"Midtown"/Widett Circle in a non-Olympics Boston

[F-Line to Dudley]

Let's get this party started, shall we.


A Question and Conundrum: what do we truly have to work with here in the real world?

Well, for starters: a very heterogeneous district of properties. So if "Master Developers" are as much a nonstarter now as it was before, Step 1 should be junking the monolithic sales pitch and examining what this space's component parts are.



I zeroed in on 5 different areas with 5 different affinities. Green are the ones that a sensible plan can get built without undue cost, without undue burden. Yellow is doable but fraught with anxiety if displaced facilities get displaced to the wrong places at the wrong capacities. Red is a "HELL NO!" and repeating the same mistakes that impaled B24.



1a & 1b. The "Triple Junction"
Zoom in on Google Maps over Cabot Yard on the W. 4th-W. Broadway and W. Broadway-Ft. Point Channel blocks. Notice anything about how the pairs of Red Line yard tracks are spaced apart? Why yes, these parcels were pre-provisioned for decking from Day 1! How forward-thinking of someone back in the mid-60's who's probably long dead now. This was done way back when conventional wisdom was that South Station was getting the wrecking ball for a boxy office tower or two and the train station reduced to a sad little Amshack-like hut. They had visions of boxy office towers facing each other across the Channel, so the Cabot layup tracks got designed with spacing to erect pegs.

What do these sites offer?

• Easy decking. The only structures that have to be moved are the small 2-bay Red Line work equipment garage and some signal bungalow sheds, all of which have more than enough room to re-tuck down by the main maint facility. No capacity gets pinched; Red already uses every inch of space available. Just stick pegs between the track pairs.
• Complete street grid. Dot Ave./Foundry St. and W. Broadway frame parcel #1A. Foundry, W. Broadway, and W. 4th frame parcel #1B. Albany St. is a highway underpass crossing from each on the other side. Maybe even a N-S infill road hugging the west end of #1B along the water.
• Geometric shapes. #1B is very nearly a square. #1A sort of triangular or trapezoidal.
• Little need for exhaust vents. Red Line yard produces no fumes. Commuter rail does but is passing thru and the west side of the lower level would presumably be open-air, so venting out the side is doable. Some solution for not letting the diesel exhaust cake up on the sides like it does on the bus depot would be nice, but any competent builder should be able to come up with a purely preventative solution.
• Transit access. Buildings on both of these parcels stare right at the Broadway headhouse from their 2nd or 3rd floor windows. There may not be better empty-canvas parcels < 1 block from a downtown mainline stop anywhere.
• Neighborhood crossroads. South End is at Albany St. Broadway station and the gateway to Southie is right on the other side of Foundry @ Dot Ave. The redevelopment of the USPS property brings Dot Ave. redevelopment up to Rolling Bridge Park. Parcel #1A is the triple junction where these 3 neighborhoods meet. Infill these 2 parcels and you for the most part bind together 3 separate destinations that are worlds apart today. That is mega.

Only issues here is that block on stilts is going to be a little weird-looking overlooking Foundry St. and the Channel + parks. But I would assume that just a modicum of architectural imagination could make that seem completely natural.

The "triple-junction" binding makes these far and away the most valuable parcels of all for high-end mixed development. Similar to what Pike air rights would fetch if we were capable of successfully closing the deal on any Pike air rights. Only with more total acreage here. Demand may actually crest above the decking price tag because of location! location! location!.



2. "Albany Under"
The entire area occupied by BTD faces Albany St. at-grade on what's now that 3-block stretch of space under 93 that's been converted to parking. No decking required OR recommended here, because up top it's all South Bay ramps and down below it's connected to the South End street grid.

What does this site offer?

• Cheap construction. At-grade all the way.
• Street grid. One egress up the hill to W. 4th on a N-S street. One pre-existing E-W access point to the Albany/Frontage Rd. intersection...a quasi-square at least in road layout. Randolph St. continues into the under-93 parking area...extensible into the parcel. So...Albany + a flanking N-S street bisected by at least 2 E-W streets and nice square parcels.
• South End extension. The open under-deck interface with Albany St. is an opportunity to bind this parcel directly to the South End neighborhood. You would probably need to banish or relocate most of the under-93 parking to de-clutter the interface between street and parcel. You would probably need to stick some recreation under there, maybe some Albany-facing squat storefronts. Definitely need to land-swap the T out of Albany St. garage so that golden parcel on the corner of Randolph gets developed and you kinda sort of have the makings of a real square there. You definitely something under 93 with cool factor that makes this the cleanest, most inviting, most "destination!" highway underpass in the world for keeping the daylight on both sides tightly bound despite its presence. A challenge, but this is a canvas somebody can dare to do something great with. Because you don't have a choice but to go high-concept when the interface is a 3-block open underpass...so go crazy and make it whimsical.

This parcel is in the South End. It is not in any other neighborhood. It would be MORE isolated from any neighborhood if it were on stilts staring at nothing but South Bay ramps and cut off from Albany. Albany is its main street despite the somewhat unusual interface. Keep it in the South End. It can be part of the South End if the developer works that Albany St. interface out-of-box.



3. "The Widett Bowl"
We've talked about this one at length in other threads. Acreage galore, and it can be totally at-grade if street access from above can be figured out.

What does this site offer?

