Northern Avenue Bridge Fort Point Channel

datadyne007 said:
There is NO good reason to put cars back on this bridge. This City's planning is a disgrace.
Click to expand...

Contrary to my usual slant, I don't lament cars on this bridge - as long as it's just two lanes (or fewer). More connectivity for any and all modes to the Seaport is a net good.
 
Shepard said:
Contrary to my usual slant, I don't lament cars on this bridge - as long as it's just two lanes (or fewer). More connectivity for any and all modes to the Seaport is a net good.
Click to expand...

I don't see how having cars on this bridge adds anything to connectivity, because of the very poor location of the terminus on the west side. It only connects to north bound Atlantic Avenue at a point blocks away from any option to head west again into the Financial District or south, or north on I-93. Basically a pretty useless point in the traffic network.

Any access to the Seaport will be by people who just passed the Moakley bridge (so forgetful people who missed their turn?). Access from the Seaport dumps you in a dead stop section of Atlantic Avenue for blocks.
 
There is a (public, finally) meeting on this today at 3pm in the BDPA board room on the 9th floor of City Hall.
 
Re: Old Northern Ave Bridge

BronsonShore said:
The Northern Avenue Bridge is being replaced, and the city is debating just who will be allowed to use it:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/busines...ic/5dlVDLaLZwvIblerioRikI/story.html#comments

Isn't the answer exceedingly obvious? Pedestrian-only seafood market lined with fish stalls that load and unload through trapdoors in the bridge that lead to ships below. Get it done, Marty.
Click to expand...

I feel like the debate is over. They already decided long ago that it would have a travel lane towards Downtown. The idea is that it gets the right turners onto the greenway out of I-93 traffic. The greenway is also backed up during rush hour so I don't exactly see the benefit. This seems like one of those things they are being forced into doing to make it seem like they are doing things to improve vehicle flow in the area whether it helps or not. For a lot of the traffic complainers, "more lanes and route choices" is always the best option.
 
Re: Old Northern Ave Bridge

BronsonShore said:
The Northern Avenue Bridge is being replaced, and the city is debating just who will be allowed to use it:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/busines...ic/5dlVDLaLZwvIblerioRikI/story.html#comments

Isn't the answer exceedingly obvious? Pedestrian-only seafood market lined with fish stalls that load and unload through trapdoors in the bridge that lead to ships below. Get it done, Marty.
Click to expand...

beautiful-sunset-shimmering-ponte-vecchio-arno-river-florence-italy.jpg
 
Re: Old Northern Ave Bridge

A few people are tweeting about a Globe article about the bridge today- turning towards the Highline for inspiration. I dont have the Globe subscription service.... This is a shitty idea, there are parks LITERALLY all around this thing we dont need another park. Just fix the bridge for cars, bikes and pedestrians and call it a day- dont overthink this people.
 
Re: Old Northern Ave Bridge

^ Wrong. We should overthink this, and I'm glad the Globe picked up the torch. The bridge is a chance to create a truly unique, bold urban public space connecting 20th and 21st century Boston across the channel (and it would be useless as a traffic artery). It is screaming for a landmark intervention with the same kind of vision as the High Line, and these opportunities don't come around often. Done right this can be so much more than any of the milquetoast parks that the Seaport currently has.
 
Re: Old Northern Ave Bridge

Suffolk 83 said:
This is a shitty idea, there are parks LITERALLY all around this thing we dont need another park. Just fix the bridge for cars, bikes and pedestrians and call it a day- dont overthink this people.
Click to expand...

There are bridges and roads full of cars LITERALLY all around this thing, we don't need another bridge full of cars.

The bridge was part of the Harborwalk. The Harborwalk should so very obviously have a pedestrian only bridge. Putting cars on the bridge would only waste millions of dollars and drive away people from enjoying the Harborwalk.
 
Re: Old Northern Ave Bridge

sm89 said:
I feel like the debate is over. They already decided long ago that it would have a travel lane towards Downtown. The idea is that it gets the right turners onto the greenway out of I-93 traffic. The greenway is also backed up during rush hour so I don't exactly see the benefit. This seems like one of those things they are being forced into doing to make it seem like they are doing things to improve vehicle flow in the area whether it helps or not. For a lot of the traffic complainers, "more lanes and route choices" is always the best option.
Click to expand...

