Northern Avenue Bridge Fort Point Channel

statler

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
7,790
Reaction score
159
In my heart of hearts I want the 'Steel Truss' design but I'll admit that the Double Arch is the best design of the three. The third option is the Dollar Tree choice.
 

Equilibria

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
4,485
Reaction score
829
In my heart of hearts I want the 'Steel Truss' design but I'll admit that the Double Arch is the best design of the three. The third option is the Dollar Tree choice.
But if the City has to pay twice as much to do it... I mean, they could gold leaf the bridge or do decorative masonry and it would look cool but cost a ton. I hope that the inclusion of the double arch at this stage means they think they could actually pay for it.
 

Brad Plaid

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Messages
1,081
Reaction score
283
Over-engineered and not at all cost-effective. Keep it structurally simple at a reasonable cost then work within those restrictions to come up with something creative. Also just keep it a bridge, not some fantasy place to frolic and gambol about.
 

sm89

Active Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
916
Reaction score
35
Over-engineered and not at all cost-effective. Keep it structurally simple at a reasonable cost then work within those restrictions to come up with something creative. Also just keep it a bridge, not some fantasy place to frolic and gambol about.
Why can't the city make the bridge a park as well?
 

statler

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
7,790
Reaction score
159
Tax dollars should only be spent on bland, boring and purely utilitarian things. Everything else is "waste".
 

JumboBuc

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
2,161
Reaction score
234
Everything in life has costs and benefits. It's irresponsible to not give at least some consideration to their relative weights. That principal applies here as much as anywhere else. You always gotta find the balance.

I too like these plans. But I also wonder if this is creeping into overkill territory.
 

Randomgear

Active Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2012
Messages
346
Reaction score
18
The only reason that there are two spans is to allow the City to turn one into a vehicle travel lane.
I'm still going in support of something similar, perhaps simplified to cut costs, to the Fennick McCreddie design proposal here: http://www.fmarchitecture.com/project/northern-avenue-bridge-development/. An restored bridge or facsimile threreof (in the open position) with kiosks on it with narrow pedestrian and bike only bridge from the abuttments to the bridge.bri
ONAB-FMA Cropped-19KB.jpg
 

Charlie_mta

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
1,605
Reaction score
243
Over-engineered and not at all cost-effective. Keep it structurally simple at a reasonable cost then work within those restrictions to come up with something creative. Also just keep it a bridge, not some fantasy place to frolic and gambol about.
I agree. Infrastructure funding is too scarce to waste on a white elephant such as this. Get something simple and good for pedestrians/bicyclists only.
 

Equilibria

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
4,485
Reaction score
829
I agree. Infrastructure funding is too scarce to waste on a white elephant such as this. Get something simple and good for pedestrians/bicyclists only.
Bear in mind that there is still dedicated GE money for this, even after they downsized their HQ. The City isn't paying for all of it.

Also, expensive and "white elephant" aren't the same thing. Martin's Park could have been a set of monkey bars over a pit of woodchips and you could still have called it a "playground". Fortunately, we aimed higher. I suspect that people will use the park/plaza portions of this bridge, so I doubt it will be a white elephant.
 

Neon

New member
Joined
Mar 6, 2018
Messages
90
Reaction score
431
Tonight. Not sure I’ve ever noticed the old walkway lit up like this.
63C5266B-9600-4A76-A070-8FCA77C17B01.jpeg
D3FA50E2-564F-4527-B742-59DB211AA423.jpeg
 
Last edited:

shmessy

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
1,507
Reaction score
157
Why can't the city make the bridge a park as well?
Maybe there are people who think “Hey, lets go to the middle of the bridge and hang out for awhile”. I’m not one of them. And I’m guessing most people aren’t. Make the parks on both sides of the channel more accessible and attractive for the people who don’t live on or under bridges.

Boston desperately needs better, more efficient arteries for human transport. A good efficient bridge is enough. The extra money should go to ringing the Channel with great parks.
Bigger bang for the buck is what it’s all about.
.
 
Last edited:

Cortes

Active Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2013
Messages
222
Reaction score
67
Maybe there are people who think “Hey, lets go to the middle of the bridge and hang out for awhile”. I’m not one of them. And I’m guessing most people aren’t. Make the parks on both sides of the channel more accessible and attractive for the people who don’t live on or under bridges.

Boston desperately needs better, more efficient arteries for human transport. A good efficient bridge is enough. The extra money should go to ringing the Channel with great parks.
Bigger bang for the buck is what it’s all about.
.
+1 I am thoroughly confused as to what people think that the "greenery" is going to look like in the middle of the bridge. All its going to take is a good nor'easter during a moon tide to make it look like, wait for it, the ocean.
 