• Event affinities. Being the poorest overall site in terms of street grid access but the best-positioned relative to highway exits, this is the site that screams hardest for a stadium. Something that can be car-centric without becoming a burden to the neighborhood, that's free to host loud things because the dB levels from the highway, Frontage Rd., Haul Road trucks, and all 3 train yards are highest in this one spot.
• Geometric shape. It's circular. Does that not scream stadium?
• Cheap. You don't have to deck it at all to build it, so long as you're willing to put up with street interfaces that ramp down from above over the encircling RR tracks. Is that much of a constraint for a stadium where people go to sit on their butts for 3 hours instead of coming and going? No...not a constraint at all if that's what ends up being biggest bang-for-buck.
• Parking capacity. Deck it and the underside has ungodly parking capacity. Deck it and give all the parking capacity east of Foodmart Rd. to the T for a superduper bus yard that lets it trade in the Southampton and golden Albany garage parcels for $$$ and complementary development to parcel #2 and it's still a bigger shitload of underground parking on the west side of Foodmart Rd. than a 10,000+ seat stadium would ever need.
• MassDOT as decking underwriter. Give MassDOT a permanent easement on that underground level for its bus superyard and the proceeds from the Albany and Southampton yard property sales can get the state underwriting the decking costs here. Or underwriting the decking costs on parcels #1A and #1B if their easements here get secured long before the "Bowl" ever gets developed. Give them the entire underside for the bus superyard and a Readville's worth of train storage (to go along with their Beacon Park easement's worth of train storage), and they can land-swap themselves and their recycling center tenant out of Readville Yard 2 for an extension of Wolcott Sq. and badly needed infusion of residential housing out in Hyde Park. Then convert those proceeds into underwriting the cost of 100% of the decking needed anywhere in Parcels #1-3. MassDOT may be the only party able to deliver the decking goods that B24 was pinning on the "Master Developer", because they have stone-cold valuable acreage to trade and only need an undergrade easement in exchange to match AND exceed existing capacity and ops flexibility.

The "Bowl" unfortunately does not have much of a street grid. And thus mixed-use really isn't its bag. You've got a straight shot off Mass Ave. Connector. You can hack something over to Dot Ave., but not to any major intersection. You can dip down on the north end to get into parcel #2 and interface with one of the Albany intersections. But the Haul Road?...not a lot of there there. This site is not like the others on street access. It's in a separate and somewhat more isolated world.



4. !PROCEED WITH CAUTION!
This is the Cabot bus garage. It faces Dot Ave., which is juicy for redev. It's also very, very vitally important for the transit network. But unlike the Red Line buildings you can relocate a rubber-tire servicing facility within range. IF you're careful.

What does this site offer?

• A conventional at-grade street interface on all sides. Dot Ave. is at-grade spanning 3 blocks. Foundry St. can be dragged at-grade across the whole backside. W. 4th at the intersection with Dot Ave. is at-grade. The E-W street grid bisecting the properties can line up with every intersection. No decking required anywhere.
• Connectivity. A 3-block swath of Dot Ave. gets infilled. Enough to make it diagonal @ W. 4th with parcel #1B and bind the Southie density a little more tightly to the "triple junction" formed by #1A and #1B.

The challenges? What to do with the bus garage. If the T can score a super-yard easement in the bowl, then Cabot garage gets freed up from its storage needs...but becomes even more important as a consolidated maint facility for all the current Cabot + Albany + Southampton routes. You therefore need to:
-- Build a world-class consolidated maint facility.
-- Keep it on some interface with 2 of 3 of: Haul Road, Dot Ave., Frontage Rd. So access from the super-yard is nearby the maint garage and routes can be fed via the same originating roads as now.
-- Build it with enough room to grow as if it's someday going to be handling the Urban Ring. Which the T's own bus facilities study will bullet out. Shorting capacity is not an option and must be a deal-breaker if somebody starts applying the pressure to downsize.

If you can find such a site, if the BRA can keep its grubby hands off from fucking up the site selection, and if MassDOT gets to be the one driving that proverbial site search bus so they don't get robbed blind...then Parcel #4 is yours for redev. You probably can find exactly what you need for relocations on one of those crap industrial backlots off Dot Ave. facing the Amtrak yard. Just grab it before the BRA starts free-associating about condos on the auto glass parcels just north of Andrew, otherwise they could snatch #4's defeat from the jaws of victory.



#5. "THE FORBIDDEN LANDS"
No. Just no. The Red Line shop lives here. The commuter rail shop and fueling station lives here. They can't live anywhere else. You can't deck this. Those buildings have lifts in them that are taller than a deck. You can't maim the Red Line's ability to service cars when you're dumping insanely greater numbers of riders onto it at Broadway and SS. This is the blowout expense you can't thread the needle to cover. This is the parcel that B24 had to cover its ass with a "Master Developer" to get decking perfection. That's how much of an Achilles heel #5 was to Midtown.

What's the worst that could happen without #5?

#1-3 all get built. #4 gets built for the right reasons and not the wrong reasons. The at-graders on both sides @ #2 and #4 are separated by a 500 ft. divide that has trains passing through. Safe assumption that these buildings will be tall enough and have windows that don't open that the squeals of Red Line cars aren't going to be noticeable inside.

There won't be a full and uninterrupted street grid. #4 will be decidedly in Southie, #2 decidedly in the South End. #3...no neighborhood in particular, but that would've been the same in any scenario except for the full unbuildable "Midtown". And only by a little bit since the south edge of MT still would've had its diminishing returns on accessibility and vistas. Which is why you plunk a sports stadium and not condos on #3.




Can we live with this? Well, if a 500' x 2000' linear chunk has to be left alone we still achieve triple-junction of 3 long-separated neighborhoods, gain infill extensions of 1--maybe 2--neighborhoods buttressing that triple-junction and strengthening that South End-Southie binding by a few more blocks, and still get our fun time sports and entertainment big thingy where it's easy to reach and won't bother anyone.

