Oxford Ping On | Oxford Street | Chinatown

Re: 12-story apartment highrise on Oxford Street.

RandomWalk said:
The render makes it look like a generic mid-century apartment block. Though the spandrels are probably Alucobond, instead of stucco.

I figure every building doesn't need to be a statement building, and non-luxury housing is greatly needed.
Click to expand...

^Agree

Cities need fabric buildings. Lots of them. 95% of the buildings should be good, solid fabric buildings with 5% of them breaking out and punctuating an urban condition. Why do we hate Kendall/Seaport? The people building all believe that THEY are the statement building. So it is a forest of statement buildings with no variation in scale and quality. (i.e. boring).

It is where we are in our culture right now. We are all unique flowers in a crowd of unique flowers. This will not stop until its uncool to be a standout.
 
Re: 12-story apartment highrise on Oxford Street.

cca said:
^Agree

Cities need fabric buildings. Lots of them. 95% of the buildings should be good, solid fabric buildings with 5% of them breaking out and punctuating an urban condition. Why do we hate Kendall/Seaport? The people building all believe that THEY are the statement building. So it is a forest of statement buildings with no variation in scale and quality. (i.e. boring).

It is where we are in our culture right now. We are all unique flowers in a crowd of unique flowers. This will not stop until its uncool to be a standout.
Click to expand...

So cca, perhaps you can explain this (legitimate question)...

Why do both the uniform row house blocks of the South End and the 10 blocks of grand boulevard of Commonwealth Avenue in the Back Bay both work? The uniform row house blocks are clearly fabric buildings. But Commonwealth Avenue is clearly statement building after statement building after statement building... Kind of like the Seaport, but much better execution.
 
Re: 12-story apartment highrise on Oxford Street.

JeffDowntown said:
So cca, perhaps you can explain this (legitimate question)...

Why do both the uniform row house blocks of the South End and the 10 blocks of grand boulevard of Commonwealth Avenue in the Back Bay both work? The uniform row house blocks are clearly fabric buildings. But Commonwealth Avenue is clearly statement building after statement building after statement building... Kind of like the Seaport, but much better execution.
Click to expand...

Sure, its a great question. (This is all my opinion by the way)

This is all a matter of scale. The south end has narrow streets made for walking. And the uniform facades that have a slightly different look every 30' are perfect for the human experience of walking down that scale of street. There is a cadence. A rhythm that just works for people walking on a street like that. It connects to your internal clock. Ever notice that you have a better sense of time walking down Newbury Street vs Boylson? I do

While the material qualities of Comm Ave are heightened. Stone vs Brick or Granite vs Brownstone or just Better detailed brick vs brick. (which is actually the real condition believe it or not) The relationship to the scale of the Avenue and the height and lot street frontage has been maintained. (I am not sure by what mechanism but somehow it was. probably economic). Because of the promenade and the two lanes of traffic on either side ... the pedestrian experience shifts and now the buildings can be a bit taller and a bit wider and still have a sense of rhythm and cadence when walking by. As far as being statement building after statement building. I am not sure I agree. Look at the linked picture.(below) There is mostly texture buildings, nice ones, but texture still. There is ONE image center that is clearly telling you to take notice. But even that building is playing pretty nice with its neighbors.

A couple key points for both the South End/Comm Ave/Newbury Street are that there are:
  1. multi-parcel blocks
  2. an overall uniformity of scale (height and street-face), materials (in both cases brick with a punctuation of other materials.
  3. Some slight variability in both scale, materials, height, and street face. It is a richer more interesting experience if things DON'T all line up. No great street has all the cornices lined up. Look at the Parisian Boulevards. All of those buildings have about the same elements on the facades .. their properties just wobble a bit. This brings a sense of delight.

What are the things we do wrong in the Seaport/Kendall/Every F'n Other Place?

Well. Its the economy stupid (without other good urban controls). First of all. Multi-Parcel blocks are an anachronism. The economics of building in an expensive urban environment are such that to make the requisite "killing" it makes not sense to build one stand alone chunk at a time. Superblocks are king and will not go away.

