Suffolk Downs Redevelopment | East Boston/Revere

JeffDowntown said:
Isn't 5 over 1 the maximum you can go per fire code in Massachusetts? 5 wood over 1 steel/concrete floor. I guess you could add more steel/concrete floors to the base, but they add cost per sq. foot.
Click to expand...
No, this is wrong. You can't have wood construction above 85' period.
Bad enough we use wood at all. But, we probably would do much better (in terms of loss of life and property) if we forced F ratings through all residential buildings old and new above and below 75', everything firestopped per IBC 714.3.1.2, 714.4.1.1.2, ATSM 2837, 2174/ IBC Ch 17/ NFPA 101 enforced above and below 75' (re; not limited to category 3 and 4 bldgs). Obviously, this will add some cost. But experience shows us how invaluable modern firestopping has become.
It's not realistic to achieve a T rating in old buildings (The process where through penetrations through floors conduct extreme heat and rapidly spread fire). But, imagine if you could achieve a 30 minute S rating & a 1 hour F rating in every multi unit residence in the City--how many lives could be saved, and property losses reduced.

The biggest problem with wood, among all others, is so much of the structure is fuel. These structures conflagrate far too rapidly.
 
Last edited:
odurandina said:
No, this is wrong. You can't have wood construction above 85' period.
Bad enough we use wood at all. But, we probably would do much better (in terms of loss of life and property) if we forced F ratings through all residential buildings old and new above and below 75', everything firestopped per IBC 714.3.1.2, 714.4.1.1.2, ATSM 2837, 2174/ IBC Ch 17/ NFPA 101 enforced above and below 75' (re; not limited to category 3 and 4 bldgs). Obviously, this will add some cost. But experience shows us how invaluable modern firestopping has become.
It's not realistic to achieve a T rating in old buildings (The process where through penetrations through floors conduct extreme heat and rapidly spread fire). But, imagine if you could achieve a 30 minute S rating & a 1 hour F rating in every multi unit residence in the City--how many lives could be saved, and property losses reduced.

The biggest problem with wood, among all others, is so much of the structure is fuel. These structures conflagrate far too rapidly.
Click to expand...
OK, I get the 85 foot limit for the wood construction. But does that preclude 2 floors of concrete/steel under 5 floors of wood? 12 foot floor spacing for 7 floors gives you 84 ft. For cheap residential, that is probably generous floor spacing.
 
Note: this isn't an opinion of should be done in Boston in the future. i'm not speaking as an IOR. i'm not using IBC height & area tables. i'm just offering an opinion.

This is a very complex question. The determination's messaging appears to be along the lines of: "We're gonna allow you to build with combustible materials, but limit that height."

There are several types of buildings that limit construction. But for the institutional category/occupancy classification for residential (with the presumption as the means of egress being yourself, should someone pull a fire alarm). Currently that number is up to 5 wooden floors over a concrete/steel podium building. (5 over 1 construction is actually treated as 2 separate buildings in the code process). 85 feet is the high limit for what takes place within those 6 floors. The code is a podium building made of steel and concrete including a slab, with a 2nd building with up to 5 floors of combustibles for a maximum total of 6 floors.

This comes directly from the IBC, NFPA and IRC (International Residential Code) determinations. This probably has a great deal to do with the limitations of the fire rescue personnel & their equipment to be able to safely reach and evacuate residents & fight fire.

The committee's and subcommittees for Egress, Height, Area, length of spans for different types of wood beams, etc, of the IBC makes these individual determinations that contribute to the final determination. You can look up code action meetings and determinations on the ICC website. They continue to update codes for a host of items, (for example, their recent code updates for the construction of swimming pools).
https://www.iccsafe.org/products-an...e-development/current-code-development-cycle/

When building a wood frame building, there's nothing preventing you from building proper elevator shafts, and handicap accessibility from a structural standpoint. Wood as a material, gives builders a lot of flexibility.

Still, as a property owner, why would you want to have buildings in your portfolio that can burn up so quickly vs using non-combustibles?? This will always be a head scratcher for me. We shouldn't kid ourselves: current sprinklers are inadequate to prevent wooden structures from burning down. Worse, we seem to have not learned our lessons from all the incredible fires, obscene loss of life and property in our recent past.