Equilibria

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
4,485
Reaction score
829
+1 I am thoroughly confused as to what people think that the "greenery" is going to look like in the middle of the bridge. All its going to take is a good nor'easter during a moon tide to make it look like, wait for it, the ocean.
That's also true of parks next to the ocean. What's the point of having anything green on the waterfront, by that logic?

Maybe there are people who think “Hey, lets go to the middle of the bridge and hang out for awhile”. I’m not one of them. And I’m guessing most people aren’t. Make the parks on both sides of the channel more accessible and attractive for the people who don’t live on or under bridges.

Boston desperately needs better, more efficient arteries for human transport. A good efficient bridge is enough. The extra money should go to ringing the Channel with great parks.
Bigger bang for the buck is what it’s all about.
.
Again, what's the difference between a waterfront park next to the channel and a waterfront park over the channel? They're both parks. They're both on the Channel. They both cost money. The only difference is the preconception that a bridge is a bridge is a bridge.
 

Cortes

Active Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2013
Messages
222
Reaction score
67
That's also true of parks next to the ocean. What's the point of having anything green on the waterfront, by that logic?
The Northern Ave Bridge is basically at grade with the rest of seawall (perhaps a couple feet above?). If you were to go DOWN towards the water from it, you are entering into an area used most recently by the folks at Pier 4 as transition/tidal zone where steps lead down into high tide. This zone at pier 4 is outside the seawall and clearly designed to flood. I would imagine that the bridge engineers have that all figured out, its the plantings at that elevation that escape me.
 

stefal

Active Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2015
Messages
867
Reaction score
372
Isn't the visioning period supposed to shoot high? Besides, it looks like its just permanent planters and benches on the actual bridge portion, which barely qualifies this as a park and more as a just-more-than-average walkway, and I suspect the bottom portion closer to the water will not end up with rolling grass hills or what looks to be a glass floor. It will likely just be decking with benches and planters, if anything. Don't see why building a little more than average pedestrian bridge is a big deal, especially given its location connecting the Harborwalk portions of the Seaport and Downtown. MP offered the city around $135 million (now less) and the city pledged to spend a significant amount of that on improving our parks, and nobody seemed irked that they weren't spending it on bland bridges or other infrastructure.
 

shmessy

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
1,507
Reaction score
157
That's also true of parks next to the ocean. What's the point of having anything green on the waterfront, by that logic?



Again, what's the difference between a waterfront park next to the channel and a waterfront park over the channel? They're both parks. They're both on the Channel. They both cost money. The only difference is the preconception that a bridge is a bridge is a bridge.
Because it takes away from the people-moving function of the bridge. The Seaport is starved for efficient transport. The bridge is a crucial artery. There are plenty of other places for parks. And, once again, how many humans are going to want to run out to the middle of a bridge to hang out in a park??? In cold weather???? It makes no sense and is definitely not optimizing the use. It is unnecessary plaque in the artery.

This is something that is NEEDED there. Why lose focus with something that is unnecessary and diminish the capacity to transport people?? It makes no sense and is wasteful of park maintenance funds.

.
 
Last edited:

citylover94

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2012
Messages
1,127
Reaction score
26
Doesn't the rendering show a lower deck with the park and two upper level decks available for people looking to cross without stopping or hanging out?
 

stefal

Active Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2015
Messages
867
Reaction score
372
Doesn't the rendering show a lower deck with the park and two upper level decks available for people looking to cross without stopping or hanging out?
How I interpret this is the center of this is a step-down 'pavilion' that serves as an extension of the harborwalk's smaller parks public spaces. There is a set of stairs from the Seaport side that lead down to this, and a gentle slope that rises to meet the sidewalks of the two bridges on either side which remain unobstructed. It appears there is a set of sidewalks and a narrow road on both sides, which would serve the emergency vehicles and shuttle buses they intend to use this bridge.
 

HenryAlan

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Messages
2,361
Reaction score
348
Because it takes away from the people-moving function of the bridge. The Seaport is starved for efficient transport. The bridge is a crucial artery. There are plenty of other places for parks. And, once again, how many humans are going to want to run out to the middle of a bridge to hang out in a park??? In cold weather???? It makes no sense and is definitely not optimizing the use. It is unnecessary plaque in the artery.

This is something that is NEEDED there. Why lose focus with something that is unnecessary and diminish the capacity to transport people?? It makes no sense and is wasteful of park maintenance funds.

.
While an argument can be made that the park is wasteful, I don't see how you conclude that it diminishes capacity. This bridge, with or without the park, will move the same number of people.
 

Top