Yeah, I'm in this camp.
I think this is an outstanding bookend to the square and is aesthetically interesting at the street level and from a distance. I think it'll change Kenmore for the better.
One Kenmore Square | 560 Commonwealth Avenue | Kenmore Square
- Thread starter datadyne007
- Start date
Yeah, I'm in this camp.
I think this is an outstanding bookend to the square and is aesthetically interesting at the street level and from a distance. I think it'll change Kenmore for the better.
I too think its a bit too big for the area but I can live with it. Or put another way its not a hill I'd die on.
HenryAlan
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 3,963
- Reaction score
- 3,887
Put me down in the really like this column. Everything about it speaks to me in some way, whether it's the revised traffic and pedestrian flow, the shape of the building, the cladding, it all adds to a great enhancement for Kenmore.
Beton Brut
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,382
- Reaction score
- 336
Jeanne Gang’s design shows a level of formal mastery that’s only rivaled by Francine Houben’s Bruce Bolling Building in Dudley Square.
I remain concerned about the traffic plans for Kenmore.
I remain concerned about the traffic plans for Kenmore.
Last edited:
Love the building, but I really interested to know who is pushing for move the parcel into the square. It seems like its a good idea however the expense of coordinating all of the utility work and agreements required for such a move are not minimal.
I'm in too. Kenmore Square should be a destination again. And if we can't have nitty, gritty Newbury Comics/Rat/Cafetaria stuff, at least have taller buildings with more activity and a design that says "This is an urban square/mixing bowl" instead of the sleepy fake village look of the Hotel Commonwealth....or the unfortunately Route 128 look being proposed across the street on the corner.
Regarding the traffic concerns, I'm in the Wayne Gretzky camp - - - "Don't skate to the puck, skate to where the puck is going next". The driverless pods in urban centers are coming, it's inevitable. Traffic and street parking and urban parking garages will be an ugly memory. Combine it with Smart Growth hugging rail stations.
Hell, put a few Jumbotrons around the square and make it really come alive.....a Picadilly Circus/meeting area.
.
Wicked into this idea. I think Boston could really benefit from a less up tight manifestation of urbanism that embraces urban flux, I think this is as good a location as any. Its a location with surprisingly high visibility, via all the games /concretes, graduations, and the marathon, but I dont think it garners the attention of other predominate locations.
Beton Brut
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,382
- Reaction score
- 336
^ jass -- I'm always up for a BPDA meeting. Come along, and bring your graphic.
SlothofDespond
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2014
- Messages
- 222
- Reaction score
- 94
It is right now but that area needs to get A LOT bigger. There are a few large projects coming within a block or two.
HenryAlan
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 3,963
- Reaction score
- 3,887
I'd really like to see a render or massing study that includes the project behind the Buckminster Hotel and phase one of Fenway Center. That whole Brookline Ave./Beacon St./Comm Ave. side of the square is going to get quite a bit taller and should be a dramatic view.
Post #286 paragraph 2.
Gretzky not Wensink.
The average age of a car in the US is 11.2 years old.
If self driving tech launched tomorrow, it would take until 2030 for a significant portion of manual cars to go away. Probably another 10 years for them to be as rare as an El Camino.
And self driving is not launching tomorrow.
That would assume that all new cars sold are self driving across all manufacturers.
Last edited:
odurandina
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2015
- Messages
- 5,328
- Reaction score
- 265
Yeah but, what's the holdup.
odurandina
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2015
- Messages
- 5,328
- Reaction score
- 265
So yesterday this redneck African American dude was terrorizing RT 1 in Jensen Beach, FL in a matte black El Camino with a big block V8 and a massive roots supercharger towering from the front hood....
The whole highway was shaking like an earthquake.
If you frequent the Vero/Port Lucie/Ft Pierce area, you might get lucky and see this beast of an El Camino w/ straight pipe and no cats.
Should you choose a V8?
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2006/07/v8s-rule/
.
Last edited:
1) For the third time: Gretzky. We are not talking about tomorrow. In fact the very name of Mayor Walsh's citywide plan is "Imagine Boston 2030".
2) It will happen within urban centers before it happens (if ever, for socio-cultural reasons) outside of urban centers. And that's fine. It's all about supply and demand for limited space/real estate. Not talking about eliminating people-driven cars. Just making a new market for driverless cars/pods within urban centers.
3) Kenmore Square is one of the unique places in Boston that SHOULD be like Times Square - - it is literally surrounded by the Fenway and Kenmore T stops, the Yawkey Commuter station and is a short walk to the Back Bay Amtrak. The possibilities for it are fantastic.