Is that worth throwing away because of the 500' x 2000' strip of transit holy land? Where it takes the Master Developer to absorb all the costs instead of having avenues for smart in-house bartering to underwrite the decking? Where it takes executing on a whole new neighborhood all at once instead of joining together the existing ones with new seams?

By what logic would we ever lump this into a monolith? By what logic did B24 lump this into a monolith? It's a crossroads of different lands. I subdivided it into 5. You may find it to be less. I'd say it's no fewer than 3 distinct parts of completely different affinities...no more than 6 parts. Negotiable anywhere in between. Slice-and-dice as you see fit. But this is not a monolith, and it never was no matter how much "Midtown" was doubled-, tripled-, quadrupled-down upon by our dear departed Business Olympians.



Your canvas to decide what those affinities are, where they get divided, and who they serve. Go!. . .

 

[datadyne007]

For #2 I see a beautiful Revs stadium that Kraft wants there. ;-)

Also, this ownership map is very important when discussing feasibility:

 

[stick n move]

I always think even though it absolutely will not happen that either the south bay should be brought back partially or widen/extend the small end of the fort point channel. Then add a bunch of new development next to this new waterfront with channelside restaurants, water taxis, residential, office, and extend the walkable area of waterfront. This is one of the many areas taken from us before we were born just like the west end, and I wish it could at least partially be restored.

Here are two images I edited a few years ago, would not need to be this extensive, but just for reference.

 

[West]

Let's get this party started, shall we.

A Question and Conundrum: what do we truly have to work with here in the real world?
.....

Your canvas to decide what those affinities are, where they get divided, and who they serve. Go!. . .

It's always educational reading your posts, and the spacing of the red line tracks there does call out for a deck now that you've pointed it out. Let's find the genius who planned for that way back when and name a street after him/her.

I'll bite on your idea, and on a first pass I will react to it as you've described it, as if you were the state and were letting it out to bid on your terms.

Putting on my pretend market-rate developer's hat, I think you've got strong possibilities on parcels 1a and 1b as you describe them. Before I plunk my money down, though, I'd find those two parcels a LOT more appealing if the Postal Service and MA had already inked the land swap that breaks loose SSX and opens up Dot Ave. “A LOT more” as in maybe that’s the break point between feasible and not feasible, once I run my market studies and determine likely rents. With Dot Ave closed off like it is now, parcels 1a and 1b are still awkward.

Regarding parcel 1b, the elevation change is workable here, I think. The buildings across Foundry Street East of 1b are mostly ass-end parking entry sides of those buildings. And on the West side of Foundry there's a pretty big set-back from curb to the first Red Line track. So my new development’s going to tuck the service and delivery entrances in along Foundry to mirror the other side of the street since there’s not a lot of hope for a good pedestrian streetscape there. And then I’ll be sure to bring the new buildings right up to the street on the West Fourth and Broadway bridges, with a good retail streetscape. Over on the West side of the parcels, I think the FD would make you run that street over there that you suggest, and that could have some nicely done ramps leading down to the little sliver of water there. A bit noisy, that, but it is what it is. Maybe you'll put up some sound panels as part of my deal with MassDOT.

Parcel 1a, some of the same applies, although at the North end there’s not a bridge, but rather more sliver of waterfront. A bit less clear how to transition down from the deck there. And I’d love to get ahold of those triangles of land between Dot Ave and Foundry. It looks like Gillette owns some of that, so fat chance. Also there’s a welding company I’ll have to buy out, probably do-able. There’s a funky looking wedge/ramp looking thing with a sign reading “MBTA Emergency Training Center” – is that a tunnel access where they practice fighting underground fires? I’d like to get that triangle and build over and around it if MBTA will allow, so that I can create good streetscapes and get rental income on both sides of Foundry there. Anyhow, my point is that the North and East boundaries of 1b are more challenging from a design perspective but also offer more opportunities too.

If I get both of those parcels, I get to control both sides of the Broadway bridge, that’s good.

Some of what you said in a later section about going out of the box with under-93 developments spills over onto the 1b and 1a parcels too, with regards to the W Broadway and W 4th Street underpasses. I’m thinking seriously funky restaurants (funky design, funky food) at the corners with nightclub spaces deeper in. These spaces need to be filled with uses that create activity from early in the day to the wee hours of the next day’s morning, for pedestrians to feel safe. It also needs artificial lighting (at all times, not only night) to create enough visual excitement to overcome the “ick, it’s an underpass” first reaction to anyone approaching. I need control of the lighting even if it's attached to the underside of your 93 - none of this waiting around eight months to get some LED bulbs replaced.

I like being up on a deck with 1a and 1b so that the oceans have some room to rise before anything other than my loading docks get flooded. That is, the parcel 1a and 1b structures are mostly up out of flood’s way. Those out of the box under the underpass uses are gonna get wet at some point.

If I get everything I want on 1a and 1b and the underpasses, you can twist my arm to do a goodly percentage as federal tax credits for affordability. (That was me wearing pretend developer hat; the actual me is in affordable housing so you wouldn’t need to twist my arm if you helped with the land price.)

Parcel 2 as you describe it …. Meh. If I am a developer of purely market rate product, I pass. I understand your point that it’ll have to be an extension of South End, but …. Meh. If I am a developer of affordable housing, I am still interested, just based on the severe dearth of affordable land. The City / State should think about putting this land out with significant affordable constraints on the land - maybe even 100% affordable with some of the units skewed deep in the AMI range (30-50% AMI), others into the more typical 60-80% AMI range, and yet others well up into the 120 – 140% AMI range. And OK, maybe a market component. Require developers to create retail amenities within as best as possible, and provide help with the underpass development you describe. Will there be some who scream “ghettoization of affordable units?” Yes, there will. It can either be dealt with by spreading affordability requirements into parcels 1a, 1b, and 4, or by daring the critics to demand less affordable percentage on this parcel. I’d very much vote for spreading the affordability requirements around (that was the real me speaking at the end there, not the pretend market-rate developer).

