South Boston Infill and Small Developments

[DudeUrSistersHot]

that's hot.

 

[JimboJones]

Is it done?

Occupancy at Macallen, yet? Any closings?

 

[ablarc]

Nice that there's new construction, but when will the city improve the pavements and the surroundings generally?

It looks so desperate. Where are the trees? When will this place be freed from cyclone fence and litter?

The new buildings are welcome, but right now this place looks like hell.

 

[ablarc]

A pedestrian's paradise.

 

[Bobby Digital]

yea i hear ya ablarc, but that area of southie is like that. def not pedestrian friendly at all.

and i think it looks alot better in person IMO.

 

[ablarc]

that area of southie is like that. def not pedestrian friendly at all.

Doesn't have to stay that way.

 

[Bobby Digital]

Oh I totally agree, the owners of McAllen could have helped changed that, but at that location, its pretty tough.

 

[briv]

A pedestrian's paradise.

Thats not a street, its the W Fourth St bridge. It spans over a MBTA bus barn, the red line train yard, Amtrack rails and the Fort Point channel. Youre kinda asking a lot there, Ablarc.

 

[ablarc]

Thats not a street, its the W Fourth St bridge. It spans over a MBTA bus barn, the red line train yard, Amtrack rails and the Fort Point channel. Youre kinda asking a lot there, Ablarc.

It's obvious that it's a bridge.

I don't think you meant to imply that that inevitably makes it pedestrian-unfriendly.

Here's a bridge that's quite pedestrian-friendly, and from its treatment you could surmise that folks don't feel compelled to drop concrete blocks on what passes beneath. I can guess at least one reason why:

 

[DudeUrSistersHot]

why is it that you moved to the carolinas, ablarc?

 

[ablarc]

^ It's the land of opportunity, haven't you heard?

Money grows on trees.

 

[singbat]

Thats not a street, its the W Fourth St bridge. It spans over a MBTA bus barn, the red line train yard, Amtrack rails and the Fort Point channel. Youre kinda asking a lot there, Ablarc.

It's obvious that it's a bridge.

I don't think you meant to imply that that inevitably makes it pedestrian-unfriendly.

Here's a bridge that's quite pedestrian-friendly, and from its treatment you could surmise that folks don't feel compelled to drop concrete blocks on what passes beneath. I can guess at least one reason why:

that's not quite fair. the pretty bridge comes out of a very different social and economic structure -- the people not dropping concrete blocks off of it are freeloading on the backs of the peasants of the mid 1800s (or thereabouts). our bridge might look stunning if it was constructed under the same economic rational.

i remember a post from aways back where you drew a line to a canal in Amsterdam -- that might be a bit closer. you could definitely do better here and it might look at bit like those pictures.

in any case, this building has a reasonable street presence on its front and also, in a way, the side facing the expressway. for my money, you could do a lot worse.

 

[ablarc]

the pretty bridge comes out of a very different social and economic structure -- the people not dropping concrete blocks off of it are freeloading on the backs of the peasants of the mid 1800s (or thereabouts).

Bridge was actually built in the 19th Century between liberal revolutions. There were plenty of disgruntled citoyens around when this was built.

In any case, the peasants and the original freeloaders were and are long gone, and yet there's still no one dropping blocks on passing boats even today --in modern times-- when the pictures were taken.

Where are the curved cyclone fences?

our bridge might look stunning if it was constructed under the same economic rational.

You'd still have to address the concrete blocks (or so think the powers-that-be). Would it then still be stunning?

i remember a post from aways back where you drew a line to a canal in Amsterdam -- that might be a bit closer. you could definitely do better here and it might look at bit like those pictures.

I remember that... Something besides crime prevention and malice as form determinant.

Less violence and resignation to hopelessness in Amsterdam.

in any case, this building has a reasonable street presence on its front and also, in a way, the side facing the expressway.

What's reasonable about it?

for my money, you could do a lot worse.

You could indeed; this is certainly not the ugliest building in the world. It makes some good styling gestures while it hunkers down in its hostile surroundings.

Anyway, anything can be done worse.

You could even put in a parking lot.