There is much more opportunity and much more desire to be a standout. I think people don't understand why the south end and most of Boston, and most all New England Cities are predominantly brick. The reason that I know is that it was code driven. After a number of disastrous fires in Boston, the city required by law that all buildings had to be made out of fireproof materials. The cheapest way to do that was with brick. When someone wanted to stand out, be unique, they went to stone. There were NO OTHER OPTIONS in the 1800's. No terra cotta (sorta), no metal panel, no cement fibre board, no precast concrete. The options were limited. Peoples houses/buildings stood out in the smaller details and those details were based on what they could afford. Some people had jack arches, some had, granite lintels, some had copper bay windows.

Now ... we have a personal expression pasted onto every building. AND it gets a name too. Troy,Watermark, Watermark2, Watermark2.1. (although the naming is not new, how we name them is).

In the end, what we have chosen to ignore is the human scale of cities. We build at the scale of the proforma, and unfortunately, the proforma does not have human health, comfort, and delight baked into it. (at least not often).

Whew. Sorry for all of that.

cca

comm.JPG
 
Last edited:
Re: 12-story apartment highrise on Oxford Street.

CCA, thanks for all that! Much appreciated.
 
Re: 12-story apartment highrise on Oxford Street.

Fantastic post cca. Thank you!
 
Re: 12-story apartment highrise on Oxford Street.

cca, thanks -- excellent explanation. I see why the mega-blocks just don't feel right.
 
Re: 12-story apartment highrise on Oxford Street.

IAM seeink NICE pictura of ALS GoNE queen ^^^^
 
Re: 12-story apartment highrise on Oxford Street.

cca: nail on the head.

as an aside, it's funny how the individual's sense of passing time changes vastly depending on the external environment: if you walk on the side of a boring highway, seems like time slows to a crawl. Slightly less, but still significantly, is the experience walking through superblocks with mundane facades (or at least, long blocks of a single type of facade). I suppose it's some version of how time flies when you're having fun - when the senses are constantly being stimulated, the mind is occupied. Stimulation of sense depends on change - repetitive sights, sounds, touches and smells cease to be noticed after a while. As you point out, if this occurs in the absence of delight or mental satisfaction of some kind, it becomes boring.
 
Re: 12-story apartment highrise on Oxford Street.

cca said:
Sure, its a great question. (This is all my opinion by the way)

This is all a matter of scale. The south end has narrow streets made for walking. And the uniform facades that have a slightly different look every 30' are perfect for the human experience of walking down that scale of street. There is a cadence. A rhythm that just works for people walking on a street like that. It connects to your internal clock. Ever notice that you have a better sense of time walking down Newbury Street vs Boylson? I do

While the material qualities of Comm Ave are heightened. Stone vs Brick or Granite vs Brownstone or just Better detailed brick vs brick. (which is actually the real condition believe it or not) The relationship to the scale of the Avenue and the height and lot street frontage has been maintained. (I am not sure by what mechanism but somehow it was. probably economic). Because of the promenade and the two lanes of traffic on either side ... the pedestrian experience shifts and now the buildings can be a bit taller and a bit wider and still have a sense of rhythm and cadence when walking by. As far as being statement building after statement building. I am not sure I agree. Look at the linked picture.(below) There is mostly texture buildings, nice ones, but texture still. There is ONE image center that is clearly telling you to take notice. But even that building is playing pretty nice with its neighbors.

A couple key points for both the South End/Comm Ave/Newbury Street are that there are:
  1. multi-parcel blocks
  2. an overall uniformity of scale (height and street-face), materials (in both cases brick with a punctuation of other materials.
  3. Some slight variability in both scale, materials, height, and street face. It is a richer more interesting experience if things DON'T all line up. No great street has all the cornices lined up. Look at the Parisian Boulevards. All of those buildings have about the same elements on the facades .. their properties just wobble a bit. This brings a sense of delight.

What are the things we do wrong in the Seaport/Kendall/Every F'n Other Place?

Well. Its the economy stupid (without other good urban controls). First of all. Multi-Parcel blocks are an anachronism. The economics of building in an expensive urban environment are such that to make the requisite "killing" it makes not sense to build one stand alone chunk at a time. Superblocks are king and will not go away.

There is much more opportunity and much more desire to be a standout. I think people don't understand why the south end and most of Boston, and most all New England Cities are predominantly brick. The reason that I know is that it was code driven. After a number of disastrous fires in Boston, the city required by law that all buildings had to be made out of fireproof materials. The cheapest way to do that was with brick. When someone wanted to stand out, be unique, they went to stone. There were NO OTHER OPTIONS in the 1800's. No terra cotta (sorta), no metal panel, no cement fibre board, no precast concrete. The options were limited. Peoples houses/buildings stood out in the smaller details and those details were based on what they could afford. Some people had jack arches, some had, granite lintels, some had copper bay windows.

