Sale finalized; future development of Exxon tank farm in Everett can proceed

How far should this preservation of old industrial facilities go? The Metropolitan Warehouse in Cambridge was, without question, worth preserving and repurposing, but these oil tanks? Really? They're ugly and usually the wrong size and shape, plus they get in the way of new buildings that would be the right size and layout for the new intended purposes. I basically hate the old tanks.
 
Last edited:
Charlie_mta said:
How far should this preservation of old industrial facilities go? The Metropolitan Warehouse in Cambridge was, without question, worth preserving and repurposing, but these oil tanks? Really? They're ugly and usually the wrong size and shape, plus they get in the way of new buildings that would be the right size and layout for the new intended purposes. I basically hate the old tanks.
Click to expand...
The tanks are also hazardous waste containers.
 
Is anyone talking about preservation of industrial remnants other than on this forum? There have only been a handful of comments here, and the argument against working to preserve the things on these sites is strong. The smokestacks are interesting and prominent, but they are right in the middle of the lot, and you can't very well build a stadium around them. The tanks likely don't have any nostalgic appeal, and they are not at all rare. My comment was only meant to suggest that if someone wanted to do something interesting with one there are possibilities. In Concord, NH there's a very special has holder that was saved from the wrecking ball with a half million dollar donation, but that's a different type of structure altogether.
 
BronsonShore said:
Actually, if I may make the mistake of taking this conversation seriously, these types of tanks have been well integrated into redevelopment projects, particularly in London:

image.jpg


Gasholder-Park_Kings-Cross_Bell-Phillips_dezeen_sqa.jpg


gasholder-park.jpg


There's even a plan to turn this tank farm into housing. How amazing would this be in Everett?

1896114_rshpgasholders2_931773.jpg


18ac813b6f15389cf35d24771b539688.webp
Click to expand...
That would be Beautiful! Make it USEFUL - not empty Potemkin Village.
 
Last edited:
WHat is it about these tanks and the smokestacks that a few people on this forum believe are so unique? These things exist in hundreds of the most pedestrian cities and towns all over the world. The world famous tourist magnet Homer City, PA has the tallest smokestack. Hell, St Louis, which has the Gateway Arch has been a complete failure of an almost irrelevant city (save for Washington Univ) since the last century. Elizabeth, NJ has scores of these glorious tanks. The only difference is that those tanks in Elizabeth are actually being EMPLOYED.

Irrelevant and empty containers do not make a dynamic city. Bronson Shore’s post #57 was the first proposal that actually made any common sense point for keeping the tanks in any semblance. This is reality and real people’s lives - - not a Sim City game.
 
There seems to be a complete disconnect between people who are toying with ideas and people who are having a visceral NIMBY-trauma induced fear reaction where they're interpreting that as "these things MUST or even should be preserved".
 
I can understand the desire to preserve important / historic buildings, bridges, structures, etc and debating it in forums like this but preserving oil tanks, is any form, is not one of them. This site has the potential to address so many opportunities for housing, entertainment, business that is far more important.
 
Last edited:
Could be cool if there was some kind of “Everett museum of modern industry” where there could be a single oil tank and some kind of reduced or dumbed-down model of the plant for education/preservation purposes. Kind of like a more contemporary version of the Lowell mill museum.

They could have exhibits related to the supply chain of the fuel stored there: where it came from, where it went, how it was used. Another on the environmental impact on the soil and on the river/harbor.
 
BronsonShore said:
Actually, if I may make the mistake of taking this conversation seriously, these types of tanks have been well integrated into redevelopment projects, particularly in London:

image.jpg


Gasholder-Park_Kings-Cross_Bell-Phillips_dezeen_sqa.jpg


gasholder-park.jpg


There's even a plan to turn this tank farm into housing. How amazing would this be in Everett?

1896114_rshpgasholders2_931773.jpg


18ac813b6f15389cf35d24771b539688.webp
Click to expand...
These were not petroleum storage tanks, but gasholders, built in the 19th Century for the storage of illuminating gas.

The development, writ large, is known as Kings Cross. And indeed, numerous old industrial structures are preserved and reutilized.

https://www.kingscross.co.uk/gasholder-park

The area imaged below is known as Coal Drops. Coal Drops was originally the distribution center where coal arriving via the railroad was offloaded into wagons for transport to the 'retail' customers.

