dshoost88
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2008
- Messages
- 2,143
- Reaction score
- 2,444
Well at least their target audience will be happy!Renders by Klasky-Csupo!
![Baby symbol :baby_symbol: 🚼](https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/7.0/png/unicode/64/1f6bc.png)
Well at least their target audience will be happy!Renders by Klasky-Csupo!
This made my morning; I didn't realize they were presenting this week. Thank you for sharing!Really rough rendering of the Davis Co plans for the site
Would love to see that truncated to Everett Docklands, with the words innovation and district replaced by light and rail.They're branding the neighborhood EVERETT DOCKLANDS INNOVATION DISTRICT.
Everett is really in the right place for a lot of great progressive building and bullish development in the next few years. Other cities need to take notes! I really think Everett is primed to be the next destination for residential/office/lab/commercial buyers alike, in about 10-15 years. I'm not exactly sure if there's a fair comparison either in the Boston area at least. I'd say closest in my mind is the current cleanup of East Cambridge and East Somerville (CX and Assembly, respectively; albeit this sorely lacks comparable transit offerings - sorry SL3 extensionThis made my morning; I didn't realize they were presenting this week. Thank you for sharing!
Did a little more digging in the zoning amendments shared this week. They're branding the neighborhood EVERETT DOCKLANDS INNOVATION DISTRICT. All materials presented (sans renderings) here. A goldmine of details--I know firsthand that Everett's planning staff has been working closely with Davis Cos. to get to this point.
It looks per the zoning details they're aiming for the following, up to 370' tall, the max allowable by FAA.
View attachment 53724
View attachment 53725
I just worry that this district is a repeat of Edgewater in New Jersey -- where the poorly capped hazardous waste contaminated soil seeps toxic plumes in the buildings. I believe we are "trusting the developer" to properly cap the site? They are not doing wholesale removal and remediation.Everett is really in the right place for a lot of great progressive building and bullish development in the next few years. Other cities need to take notes! I really think Everett is primed to be the next destination for residential/office/lab/commercial buyers alike, in about 10-15 years. I'm not exactly sure if there's a fair comparison either in the Boston area at least. I'd say closest in my mind is the current cleanup of East Cambridge and East Somerville (CX and Assembly, respectively; albeit this sorely lacks comparable transit offerings - sorry SL3 extension).
I can't imagine the population increase and revenue coming rushing into the door.
Hopefully some of this development zeitgeist spills into Charlestown and can rev projects like Domino Sugar and One Mystic along.
This is a very valid fear...! I hope it doesn't outweigh their level of development. I'm cynical so I think more talk around this would helpI just worry that this district is a repeat of Edgewater in New Jersey -- where the poorly capped hazardous waste contaminated soil seeps toxic plumes in the buildings. I believe we are "trusting the developer" to properly cap the site? They are not doing wholesale removal and remediation.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with examining existing infrastructure or anything else on a site to see if there's value in preservation. I doubt there's anything that constitutes a unique or culturally significant presence, but a masterplan that incorporated a tank into some green space would be a clever addition. I can see it working as a center baffle with park space circling around. Unlike what's located here, Concord, NH has a brick tank building which is included in the National Register of Historic Places. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concord_Gas_Light_Company_Gasholder_HouseNo discussion of the loss of the historic tank farm infrastructure? The developers should be required to keep the largest ones in place, and no new structure should exceed the shortest in height to keep the celebrated sightlines from both Route 16 and the Boston Autoport. Also, Boston should get to decide because traffic.
No discussion of the loss of the historic tank farm infrastructure? The developers should be required to keep the largest ones in place, and no new structure should exceed the shortest in height to keep the celebrated sightlines from both Route 16 and the Boston Autoport. Also, Boston should get to decide because traffic.
Maybe they could convert the tall smokestacks to high-rise residential?I'm waiting for the "Tall Smokestack" post to come any minute now.........
I guess people are having their fun on the smokestack thing, but I would think even if you don't like them, you can at least see there is a difference between a highly visible, masonry tower and a squat, metal tank that is all but invisible to 99% of people passing through the general area.
Look, perhaps it is important to some that we have Potemkin Village cities of empty and useless tall edifices that serve no purpose, but I can’t fathom someone who is a true URBANIST wouldn’t prefer things that brings masses of people to animate an area and lead to a better future for a dynamic/living city.
I guess people are having their fun on the smokestack thing, but I would think even if you don't like them, you can at least see there is a difference between a highly visible, masonry tower and a squat, metal tank that is all but invisible to 99% of people passing through the general area.