Now ... we have a personal expression pasted onto every building. AND it gets a name too. Troy,Watermark, Watermark2, Watermark2.1. (although the naming is not new, how we name them is).

In the end, what we have chosen to ignore is the human scale of cities. We build at the scale of the proforma, and unfortunately, the proforma does not have human health, comfort, and delight baked into it. (at least not often).

Whew. Sorry for all of that.

cca

comm.JPG
Click to expand...

CCA masterful summary of most of the factors involved in the creation of the pleasant pedestrian experience of the Back Bay

However, you missed one really large factor that led to the "humanity" of the Back Bay which can not really be duplicated today

The unique way that the Back Bay was developed made all the difference:
  • 1) when the Commonwealth was filling the Back Bay they did it block by block with the sale of the lots paying for the filling operation
  • 2) with only a handful of exceptions everything that was built was either a single family house [we'd call them mansions for the Ubers these days] or a Church
    There was no demand for office buildings, restaurants, shops, or factories -- in the 19th Century the Back Bay was a strictly residential district
  • 3) filling conferred a unique control over the layout as the level of the filling was done so that nothing had to be dug out again -- i.e. the footprint of the building basements and street grid complete with the sidewalks was embedded in the land as it was filled
  • 4) substantial room for pedestrians was embedded in the land -- e.g. Commonwealth Ave. mall
  • 5. set backs and other fundamental building specifications were enforced however there was an opportunity for creativity such as Oriels and Bays
  • 6. there were no elevators so the buildings were by necessity human-scaled
  • 7. the filling and building process took many years [40+] allowing for evolving tastes and styles to be displayed block by block

As opposed to the original usage of the Back Bay -- the dominant usages of both Kendall and Seaport / Innovation District is:
  • Big office / lab buildings with their penchant for Big Floor Plates and the associated big building foot prints
  • hotels
  • multifamily housing
  • exhibition / meeting facilities

All of those uses mostly precludes the narrow buildings that fit onto the "human-scale" narrow lots of the Back Bay with their rhythms that we all enjoy as we perambulate past
 
Re: 12-story apartment highrise on Oxford Street.

Whighlander, one correction, there were elevators in many of the Back Bay mansions, particularly the fill from Dartmouth street onward.
 
Re: 12-story apartment highrise on Oxford Street.

JeffDowntown said:
Whighlander, one correction, there were elevators in many of the Back Bay mansions, particularly the fill from Dartmouth street onward.
Click to expand...

Jeff of course you are right about the later era -- such as the 10 story apartment tower on Mass Ave & Beacon circa 1898

Go back the other way toward Arlington on Commonwealth or Beacon and except for the few infills elevators are all add-ons. There were no elevators when the Gardners moved into 152 Beacon St. circa 1860 or when Frederick Lothrop Ames had Peabody and Stearns design him a masterpiece on Commonwealth @ Dartmouth in 1871
 
Re: 12-story apartment highrise on Oxford Street.

It's a nice post but I have to chime in on one point: the South End does not have narrow streets, for the most part, and it's unfortunate to claim otherwise.

There's a few exceptions, such as Lawrence Street or Gray Street, but by and large the South End has streets that are wide enough for at least 4 cars to pass each other side-by-side.

For example, look at Waltham Street, a fairly typical example. There's two lanes of parking and two lanes of travel. The sidewalks are tiny, with obstacles, and the pavers are heaving up all over the place in ankle-endangering ways.

That is not a narrow street for cars. It is narrow for pedestrians, while the street is dominated by heavy, fast machinery. That's not pleasant, and the street design has some major flaws. To be fair, the South End streets were designed in an era before the terrible implications of wide streets were fully realized.

I pick on this point because I think that the idea that the South End has so-called "narrow streets" is actually rather dangerous. I have met architects who reference the South End when designing new streets. It doesn't occur to these architects that the South End streets have fatal flaws, and as a result, it doesn't occur to them that they should be fixing the mistakes, when they have a chance, in the new designs.

There are other reasons I don't care for the South End, such as the monotonous brick, the stuffy attitudes, and the ridiculous prices. To me, first and foremost, the wide streets of the South End are a major turn-off, in my opinion.
 
