Open Space | Turnpike Parcel 21 | Chinatown

Charlie_mta said:
Not much of a park ^, just a lawn with no paths or anything of interest in it. I can see why it is underused.
Click to expand...

While I agree it doesn't look inviting, I think the more likely cause of its underuse is the fact that the only people who could walk to it all have well manicured suburban yards. These are the people that don't need a park, not the people living in a public housing tower squeezed between the hospital and the pike.
 
BronsonShore said:
While I agree it doesn't look inviting, I think the more likely cause of its underuse is the fact that the only people who could walk to it all have well manicured suburban yards. These are the people that don't need a park, not the people living in a public housing tower squeezed between the hospital and the pike.
Click to expand...
It's well utilized when they provide a reason for people to go. Halloween in the square is a big draw.

Regarding long term programming, I think the trillium stall on the Greenway is great, and perhaps otherwise dead parks should be lined with stalls serving food and drinks to draw people in the afternoons and evenings.

Back to this proposal, I think given the density of this area and the mix of workers and students in the daytime, and residents and visitors out and about in the evening, a park could work very well here and be entirely appropriate.
 
BronsonShore said:
No, it's not a false equivalence, because all public parks cost a lot -- if not in their actual construction, then in the opportunity cost of what is not being built in its place. Almost every park in almost every single urban environment in the world produces a lower "return on investment" than selling the land to a developer would -- which is precisely why ROI has no place in a discussion about building a public park.
Click to expand...
Come on man, building over a major highway in the heart of a downtown with all the infrastructure you have to work around and keep in operation is insanely complex and expensive. To act like it’s equal to adding a park on actual soil is not accurate.
 
Is the implicit counterfactual (a bunch of housing) realistic? Parcel 12 is mostly on solid ground, Fenway Center is labs (which probably wouldn't fly due to neighborhood opposition). The last RFP for (actual) land nearby failed because it had too many conditions.
 
4350CD4E-A58F-430B-B4C5-D2143F0CC7BF.jpeg
 
mass88 said:
Split it up. Parcels 20 and 21 are housing and parcels 19 and 22 are open spaces.
Click to expand...
Parcel 19 would have been a park under the old Columbus Center plan. I think it's a perfect place for a small park/square, given the unique geometry of the intersection. But to really work, the abutting parcels must be built up as housing.
 
To start there should be a real effort to allow these developments to have a reduction in the amount of required parking for housing and businesses in these towers because otherwise these projects are not going to be very street friendly frontage. The huge Clarendon St /Hancock garage at Copley was needed just for the one Clarendon /Hancock tower. Plot 21 is huge and does not need to be a park in its entirety. The city should designate 1/2 the plot to a garage developer and have them cap the rest of the site so the city can build a park. Then contract the garage to build enough parking for housing at least for one of the adjacent parcels to attract a housing developer. The remaining parking would be theirs to charge as they will see fit.
 
A park would be very nice on at least one of the parcels. Almost anything would be nicer that a hole to the Pike in pretty much all of the parcels. I have to agree that air rights development here is pretty unproven, of all the air rights projects this cycle, as pointed out, only one is really air rights and it's lab space (and taking forever). As for people crying about having no other space for development - have you been around the south end over there? From c-mart to East Berkeley it's parking lots and single/low rise buildings that would be infinitely easier and more economic to redevelop, not to mention parking lots and single story buildings from Traveler's St to E. Berkeley on the other side. Plus the old Wallaston's spot/CVS by Castle Square and garage there. It'd be great to get housing on these air right parcels, don't get me wrong, but let's get the ball rolling with something at least and if it's a park on one parcel than great.
 
Last edited:
bakgwailo said:
A park would be very nice on at least one of the parcels. Almost anything would be nicer that a hole to the Pike in pretty much all of the parcels. I have to agree that air rights development here is pretty unproven, of all the air rights projects this cycle, as pointed out, only one is really air rights and it's lab space (and taking forever). As for people crying about having no other space for development - have you been around the south end over there? From c-mart to East Berkeley it's parking lots and single/low rise buildings that would be infinitely easier and more economic to redevelop,no to mention parking lots and single story buildings from Traveler's St to E. Berkeley on the other side. Plus the old Wallaston's spot/CVS by Castle Square and garage there. It'd be great to get housing on these air right parcels, don't get me wrong, but let's get the ball rolling with something at least and if it's a park on one parcel than great.
Click to expand...
Virtually all those South End parcels in the NY Streets Area are owned by developers now. They are biding their time for the next real estate cycle.
 
Regarding the likelihood of Parcel 21 becoming a tower if not a park, as I opined in the Air Rights thread:
MjolnirMan said:
Sadly, when optimistically considering potential air rights developments on i.e. Parcel 21, keep in mind that there is currently a building under construction on the semicircle Tai Tung Parking lot just above the I-90 icon in Stlin's photo. It will be six stories with no basement due to funding constraints, despite being 100% on terra firma and (as I note in that thread) capable of supporting ~2 Radian buildings easily.
[...]
It's a shame IMO that they're building the JQS and Tai Tung lot buildings as 6-8 story oddly-shaped blocks with no basement usage on solid ground right next to the highway, when spreading either one's mass out into a much wider (i.e.) 4-story building with central courtyard would be easier to build on air-rights, leaving these smaller and oddly-shaped terra firma parcels for something tall and with underground parking.
Click to expand...
As of a year ago there were basically empty lots on solid ground right on the other side of Marginal from these parcels, and they are actively under development into something that seems to be pretty objectively underwhelming. Market forces are not driving 12+ story towers on the air rights parcels like the 2000s render that king_vibe shared.
 
