Northeastern University - Institutional Master Plan

UNEXPECTED! (I think? I don't remember this being part of the IMP...)
Northeastern is doing its best to bridge the skyline gap between the Pru and Longwood.

Design is... underwhelming.
 
Downburst said:
UNEXPECTED! (I think? I don't remember this being part of the IMP...)
Northeastern is doing its best to bridge the skyline gap between the Pru and Longwood.

Design is... underwhelming.
Click to expand...

Boring by Elkus™
 
TomOfBoston said:
The map in image 3 shows ISEC without the ARC!
Click to expand...

Excellent observation. The "arc" was discussed during the meeting. Due to the cumbersome process of coordinating bridge work over the MBTA, commuter rail, and Amtrak ROW's at Northeastern's campus (along with construction delays associated with Ruggles T station), NU has to scrap the arc design. The most notable loss is a second pedestrian connection between the new ISEC quad and the existing Sciences Quad.

Their top priority concerning the bridge crossing is to have a main one complete by the opening of the building next fall. Unfortunately, that's seeming less and less likely.
 
Downburst said:
UNEXPECTED! (I think? I don't remember this being part of the IMP...)
Northeastern is doing its best to bridge the skyline gap between the Pru and Longwood.

Design is... underwhelming.
Click to expand...

Correct. In the original IMP filing, the proposal was for a 600-bed dorm on this Burke lot. Due to the change, the school is legally obligated to file an IMP Amendment with the City. In a perfect world, they hope to have regulatory process complete by summer 2016 and to begin construction Spring 2017 for Fall 2018 move in.
 
dshoost88 said:
Excellent observation. The "arc" was discussed during the meeting. Due to the cumbersome process of coordinating bridge work over the MBTA, commuter rail, and Amtrak ROW's at Northeastern's campus (along with construction delays associated with Ruggles T station), NU has to scrap the arc design. The most notable loss is a second pedestrian connection between the new ISEC quad and the existing Sciences Quad.

Their top priority concerning the bridge crossing is to have a main one complete by the opening of the building next fall. Unfortunately, that's seeming less and less likely.
Click to expand...

Do you mean that there will be a regular pedestrian bridge over the ROW rather than the elaborate ARC?

I had reservations about the ARC actually. It appeared to me that the two landings on the central campus would create a "crowded" feel.
 
Last edited:
dshoost88 said:
Excellent observation. The "arc" was discussed during the meeting. Due to the cumbersome process of coordinating bridge work over the MBTA, commuter rail, and Amtrak ROW's at Northeastern's campus (along with construction delays associated with Ruggles T station), NU has to scrap the arc design. The most notable loss is a second pedestrian connection between the new ISEC quad and the existing Sciences Quad.

Their top priority concerning the bridge crossing is to have a main one complete by the opening of the building next fall. Unfortunately, that's seeming less and less likely.
Click to expand...

Wait is this actually confirmed? This is ridiculous! The arc was the most important piece of this whole project as far as Im concerned - though I think the city should've made northeastern cover over a whole section of track with decking...
 
FK4 said:
Wait is this actually confirmed? This is ridiculous! The arc was the most important piece of this whole project as far as Im concerned - though I think the city should've made northeastern cover over a whole section of track with decking...
Click to expand...

The ROW is not city property and the city can't "make" Northeastern or the MBTA do anything with it.
 
TomOfBoston said:
The ROW is not city property and the city can't "make" Northeastern or the MBTA do anything with it.
Click to expand...

That's a very defeatist argument - the city can create partnerships and exerts considerable authority in what it can extract as concessions for developments. if there were anyone on the BRA or in the city government that actually established further decking as an urgent goal, they could easily try to work with the MBTA and make such a project a prequisite for any development alongside the tracks.
 
FK4 said:
they could easily try to work with the MBTA .
Click to expand...

Welcome to Boston! You must be new in town!

The mistake in planning was made in the 1980's. The ROW should have been placed below grade. Then a simple ground level decking could be added now. A decking high above ground level would make for awkward movement from one side to the other, necessitating stairs and ramps.
 