Re: 12-story apartment highrise on Oxford Street.

Matthew said:
It's a nice post but I have to chime in on one point: the South End does not have narrow streets, for the most part, and it's unfortunate to claim otherwise.

There's a few exceptions, such as Lawrence Street or Gray Street, but by and large the South End has streets that are wide enough for at least 4 cars to pass each other side-by-side.

For example, look at Waltham Street, a fairly typical example. There's two lanes of parking and two lanes of travel. The sidewalks are tiny, with obstacles, and the pavers are heaving up all over the place in ankle-endangering ways.

That is not a narrow street for cars. It is narrow for pedestrians, while the street is dominated by heavy, fast machinery. That's not pleasant, and the street design has some major flaws. To be fair, the South End streets were designed in an era before the terrible implications of wide streets were fully realized.

I pick on this point because I think that the idea that the South End has so-called "narrow streets" is actually rather dangerous. I have met architects who reference the South End when designing new streets. It doesn't occur to these architects that the South End streets have fatal flaws, and as a result, it doesn't occur to them that they should be fixing the mistakes, when they have a chance, in the new designs.

There are other reasons I don't care for the South End, such as the monotonous brick, the stuffy attitudes, and the ridiculous prices. To me, first and foremost, the wide streets of the South End are a major turn-off, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Mathew -- I don't live in the South End nor do I play a Southender on TV :)

However to get a flavor for your comments, rather than rely on my limited occasion meanders in the neighborhood with my camera -- I Google-mapped to Waltham St. and some other streets in the South End including: Bond, Carleton, W Newton, Pembroke, Rutland, Worcester, Durham, Claremont Park and toured them using Street View

With the exception of Waltham and the major thoroughfares the rest seem quiet and residential -- typically 1 travel lane, or at most two narrow travel lanes after parking on both sides

This is lot like what it looks like in East Lexington -- and no one would accuse us of being Urban [been in that debate and don't see anything in reopening it here]
 
Re: 12-story apartment highrise on Oxford Street.

If you can fit 4 cars side-by-side, then it is not a narrow street. Period. There's just no way around that fact, for better or for worse. That's just way too much asphalt. It's not human-sized.

Now, 4 car-widths may seem narrower than your typical suburban street. But that's because in America we've become accustomed to having wide streets everywhere, all the time. So anything a little bit smaller seems tiny by comparison.

I don't think we should water down the term "narrow street", and therefore, most of the South End is disqualified. If you want to find truly narrow streets in Boston, you have to look within Beacon Hill, the North End, and the Bay Village. Most everywhere else, especially outside of Boston proper, was constructed with at least 26 feet between the curbs and is therefore disqualified from being "narrow" as I define it.

It is what it is. We can't change the way the South End is built. But we do not have to label a 40-foot-wide street (curb-to-curb) as "narrow". It's counterproductive to do so.
 
Re: 12-story apartment highrise on Oxford Street.

Matthew said:
If you can fit 4 cars side-by-side, then it is not a narrow street. Period. There's just no way around that fact, for better or for worse. That's just way too much asphalt. It's not human-sized.

Now, 4 car-widths may seem narrower than your typical suburban street. But that's because in America we've become accustomed to having wide streets everywhere, all the time. So anything a little bit smaller seems tiny by comparison.

I don't think we should water down the term "narrow street", and therefore, most of the South End is disqualified. If you want to find truly narrow streets in Boston, you have to look within Beacon Hill, the North End, and the Bay Village. Most everywhere else, especially outside of Boston proper, was constructed with at least 26 feet between the curbs and is therefore disqualified from being "narrow" as I define it.

It is what it is. We can't change the way the South End is built. But we do not have to label a 40-foot-wide street (curb-to-curb) as "narrow". It's counterproductive to do so.
Click to expand...

Your definition of "narrow" is based on numbers, and the point of the post is about the experience - and the experience, for most people, is that these are narrow streets. They certainly feel narrow to the pedestrian, and that's not because the sidewalks are tight, but because of the architectural factors being described. The subjective experience is very important, and if the road feels wide and threatening to the pedestrian, it's a factor that can ruin the whole experience, whereas a street that might technically be wide enough for four cars (and most streets in the South End would be a nightmare for two-way traffic with parking on both sides of the road) can nonetheless feel quiet, intimate, and yes, narrow.
 
Last edited:
Re: 12-story apartment highrise on Oxford Street.

