Seaport Neighborhood - Infill and Discussion

Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

This is so funny I had to post. An article from 2000 regarding expected traffic problems in the SouthBoston/Seaport/Innovation/ParkingLot District.

the city estimates that 62 percent of waterfront commuters will use the Silver Line

Obstacle cited in harbor project
Fan Pier report sees traffic nightmares
By Steven Wilmsen, Boston Globe, 7/19/2000

The plan to create a glittering new neighborhood on South Boston's mostly desolate waterfront faces a potentially huge obstacle: traffic.

State Environmental Affairs Secretary Robert Durand said yesterday that city planners have failed to come up with a way to move cars in and out of the single largest commercial development in Boston's history.

Raising nightmarish visions of increased respiratory diseases and streets so clogged trucks can't get in and out of the area, Durand said that even a new MBTA Silver Line proposed for the area would not solve the problem.

''Without adequate transit and alternatives to cars, development will have serious environmental impacts,'' Durand wrote in a 14-page document that gave preliminary approval to the massive commercial and residential project on Fan Pier.

Durand said he will lead a ''transportation summit'' some time in the next 45 days that would include community representatives, waterfront developers, and city and state transportation officials.

Durand said the problem must be addressed before construction of the 17 million square feet of new residential, office, and retail space on the waterfront gets under way in earnest.

''This new development is comparable to a small city,'' he said. ''When one takes into account the potential for additional development [in the area], the sense of urgency is even greater.''

While Durand did not saddle the Fan Pier developers, Chicago's Pritzker family, with full responsibility for solving the traffic problem, he said they must come up with specific plans to ease congestion at their site.

City and state officials working on plans for the waterfront have long known that traffic would be a problem on the 1,000-acre stretch of former industrial land. Access to the area from downtown and neighboring, densely populated South Boston has always been difficult. City studies in the past have predicted trouble when an estimated 30,000 new office workers and residents commute to and from the neighborhood after it is complete.

Transportation and planning officials hoped that many traffic woes could be solved with improvements such as a truck road being built as part of the Central Artery Project, and the Silver Line, an underground bus that is scheduled to begin carting passengers between South Station downtown and the World Trade Center in 2003.

But in yesterday's document, Durand said the city's estimates that 62 percent of waterfront commuters will use the Silver Line are hopelessly optimistic. And even if the Silver Line is filled to capacity, it ''will not be enough,'' Durand said.

City officials don't dispute Durand's scathing assessment of traffic on the waterfront but said there is plenty of time to deal with the problem. And they stressed that development of the area is planned over a 25-year period, which would allow time for more problem-solving steps.

''But by the time this is all complete, we think we'll have a plan and have it implemented,'' said Boston Redevelopment Authority Director Mark Maloney.

Several groups, including the Conservation Law Foundation, which has criticized the dense development on the water's edge partly because of its potential impact on traffic, hailed Durand's move.

''We've been saying over and over again that there's a very real transportation crisis in the making here,'' said Seth Kaplan, an attorney for the group. ''Now at last somebody is recognizing that.''

While Durand focused on traffic problems in yesterday's document, he also cleared the way for the Pritzker family to take the next step in its plan to build a complex of 3.1 million square feet on Fan Pier. Durand has in the past been critical of the project's lack of open space.

''This is a great step forward,'' said Kyle Warwick of Spaulding Colliers & Slye, the Pritzker family's Boston representatives.

This story ran on page B1 of the Boston Globe on 7/19/2000.

© Copyright 2000 Globe Newspaper Company.
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

jdr, the legal challenges to the CA/T came from the Clean Air Act, not a whim of the CLF.

Matthew, I normally hate it when people try to get the last word on Internet forums, but I feel compelled to respond, so I beg your indulgence.

The Clean Air Act basically states that any negative environmental impacts from a project have to be mitigated. The Act itself is very complex, but that is its essence.

The commonwealth's position - as articulated by the project's leading propoent Fred Salvucci - was that removing a perpetually congested highway, burying it underground in well-ventilated, free-flowing tunnels, installing new parks in place of the old highway and diverting airport-bound, gridlocked city traffic into a new streamlined, well-ventilated tunnel on the other side of town would in and of itself improve the environmental condition of the city, thus no additional mitigation projects would have been necessary. I tend to agree with this position.

