One Mystic | 1 Mystic Avenue | Charlestown

BCDC: https://bpda.app.box.com/s/eyilaer54ps66yxaeeyqev7ynm4bx7g9

They did more photorealistic renders this time. Should still be about twice this tall (and we know the developers agree).

View attachment 39399
View attachment 39400
View attachment 39401
View attachment 39402
View attachment 39403
They really should have taken a page from the Encore renders that made it look like it was essentially in the city. This render makes it seem like Boston is a flight away.

Smart that they lied about the traffic density though. 'Here's the city wayyyyy out there and here's the nightmare traffic you'll sit in daily to get there, welcome to Mystic'
 

Looks like the local city councilor has objections 🤷‍♂️

The Boston Planning and Development Agency, in its second board meeting this month, is set to discuss two projects — a 22-story apartment tower on Mystic Avenue just north of Sullivan Square and a three-building lab and apartment complex off Roland Street on the west side of Interstate 93 — and PLAN: Charlestown. The neighborhood planning initiative will guide development of some 18 million square feet of new space and more than 6,000 residential units, but has drawn opposition from neighborhood residents and elected officials, including City Councilor Gabriela Coletta and State Representative Daniel Ryan.

PLAN: Charlestown has much to like, Coletta said, including a suggested three-mile green loop around the neighborhood, a focus on climate resiliency, and commitments to affordable housing and open space. But proposed height allowances in a corridor between Rutherford Avenue and I-93, which the plan outlines as stepping up from 90 feet along the corridor to 150 feet and then to 280 feet along the highway, “is simply too dense for what Charlestown could responsibly absorb,” Coletta said. While many residents agree growth is necessary to address the city’s housing crisis, Coletta said, she has received about 350 letters opposing building heights and density.
“In this planning process, we were supposed to be setting a ceiling,” Coletta said. “The ceiling far exceeds anything the Charlestown community thought we would be getting.”
 
Alternative framing:

Charlestown elected officials fight to keep a historic on-ramp and these local conditions:

IMG_0946.jpeg
 
Charlestown should not have neighborhood representation. They should be a purely observer neighborhood for the time being.
 

Looks like the local city councilor has objections 🤷‍♂️

The Boston Planning and Development Agency, in its second board meeting this month, is set to discuss two projects — a 22-story apartment tower on Mystic Avenue just north of Sullivan Square and a three-building lab and apartment complex off Roland Street on the west side of Interstate 93 — and PLAN: Charlestown. The neighborhood planning initiative will guide development of some 18 million square feet of new space and more than 6,000 residential units, but has drawn opposition from neighborhood residents and elected officials, including City Councilor Gabriela Coletta and State Representative Daniel Ryan.

PLAN: Charlestown has much to like, Coletta said, including a suggested three-mile green loop around the neighborhood, a focus on climate resiliency, and commitments to affordable housing and open space. But proposed height allowances in a corridor between Rutherford Avenue and I-93, which the plan outlines as stepping up from 90 feet along the corridor to 150 feet and then to 280 feet along the highway, “is simply too dense for what Charlestown could responsibly absorb,” Coletta said. While many residents agree growth is necessary to address the city’s housing crisis, Coletta said, she has received about 350 letters opposing building heights and density.
“In this planning process, we were supposed to be setting a ceiling,” Coletta said. “The ceiling far exceeds anything the Charlestown community thought we would be getting.”
Fucking nimbys
 
To play devil’s advocate, the traffic flow around Sullivan is really, really miserable. I think it could be vastly improved with some common sense re-engineering of the square’s intersections, but I don’t know if that’s being talked about as part of this project.

I know as urbanists, we’d all like to believe that residents of this new tower are only going to take the bus and subway or walk. Realistically, though, given the awful state of the T and the general bleakness of the area, I don’t see that happening.
 
To play devil’s advocate, the traffic flow around Sullivan is really, really miserable. I think it could be vastly improved with some common sense re-engineering of the square’s intersections, but I don’t know if that’s being talked about as part of this project.

I know as urbanists, we’d all like to believe that residents of this new tower are only going to take the bus and subway or walk. Realistically, though, given the awful state of the T and the general bleakness of the area, I don’t see that happening.
Next stage redesign of Sullivan Square and Rutherford Avenue has been in "planning" for at least a decade. Perhaps this development (and others in the area) can kick-start those efforts.

People driving through a neighborhood (as in the cause of traffic in question) don't usually get standing in zoning decisions.
 
Next stage redesign of Sullivan Square and Rutherford Avenue has been in "planning" for at least a decade. Perhaps this development (and others in the area) can kick-start those efforts.

People driving through a neighborhood (as in the cause of traffic in question) don't usually get standing in zoning decisions.
The current plan *adds traffic capacity* to Rutherford Avenue. We’re almost better off without the redesign.
 
To play devil’s advocate, the traffic flow around Sullivan is really, really miserable. I think it could be vastly improved with some common sense re-engineering of the square’s intersections, but I don’t know if that’s being talked about as part of this project.

I know as urbanists, we’d all like to believe that residents of this new tower are only going to take the bus and subway or walk. Realistically, though, given the awful state of the T and the general bleakness of the area, I don’t see that happening.
I don't think vehicular traffic congestion should ever be a factor in deciding whether to approve housing. Traffic safety--sure, but that's a completely different issue, and very rarely relevant in the context of new developments being constructed. If anything, congestion slows cars down and makes streets safer...
 
particularly, peak period traffic congestion that is not caused by area residents, but regional commuters and highway access. This is definitely the case in Sullivan Sq. Never going to win the congestion battle regardless of the uses around it.
 
Last edited:
Board meeting starts at 5, you can watch it live
 
If anything, congestion slows cars down and makes streets safer...

I don’t think this is true. It encourages road rage, which leads to accidents and unsafe behavior.

Is there data to suggest having more cars on the road leads to fewer crashes/deaths per capita?
 
Last edited:

Back
Top