FK4 said:
Your definition of "narrow" is based on numbers, and the point of the post is about the experience - and the experience, for most people, is that these are narrow streets. They certainly feel narrow to the pedestrian, and that's not because the sidewalks are tight, but because of the architectural factors being described. The subjective experience is very important, and if the road feels wide and threatening to the pedestrian, it's a factor that can ruin the whole experience, whereas a street that might technically be wide enough for four cars (and most streets in the South End would be a nightmare for two-way traffic with parking on both sides of the road) can nonetheless feel quiet, intimate, and yes, narrow.
Click to expand...

Yes. Numbers. That's how you measure things.

Most of the streets in the South End are, in fact, wide enough to support two-way traffic and two-sided parking. That's why I don't consider them narrow. I don't feel that those streets are narrow when I'm walking there, and they do not function the way narrow streets do in Beacon Hill, for example. South End streets are largely dominated by space for motor vehicles, not human beings. The architecture can make it look nice, and the trees can create a lovely effect, but "narrowness" always comes down to numbers: width of motorway and speed of vehicles. And most South End streets do not achieve "narrow" with either one.

I'm fairly particular about narrow streets, in case you haven't noticed. Bostonians have this annoying tendency to prattle on about "cattle paths" and "narrow streets" whenever the topic comes up, when in fact, most streets in Boston are wide. Especially the streets that people tend to get killed or injured upon. Yet, you will often hear Bostonians claim, with a straight face, that streets such as Mass Ave, Beacon St, or Brighton Ave are "narrow cow paths." It boggles the mind.

There's a place in the city for wide streets. We can probably have a great discussion about what the ideal proportion of wide to narrow is. But if we insist on labeling wide streets as "narrow", then we're just lying to ourselves.
 
Re: 12-story apartment highrise on Oxford Street.

Matthew said:
Yes. Numbers. That's how you measure things.

Most of the streets in the South End are, in fact, wide enough to support two-way traffic and two-sided parking. That's why I don't consider them narrow. I don't feel that those streets are narrow when I'm walking there, and they do not function the way narrow streets do in Beacon Hill, for example. South End streets are largely dominated by space for motor vehicles, not human beings. The architecture can make it look nice, and the trees can create a lovely effect, but "narrowness" always comes down to numbers: width of motorway and speed of vehicles. And most South End streets do not achieve "narrow" with either one.

I'm fairly particular about narrow streets, in case you haven't noticed. Bostonians have this annoying tendency to prattle on about "cattle paths" and "narrow streets" whenever the topic comes up, when in fact, most streets in Boston are wide. Especially the streets that people tend to get killed or injured upon. Yet, you will often hear Bostonians claim, with a straight face, that streets such as Mass Ave, Beacon St, or Brighton Ave are "narrow cow paths." It boggles the mind.

There's a place in the city for wide streets. We can probably have a great discussion about what the ideal proportion of wide to narrow is. But if we insist on labeling wide streets as "narrow", then we're just lying to ourselves.
Click to expand...

particular or not, in this case, i would say you are in the great minority as most people, myself included, would perceive the streets of the south end as narrow and intimate. no, they arent old english country village narrow, but they feel small and thats a good thing, and whether the numbers add up to the subjective experience is irrelevant here, since the subjective experience is what we are talking about. ive never heard anyone call mass ave or any of the other roads you mentioned narrow; they are clearly wide and they feel wide. but the point of cca's post is that the architecture and planning of the south end side streets makes them feel small and pleasant, and that is an experience that most people have of them. that IS the allure of the south end (in addition to all the silly stuff and hoity toitiness you mentioned earlier); whether or not there could be less traffic on them or they could be more narrow for safety purposes is another matter, but if your contention is that they feel unhumanistic due to being too wide and dominated by cars, i dont think there arent a lot of people who share that view.
 
Re: 12-story apartment highrise on Oxford Street.

FK4 said:
particular or not, in this case, i would say you are in the great minority as most people, myself included, would perceive the streets of the south end as narrow and intimate. no, they arent old english country village narrow, but they feel small and thats a good thing, and whether the numbers add up to the subjective experience is irrelevant here, since the subjective experience is what we are talking about.
Click to expand...

I attribute it to the healthy tree canopy on most of the side streets.
 
Re: 12-story apartment highrise on Oxford Street.

Would you let your children play on those South End streets?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top