However, the planning for the project had been running long and Salvucci was under the gun to get the designing and funding sources wrapped up before the end of Mike Dukakis's term as governor. If a new governor came in and the project was not buttoned up, it could very well have been DOA. The CLF - led by Doug Foy - knew Salvucci was under a deadline and were able to use the prospect of delays due to protracted litigation as a way to strong-arm the commonwealth into promising transit projects like the Silver line, along with other commuter rail and subway improvements. Incidentally, as part of that agreement, CLF agreed to defend the Big Dig from any environmental litigation challanging its compliance with the Clean Air Act.

So yes, the CA/T needed to comply with the Clean Air Act. My opinion - and the state's opinion - was that the tunnel designs in and of itself did that. The CLF did not, and Salvucci and other state offcials couldn't afford the time it would have taken to prove their case in court. Don't get me wrong, many of the transit improvements have been good. I benefit from the Blue Line agreements everyday. But the reality is the Silver Line ended up being a rush job because it had to be tied to the CA/T, which was already facing looming financial and political deadlines.

There was a good opinion piece in CommonWealth Magazine on April 1, 2005 outlining some of these issues
 
Last edited:
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

If you only talk about things in terms of profits and money, you can justify alot of shitty things in this world because hey its profit!!

Most of the beautiful things in this world aren't brought about by the sole pursuit of profit. It usually takes a sense of pride and creativity to create beauty and assets that future generations will cherish. Its quite obvious from the hideous mess that is the seaport that the BRA and the local developers are lacking in both creativity and pride. That developers would be short sighted and selfish isnt news but the BRA should have been the mitigating agency of government that would have encouraged beauty, instead it is simply an arm of those connected to the right people the result of which is the ugliness you see rising.
Lucky, what authority or power does the BRA possess with respect to controlling the appearance of buildings built on privately-owned property? Encourage does not equate with require.

Below are two letters recently written to a property owner and a developer (Trump) in Washington. I daresay you will never see such a letter from anyone in Boston city government, because, to my knowledge, no public agency in Boston has the authority to write such a letter.

26 July 2013

In its meeting of 18 July, the Commission of Fine Arts reviewed the concept for a new house proposed to be located at 4664 Broad Branch Road, NW. The Commission expressed strong concern about adding a new house in this location and did not approve the concept. The members of the Commission noted that their responsibility under the Shipstead–Luce Act is to evaluate the proposed project for potential impairment of the public value of federal properties such as Rock Creek Park.

They found that the proposed project, both in itself and as a precedent for future development, would unacceptably degrade the setting and character of the national park. They also commented that the proposed mitigation measures, such as a planted berm and avoidance of a curb cut, are insufficient to provide long–term protection of the park's setting and character from the impacts of this project. While expressing appreciation for the environmental sensitivity of the proposed design and sympathy for the owners' desire to live adjacent to their family, they concluded that a new house in this location is not appropriate. They suggested that a possible alternative approach would be to add to the existing house rather than to insert a separate new house.

________________
26 July 2013

In its meeting of 18 July, the Commission of Fine Arts reviewed a revised concept proposal for the redevelopment of the Old Post Office building, located at 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, for use as the Trump International Hotel. The Commission expressed support for the project and approved the revised concept with the following comments.

In their review, the Commission members endorsed the revised proportions of the ballroom entrance pavilion and made several recommendations for the development of the final design. In particular, they suggested careful attention to the detailing of the glazed facades to ensure that they read as the taut and unified surface proposed in the concept renderings, without interruption by prominent mullions or a differing treatment at the parapet. They also recommended study of the lighting details to ensure an evenly lit nighttime appearance. As the design is developed further, they recommended that the laminated stone and glass material proposed for the ballroom pavilion be studied in a mockup adjacent to the Old Post Office stone.

The Commission members expressed appreciation for the information provided about underground utilities below the plaza to the south of the Old Post Office building and expressed support for the simplified landscape design. They requested that future presentations of the design of this area include eye–level perspectives in order to understand better the experience of the space. Noting that the historic loading dock canopy structure is proposed to be open, they questioned the design of this portal—historically covered with a glass canopy and now to be a major public entry into the building—to be built without weather protection.

The Commission looks forward to review of the next submission, which should include more developed designs for signs, canopies, and associated service elements.
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

Lucky, what authority or power does the BRA possess with respect to controlling the appearance of buildings built on privately-owned property? Encourage does not equate with require.

Below are two letters recently written to a property owner and a developer (Trump) in Washington. I daresay you will never see such a letter from anyone in Boston city government, because, to my knowledge, no public agency in Boston has the authority to write such a letter.


