would like to see most current projects finished, it really is hard to imagine how substantial additional office growth could be accomodated without the addition of another subway line or its equivalent.
 
I don't think anyone is arguing against improved infrastructure, but please remember that the old MTA had greater ridership that what exists now, and we only had four-car trains during that time. The city also contained over two hundred thousand residents more than what it has now. There was more density and a great deal more hustle and bustle going on. There was a considerably greater amount of retail activity that served to bring people downtown instead of dispersing them throughout all the suburban malls.
 
Dan said:
I agree with Vanshnookenraggen that Boston's transportation infrastructure is pretty much maxed out ... it really is hard to imagine how substantial additional office growth could be accommodated without the addition of another subway line or its equivalent.
Click to expand...

riffgo said:
I don't think anyone is arguing against improved infrastructure, but please remember that the old MTA had greater ridership that what exists now, and we only had four-car trains during that time. The city also contained over two hundred thousand residents more than what it has now. There was more density and a great deal more hustle and bustle going on. There was a considerably greater amount of retail activity that served to bring people downtown instead of dispersing them throughout all the suburban malls.
Click to expand...
Indigo Line might be the cure. Convert it to heavy rail subway stock, and continue it as a deep bore tunnel after South Station to North Station, via stops at Post Office Square, Quincy Market (transfer to Blue Line), Hanover/Prince. From North Station, this could extend as heavy rail to Chelsea.

(All this will happen shortly after pigs learn to fly.)
 
Dan said:
I agree with Vanshnookenraggen that Boston's transportation infrastructure is pretty much maxed out.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure the point is that the T is maxed out, but that significant cost would be required to expand capacity.

Basically like most things in this city (and all cities for that matter, this is a viscious circle. The T can't add more cars and operators because they don't have the funding or ridership to cover the costs. The city can't expand because that would bring more people that the T can't fit in their train cars.

Kind of like the people who won't ride the T because it's either too full or doesn't run often enough. But, the T can't add cars or run more often, because there are not enough people. Round and round it goes.

Not to mention that the T is in debt up to it's ears, but since it's not a corrupt financial institution the government will not bail it out. (Even though the government is a major contributor to that debt.) Funny how that works.
 
I have to say it is my understanding that the T doesn't operate at anywhere near it's capacity. It hasn't been so long that we've been retrofitting stations to accommodating the longer trains that provide much greater capacity. Of course, I would love to see the development of the INDIGO line that ablarc mentions.
 
There are places where the T isn't at capacity but the central business area is not one of those places. The whole argument against having what became the Silver Line as light rail was that the central subway was maxed out.

This is my basis for decentralization. They have capacity at hubs like Sullivan Sq, Wellington, Fields Corner, Roxbury Crossing, the list goes on. Granted it would be hard to get certain businesses to move certain places, we don't want socialist central planning after all. Basically what I mean we need is zoning and tax incentives for businesses to locate outside of downtown. But even with these in place it still comes down to location, location, location. What works well in theory rarely works in the real world.
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
There are places where the T isn't at capacity but the central business area is not one of those places.
Click to expand...
This is also the argument in favor of the urban ring--sort of.

Anyway . . .

Just looking at subway headways, the Orange Line has room for considerable additional trains.

Additional capacity on the Red and Blue lines would depend on an ability to keep a tighter schedule--not one of the T's strong points.

Additional Green Line capacity--three car trains would help, but the T always has some excuse (legitimate or not) that prevents this.
 
The simplest solution of all is overlooked: Increase the frequency of the trains!
 
were you on the train this morning? 2 hours to go from Dorchester to Harvard!
 
Last edited:
Boston02124 said:
Boston with height
myboston2005sipia.jpg
93southintoboston2005.jpg
backbayfisheyed052.jpg
Click to expand...
Forgot one!
007.jpg
 
kmp1284 said:
What's with the sudden influx of skyline devotees? If you knew anything about Boston and great cities in general you would know that skylines do not make great cities better, they make lousy cities appear better(Charlotte, Dallas, Houston, Denver, Miami, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, etc.). I appreciate tall buildings as much as anyone else, but the alleged direct correlation between height and quality architecture is absurd. To say Boston is being denied anything is ridiculous, it's being spared it as far as I'm concerned. It's the Federal Aviation Authority by the way, not some hobbyist association as you make it out to be.
Click to expand...


First off, you're jumping to conclusions and making insinuations that are completely far off. I never said skylines make great cities better, nor was I implying that. That's like me assuming that according to your statement, you think every city with a great skyline must be a lousy city (which would be an "absurd" accusation to make). The point I was making about city skylines is that it is eye candy for the city, it gives tourists and the inhabitants alike something to look at, something to be proud of and a reflection of the greatness that is the city of Boston, that is a role skylines play. They're not just a group of buildings, but also serve as a metahpor. And yes, Boston is being denied great buildings (towers) such that everytime world-class architects propose to build fine skyscrapers in the city, it's being denounced by the FAA or community activists. I'd also like to add that I don't believe the FAA to be some hobbyist association (which was yet another assumption made) they have important, fundamental and logical reasons to do what it is they do. I have never fully objected to that, yet I find it to be unfortunate that we can't see the many exciting proposals the city has had to come true. And to comment on "sudden influx of skyline devotees".....This is not something new, many Bostonians have wished to have seen more than just the John Hancock Tower, the infamous, yet outdated Prudential Tower and small cluster of boring looking downtown buildings that disappear at night. There's nothing sudden about the demand to see Boston's skyline revitalized.
 
^^Another thing to add is why build a fantastic tower with a great design when it is short and completely blocked by other skyscrapers. It's like having an awesome sports car but you don't have the key to drive it.
 
It is my suspicion that people don't like towers not because of their height but because we all secretly know that they will be ugly. Look at NYC, there are hundreds of towers and skyscrapers but if you take the time to look at each one you will find that most are ugly boring glass boxes. There are only a handful that stand out and are attractive. I'd even go so far to say that Boston is lucky that most of its skyscrapers are attractive as they are. Anti-skyscraper sentiment probably has more to do with the failure of modernism than it does with "shadows".
 
riffgo said:
The simplest solution of all is overlooked: Increase the frequency of the trains!
Click to expand...

Except during rush hour the Green Line trains are packed and sit for minutes between stations underground because there are too many trains on the tracks... so while more trains would be nice, they wouldn't work given the limitations on space.

What would be nice (but wildly expensive) is to have parallel tracks on each side of a platform... B and E lines on one track, C and D on the other. It would make riding the Green Line much easier.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top