Parcel 3 (and my developer hat is off now and this is me speaking) makes sense as you describe it, but only if I don’t have to help pay for the stadium. If Bob Kraft or whoever is building the stadium, then fine, go with God.

Parcel 4, (developer’s hat back on) all of your caveats about relocating transit facilities are duly noted, and I share your evident alarm that various forces could screw the pooch on that relocation effort. BUT IF that could all be done right, then parcel 4 appeals to me as much as 1a and 1b. Those caveats you mention are huge, though, as a taxpayer and T-dependent person this makes me nervous.

Parcel 5, agreed 100%

All that was from the perspective of pure market-rate developers (making their piddly little payments into the affordability fund instead of building affordable units on site), except as parenthetically noted. If I could get my druthers, the state would make this all available contingent upon 40-50% of residential units being affordable at a broad range of AMI levels, with that affordability spread out through all parcels. Get the big mega developers to partner up with LIHTC investors/developers. I am not so delusional to think this will happen, hence I answered the way I did.

 

[West]

F-Line, it occurs to me that in all my blathering away I never responded directly to your main overarching point, though it's implicitly clear in my response: yes, I agree, there is no point in thinking of this area as One Big Thing. Split it up or fuggeddaboudit.

 

[winstonoboogie]

It's always educational reading your posts, and the spacing of the red line tracks there does call out for a deck now that you've pointed it out. Let's find the genius who planned for that way back when and name a street after him/her.

.

The spacing of the tracks was determined by the locations of the supports for the old Broadway bridge.
(best photo I could find quickly)
http://www.retrosnapshots.com/citie...ay-bridge-aerial-view-photo.html#.VbfRQbNVhuA

 

[West]

The spacing of the tracks was determined by the locations of the supports for the old Broadway bridge.
(best photo I could find quickly)
http://www.retrosnapshots.com/citie...ay-bridge-aerial-view-photo.html#.VbfRQbNVhuA

Does this mean I've just been re-educated? If so, that didn't hurt at all.

And in that picture you link to, I see what looks clearly like two tunnel entrances over beyond the red line tracks. That's where, on google street view, one can now see a garage-door-like entrance with MBTA Emergency Training Center above it. The aerial view shows a structure angling down and to the southeast, it looks very much like the top of a tunnel. Is that a former access point down into the Red Line tunnel? Broadway station is not far off in that direction.

I am digressing. Sorry.

 

[winstonoboogie]

Does
And in that picture you link to, I see what looks clearly like two tunnel entrances over beyond the red line tracks. That's where, on google street view, one can now see a garage-door-like entrance with MBTA Emergency Training Center above it. The aerial view shows a structure angling down and to the southeast, it looks very much like the top of a tunnel. Is that a former access point down into the Red Line tunnel? Broadway station is not far off in that direction.

I am digressing. Sorry.

There is a short trolley tunnel above the Red Line station at Broadway, opened in 1917 and closed in 1919 (bad planning is not a new thing). After sitting abandoned for 90 plus years, it was converted to a training facility a few years ago. They have two old Blue Line cars, a damaged Type 8 that has been cosmetically restored, and an articulated bus down there that are used for training by police, fire, the T's own staff etc.

 

[West]

There is a short trolley tunnel above the Red Line station at Broadway, opened in 1917 and closed in 1919 (bad planning is not a new thing). After sitting abandoned for 90 plus years, it was converted to a training facility a few years ago. They have two old Blue Line cars, a damaged Type 8 that has been cosmetically restored, and an articulated bus down there that are used for training by police, fire, the T's own staff etc.

Thank you!

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Putting on my pretend market-rate developer's hat, I think you've got strong possibilities on parcels 1a and 1b as you describe them. Before I plunk my money down, though, I'd find those two parcels a LOT more appealing if the Postal Service and MA had already inked the land swap that breaks loose SSX and opens up Dot Ave. “A LOT more” as in maybe that’s the break point between feasible and not feasible, once I run my market studies and determine likely rents. With Dot Ave closed off like it is now, parcels 1a and 1b are still awkward.

I probably should've mentioned that explicitly. All of this assumes Dot Ave. is built out. That's 'sure thing' 8-10 year range despite USPS's foot-dragging, which exceeds the max speed with which you'd be able to plan anything on #1A and #1B. Those street-facing buildings will go up and fill up fast the second they're placed on the market.

Also, Gillette knows what its parking lots are worth and has been salivating for 20 years at a sell-high opportunity. So that Dot Ave.-facing lot is also a reliable assumption. You probably have to build them a compensation garage on the Binford St. side of their property, but they always intended to sell the high-value ones.

The triangle over the T emergency training facility is weirdly-shaped and weirdly-sloped, so it's not going to be anything tall. That makes an over-build of the active tunnel a piece of cake for a small surface-area, smallish-height structure.

So infill of all surrounding Dot Ave. parcels post- USPS will probably be 100% done before you touch #1A and #1B.

Parcel 1a, some of the same applies, although at the North end there’s not a bridge, but rather more sliver of waterfront. A bit less clear how to transition down from the deck there.