I agree that the debate is over, and I also agree (i think?) that this is a really bad idea.

What we all know is that the right turners are ALSO I-93 traffic - its people looking for a shortcut (/ skip the que) to I-93 through the surface streets to the on ramp @ hanover st. I mean who else would take a right turn there? Someone driving to the North End? or Charlestown? Maybe Beacon Hill via State St.?

Get real, this is ALL 93 / tobin / storrow traffic. The bridge will offer storage for like 15 more cars to wait in line before they get to wait in line again at the next set of bottlenecks. What a fucking travesty.
 
Is this to be a movable span bridge or not? If its a fixed span bridge, replicating the steel superstructure of the current bridge is largely decorative, and wouldn't cost 2x or 3x more than another simple alternative.
 
A bus bridge is certainly better than a car bridge. However, that opens up the potential to open it for cars.
 
Have it be flexible to allow future street car use come on people
 
For those without a Globe subscription, Tim Logan had a good tweet thread covering last night's meeting: https://twitter.com/bytimlogan/status/1121490446134468609

I would love for the current structure to remain, but restoration is hard to justify if it costs $150M, ~$50M more than the next most expensive design.

If I were in charge, I would take the budget conscious and historically minded decision to build a ped and bike only version of the "Basic" design directly alongside the existing bridge, while shoring up the existing structure in the least expensive way possible so that its not at risk of collapse. Even with only $58M earmarked by the city this could potentially be on or under budget, connect the harbor walk with a non-car link (what 60% of feedback called for), and save the beautiful truss bridge. I think it's important for us to allow ruins to remain in our city, as they can help users understand a place's historical context.
 
theSil said:
For those without a Globe subscription, Tim Logan had a good tweet thread covering last night's meeting: https://twitter.com/bytimlogan/status/1121490446134468609

I would love for the current structure to remain, but restoration is hard to justify if it costs $150M, ~$50M more than the next most expensive design.

If I were in charge, I would take the budget conscious and historically minded decision to build a ped and bike only version of the "Basic" design directly alongside the existing bridge, while shoring up the existing structure in the least expensive way possible so that its not at risk of collapse. Even with only $58M earmarked by the city this could potentially be on or under budget, connect the harbor walk with a non-car link (what 60% of feedback called for), and save the beautiful truss bridge. I think it's important for us to allow ruins to remain in our city, as they can help users understand a place's historical context.
Click to expand...

Thats a good idea. It sounds like the High Line in NYC where the walkway is actually raised over the old structure.
 
stick n move said:
I did. As a vet I wanted to tie the bridge into the new Seaport Memorial. I went into greater detail in the proposal.

I made it similar to the Samuel Beckett bridge but I made the tower rigid with no tower support cables, 7 thick span cables to keep it airy, and a cut out to resemble the Irish harp. I put the peak right over the middle of fort point to fill that void in the skyline between downtown and the seaport. Overall Im happy with the proposal and I hope I can at least make it into the discussion with these other architects.

Before I knew how the competition worked I personally went into the BRA with this proposal in a binder printed out with the renders printed onto photo paper and met with the BRA director. He told me he did not want to look because architects from as far as Japan were going to be submitting and he did not want any bias, so instead we just talked for a while in his office. I was able to show it to a few other people who worked in different departments and they all seemed to like the idea. Im not an architect but I put a lot of time into getting this right and I hope it can at least be in the discussion. Overall it was definitely a cool experience meeting with them and designing the bridge in general and I encourage all of you guys to take a chance when things like this come up. The worst thing that can happen is you don't get selected. Best case scenario is you do. Even if its not chosen its good to have many different visions/ideas for people to choose from. Competition is good for the best results.

This I had already posted above but this is one of the angles I drew. Theres a few more in the actual proposal along with the picture of how it ties into the street/harbor walk/waterfront. I followed the grade of the Moakley bridge next door so it is definitely do-able.



Heres the link to the proposal:
http://dl.northernavebridge.org/submissions/pdfs/MA%20Fallen%20Vets%20Mem%20Bridgeposter.pdf

.
Click to expand...

This design is very simlar to the first design in the Globe. I dig it.

2BV5DFDHUYI6TLYGYX5LHMYO6A.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top