 

[singbat]

the pretty bridge comes out of a very different social and economic structure -- the people not dropping concrete blocks off of it are freeloading on the backs of the peasants of the mid 1800s (or thereabouts).

Bridge was actually built in the 19th Century between liberal revolutions. There were plenty of disgruntled citoyens around when this was built.

In any case, the peasants and the original freeloaders were and are long gone, and yet there's still no one dropping blocks on passing boats even today --in modern times-- when the pictures were taken.

Where are the curved cyclone fences?

our bridge might look stunning if it was constructed under the same economic rational.

You'd still have to address the concrete blocks (or so think the powers-that-be). Would it then still be stunning?

i remember a post from aways back where you drew a line to a canal in Amsterdam -- that might be a bit closer. you could definitely do better here and it might look at bit like those pictures.

I remember that... Something besides crime prevention and malice as form determinant.

Less violence and resignation to hopelessness in Amsterdam.

in any case, this building has a reasonable street presence on its front and also, in a way, the side facing the expressway.

What's reasonable about it?

for my money, you could do a lot worse.

You could indeed; this is certainly not the ugliest building in the world. It makes some good styling gestures while it hunkers down in its hostile surroundings.

Anyway, anything can be done worse.

You could even put in a parking lot.

you made me smile after a hell of a day -- thanks.

but i don't agree with your first comment on my comment... i guess i'm just pointing out that the historic antecedents for the two bridges are pretty significantly different -- you might as well lay one society up against the other... and, imho, that still is more art than solution or progress on the issue at hand -- as i see it, what to do with the east side of the expressway up to the postal annex (give or take).

as to what is reasonable about the front... nothing, other then that you can have a good conversation about how it works and doesn't work. i don't like it -- but unlike the sides of the building it has more then textural intent.

i do like the face that overlooks the highway. the view must be mesmerizing, especially towards evening around rush hour. i happen to like the industrial landscape over in that part of the city, and i can imagine just looking over the tracks and highways for hours. probably over stating it, but i'm glad the developers didn't put up a blank wall on that side.

btw, i appreciate your posts -- wish you had time for some of the old narrative style.

 

[Ron Newman]

Thats not a street, its the W Fourth St bridge. It spans over a MBTA bus barn, the red line train yard, Amtrack rails and the Fort Point channel.

Are you sure that it crosses any water at all now? I don't remember any water under this bridge, and the Google satellite photos support my recollection.

The next bridge over, the (new, relocated) Broadway Bridge, appears to span a very narrow inlet. But mostly, what both bridges cross are railroad tracks.

 

[Bobby Digital]

yea ron your right theres no water there....


and ablarc, if your just trying to satirical and funny, thats fine with me, it was slightly funny, no worries. but if your trying to make a valid point.... ahhh guy, its a bridge over train tracks next to a highway.

 

[ablarc]

^ The "valid point" I proposed is that no place where we expect people to walk absolutely has to be ugly --even if it's a bridge over railroad tracks.

It's the fact that we expect it and accept it that makes it likely now and in the future.

We could have higher aspirations.

One way is to start thinking outside the box.

Inside the box, all bridges over railroad tracks are ugly.

 

[justin]

ablarc, if you think that the gilded cherub kitsch makes that bridge beautiful, sure, let's put up exact replicas above the rail tracks and see if they have the same effect.

If, on the other hand, it is the surroundings that make it beautiful, then I'm afraid we'll have to set our sights permanently lower for this particular bit of Boston, No amount of lipstick will prettify this pig.

justin

 

[ablarc]

^ Tudor City used to be an abattoir.

(Or maybe the U.N. was an abattoir...)

"Permanently" is an awfully long time.

So much weltschmerz hereabouts...



And I'm accused of pessimism!

.

 

[Bobby Digital]

once again.... its a bridge OVER TRACKS AND NEXT TO A HIGHWAY.. get a grip.

you know how many bridges in the state are in some stage of disrepair? some borderline dangerous? where do you suggest we get money for that? There's nothing wrong with functionality.

you wanna make a "pretty" bridge, i suggest you make a donation.