See the T access ramp on W. 4th down to track level. That has to remain because it's the only maint and emergency personnel access down to the commuter rail tracks. So you have the makings of a N-S side street and waterfront access if you squared this up with a proper intersection and had the T emergency access fork off at the bottom. There's your sloping access down to water level. May have to be a one-way street if width is iffy, definitely can't have parking or delivery trucks because of the priority on emergency access to the tracks, but it's fungible for public access. Especially for pedestrians as means of avoiding Albany to get down the block and reaching the waterfront paths.

T would still need a couple acres of maint yard space behind a security fence near the top of the triangle, but the re-landscaping here would fatten up the vegetation buffer around the Bass River and allow for the path. Graft a side footbridge onto the wye track's bridge just like Rolling Bridge Park's trackside footbridge and you have a complete Bass River path circuit before the river dives underground at W. 4th.

As for access from the Rolling Bridge Park path system and the Harborwalk along Ft. Point, you have no choice but to go up-and-over the mainline and wye tracks. So drop a ramp at the SW corner of Rolling Bridge Park and on the south side of the wye by the Bass River path and you have the connection. If nothing whatsoever ever got built on #1A you'd probably have a footbridge erected in the next 10-12 years just like the North Bank one near North Station, simply because the post-USPS infill demands it. So makes no difference if it's a lone footbridge or a path grafted onto the NW side of #1A's deck. You're still going up-and-over the tracks and still achieving the same path tie-ins. Not hard.

Parcel 2 as you describe it …. Meh. If I am a developer of purely market rate product, I pass. I understand your point that it’ll have to be an extension of South End, but …. Meh. If I am a developer of affordable housing, I am still interested, just based on the severe dearth of affordable land. The City / State should think about putting this land out with significant affordable constraints on the land - maybe even 100% affordable with some of the units skewed deep in the AMI range (30-50% AMI), others into the more typical 60-80% AMI range, and yet others well up into the 120 – 140% AMI range. And OK, maybe a market component. Require developers to create retail amenities within as best as possible, and provide help with the underpass development you describe. Will there be some who scream “ghettoization of affordable units?” Yes, there will. It can either be dealt with by spreading affordability requirements into parcels 1a, 1b, and 4, or by daring the critics to demand less affordable percentage on this parcel. I’d very much vote for spreading the affordability requirements around (that was the real me speaking at the end there, not the pretend market-rate developer).

Kraft may end this conversation sooner since that was his original site for the Revs stadium. Of course, if stadium gets dropped on #2 that really dims the prospects for more isolated #3. I think market-rate housing is the best value here despite the very unorthodox street interface. It IS a three-block contiguous interface with Albany St. When you consider that the T is itching for a sell-high on the Albany bus garage parcel on the corner of Albany-Randolph if it has a bus yard consolidation site to go to, there are makings of a real square there if #2's three blocks of Albany accessibility were developed.

Rent-controlled housing seems like it would be the best bet. Nobody looking for a not-obscene place to live close to downtown is going to care about I-93. Location and cost control matters so infinitely more. As described, you just need someone imaginative enough to go nuts with the underpass to make it inviting. It is maybe the only NIMBY-proof space in town where nobody will object to doing something totally off-the-wall. South End sighs in resignation that the other side of Albany can't be breached. They want it to be less of a wall too. This is a great opportunity for that.

I know that may not be ArchBoston's aesthetic cup of tea, but we're here to scratch that aesthetic itch. Step out into more of a real-world perspective, though, and think about what truly matters? It's an opportunity for a few thousand units of affordable housing bound (with a little whimsical creativity) to an existing neighborhood and LOTS of existing transit. You simply don't find parcels like that this close to downtown. Practicality and need really should be the ruling considerations here. Unless Kraft grabs it first...then okie-dokey, we're done here.

Parcel 3 (and my developer hat is off now and this is me speaking) makes sense as you describe it, but only if I don’t have to help pay for the stadium. If Bob Kraft or whoever is building the stadium, then fine, go with God.

Yeah. And if the stadium goes on #2 I just don't see a future for #3. It's too isolated without people all day living or working in #2, The street grid from Mass Ave. Connector and some mid-block of Dot Ave. neither here nor there from Red Line Broadway or Andrew just doesn't draw all-day people unto itself unless there's a ready supply of them spilling over from #2. Land value gets very low indeed without that. And stays that way until everything north--INCLUDING the Pike air rights--gets filled. Because everything north has neighborhood-binding upside, and this one doesn't.

This one also has infrastructure requirements any which way. At-grade the slab o' land itself is low-cost, but you must construct road 'fingers' reaching down into the bowl. Decking is decking.

This is why it's absolutely baffling that B24 shoved the full cost of decking on the Master Developer and didn't think to triage with MassDOT to take an edge off it with land-swaps and easements. Figure that unless you drop a 'good' kind of single-structure monolith--straightforward, single-shot --like a Revs stadium there, amortizing the cost of up-front decking or road construction is constrained by the uncertain time it takes to build multiple structures. This is where the BRA sucks the life out of things, because each building on the slab is going to be poked and prodded and be years late in opening due to institutional interference. So amortization time is a crapshoot for mixed-use when every individual structure can't have a reliable timetable for Day 1 of its revenue generation. Multiply that by # of structures, factor in the less-than-awesome location and access...that's simply going to scare away most developers. Same way it scared away the B24 Master Developer candidates.

You have to take the risk out of infrastructure cost for the developer, or this is the parcel that stays vacant 30 years. Who in the public sector has the assets to help here, and how can they do it without a loss?