Born and raised here, but I guess it's true that the tracks aren't sunk as deeply here as in other places. And I am well aware of our thick bureaucracies that would make working with the MBTA difficult… But I don't think that is a reason to not even try. Along the entire corridor, it ought to be a city wide goal to reduce the separation wrought by these tracks, and whatever solutions are feasible in each area, pressure certainly could be exerted to make this happen as new developments are proposed. At minimum, for example, the city could've demanded a guarantee that a good faith effort was made to build the arc, ideally attempting to get the MBTA at the table, but even if not, forcing northeastern to make a good-faith effort even if stymied by the MBTA.. As it stands, it sounds like the MBTA is at fault but that is not an excuse to permanently shelve the arc.
 
FK4 said:
Born and raised here, but I guess it's true that the tracks aren't sunk as deeply here as in other places. And I am well aware of our thick bureaucracies that would make working with the MBTA difficult… But I don't think that is a reason to not even try. Along the entire corridor, it ought to be a city wide goal to reduce the separation wrought by these tracks, and whatever solutions are feasible in each area, pressure certainly could be exerted to make this happen as new developments are proposed. At minimum, for example, the city could've demanded a guarantee that a good faith effort was made to build the arc, ideally attempting to get the MBTA at the table, but even if not, forcing northeastern to make a good-faith effort even if stymied by the MBTA.. As it stands, it sounds like the MBTA is at fault but that is not an excuse to permanently shelve the arc.
Click to expand...

The ROW way is MBTA property so Northeastern can't do anything without the MBTA's partnership. It is not clear if the single pedestrian connection across the ROW will preclude the eventual construction of the ACR.

dshoost88: Did you get any feel for this at the meeting???
 
TomOfBoston said:
The ROW way is MBTA property so Northeastern can't do anything without the MBTA's partnership. It is not clear if the single pedestrian connection across the ROW will preclude the eventual construction of the ACR.

dshoost88: Did you get any feel for this at the meeting???
Click to expand...

What does ACR stand for?

The feel from the meeting was that NU's Planning team has been working really hard with the BRA, various architectural firms, investment partners, and the community (among others) to move along with the school's goals of increasing academic space on campus and completing that park. They have exhausted the same amount of effort into crossing the tracks, but as discussed it is not their ROW to build across... not without the express permission, approval, and cooperation of the MBTA (T + Commuter Rail) and Amtrak. Their efforts began years ago, but to nobody's surprise (at least not on this form) it has taken forever to get their approval and cooperation. This has cost the school a lot more money than they expected, and the complexity associated with an arc-design pedestrian path is too costly and unconventional for the rail organizations to process in a timely manner.

To quote the team presenting (paraphrasing), "Life is too short to let waste away waiting on these people."
 
TomOfBoston said:
Oh the NIMBY's will enjoy this Christmas present from Northeastern!
Click to expand...

How so? It's being built on a parking lot, it pulls kids in from the neighborhood housing stock which then reduces the neighborhood noise/traffic that college kids tend to bring when they live in neighborhood housing.
 
atlantaden said:
How so? It's being built on a parking lot, it pulls kids in from the neighborhood housing stock which then reduces the neighborhood noise/traffic that college kids tend to bring when they live in neighborhood housing.
Click to expand...

There are people who will try to block any development of any kind regardless of circumstance.

See: 3200 Washington St.
 
bigeman312 said:
There are people who will try to block any development of any kind regardless of circumstance.

See: 3200 Washington St.
Click to expand...

Bigeman -- Atlataden is right -- this is an easy way for Wash to show progress toward his ambitious goal to add thousands of units to Boston's housing stock as NU takes these students out of the local market

Since NU owns the land and its currently just a parking lot -- the popular NIMBY or BANANA argument is obviated that this land is "historic whatever"

By teaming with the private student dorm company from Austin with private financing its a cheap way for NU to meet its commitment to house the students on campus

I predict -- highly expedited approval and construction underway on schedule
 
Well, maybe... Though I predict there will be folks who fight it based on gentrification fears...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top