MjolnirMan said:
Regarding the likelihood of Parcel 21 becoming a tower if not a park, as I opined in the Air Rights thread:

As of a year ago there were basically empty lots on solid ground right on the other side of Marginal from these parcels, and they are actively under development into something that seems to be pretty objectively underwhelming. Market forces are not driving 12+ story towers on the air rights parcels like the 2000s render that king_vibe shared.
Click to expand...

Plus I mean thinking of the community there would be a big push for affordable housing in Chinatown which, well, I don't see getting built on true air rights parcels. Maybe a park on one, deck the others, and turn them into a big outdoor market/night market. I'd think the programming could be endless for the community (and city). Maybe even a replacement for the Reggie Wong park if that gets developed. Then one day maybe someone will buy the rights and build.
 
MjolnirMan said:
Regarding the likelihood of Parcel 21 becoming a tower if not a park, as I opined in the Air Rights thread:

As of a year ago there were basically empty lots on solid ground right on the other side of Marginal from these parcels, and they are actively under development into something that seems to be pretty objectively underwhelming. Market forces are not driving 12+ story towers on the air rights parcels like the 2000s render that king_vibe shared.
Click to expand...
Disagree --- along Herald, where the land really is subject to market forces, you're getting ~max height lab and dense housing. Along marginal, there's a school and a pretty unambitious aff housing project, neither of which are subject to market forces.
 
curcuas said:
Disagree --- along Herald, where the land really is subject to market forces, you're getting ~max height lab and dense housing. Along marginal, there's a school and a pretty unambitious aff housing project, neither of which are subject to market forces.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Both of the north side developments (JQUS, Tai Tung Village expansion) are public policy / public funding driven.

And in both cases the land involved was either publicly owned (BPDA for JQUS) or owned in trust for the public (CCBA for Tai Tung Village). The exact opposite of a market forces development.
 
bakgwailo said:
A park would be very nice on at least one of the parcels. Almost anything would be nicer that a hole to the Pike in pretty much all of the parcels. I have to agree that air rights development here is pretty unproven, of all the air rights projects this cycle, as pointed out, only one is really air rights and it's lab space (and taking forever). As for people crying about having no other space for development - have you been around the south end over there? From c-mart to East Berkeley it's parking lots and single/low rise buildings that would be infinitely easier and more economic to redevelop, not to mention parking lots and single story buildings from Traveler's St to E. Berkeley on the other side. Plus the old Wallaston's spot/CVS by Castle Square and garage there. It'd be great to get housing on these air right parcels, don't get me wrong, but let's get the ball rolling with something at least and if it's a park on one parcel than great.
Click to expand...

I am hopeful that building a park here, that's hopefully nicely done and well programmed, will help spur more interest in the eventual development of the neighboring air rights parcels. I can't imagine it would hurt in any real way as having a park as a neighbor is preferable to having the Mass Pike as one.
 
curcuas said:
Disagree --- along Herald, where the land really is subject to market forces, you're getting ~max height lab and dense housing. Along marginal, there's a school and a pretty unambitious aff housing project, neither of which are subject to market forces.
Click to expand...
Slightly disagree... not "full market forces." Two key factors limiting what's built there: Zoning and Massport.

Zoning: There's a New York Streets Master plan here that I believe capped somewhere around 250' against 93 and scaled back from there as you head south and west away from Albany St @ Herald St.

Massport: Height is capped at 400' @Tremont/Arlington/Herald and slopes down to 350' @ Albany/Herald.
 
cburns said:
Slightly disagree... not "full market forces." Two key factors limiting what's built there: Zoning and Massport.

Zoning: There's a New York Streets Master plan here that I believe capped somewhere around 250' against 93 and scaled back from there as you head south and west away from Albany St @ Herald St.

Massport: Height is capped at 400' @Tremont/Arlington/Herald and slopes down to 350' @ Albany/Herald.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Harrison-Albany Street Corridor Master Plan.
 
curcuas said:
Disagree --- along Herald, where the land really is subject to market forces, you're getting ~max height lab and dense housing. Along marginal, there's a school and a pretty unambitious aff housing project, neither of which are subject to market forces.
Click to expand...

Eh, you have a point, and there is more development happening soon like C-Mart and the corner of East Berkeley and Washington - but the nearby AC Hotel didn't go as high as zoning permitted, there's still a lot of parking lots all down Washington, and the Tufts garage on Herald is crumbling waiting for redevelopment, into a bigger Tufts garage if nothing else. There's lower hanging fruit in the area for housing towers than Parcel 20/22.
 
MjolnirMan said:
Eh, you have a point, and there is more development happening soon like C-Mart and the corner of East Berkeley and Washington - but the nearby AC Hotel didn't go as high as zoning permitted, there's still a lot of parking lots all down Washington, and the Tufts garage on Herald is crumbling waiting for redevelopment, into a bigger Tufts garage if nothing else. There's lower hanging fruit in the area for housing towers than Parcel 20/22.
Click to expand...
Sure, but in 5 years, all of that will be built on.

There's reasons Ink Block is short, but most of them have to do with its permitting being from much more conservative 2012 and desire to keep costs low.

As you point out, the C Mart development is going to be huge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top