Northern Avenue Bridge Fort Point Channel

Re: Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)

meddlepal said:
49 million is a lot of money... I like that bridge a lot, but how much more cost effective would it be to put down a simple cement causeway instead? Factor in long term maintenance costs too
Click to expand...

Its a navigable waterway, hard to build a causeway at grade.
 
Re: Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)

Yeah, antiquity at any cost? Does this have landmark status on any level to warrant its preservation in place or could we just take it out, preserve it somewhere else as a monument on display, and replace it with a modern bridge with lower ongoing maintenance costs?
 
Re: Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)

DigitalSciGuy said:
Yeah, antiquity at any cost? Does this have landmark status on any level to warrant its preservation in place or could we just take it out, preserve it somewhere else as a monument on display, and replace it with a modern bridge with lower ongoing maintenance costs?
Click to expand...

$49m is peanuts. Its the same order of magnitude as the freaking wayfinding program from a couple of years ago.

Out of curiosity, what else is on your list of things to replace with concrete slabs in order to save a few bucks?
 
Re: Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)

There's a lot of crap that Boston hangs onto just because it's old, but this bridge lends the entire area a sense of place that a new bridge would not. It should be saved.
 
Re: Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)

Eeesh, tough crowd. It'd have been a nice civil discussion about the realistic cost of historical preservation without the ad hominem attack...
 
Re: Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)

Why do people like this bridge so much when it looks similar to the Charlestown bridge and that thing is getting torn down...both rusty and ugly imo
 
Re: Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)

I like the old bridge, but it's a rusting hulk of an eyesore. I'd be in favor of restoring it and painting it but hurry up and do it already or replace it with a new bridge that works.
 
Re: Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)

617 said:
Why do people like this bridge so much when it looks similar to the Charlestown bridge and that thing is getting torn down...both rusty and ugly imo
Click to expand...

This bridge gets lit up at night and has the advantage of having been a large walking/biking bridge for many in the area. Both of these add sentimentality to a structure.

Suffolk 83 said:
I like the old bridge, but it's a rusting hulk of an eyesore. I'd be in favor of restoring it and painting it but hurry up and do it already or replace it with a new bridge that works.
Click to expand...

Wasn't that the point of the Evelyn Moakley Bridge a block away? Opened in 1996 so the Northern Avenue Bridge could close in 1997. Everyone expected the Northern Avenue Bridge to be demolished, but it instead turned into a refuge for walkers and cyclists in opposition to the car-dominated Moakley Bridge.
 
Re: Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)

I'm not sure how many still functioning central rotating turret style bridges we have left like this. I'm sure there is some historic value outside of just a local time and space type history in Boston. Its a relic along with the summer street and congress street bridges. The history of 3 distinct types of operable bridges side by each on the channel is a nice historic item and part of a nice walking tour as it is.

I'm not sure what limited traffic would end up meaning. No reason to be open to public traffic. Maybe state or official vehicles only. Foot traffic and farmers market style stalls selling things sounds much better to me anyways.
 
Re: Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)

meddlepal said:
49 million is a lot of money... I like that bridge a lot, but how much more cost effective would it be to put down a simple cement causeway instead? Factor in long term maintenance costs too
Click to expand...

A new bridge is estimated to cost as much as $70 million, so $49 million sounds pretty good, especially when it combines the historic preservation element. And let's face it, a new bridge means giving the span over to more cars, degrading human scaled options, which is really what we actually need in the area.
 
Re: Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)

DigitalSciGuy said:
Eeesh, tough crowd. It'd have been a nice civil discussion about the realistic cost of historical preservation without the ad hominem attack...
Click to expand...

You're right, my apologies - I was going for 'lively and spirited' and instead came across as 'what an asshole'.
 
Re: Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)

dwash59 said:
This bridge gets lit up at night and has the advantage of having been a large walking/biking bridge for many in the area. Both of these add sentimentality to a structure.



Wasn't that the point of the Evelyn Moakley Bridge a block away? Opened in 1996 so the Northern Avenue Bridge could close in 1997. Everyone expected the Northern Avenue Bridge to be demolished, but it instead turned into a refuge for walkers and cyclists in opposition to the car-dominated Moakley Bridge.
Click to expand...

dwash --the Moakley was a classic example of Big Government in action:
  • take the "fed" money
  • name it after the wife of a corrupt Congressman who was already having a Federal Courthouse named after him
  • put it in the wrong place -- witness the demand for use of the old bridge
  • block the use of the navigable Fort Point Channel beyond the bridge by making its clearance too low for anything except speedboats and canoes
 
Isn't the height of the moakley based on clearance for fire boats at high tide?
Thought that's why it didn't need to be operable like the others.
Maybe the SS Westy can't fit under, but it's fairly high under there.
 