-- The T has Albany garage it dearly wants to sell-high on. It must relocate those buses to a consolidated yard.
-- If the T sells Albany garage it dearly wants to sell Southampton garage too and accentuate that consolidation game. Not nearly as valuable a parcel as Albany, but Newmarket is a long-term grower.
-- JP torpedoed expansion of Arborway garage. So that's now in a sort of no-man's land of 'tweener status: needed at that location for storage to feed huge Forest Hills terminal, but no longer worth its huge acreage if they have no means of taking a second run at a more comprehensive onsite service facility.

You see where this is going. You could probably combine Cabot + Albany + Southampton straight-up storage and fueling on a bare slab of the 'bowl' AND bake in enough expansion space to serve bus capacity needs they haven't even explored yet...and not use more than a third of the space. This also aids Parcel #4's prospects. Cabot gets its yard-yard functions moved across the street into the 'bowl' and the building itself takes on heavier share of maint functions from the consolidated garages. And starts to beg the question of whether a better, more maint-specific facility is needed within X years as a permanent solution for the consolidation (we'll get to that).

Then throw in Arborway. It's not going away by any means. But 50% of that huge acreage is worth mega$$$ for redev, and they've been pretty thoroughly stymied on their expansion plans so whether second attempts are possible or not...that writing on the wall has been duly read. Whatever functions can be folded into downtown for efficiency...do it. Whatever functions need to stay at FH for efficiency...balance it. Then collect the $$$ on that surplus 50% of land facing Washington and the daylighted intersection.

What do you do with the pile of cash from 3 land sales and a big dump of bus parking into the middle of the empty and hard-to-sell 'bowl'? Permanent storage easement under the future deck, bus parking spots and any structures on the bare slab arranged like the Red Line yard for erecting pegs between spaces. Then standing-offer IOU from MassDOT to underwrite the cost of the decking in the 'bowl', which the proceeds from the land sales should cover if invested properly.

There...you've now taken most or all of the developer's fear of amortizing up-front costs off the table. And there is still an assload of parking to be had underneath on the majority portion not used by the bus super-yard. This pumps up the value of the 'bowl' enough to get some bites. And solves B24's most senseless oversight: refusing to triage inter-agency to find convert-able assets to move between ledgers at no loss. The inter-institutional communication was just...fatally poor. Literally fatal to the bid.

If that permanent bus easement and asset hustling doesn't draw enough interest? Presumably because the BRA et al. are still operating two-hands-around-necks? Well, that other 60% of the slab might as well just get grabbed for permanent-easement train storage to settle up 50-year capacity needs. At a little sweetening of the pot on decking costs to get it as attractive as it's gonna get for developers. As alluded before, Readville Yard 2 is a highish-value asset bolted to Wolcott Sq. and a potential means of building several thousand mid-density affordable housing units next to transit extending a pre-existing Hyde Park neighborhood. That's a later barter opportunity whose demand would be driven by later waves of housing builds.

Unfortunately the BRA has been hammering away ass-backwards at Readville. Mixed-use on the ex- Stop & Shop warehouse? Yeah, that one died instantly from total lack of developer interest. "Hi-tech farm" on Yard 5 on the current plan? Oh, yeah, that's going to fetch good land value the second prospective tenants get a load of all the trucking restrictions functionally sealing off all practical access to Route 128. Might actually happen, but watch them be sorely disappointed with lower-than-expected prices and more transient tenants than they ever hoped for.

Getting a little off-topic, but you get the picture...the institutions don't talk to each other about synergies that can lower the cost burden. There is real high-value land ownership that can be traded in for nothing more than permanent easements at consolidated locations to bank the construction costs of the necessary infrastructure at Widett, etc. AND open up literally square miles worth of redev land across the city. You don't even have to look at draining the whole portfolio. Just a couple of these--a couple of these the land-holding agency has already articulated desire to barter--takes the worst of the infrastructure overhead off the shoulders of the developer at no net cost to the public. Because it's just converting existing assets to liquidity.

Parcel 4, (developer’s hat back on) all of your caveats about relocating transit facilities are duly noted, and I share your evident alarm that various forces could screw the pooch on that relocation effort. BUT IF that could all be done right, then parcel 4 appeals to me as much as 1a and 1b. Those caveats you mention are huge, though, as a taxpayer and T-dependent person this makes me nervous.

Yeah. This should not be complicated. MassDOT just needs to swing an axe wildly in the air from atop a pile of skulls to put the "DON'T FUCK WITH ME; I MEAN IT!" fear of God into the local-yokel institutions to take the crayon out of brain on this relocation. To not short the capacity. To not inconvenience the location when readily available crap parcels in eyesight and road-sight of the 'bowl' superyard easement do the trick. To not start shoving costs on them on-the-sly.

This should not be complicated.
This should not be complicated.
Everybody wins if they don't make this complicated. 3 blocks of Dot Ave. get tremendously filled-in, T gets a better-configured maint facility for serving the 'bowl' superyard.
This should not be complicated.

Ehhhh...this is probably gonna get complicated.

 

[davem]

I've got way too much going on to hash out a real proposal. But in short:

Move the existing businesses and tow yard to another site, likely tow yard to the seaport and food stuff out by the produce terminal.

Create a massive new rail yard below grade inside widett with provisions to be decked in the future.

Move the bus yard under 93 and into space vacated by the T and Amtrak. Also below grade so it can be decked in the future.

Develop now vacant space along Dot Ave.



In short, this consolidates the transit infrastructure close to the highway where it is less desirable to live, gets everyone new facilities, and allows it all to be decked ovet kn the future.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Bus yards wouldn't fit under 93 because a consolidated yard is going to be big. There's 8 bus yards on the system (+1 trackless trolley yard).