P_KXC_PRJ_COL_001_N4232_2000-1920x1080.jpg
 
shmessy said:
WHat is it about these tanks and the smokestacks that a few people on this forum believe are so unique?
Click to expand...
Nobody has said that about these tanks. People have suggested that because some of us would like to find a way to preserve a smokestack, we therefore militantly want to preserve every bit of Everett's industrial past. That's a strawman and should be beneath the kind of discourse this forum deserves.
 
Stlin said:
To be fair, those European examples of reuse are all Victorian/ pre war "gas holders / gasometers" - those metal in the UK (often brick outside of it) frames pictured above were basically a guide shell for a telescoping gas balloon. There's excellent examples of reuse across europe, but there's a few local examples of this - ever wonder why this Best Western in Roxbury is round? It's because it's a converted gas holder. But I'm fairly confident it was simpler because the frame/shell themselves is fairly graceful and light, and could easily be left free standing after the gas system was removed.

Conversely, I'm fairly certain that the Exxon farm is all traditional structural steel tanks for liquid petroleums - I'm not even convinced it's possible to completely decontaminate one such that it would be safe for public entry. The only examples of this that I could find is a tank in New Zealand that was converted to a garden center in 1971, well before the imposition of modern requirements, and which is apparently currently planned for demolition, and what had been a refinery's water tank in Spain is now a cultural center.

But if it's possible, If you can preserve one around here, it would be at least unique as a venue / bar - it probably wouldn't be out of place in Everett's entertainment district, so I personally think it's better suited for one of the tanks that Exelon (not Exxon) is retaining, closer to the proposed stadium site.
Click to expand...
🤔 There's something a bit terrifying about the thought of a "Victorian/pre war telescoping gas balloon"
 
HenryAlan said:
Nobody has said that about these tanks. People have suggested that because some of us would like to find a way to preserve a smokestack, we therefore militantly want to preserve every bit of Everett's industrial past. That's a strawman and should be beneath the kind of discourse this forum deserves.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone on here wants to preserve all the tanks and smokestacks in Everett. The only concern I had was that the future development of old industrial land in Everett could be jeopardized by an overemphasis on industrial preservation. That may sound paranoid, but when I was a project manager, seemingly harmless phantasms like that take on a life of their own with pressure groups and even government permitting agencies jumping on the bandwagon. That probably won't happen with Everett, but with the way Massachusetts' politics and cronyism works, it does throw up a red flag.
 
HenryAlan said:
Nobody has said that about these tanks. People have suggested that because some of us would like to find a way to preserve a smokestack, we therefore militantly want to preserve every bit of Everett's industrial past. That's a strawman and should be beneath the kind of discourse this forum deserves.
Click to expand...
Look at the quote you linked in your post. Where on earth do you get what you’re claiming?

“Strawman”??

Irony? 😂
 
Last edited:
shmessy said:
Look at the quote you linked in your post. Where on earth do you get what you’re claiming?

“Strawman”??

Irony? 😂
Click to expand...
I disagreed with your statement. Something tells me irony is not a familiar word to you.
 
iamdjmichael said:
Really rough rendering of the Davis Co plans for the site
Click to expand...

So I could be wrong but judging by the render and going off of basically every other neighborhood redevelopment project it seems like they want to add a lot of lab/office space. For the extent of the housing crisis that were in all of these different redevelopments seem to have huge amounts of planned lab space compared to housing. Whether at suffolk downs, dot ave in southie, harbor point, assembly, cambridge crossing, fenway center, union point, boynton yards, kendall/volpe, allston yards, beacon yards, enterprise research campus, arsenal yards/watertown mall, riverside, alewife…etc. it seems that labs are the main priority and housing fits in where theres room left over.

Now that were nearing the peak of the lab boom but are still very much deep in the housing crisis shouldnt we be tweaking the ratio of these projects? Boston seems pretty full and like theres not a lot of room to add much housing, but then when you look at all of the redevelopment areas mentioned above thats an absolutely enormous amount of land to be redeveloped. If that was all used strictly for housing I wouldnt be surprised if you could add 100,000 new units combined across all the different areas. Even half of that would be a massive relief. If labs are oversaturated right now and theres super high demand for housing why arent we building some of these new developments as 100% or majority housing? It seems like it would be a no brainer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top