Re: Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)

whighlander said:
dwash --the Moakley was a classic example of Big Government in action:
  • take the "fed" money
  • name it after the wife of a corrupt Congressman who was already having a Federal Courthouse named after him
  • put it in the wrong place -- witness the demand for use of the old bridge
  • block the use of the navigable Fort Point Channel beyond the bridge by making its clearance too low for anything except speedboats and canoes
Click to expand...

i gotta say, it's pretty shocking that a bridge can be named after a congressman's WIFE even in this state/town.
 
Re: Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)

FK4 said:
i gotta say, it's pretty shocking that a bridge can be named after a congressman's WIFE even in this state/town.
Click to expand...

FK -- that's why "we" used to elect all the Brahmins -- their family ancestors did all the dirty stuff back in the 18th /19th Centuries and so the recent generations could be honest, upstanding and forthright if a little stuffy at times

Now all we get are people driven to shake the taxpayers down for whatever they can get away with before the inevitable indictments
 
Let's get this thread going again, now that real change is likely coming.

My suggestion would be to build a pretty normal bridge, probably a flat drawspan, except with a tensioned fabric covering that could give you some of the fun, enclosed feeling of the trusses, and, at the same time, finally get the pedestrians of Boston some better protection from the elements:



In fact, you could probably nearly duplicate the truss structure in stainless steel with the bonus that you'd actually get a roof--all for less than preserving or recreating the open-trusswork of the existing bridge.

There's a lot to play with, between the New England "covered bridge" vernacular and the suspension arch shapes of the bridge (that it looks like we must demolish)
 
I'll move this link over from the Seaport Transportation thread:

http://www.ahfboston.com/old_northern_avenue_bridge.php

I realize that the structure of the current bridge may be beyond salvaging for structural purposes, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be replicated, even potentially in a decorative manner with the weight being borne by something much simpler.

If the City can front $100M for this, can we get a developer to pay the rest of the cost in return for the retail rent? There's multiple other exposed bridges over FPC - we don't necessarily need this to be in the elements. Besides, it would be a nice focal point and a unique feature.

Actually, could the City get the James Hook folks to take this on? It could tie into their retail podium, which is supposed to be fairly small (they could also be allowed to build on the Northern Avenue alignment on the Atlantic Ave. end - over the public passage), and could even provide the opportunity to put restaurant seating over the water...
 
Equilibria said:
I'll move this link over from the Seaport Transportation thread:

http://www.ahfboston.com/old_northern_avenue_bridge.php

I realize that the structure of the current bridge may be beyond salvaging for structural purposes, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be replicated, even potentially in a decorative manner with the weight being borne by something much simpler.

If the City can front $100M for this, can we get a developer to pay the rest of the cost in return for the retail rent? There's multiple other exposed bridges over FPC - we don't necessarily need this to be in the elements. Besides, it would be a nice focal point and a unique feature.

Actually, could the City get the James Hook folks to take this on? It could tie into their retail podium, which is supposed to be fairly small (they could also be allowed to build on the Northern Avenue alignment on the Atlantic Ave. end - over the public passage), and could even provide the opportunity to put restaurant seating over the water...
Click to expand...

Could work on a new build concept, but it will take creative design.

What is the best option moveable span for retail bridge? (I believe this needs to be a moveable span, right, or a high arch). What happens to the retail and people in the retail when the span "moves". Is it legal to move a moveable span with people on the span?

Or do you put a small moveable span the middle, and retail at either end?
 
JeffDowntown said:
Could work on a new build concept, but it will take creative design.

What is the best option moveable span for retail bridge? (I believe this needs to be a moveable span, right, or a high arch). What happens to the retail and people in the retail when the span "moves". Is it legal to move a moveable span with people on the span?

Or do you put a small moveable span the middle, and retail at either end?
Click to expand...

They do it in the AHF proposal, I think. Thin, gangway style span between two sections of the enclosed bridge that can be pulled up. It can be pretty thin and light, I think, if its supporting only pedestrians.

If it must be movable, then using the 100' movable span from the Congress bridge as a reference, you can do this and still have Envoy-sized footprints at both ends.
 
I'm not sure if anyone here would be able to answer this but assuming the bridge is a total loss at this point (sadly, probably a safe assumption) I wonder if there is a way to remove it and reuse it as a piece of large-scale urban sculpture elsewhere in the city? Maybe somewhere on the Greenway?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top