-- Cabot (#2 largest) - 191 buses, 26 daily routes + 12 off-peak/weekend routes when other yards are closed.
-- Albany (#4 largest...#3-4 near-tie) - 116 buses, 18 routes
-- Southampton (#5 largest...#5-7 near-tie) - 99 buses (all Silver Line or 60-footer), 7 routes (all Silver Line + 39 & 28)

Charlestown's the largest at ~1-1/2 times the size of Cabot, so if you're mashing the south-central three together @ 400 buses + expansion space of pure straight-up yard-yard parking and fueling you're talking the 'bowl' as the only place big enough. A lot of expansion space if they're giving up on the JP opposition to expanding Arborway (they pretty much have) and resigning themselves to balancing what can be run out of downtown (maint, etc.) vs. what has to be onsite on the existing Forest Hills garage footprint (fueling, storage, pure daytime layovers). Then selling the other half of that site they can't use for another big $$$ conversion. Figure if you need a big dumping ground for up to 3-1/4 yard-yards worth of storage that the 'bowl' is the best site of all for distributing routes via Haul Road/Frontage Rd./Mass Ave. Connector, and Haul Rd./Dot Ave. via the mini-exit ramp. Under-93 means slamming 50 bus routes down Albany. And that's so far beyond infeasible it eliminates Parcel #2 or under-93 instantaneously.

All that storage is fully tuckable under the 'bowl' if you're just doing storage and have the maint building with the lifts and whatnot offsite couple blocks away. Quincy garage, which is entirely on the ground level of Quincy Ctr. parking garage, does just fine under-grade and even handles CNG buses. So go nuts with a permanent ground-level easement in the 'bowl' and every last acre up top is still available for private dev. The Cabot garage-garage on Dot Ave. can absorb more maint functions being emptied of its storage-storage duties, but that also greases the skids on redev of parcel #4 because a new purely maint building becomes more efficient than a repurposed maint + garage building shifted exclusively to maint duty. You can probably shove that thing somewhere behind Gold's Gym or anywhere on those fugly Dot Ave. backlots, back-driveway it up to Haul Road, and private-ramp down off Haul into the corner of the 'bowl' to shuttle buses between the maint building and the yard traffic-free in 60 seconds flat.

For what they'd earn selling Albany and greasing skids for selling Parcel #4 with deck underwriting you've got the relocation paid and the decking IOU paid if the proceeds go into a lockbox to accumulate interest. This is purely a liquidity conversion of assets, so lockboxing it for site-specific considerations is the goal instead of dumping the proceeds into the general fund.


And yes, train storage is an option on the other half of the undergrade 'bowl'. Probably not an immediate need now that they've got the Beacon Park easement, but if anyone ever intends to build the N-S Link grabbing it might be a good idea. And like I said, Readville Yard 2 is another cash-in opportunity given location! location! location! @ Wolcott Sq., overabundance of unused space next door at the recycling center, and square-peg status as storage site because it's so much further away from SS than Beacon Park or Widett. You could trade in that full site, shift the Fairmount + Stoughton layovers to that 1/3 mile long unused quad-track yard immediately adjacent, plunk all 12 of Yard 2's storage tracks inside the non-bus half of the 'bowl', still have no immediate use for their Yard 5 storage space (or the portion of it the BRA isn't tilting at windmills to develop) across the street, and lockbox the cost of all remaining decking including those golden #1A/B parcels.

It's all about liquidity of assets. Now, I wouldn't expect MassDOT to initiate any of these sales (except maybe Albany) on their own because it's not their in-house needs that are driving that move. But if everybody put on their thinking caps together and ID'd what liquid assets could remove the infrastructure overhead off the reluctant developers' backs without creating sunk cost for the public...that's the answer they're all going to arrive at. MassDOT has the assets. Let them lead with the terms so the T doesn't get fucked over and they can work their way down the list of what high-value assets are most conveniently tradeable for a permanent ground-level easement in the 'bowl'.


The fact that B24 did not do this cracks the Top 3...at most charitable firmly in the Top 5...reasons for their failure. And reinforces that itemization I did 2 pages back on the B24 thread on where our institutions are structurally dysfunctional. How deaf/dumb/blind do you have to be to not even attempt to count your coalition's own liquid assets? None of them did.

 

[winstonoboogie]

Quincy garage, which is entirely on the ground level of Quincy Ctr. parking garage, does just fine under-grade and even handles CNG buses. .

Quincy bus garage is at 954 Hancock St., several blocks north of Quincy Center Station and the (closed) parking garage. There are no CNG buses assigned to Quincy Garage. The facility is old with low ceilings, too many places for gas to pool. CNG buses have to be stored at well ventilated facilities. Cabot garage needed extensive modifications before CNG buses could be assigned to it. The "interim" Arborway facility and Southampton garage were both built as new facilities capable of handling CNG.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

This is the Midtown redev thread, not another rivet-counting thread.

 

[winstonoboogie]

This is the Midtown redev thread, not another rivet-counting thread.

I corrected an obvious error. Some people like facts. If you don't, just don't read my posts.

 

[tangent]

First drop the name "Midtown" it has been used and misused to describe a number of different places including Downtown Crossing. If you poke around certain official maps I believe it is actually used on assessor's maps for an area around Downtown Crossing and Boston Common.

Second, with the exception of a get your feet wet Kraft soccer stadium at the tow lot which might be good as a placeholder for 30 years or so, just leave the rest of the place alone.

Widett Circle is home to a thriving and successful business which is critical to Boston's food distribution. There is no better place for it that is worth the tens of millions of dollars in switching costs.

