New England Revolution Stadium | 173 Alford Street | Boston-Everett

For me it's less about the car gridlock and more the horrible experience on foot or bike (gridlock or not). It's already such a car centric Sq - I hope the prospect of adding more traffic volume doesn't tip the scales towards a design favoring higher car thru-put.

Another variable to add to the Rutherford/Sullivan Sq redesign (MassDOT + BTD) - shaping up to be a pretty critical project for this side of the city.

(just to be clear - I'm super excited at the prospect of a stadium here!)
 
LexSEDotVille said:
For me it's less about the car gridlock and more the horrible experience on foot or bike (gridlock or not).
Click to expand...
Exactly. To be honest, heavier traffic would improve the experience for bike riders. I have difficulty crossing through the rotaryish/phi section of the Square because cars are moving too quickly for me to safely cross from one section of bike lane to another. Actual gridlock would enable me to freely cross. I'm not suggesting we should try for that, but the proposed redesign (if it happens) will be a huge improvement for non vehicular road users. If we allow concerns about car traffic to keep us from doing things other than facilitating more car traffic, the city will wither away.
 
FWIW, the state has evaluated the casino's expansion plans, and has some numbers showing what transit mode share in the area is like.
1698147357763.png

So people overwhelmingly get there by car, and that would still be true in the improved target scenario with more MBTA buses, shuttle buses, bike facilities, and the pedestrian bridge over to Assembly. Maybe there would be a bigger transit mode share for a stadium across the street, but I don't see why it would be drastically different. And these kinds of numbers are the exact opposite of "transit oriented."

Another useful number from the report: they predict the casino project would add ~600 extra cars on Alford/Broadway at peak times. That's considered too much for the road to handle. A proposed Rev's stadium will hold 20-25 thousand people, who will all get out of games at the same time. Even if only half those people get there by car (which would be a massive improvement over the casino across the street), that's 1000s of extra cars on that road all at once. That's way more than the road can handle. And it might give some idea of the biggest parking lot you'd want allowed at the stadium.

For the people here who hope this development encourages better transit in Everett, I'm with you. I totally agree. We should do that. But people are suggesting adding buses, when I think the scale of the solutions need to be more like "orange line branch to Everett" or "no parking at the stadium."
 
Makes one wish they had stuck Wynn with his original proposal to build the casino next to Gillette Stadium. Something so nakedly car-centric has no place in an urban area.
 
Put me on record that I'm really going to miss our last giant smokestack (500'!!!) if they end up taking it down as part of this development. I have seen older pics of the city with a bunch of huge smokestacks that have already been lost. They add an industrial character that has been slipping away over the course of my lifetime. Most people don't care but I find this stuff visually interesting.

IMG_0804 by David Z, on Flickr
 
I'm with you on that. I love this kind of stuff, along with refineries, etc. The opening scene in Blade Runner is the sort of thing I mean. Imagine this smokestack with Revolution written in giant letters top to bottom. It would be iconic for not just the team but for the city as a whole.
 
How much does it cost to maintain/repair a structure like that? Seems notable that Exelon never took down the three decommissioned stacks next to this one -- just capped them.
 
Have the Krafts shown actual interest in this site, or is this just a pipe dream cooked up by the (corrupt) Mayor and his State House buddies?
 
HenryAlan said:
I'm with you on that. I love this kind of stuff, along with refineries, etc. The opening scene in Blade Runner is the sort of thing I mean. Imagine this smokestack with Revolution written in giant letters top to bottom. It would be iconic for not just the team but for the city as a whole.
Click to expand...

My group and I actually did that in our plan for the area for a project in grad school. I wouldn't mind if it came to be!

Revolution Stadium.png
 
Equilibria said:
If they Commonwealth isn't building it (and I sure hope not), none of this matters. Where is Kraft?
Click to expand...
I think the only reason the state is involved is the land is currently a "designated port area" under state law. That limits development to certain maritime uses. The Senate bill would remove this site from the list of designated port areas.
 
Downburst said:
My group and I actually did that in our plan for the area for a project in grad school. I wouldn't mind if it came to be!

View attachment 44528
Click to expand...
I love the Norwegian Encore Cruise Ship sneaks into the background of your grad proposal! :ROFLMAO:
It's funny/unfortunate that the clearance under Tobin Bridge (135') is a foot too short for Norwegian Encore (no relation to Wynn Resorts) and most other modern cruise ships (150,000+ tons) from navigating up the Mystic. A redevelopment of Everett's waterfront as proposed/envisioned by Everett leadership would frankly support/welcome a berth or two for cruises to homeport. As an Everett resident and frequent cruiser (4+ annually), I'd love to see this site transform into a vibrant destination like what you've proposed. Boston deserves better than Black Falcon terminal. At least docking up the Mystic affords cruise passengers the opportunity to see more of the city as it disembarks.
 
ritchiew said:
I think the only reason the state is involved is the land is currently a "designated port area" under state law. That limits development to certain maritime uses. The Senate bill would remove this site from the list of designated port areas.
Click to expand...
Cue the lawsuit from CLF!
 
Vivanna said:
Cue the lawsuit from CLF!
Click to expand...
I don't know much about this, but keeping a designated port area really seems like a plausibly good idea. The next few decades could be bad for our existing ports. Climate change will bring on sea level rise and the possibility of stronger storms. That leaves our existing port areas facing increased risk of flooding. It's hard to judge how bad it will be or on what time scale, so this seems like a bad time to abandon possibly useful port areas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top