Those letters actually seem somewhat heavy handed and make feel a bit uncomfortable. It's all well and good when you have a group of reasonable people above board, but what happens if you get a bunch of oligarchs? Or worse, people who don't know a street wall from a demising wall?

As they say "A camel is a horse built by a committee."

At what point do you just have a committee of 5 or 7 people design buildings for all of the available lots in a given neighborhood and city and then just auction them off to developers to be built? Seems like it would save a lot of legal/design fees.
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

I daresay you will never see such a letter from anyone in Boston city government, because, to my knowledge, no public agency in Boston has the authority to write such a letter.

Not sure I understand this.

In determining the fate of an approval for anything away from as-of-right zoning, the BRA makes such demands. Isn't 111 Huntington a glaring example?

Storefronts in historic buildings along Washington St in DTX are gutted. Storefronts in Fort Point are being retained as best possible, in numerous cases by decree of the Boston Landmarks Commission.

I wish I had insight into the function of the Boston Civic Design Commission, I'm guessing its role is more along the lines of "encouraging."
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

I dont understand that comment either. Everyone knows and could produce examples of the BRA demanding changes to the shape and size of buildings.
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

I agree on the vast number of points raised here. I also understand your point that it is frustrating for those with optimism for what is going on today to continually be admonished about public investment, undefined standards of quality, personal taste in architecture, etc. As you suggest, most of the public improvements were benefits to the region regardless of private development in the Seaport.

I remain optimistic as well... I continue to believe that the waterfront is Boston's crown jewel, and that if we can overcome parochial barriers (i.e. cronyism), there is a much higher level of potential waiting to be tapped. My objectives are widely shared, I know that from participating in the Seaport planning process along with exceptional members of the development community, not idealists in any respect. We're fortunate to have a few such developers in Fort Point.

Thanks for taking the time to relay your perspective.

Re. CLF -- I think they were responsible, in part, for pressing for the Harbor Cleanup and also the siting of the ICA on Fan Pier.

EDIT: CLF

Thank you for this. I appreciate this perspective. Cronyism is unfortuantely a difficult thing to bypass and its obviously not just a Boston thing. It's something we all - globally speaking - need to keep an eye out for and try to resist whenever possible.
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

Moving the highway underground into expanded tunnels does not reduce the amount of traffic and pollution flowing into the city. Out-of-sight, out-of-mind does not equate to mitigation. I know Salvucci understands this. He knew they would not prevail in a court case, protracted or not, that's why they settled. The traffic studies of the CA/T anticipated higher traffic volumes, and general experience would have told them to expect it anyway. Actual data backs that up.

(this is not to defend the shittiness of the Silver Line, or the CLF's near-cluelessness about good transit)
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

''But by the time this is all complete, we think we'll have a plan and have it implemented,'' said Boston Redevelopment Authority Director Mark Maloney.

Money quote. Great stuff.
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

Moving the highway underground into expanded tunnels does not reduce the amount of traffic and pollution flowing into the city. Out-of-sight, out-of-mind does not equate to mitigation. I know Salvucci understands this. He knew they would not prevail in a court case, protracted or not, that's why they settled. The traffic studies of the CA/T anticipated higher traffic volumes, and general experience would have told them to expect it anyway. Actual data backs that up.

(this is not to defend the shittiness of the Silver Line, or the CLF's near-cluelessness about good transit)

Agree to disagree on the mitigation. For me, the fact that traffic was actually moving through downtown rather than stagnating between the hours of 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. makes a difference, even if there were more cars.

But would you agree that the Silver Line as a concept was doomed because of the nature by which it was foisted onto the CA/T as a last minute add-on to avoid litigation?
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

I know the stagnation "looked" bad but the induced volume that the CA/T brings is just as bad or worse. Bringing more tailpipes into the city and promoting highway-based sprawl leads to bad outcomes all around. Also the 6-lane "surface Artery" is quite bad air-quality-wise at peak hours.

Anyway, putting that aside, I don't think the Silver Line was necessarily doomed just because of its timeframe, but rather because nobody at the CLF seemed to know what to do better. And let's presume that it's not supposed to be their area of expertise, for whatever reason, they didn't get a very good outside expert opinion. The CLF is interested in environmental issues -- that's fine and I am grateful for their work in that area. But their narrow focus seems to have led to some really bogus "transit" proposals.

Someone has conveniently outlined the projects that were and were not completed.