What clearly appears to be forcing the issue in Boston, is the cost savings--clearly a result of the tough, adversarial environment to build here.

i've heard there's talk (ICC), to create new provisions to allow wood frame construction to reach up to 8 floors in the near future.... i'm (very) not up to date on the progress, or if this is even true. It's just something i heard at a meeting i attended at Holdrite, in San Diego last spring.

btw, we already have heavy timber construction in Europe going even taller. There has been a desire to make use of heavy timber (a different category of materials from ordinary lumber), and possibly build taller structures with this material in the US. I'm not sure if that's happening yet. But the state of Oregon became the first state to legalize heavy timber for highrises including residential.

https://archpaper.com/2018/08/oregon-legalize-mass-timber-high-rises/
 
Last edited:
V03_Central-Common.jpg

Link
 
FUCKING LOL!!! Look how pretty that is, it even has children releasing balloons right into the Logan flight path! What a joke.
 
Boston metro is just a series of bland 8-20 story stumps at this point, its depressing. Seaport, Cambridge crossing or whatever it is, the northern part of the South End, Fenway, Boston Landing, THIS, and Assembly square is actually probably the least offensive but still in this category, it goes on and on. Boring, uninspired, stumpy architecture. Its a systematic failure
 
Suffolk 83 said:
Boston metro is just a series of bland 8-20 story stumps at this point, its depressing. Seaport, Cambridge crossing or whatever it is, the northern part of the South End, Fenway, Boston Landing, THIS, and Assembly square is actually probably the least offensive but still in this category, it goes on and on. Boring, uninspired, stumpy architecture. Its a systematic failure
Click to expand...

Was it not depressing to you when it was a series of 3-story multi-family and 1-story auto-oriented commercial? That's what it was until the current boom...

At no point in its history has Boston looked like Dubai...
 
Way to early to call success or failure on this, though agreed renders are always silly. My biggest concern at this point is street engagement and programming which they appear to be thinking about. This is not Harvard Square (or frankly even the Seaport) nor will it ever be but perhaps it could be an unoffensive, sustainable, and relatively equitable new neighborhood and what is wrong with that?
 
All the talk is about the Suffolk Downs stop, the Boston-directed Master Plan, and the area by the oil tanks. What about the ONLY portion that's supposed to start in early 2020. What is the updated plan for Beachmont in Revere, which should be approved and ready to go?
1580309127239.png
 
Equilibria said:
Was it not depressing to you when it was a series of 3-story multi-family and 1-story auto-oriented commercial? That's what it was until the current boom...

At no point in its history has Boston looked like Dubai...
Click to expand...

But, for the most part, those were not one block per building landscrapers.........

These things are dying brontosauruses.......

Even then, there used to be TEXTURE.

.
 
Equilibria said:
Was it not depressing to you when it was a series of 3-story multi-family and 1-story auto-oriented commercial? That's what it was until the current boom...

At no point in its history has Boston looked like Dubai...
Click to expand...

I havent been following whether this development is residential, commercial, lab space etc.. but if there's a large portion that is residential I'd 100% rather have 3 story, small footprint, diversified multi families. I would love another authentic feeling neighborhood to visit and not some cold soul-less neighborhood with expensive retail and expensive eateries. There's no upside to large footprint buildings if theyre not going to be ultra dense and tall. Give me one or the other not this middling nonsense
 
Suffolk 83 said:
Boston metro is just a series of bland 8-20 story stumps at this point, its depressing. Seaport, Cambridge crossing or whatever it is, the northern part of the South End, Fenway, Boston Landing, THIS, and Assembly square is actually probably the least offensive but still in this category, it goes on and on. Boring, uninspired, stumpy architecture. Its a systematic failure
Click to expand...
Once again -- Paris and London do quite fine with mostly 4,5,6,7, story buildings

No need to make Boston look like something else -- other than Boston
So far without excessive purity -- just mostly the market
Each era creates something uniquely Boston - it becomes the style which is appropriate -- and then we are fairly good at reusing and repurposing things from an earlier time

So perhaps the 21st C first Q will be the era of 5 or 6 story apartment complexes built out of 2x4's with concrete ground floors and emergency stairs

Maybe the next step will be Massive Engineered Timber Structures up to 10 stories ?
 
shmessy said:
But, for the most part, those were not one block per building landscrapers.........