And if there is ever any redevelopment of the place it should be done in conjunction with a consolidation of the transportation corridor, meaning realign I93 to be in close proximity to the rail like what is being planned for I90 in Allston for Beacon Yards

 

[tangent]

I corrected an obvious error. Some people like facts. If you don't, just don't read my posts.

I thought he was just being ironic because F-Man is usually first in line to point out minutia.

 

[tangent]

Let's get this party started, shall we.

A Question and Conundrum: what do we truly have to work with here in the real world?

In addition to the previously mentioned Kraft stadium at the indicated parcel 2. (Personally I'd rather see Kraft locate a Soccer stadium as an anchor to an entertainment and shopping district, but whatever makes sense at this point)

Yes decking for 1a and especially 1b totally makes sense. Given the time it has taken to deck the Mass Pike parcels I don't see it happening soon, but the proximity to the T station and the Fort Point Channel make it desirable enough to make it possible. I'd first look to see what happens (if anything) with the Post office/South Station. Also, MassDoTs parcel 25 South Bay project could be indicative of what could happen at your decking parcels 1a and 1b.

That said, the particular issue I would have especially with 1a would be how it would interface with the waterfront... basically it would be a 30 foot or so drop to the water, which might be good for Global Warming, but it would be a pretty far drop to make any River/Harbor Walk work out.

 

[JeffDowntown]

That said, the particular issue I would have especially with 1a would be how it would interface with the waterfront... basically it would be a 30 foot or so drop to the water, which might be good for Global Warming, but it would be a pretty far drop to make any River/Harbor Walk work out.

It could be the harbor "cliff" walk.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

In addition to the previously mentioned Kraft stadium at the indicated parcel 2. (Personally I'd rather see Kraft locate a Soccer stadium as an anchor to an entertainment and shopping district, but whatever makes sense at this point)

Yes decking for 1a and especially 1b totally makes sense. Given the time it has taken to deck the Mass Pike parcels I don't see it happening soon, but the proximity to the T station and the Fort Point Channel make it desirable enough to make it possible. I'd first look to see what happens (if anything) with the Post office/South Station. Also, MassDoTs parcel 25 South Bay project could be indicative of what could happen at your decking parcels 1a and 1b.

That said, the particular issue I would have especially with 1a would be how it would interface with the waterfront... basically it would be a 30 foot or so drop to the water, which might be good for Global Warming, but it would be a pretty far drop to make any River/Harbor Walk work out.

Well...yeah, it would be a little unusual an interface. I think you've got to task the developer with being creative there to make use of the waterfront. But that's the kind of thing architects get paid to do. Just because we don't have a firm picture in our own minds today only 48 hours after B24 went bye-bye doesn't mean there aren't going to be multiple renderings circulating in coming years that make us go "Oooooh! Me like!"

Any which way connecting Rolling Bridge Park to the Bass River requires an up-and-over of the tracks. So there's the pedestrian interface onto the NW side of the deck. Think of it as the North Bank ped bridge...if you ever want to connect the paths together you're going to build a somewhat shorter equivalent of the North Bank bridge across that NW corner. Now instead of looking at it as a discrete bridge...picture that exact same up-and-over structure in the exact same place...as an appendage bolted to the NW side of the deck. It's exactly the same thing serving exactly the same function. There's just no physical separation between it and the deck.

Underrated part of that: it's a pretty nice view up 30 ft. above that NW corner of downtown. Know how that last 20 seconds on 93 North diving down to the tunnel stares straight ahead at the Financial District skyline packed all close together? Well here you're offset about 250 ft. east of that. Kinda similar skyline view. This view up high on the South Station exit ramp a somewhat inferior facsimile to what you'd get on either/or footbridge or NW-facing deck...clean of the fences and jersey barriers that mar the straight-ahead view up on the ramps. Plus you get to look straight down the gut into (a much bigger) South Station from a tall perch. So sort of two gateways-to-the-city vistas for the price of one on that up-and-over of the tracks. That's going to be a GREAT photo spot. There's going to be calls for a footbridge between RB Park and Bass River to go up second Dot Ave. starts getting developed. That may already be there long before the deck gets built and glued together with the pre-existing path up-and-over.


You do have that trackside access driveway dipping down between W. 4th and Broadway. Can't really do much dropping down north of Broadway because there's no possibility of an E-W street at the top. But if you had a side one-way street or alley spanning #1B you could take the portion of that driveway that slips under the Broadway bridge and cul-de-sac it out into a little park access point. Then just keep the T emergency access behind the fence. It's now a public way. No real traffic on it except for drop-offs at the path and bicyclists, but it's real vehicular access sort of like a version of Binford St. that isn't surrounded by parking lots. Just a little access point fizzing out at the path.


We're not gonna have to worry about this timing with the Post Office/SSX redev of Dot Ave. Those are pretty narrow mid-height parcels lining that block, bunch of individual tenants. You're talking like 2 years from breaking ground to all filled up, and as long as the land is cleared and utility whatnots trenched for SSX expansion the erecting of those Dot Ave. buildings isn't bound to the SSX construction schedule. They'll go up, open up independently of what heavy equipment is working on the train station behind them. The Foundry/Dot 'triangle' parcel and the bigger Gillette lot if they play Let's Make A Deal on Gillette parking acreage are likewise de-coupled. So all of that's a non-factor for anything you plan on #1A and #1B. Dot Ave. will be all filled up and bursting with energy way, way before the BRA has even sifted through the proposals for #1A. That's a big parcel, big development, big developer, and considerably more time in planning to get something finalized. Dot Ave. is just "come and get it" and a stampede of moving vans filling up those new buildings.