The CLF pushed for commuter rail expansion and parking lot expansion, and these were largely satisfied. Their focus was trying to take cars off the road and therefore reduce emissions in the city. However, it appears they weren't concerned about traffic increasing into those parking lots, nor were they concerned about auto-centric/unwalkable development in the suburbs around the commuter rail. Suppose that was out of scope. But they also failed to account for the fact that induced demand implies that you cannot build your way out of congestion -- and that applies equally to transit expansion as much as to highway expansion. So it's quite probable that the CLF threw a bunch of grab-bag "transit projects" (parking lots do not count) together in the hopes that it would help, and the ones that did get built did not really help.

But transit does allow for more economic activity given a fixed level of congestion, so all hope is not lost. And properly designed transit can change the whole nature of the communities in which it is present.

For example, the induced demand effect I mentioned earlier requires that there be some kind of trip-generator at each end. For downtown Boston, there is more than enough trip-generation capacity to ensure that there will always be induced demand coming from outside Boston and using those highways. But the neighborhood level, such as Somerville, is a much weaker generator. Therefore, projects like the GLX have the potential to actually replace car trips with transit trips and not suffer from induced demand on the local streets. They also has the potential to rework the community towards a less auto-dependent, walk-friendly, more urban future. That's the kind of transit project which can really bootstrap the beneficial cycle that we're looking for, I believe. That's long-term air quality mitigation, and a host of other effects.

I think it's no accident that the best CLF projects were the ones that had been proposed decades ago, or even existed in the past: GLX, Red/Blue, Arborway. Sadly these are the ones which have yet to be completed, or were dropped.

Now, IIRC, the SB Piers Transitway was a totally new idea because there had not been a need, historically. And they got all wrapped up with the idea of using "Bus Rapid Transit" that they forgot it is not a panacea. The route is slow, poorly designed, and awkward. And perhaps the worst, it only connects with the Red Line. I suppose they probably assumed that SL Phase III would connect it with the Green and Orange lines and fix that problem. Then their mistake was severely underestimating the cost of an entirely new bus-capable tunnel under some of the oldest sections of Boston.

I've made this reply too long already, sorry. I'll leave it for now.
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

I dont understand that comment either. Everyone knows and could produce examples of the BRA demanding changes to the shape and size of buildings.
These reviews are not typically about shape and size, which are often dictated by zoning, but what type of materials comprise the facade, the general, and often specific appearance of the facade, etc. One cannot get a construction permit without design approval. That is the stick that is wielded.

The Federal government, long ago after making substantial aesthetic and improvements to certain areas, decided that it didn't want schlocky, cheap-looking buildings on nearby land, even if privately owned. Hence, the Commission was created, with the responsibility to review and approve/reject building/landscape designs which visually encroached on the improved areas.

Here is an approval for a replacement roof for a building owned by Harvard which was subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission.

RECOMMENDATION: No objection to issuance of permit for new gray–green slate roof to match existing with random width coursing and loose laid vertical gaps, and lead coated copper flashing. Note: Any subsequent modifications to the exterior design made during DCRA technical review must be re–submitted to the Commission for approval prior to issuance of permit.

I'm quite certain if Harvard had submitted a design with a new roof of asphalt shingles, the design would have been rejected.

Basically, there is no teeth in words such as encourage, urge, promote, foster, advance,...etc., these are exhortatory, and as a developer I'm free, at least in the Seaport area, to ignore them. There is no consequence to my doing so.

And if you think the Commission is too intrusive, you might care to read what happens on Nantucket.

http://www.nantucket-ma.gov/Pages/NantucketMA_HistDistMin/2012 HDCMin/HDCmin20120911new.pdf

It would have been interesting what would have transpired, if an architectural review commission with teeth was in place in Boston,with the teardown at the Isabella Stewart Gardner. IIRC, the fight that ensued was not between the city and the museum, but between the museum and certain opponents who argued that the teardown violated the terms of the will.

One should not expect developers to be altruistic. Here are two Four Seasons hotels in Russia that almost surely would not have been built / rebuilt this way if the Four Seasons and the developers had been left to do what they pleased.

Hotel Moscow in Moscow, some years ago.

800_423a0aa58c8c03e88bc121cfd6947bfe1.jpg


Hotel Moscow in Moscow, currently.

hotel_moskva_now.jpg


The hotel in the top picture was completely demolished, and rebuilt.


Government ministry building in St. Petersburg circa 1900.