These things are dying brontosauruses.......

Even then, there used to be TEXTURE.
Click to expand...

I love walking through the triple decker neighborhoods in Cambridge and Somerville. The different paint jobs in particular make these areas shine with color and vitality. It's nothing like the monotone landscrapers of today.

It would be great to see continuations of existing street grids, instead of having these monolithic "neighborhoods" surrounded by mostly useless green space. Why does current development so thoroughly turn its back away from the way the city was historically developed in the past? Boston's best feature, besides the older architecture, is that it's dense and walkable. I would like to see more density in 2020, yet instead we are embracing soulless suburban style campus neighborhoods. It's quite sad, really.
 
Suffolk 83 said:
I havent been following whether this development is residential, commercial, lab space etc.. but if there's a large portion that is residential I'd 100% rather have 3 story, small footprint, diversified multi families. I would love another authentic feeling neighborhood to visit and not some cold soul-less neighborhood with expensive retail and expensive eateries. There's no upside to large footprint buildings if theyre not going to be ultra dense and tall. Give me one or the other not this middling nonsense
Click to expand...
I always thought this site would be a good candidate for smaller scale development too. Check out Homeruskwartier in Almere-Poort, Netherlands. The problem is, in the Netherlands the government owns most of the ground and therefor can plan land use more closely. Even where they do not own the land, they have a much more social, stronger, planning culture. In the American context, land is largely privately owned, private owners want to maximize their wealth and thus their asset's value. Thus private land owners and for-profit interests create political pressure to maximize land value. In short, while I would love development like this to happen in America, I have low expectations based on the government and social structure.

1580313908361.png


Google Street View
 
goody said:
I always thought this site would be a good candidate for smaller scale development too. Check out Homeruskwartier in Almere-Poort, Netherlands. The problem is, in the Netherlands the government owns most of the ground and therefor can plan land use more closely. Even where they do not own the land, they have a much more social, stronger, planning culture. In the American context, land is largely privately owned, private owners want to maximize their wealth and thus their asset's value. Thus private land owners and for-profit interests create political pressure to maximize land value. In short, while I would love development like this to happen in America, I have low expectations based on the government and social structure.

View attachment 3127

Google Street View
Click to expand...
NO No Non Niet Nich Nein
Never -- the problem with the EU is that there is too too much meddling -- that's why they have lots of places with 10% unemployment and stagnant economies

We already have too much planning in places like Boston and Cambridge. All of those neighborhoods of lovely 3-Deckers -- they were not planned -- they grew "organically" as the demand for places for people to live drove their "developers"

For example my father's sister owned a place in East Cambridge -- it started out life as a 3 Decker and a sort of 2nd lot. Somewhere between when the first building was constructed circa 1880 and when my Aunt and her husband acquired the place circa 1930 it essentially doubled as a "developer" bought the original house and added almost an equivalent piece.

I'm almost willing to bet that no one consulted with the Cambridge Planning Department -- although they may have gotten approval from the building department. When I was last in the building -- it was an owner occupied 6 unit building on 3 floors. One of hundreds of similar buildings in the neighborhood between Cambridge Street the railroad tracks the Kendall Area and the Courthouse
 
Since Amazon is not coming -- nor is there likely to be any one major tenant -- the Master Developer -- should do as the Master Developer of Seaport Square has done -- sell off various pieces to other developers

They laid out their vision -- but its just that -- let it grow over the next decade into Suffolk or something of that name -- a new neighborhood.

Let others complete it as it evolves -- let the master developer lay down some streets and build a few large buildings [primarily commercial] and then let the marketplace for buildings decide how it should evolve -- subject to constraints such as the FAA and marine wetlands, etc.
 
I would like the area to be subject to Tax Increment Financing (i can never remember Mass' special name for it), where the step-up in taxes (Boston's windfall) is at least partly devoted to funding transportation (e.g. the Red-Blue connector)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top