New "Anti-Shadow" Laws Proposed for Boston

Actually, Boston would probably be a shitty model for them. They couldn't hope to successful replicate four centuries of urban development in one fell swoop. The results would be atrocious. And god forbid they ever considered copying Boston's current planning practices.

These cities' planners should all be flocking to Portland or Vancouver or something. Cities that have actually revitalized and augmented their own urbanity within the last 30 years. Maybe Boston's planners should, too.
 
Nuremberg.

Its recent history:

1930 Widely regarded as Germany's most beautiful city. Rival of Paris and Venice, and better than Prague.

1935 Epicenter of Nazism. Hitler's favorite city, and venue for the biggest rallies.

1945 Totally in ruins. 5-10% of buildings survive USAF bombing raids. Nuremberg War Crime Trials held here for symbolic reasons.

1955 Though still plagued by vacant lots and mountains of bricks, city is at least half reconstructed. Some of this is rebuilding of landmark medieval buildings and fortifications; but unfortunately most consists of five-story Modernist landscrapers with precast facades (you know: the kind they threw up around St. Paul's and elsewhere in London to repair the Luftwaffe's work).

2010 Most of the Modernist groundscrapers have in turn been demolished and replaced with small-footprint, five-story, gable-roofed buildings that recall in massing the medieval structures blown to bits in the war's closing days. The half-timbering and carved detailing are omitted --replaced by various pastel shades of stucco-- and the result is a kind of stripped traditionalism that most folks respond to very well indeed. These are very nicely-scaled buildings that make all the right gestures of good urbanism: streetwall, ground-floor retail, sufficient and varied detail, visible roof forms, and small footprint. Consequently, Nuremberg is back in the ranks of Europe's most beautiful cities. It will never again achieve the rich detail of Venice or Paris, but it's a worthy competitor for, say, Strasbourg.

Not a skyscraper or parking lot to be seen. City-limit population about 500,000 --roughly the size of Boston, and a bit larger than Portland. A working city, cultured, varied and full of night-life. Not yet back on the tourist trail, because not yet re-discovered. Give it time.

Check bling maps 3-D aerials for confirmation. Search for "Koenigstrasse, Nuremberg."
 
^^ Imagine doing something like that to the West End...

I don't even mean resurrecting the traditional Boston architecture that was there necessarily, but restoring the old street grid and small building footprints. This would be no-cost for the city (and probably longer-term revenue-generating by increasing the number of residents/businesses) and very achievable economically ... but it would require the city's Democratic political machine to thumb its nose at its stable of developer cronies like Druker.

I'd guess that bringing back the materials, detailing and apt. sizes that were dominant in this area pre-1950s would be prohibitively expensive and come out with that cheap pre-cast look the way so much PoMo does... But merely zoning the area to bring back the footprints of what was there and allowing buildings of all materials/styles -- all-glass, some brick/limestone, even some pre-cast -- would turn the area from an absolute dead zone/waste of space into a thriving neighborhood.

Alternatively, I wonder if, when Fan Pier, Seaport Square and the rest of the SBW projects collapse, something like that [e.g., small-footprint mix of res, commercial and retail with small investors controlling their various buildings (versus a Vornado controlling the whole mess) and encouraging diverse building types, architectural styles, and street life] would be able to emerge from the ashes...
 
ablarc said:
...small-footprint, five-story, gable-roofed buildings that recall in massing the medieval structures....
..the result is a kind of stripped traditionalism that most folks respond to very well indeed. These are very nicely-scaled buildings that make all the right gestures of good urbanism: streetwall, ground-floor retail, sufficient and varied detail, visible roof forms, and small footprint..
Click to expand...

Urbanism at it's finest. Provides an ideal setting for a rich city lifestyle.

itchy said:
... But merely zoning the area to bring back the footprints of what was there and allowing buildings of all materials/styles -- all-glass, some brick/limestone, even some pre-cast -- would turn the area from an absolute dead zone/waste of space into a thriving neighborhood.

Alternatively, I wonder if, when Fan Pier, Seaport Square and the rest of the SBW projects collapse, something like that [e.g., small-footprint mix of res, commercial and retail with small investors controlling their various buildings (versus a Vornado controlling the whole mess) and encouraging diverse building types, architectural styles, and street life] would be able to emerge from the ashes...
Click to expand...

Dare to dream. The key here is small footprints, fragmented ownership, an urban scale that is comfortable to live in. It's a shame there isn't much more this pattern being built.

If not SBW, why not remake dead malls and sprawling strip development in this way? Maybe connect it to good transit or - while we're dreaming - true high-speed rail!?

Unfortunately the political realities don't encourage this, and the business of development cannot maximize profit with this model.
 
How many years has this board been realizing small footprints are the answer?

How many times have they actually been implemented anywhere in Boston (or the US, for that matter) in the last decade?
 
...that either this is some secret that either ArchBoston members are aware of, or there are economic, legal, or other forces that keep small footprints from emerging, and probably won't change anytime soon.
 
Buildings have always been the outcome of the laws that gave rise to them, and this is as true today as ever.

Developers will build what the law allows them. Change the laws, and you will get a new product.
 
Developers aren't slaves to law alone. It also brings higher (or more immediate) profit margins to build big. The city would have to worry about disincentivizing development.
 
Why would it not be more profitable to subdivide into many small developable parcels?
 
We've got a new anti-shadow rule coming up. Don't you think that will change the product?
 
No small footprints because there isn't a market for those small parcels. The Seaport District "planning" is a market reaction to the inefficiencies of too many small parcels downtown.
 
If you change the rules, you change the market.

Two years ago, there was no legal market for pot in California. Then someone changed some rules ...

Come on, Toby, you're a lawyer.
 
Ah, chicken and the egg. My take is that the market usually makes the rules in the USA, not the other way around. It is the only logical explanation for so much that is mediocre in America: above ground telephone poles and wires; lower definition TV broadcasts; gas mileage exemptions for pickup trucks; slow trains; no state subsidized opera. Grab that quick buck and damn anything that gets in the way.
 
Ron Newman said:
Why would it not be more profitable to subdivide into many small developable parcels?
Click to expand...

Because commercial offices like giant open floor plans. It's easier to have accounting talk to marketing when everyone is on the same floor.

And the developer saves money too. Less elevators, easier plumbing setup, single HVAC unit, only one security desk etc etc
 
ablarc said:
If you change the rules, you change the market.

Two years ago, there was no legal market for pot in California. Then someone changed some rules ...
Click to expand...

There was always a market for pot in California. Changing the law just made it, as you correctly note, a legal market.

There may not be a market for small parcels in the Seaport, at least for developers to build on, whether it's legal or not.

Unfortunately, it's not as easy to change the laws of economics (real or psychological, if there's any difference).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top