800px-SPB_War_Offices_%28Lobanov-Rostovsky_palace%29_1890-1900.jpg


Four Seasons Lion Palace St. Petersburg (a five year renovation.)

Four-Seasons-design-by-Cheryl-Rowley-Design_e9bda.jpg


cq5dam-web-1280-720.jpeg


http://lionpalace.ru/
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

Sorry, I'm all over the pace today. Was this Boston Globe column posted elsewhere on the 'Arch?

Can Boston’s most controversial road fix Seaport traffic?
By Shirley Leung, Boston Globe
August 23, 2013

It was just after 4 p.m. one recent Tuesday, and while others sat in bumper-to-bumper traffic, I was flying along the bypass road as if on a magic carpet ride, cutting across town from the South Boston Waterfront to South Bay in less than three minutes.

I could get used to that, very used to that, which is exactly why the 1.1 mile stretch of asphalt known as the South Boston Bypass Road could soon become the most controversial street in Massachusetts. Actually, it already is.

The thoroughfare opened in 1993 as a restricted road for truck traffic during the construction of the Big Dig, and when the tunnels finally opened, the Bypass Road remained restricted to commercial use.

So it’s basically like a country road in the middle of the city, carrying just 100 vehicles per hour during its busiest times when it can comfortably handle 18 times that number. But as the Seaport seizes up with congestion virtually every weekday afternoon, state officials plan to explore opening the road to general traffic.

It’s not as easy as taking down some signs, though. To allow commuters and other drivers to use the bypass, the state will need to seek approval from the Federal Highway Administration because federal funds were used to build the road. State officials must show that lifting the restriction won’t add to air pollution, and if it does, they’ll need to come up with a plan to offset the harm to the environment. Think more bus service and carpooling.

And that’s just the complicated part. Here’s why it’s so controversial.

The Seaport may be the place in Boston where the new and old economies most vividly collide. And that collision may well take place on the Bypass Road.

Long before the upscale restaurants, well-heeled conventioneers, and so many tech workers in shorts and on scooters descended on the South Boston Waterfront, there were railyards and warehouses and processing plants that moved more than 100,000 pounds of fish a day. It was a workingman’s haven, and much of that still lives in the Port of Boston, on the Fish Pier, and in the Boston Marine Industrial Park.

The restricted road is an important nod to these businesses.

“We like it the way it is,” said Dennis Kelley, treasurer of Commercial Lobster Co., a seafood wholesaler that has been on Northern Avenue since 1978. He fears that allowing cars on the Bypass Road would clog it. “Time is money when you’re shipping stuff around.”

The company, which also runs the Yankee Lobster restaurant and fish market at the same location, sends three trucks out three to four times a day down the Bypass Road, ferrying fish and lobster to restaurants and grocery stores throughout the region.

Some environmentalists and residents also aren’t happy, viewing the road as a shortsighted way to deal with the gridlock brought on by an influx of new companies and thousands of employees. Opening up the road, they said, will just encourage more people to drive and more congestion.

The blunt-speaking Massachusetts Highway administrator, Frank DePaola, whose agency is studying the road change, dismisses that notion. “If you have traffic, and you want to relieve it, you have to find road capacity,” he said.

One of the biggest beneficiaries in all of this would be State Street Corp. Richard Galvin, the president of CV Properties, the developer of Channel Center and the State Street headquarters next to it, has hired Jeff Mullan, a partner at Foley Hoag who happens to be the state’s former transportation secretary, to study traffic issues in the area, including general use of the Bypass Road.

State Street’s new headquarters on A Street will bring in several thousand employees starting early next year. Galvin’s project features a big garage and a new street with direct access to the bypass.

Roger Berkowitz, chief executive of Legal Sea Foods, straddles both the new and old worlds of the waterfront, with a fish processing plant and a flashy flagship, Legal Harborside. He proposes a compromise, recommending the road be open to everyone only during rush hour.

“That’s when it’s most needed, and when it’s not, it’s better for the trucks to use,” said Berkowitz.

The state should run with Roger’s idea, or more appropriately, drive it. We need to figure out how to keep progress moving, not just set up roadblocks.

Shirley Leung can be reached at sleung@globe.com. Follow her on Twitter @leung.
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

One should not expect developers to be altruistic. Here are two Four Seasons hotels in Russia that almost surely would not have been built / rebuilt this way if the Four Seasons and the developers had been left to do what they pleased./[/url]

@Stellarfun: Your Four Seasons-in-Russia analysis doesn't pass the smell test.

