TheRatmeister
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2023
- Messages
- 931
- Reaction score
- 1,638
"Human scale"
proceeds to show massive boulevards and skyscrapers
proceeds to show massive boulevards and skyscrapers
Here’s to hoping at least one of those massive boulevards (looking at cattle dr) has a dedicated transit median for bus and later light rail."Human scale"
proceeds to show massive boulevards and skyscrapers
Or just "Allston".I'm desperately hoping that common sense will prevail and both the neighborhood and station will be "Beacon Park".
So you're saying that this will be a bunch of new buildings that by dint of being new will be expensive. Yeah. So was the Back Bay. So was the South End. New stuff is more expensive unless you're building public housing.Also just going further: The plan here is basically Seaport 2.0. A crap ton of commercial space, some luxury housing, not a lot else. Is that actually what Boston needs? It seems filling the northern hafl of the area with high density low-rises would be better, and help the area merge into Allston rather than sticking out like a sore thumb.
No I'm saying it will be primarily commercial space with a few penthouse apartments. Commercial -> Residential conversions aren't impossible but they're not an immediate thing and I think it's been pretty well demonstrated at this point that they aren't very popular with developers due to cost.So you're saying that this will be a bunch of new buildings that by dint of being new will be expensive.
If you only build triple-deckers, maybe. But the brownstones of the South End are denser than Seaport while also being a better place to live. Add in some taller buildings on street corners and the larger thoroughfares, plus a couple high-rise blocks for offices and lab space, and you've got yourself a neighborhood people actually want to live and work in. Here's what 25k people per square mile can look like, with buildings generally not higher than 4-5 stories.Also, you can fit more housing in mid-rises than triple-deckers.
It seems like it's what BPDA wants to be built here.Is this even what Harvard wants to build here, or is the state just wild-guessing at a bunch of blanks? The land owner's active input doesn't seem to prominently feature in these plans.
You can, but that's not the only way, or even the best way, to have density. Coal Harbor, in downtown Vancouver, is less dense than the brownstones of the South End. If maximizing the number of units is what you're after, skyscrapers aren't the best way to do that. Population density in the South End is over 50k people per square mile. The 11th Arrondissement of Paris has a population density of over 100k people per square mile despite nearly all buildings being around 6 stories or shorter.Why can't we do what Canadian cities have been doing this past decade? Highrise apartments and condos spammed around a transit station.
Yorkville in Manhattan has all of those beat with a density north of 150k per square mile. It looks to me like it started with the urban fabric of the South End (5 story rowhouses on small, narrow lots in a tight street grid), and while many of those mid rises are still there, it's grown up with serious high rises, peppered throughout without disrupting the street grid.You can, but that's not the only way, or even the best way, to have density. Coal Harbor, in downtown Vancouver, is less dense than the brownstones of the South End. If maximizing the number of units is what you're after, skyscrapers aren't the best way to do that. Population density in the South End is over 50k people per square mile. The 11th Arrondissement of Paris has a population density of over 100k people per square mile despite nearly all buildings being around 6 stories or shorter.
I feel like debating mid vs high rise is a red herring. What really matters if we want density is a tight grid of small lots, which can start at whatever height you want, and then be progressively developed upwards by lot or by small cluster of lots (especially if the 2-staircase rule is ever eliminated). This is exactly the drum that @Charlie_mta has been beating over and over again in all the greenfield neighborhood development threads.
Yorkville in Manhattan has all of those beat with a density north of 150k per square mile. It looks to me like it started with the urban fabric of the South End (5 story rowhouses on small, narrow lots in a tight street grid), and while many of those mid rises are still there, it's grown up with serious high rises, peppered throughout without disrupting the street grid.
Unfortunately, new resi in Boston seems to follow the exact opposite strategy: mid rises on huge lots, each of which can only ever be redeveloped if you knock down the whole damn superblock.
I feel like debating mid vs high rise is a red herring. What really matters if we want density is a tight grid of small lots, which can start at whatever height you want, and then be progressively developed upwards by lot or by small cluster of lots (especially if the 2-staircase rule is ever eliminated). This is exactly the drum that @Charlie_mta has been beating over and over again in all the greenfield neighborhood development threads.