.
.
Last edited:
Youre making zero sense here.
What does any of this have to do with the One Kenmore Square proposal and the traffic issues it would cause?
Are you suggesting they will delay this project until self driving cars are everywhere?
It's good to plan for the future, but also naive to just assume that [expected innovative change] is going to magically solve a major problem and use that as an excuse to ignore said problem in the present. Sure, maybe self-driving cars will mitigate traffic concerns, or maybe they will make it worse. I support the traffic change in Kenmore in theory, but as others have noted, Boston's traffic department is so abysmally careless when it comes to timing of signals, creating problems where there need be none, that I have little confidence in this being done right.
As an aside, does anyone have insight into why Boston's traffic management is so awful? It's really shocking at certain intersections where a simple timing change could completely fix a massive traffic snarl, or make a suicidal-for-pedestrians crossing safe. Is every city department this bad, or is traffic a special case?
As an aside, does anyone have insight into why Boston's traffic management is so awful? It's really shocking at certain intersections where a simple timing change could completely fix a massive traffic snarl, or make a suicidal-for-pedestrians crossing safe. Is every city department this bad, or is traffic a special case?
cadetcarl
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2012
- Messages
- 432
- Reaction score
- 31
Not that this pulls us back to the topic at hand, but I find the idea that autonomous cars will happen first within cities as opposed to the lowest hanging fruit of the interstates somewhat upside down.
Consider me firmly among the skeptics of this entire technology.
On the front end, it is not at all clear as far as I can tell that the task being discussed is possible on a technical level. Driving feels sort of subliminal to people who drive because we're able to synthesize and act on information in a "human" way. But there isn't one program for how to deal with encroachments into the path of travel, missing lane markings, spontaneous detours, etc. So far we have easily defeated sensor suites and poor all-weather handling. I shouldn't say never, but I'm not going to discount the possibility that synthesis of all of these subroutines into "driving" is the sole purview of a "mind".
All of these things happen every day in cities and far less frequently on the open road--if the computers running these cars are dumb versions of us, we should dumb down the conditions under which they operate.
On the back end, let's say we figure it all out. We agree to some rules, we get cars that know all the rules, know when to break them as conditions change. Let's say it keeps literally all other things equal, except the ones that fans of self-driving cars point to: volume is up but congestion is down. I still think they'd be bad for city centers in the same way that cars are already. They still take up space whether they're moving or not, and they still reduce the friction that is the very substance of urbanity. The city is the opposite of hermetic, which is exactly what car manufacturers try to sell people: rooms on wheels.
One possibility is that they're coming, and soon, and we need to adapt to them. I guess there is some constituency for the politician who says, "as mayor, I would just sort of roll with things as they happen. You want parking? Here's parking. You want a charging dock for your pod? Sure."
Alternately, our planning for the future could say, "The heart of our cities is for people. We are going to move in that direction."
Sorry to rant, but long story short: don't think it'll happen, don't think it'll be good if it does.
Consider me firmly among the skeptics of this entire technology.
On the front end, it is not at all clear as far as I can tell that the task being discussed is possible on a technical level. Driving feels sort of subliminal to people who drive because we're able to synthesize and act on information in a "human" way. But there isn't one program for how to deal with encroachments into the path of travel, missing lane markings, spontaneous detours, etc. So far we have easily defeated sensor suites and poor all-weather handling. I shouldn't say never, but I'm not going to discount the possibility that synthesis of all of these subroutines into "driving" is the sole purview of a "mind".
All of these things happen every day in cities and far less frequently on the open road--if the computers running these cars are dumb versions of us, we should dumb down the conditions under which they operate.
On the back end, let's say we figure it all out. We agree to some rules, we get cars that know all the rules, know when to break them as conditions change. Let's say it keeps literally all other things equal, except the ones that fans of self-driving cars point to: volume is up but congestion is down. I still think they'd be bad for city centers in the same way that cars are already. They still take up space whether they're moving or not, and they still reduce the friction that is the very substance of urbanity. The city is the opposite of hermetic, which is exactly what car manufacturers try to sell people: rooms on wheels.
One possibility is that they're coming, and soon, and we need to adapt to them. I guess there is some constituency for the politician who says, "as mayor, I would just sort of roll with things as they happen. You want parking? Here's parking. You want a charging dock for your pod? Sure."
Alternately, our planning for the future could say, "The heart of our cities is for people. We are going to move in that direction."
Sorry to rant, but long story short: don't think it'll happen, don't think it'll be good if it does.