The story of the Hotel Moscow has *nothing* to do with "developers" and hoteliers in any sense comprehensible in the US. It is entirely a story of Russian state corruption - in this case, the corruption of the former Moscow mayor, Yuriy Luzhkov.

The Hotel Moscow was demo'ed in 2004, and its demo was planned a few years before that. The Four Seasons decision was announced in, if I recall correctly, 2011.

The Four Seasons was not AT ALL behind the decision to demo and rebuild the Hotel Moscow. That was purely the decision - as every Muscovite knows - of Luzhkov.

Nor was there any "developer" as you cite - there was instead the City of Moscow government, which controlled and controls the site.

Luzhkov demo'ed and "reconstructed" a huge number of the city's historic structures (although in direct contradiction to the Russian constitution, all land in Moscow is owned by the city; people can own apartments, but not the land they're built on). The rebuilt structures all have identical-looking windows, tiles, stairs, doors ... you get the picture. And all of the large projects had underground parking. "Coincidentally," Luzhkov's wife is Russia's wealthiest woman and the owner of one of the largest construction companies in Moscow - which also has a large plastics molding and cement operation - all the better for those identical doors, windows and parking garages.

The Hotel Moscow fiasco was purely the City of Moscow's doing. The Four Seasons - and not the actual corporation itself, but the well-connected Russian franchisees who paid a small royalty for the Four Seasons' name and branding - was just the entity that came along nearly 10 years later and decided to (over)pay for the space, profiting the kleptocrats of Moscow's City Hall who tore it down and rebuilt it.
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

Itchy, thank you for the history. But new buildings built by kleptocrats and their relatives were developed by (actual or de facto) instrumentalities of the state, for whom maximizing a return on investment is not an issue.

It is the city of Moscow that is developing the site of the former Hotel Rossiya (which was much newer, much larger, and more unloved than the Hotel Moscow). The Rossiya was torn down seven years ago, and a replacement complex designed by Norman Foster has fallen by the wayside.

zaryade.jpg


The Filenes' hole pales compared to the site of the former Hotel Rossiya. ^^^ (For orientation, the red wall with the towers beyond the cathedral onion domes marks the Kremlin, and Red Square is in the foreground of the Kremlin walls.)

So now the city of Moscow has apparently decided the entire site should be a park, because no new park has been built in Moscow in 50 years. WTF? This would be like if Massport had decided the land it owned in the Seaport would become a community playground, or recreational playing fields like Randall's Island.

My larger point is that when seeking quality of design and quality of materials, one is much more likely to find such in either a building built by an institution, or a building built for and owned by a corporation. Private developers seeking to maximize return on investment and operating in a competitive marketplace have little incentive to spend the extra buck or two on aesthetics.
_________________

Foster's complex, looking in the same direction as the photograpj supra.

Foster1650.jpg
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

Golly people use such big and fancy words on here.....

Kleptocrats??? I'm not gonna look it up because it looks like a sniglet. A politician who steals an elected position?
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

Moving the highway underground into expanded tunnels does not reduce the amount of traffic and pollution flowing into the city. Out-of-sight, out-of-mind does not equate to mitigation. I know Salvucci understands this. He knew they would not prevail in a court case, protracted or not, that's why they settled. The traffic studies of the CA/T anticipated higher traffic volumes, and general experience would have told them to expect it anyway. Actual data backs that up.

(this is not to defend the shittiness of the Silver Line, or the CLF's near-cluelessness about good transit)

As to this, I will not agree to disagree. I'll just disagree.

The intent of the tunnels is not to reduce traffic, but to speed up and simplify traffic. As a byproduct it is to clean up pollution. Getting the exhaust pipes off the surface streets in gridlock, but moving steadily if slowly through a tunnel, means less time to release exhaust into the city. Large vent buildings and fans to direct the exhaust up into the air to dissipate and/or blow away rather than blowing into peoples faces at street level is a huge mitigation of pollution.

It's not cleaner because you can't see it, it's cleaner because it's cleaner.
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

Golly people use such big and fancy words on here.....

Kleptocrats??? I'm not gonna look it up because it looks like a sniglet. A politician who steals an elected position?

Loosely, a thieving (stealing) politician enriching himself or herself. There is also kleptocracy, which is rule by a government of thieving (stealing) politicians. I think at least one poster here would describe Boston as a kleptocracy.
 

Back
Top