Suffolk Downs Redevelopment | East Boston/Revere

Arlington said:
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)
Click to expand...
Arlington -- that's not a bad idea -- especially if the funds also help connect the Suffolk Neighborhood to the CR to Lynn [given as a Blue Line extension seems increasingly remote]
 
whighlander said:
Arlington -- that's not a bad idea -- especially if the funds also help connect the Suffolk Neighborhood to the CR to Lynn [given as a Blue Line extension seems increasingly remote]
Click to expand...
Yes, another worth spend would be some kind of CR-Blue connection at the Dog Track, CR Electrification, and Red-Blue.

The neighbors here have a strong case that the new site will generate a whole lot of car trips, and that "the offset" should be some kind of investment (paid for in part by Suffolk Downs) in transit to and through the area.
 
Arlington said:
Yes, another worth spend would be some kind of CR-Blue connection at the Dog Track, CR Electrification, and Red-Blue.

The neighbors here have a strong case that the new site will generate a whole lot of car trips, and that "the offset" should be some kind of investment (paid for in part by Suffolk Downs) in transit to and through the area.
Click to expand...
If I had a vote in a Boston election -- I'd vote for that kind of arrangement --- that's the kind of "Linkage" that actually makes sense and would benefit a huge number of people and enable the redevelopment of Lynn into another Southie-like place for the techno-middle to live
 
whighlander said:
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"
Click to expand...

Firstly, that isn't Dutch so disagree in English or just don't. Secondly it is a fallacy to say strong planning traditions and government intervention result in higher unemployment and stagnant economies. The Dutch unemployment rate is lower than the United State's and similar to Massachusetts. I might also add that the Dutch have lower levels of poverty, higher levels of educational attainment, better public transportation, and a society/economy working far more aggressively to stop climate change. Dare I say much of that is attributable to strong planning traditions.

I don't disagree that organic urban growth has its virtues but it can also have its externalities. In the American context without a policy led approach those once "organic" residential "urban" fabrics (which have a host of their own issues and are not as organic as they seem) will never transition to higher density or mixed used fabrics. They are essentially a time capsule of the economic and transportation technology of their day, regardless of what the current market, social, and environmental needs of the city are today. That is because those communities and our culture/ system of government support private ownership as primary. Property owners have influence and will protect what they feel to be their best interest even if it is at the expense of the collective interest. Thus the need for government coordination aka planning.

I would not want to live in a Boston that had a Houston-like approach to planning. It might be more development friendly, it might reduce housing costs, however those trade offs in my opinion would not improve the experience of those living and working in the city. I am pro-development, pro-density, and pro-planning.

Back to the thread. My original point was simply this is not a 'core location' nor is it really a natural location for a node like this thus from a planning perspective smaller scale development could have made sense. I wholly understand why it is being built out the way it is and don't think it needs to be god's gift to Boston to be a success.
 
Goody, would be happy to see you weigh in here more often.
 
goody said:
Firstly, that isn't Dutch so disagree in English or just don't. Secondly it is a fallacy to say strong planning traditions and government intervention result in higher unemployment and stagnant economies. The Dutch unemployment rate is lower than the United State's and similar to Massachusetts. I might also add that the Dutch have lower levels of poverty, higher levels of educational attainment, better public transportation, and a society/economy working far more aggressively to stop climate change. Dare I say much of that is attributable to strong planning traditions.

I don't disagree that organic urban growth has its virtues but it can also have its externalities. In the American context without a policy led approach those once "organic" residential "urban" fabrics (which have a host of their own issues and are not as organic as they seem) will never transition to higher density or mixed used fabrics. They are essentially a time capsule of the economic and transportation technology of their day, regardless of what the current market, social, and environmental needs of the city are today. That is because those communities and our culture/ system of government support private ownership as primary. Property owners have influence and will protect what they feel to be their best interest even if it is at the expense of the collective interest. Thus the need for government coordination aka planning.

I would not want to live in a Boston that had a Houston-like approach to planning. It might be more development friendly, it might reduce housing costs, however those trade offs in my opinion would not improve the experience of those living and working in the city. I am pro-development, pro-density, and pro-planning.

Back to the thread. My original point was simply this is not a 'core location' nor is it really a natural location for a node like this thus from a planning perspective smaller scale development could have made sense. I wholly understand why it is being built out the way it is and don't think it needs to be god's gift to Boston to be a success.
Click to expand...
From the standpoint of location, I think you identified the reason why this development needs scale. It is not a natural development location; it is not core. It needs sufficient density of development to be somewhat self-supporting, otherwise it will be a challenging place to live or work. Basically it needs sufficient critical mass to draw in and support neighborhood retail, services, etc. Otherwise, even with the T access it is going to feel isolated and uninviting.
 
goody said:
Firstly, that isn't Dutch so disagree in English or just don't. Secondly it is a fallacy to say strong planning traditions and government intervention result in higher unemployment and stagnant economies. The Dutch unemployment rate is lower than the United State's and similar to Massachusetts. I might also add that the Dutch have lower levels of poverty, higher levels of educational attainment, better public transportation, and a society/economy working far more aggressively to stop climate change. Dare I say much of that is attributable to strong planning traditions.

I don't disagree that organic urban growth has its virtues but it can also have its externalities. In the American context without a policy led approach those once "organic" residential "urban" fabrics (which have a host of their own issues and are not as organic as they seem) will never transition to higher density or mixed used fabrics. They are essentially a time capsule of the economic and transportation technology of their day, regardless of what the current market, social, and environmental needs of the city are today. That is because those communities and our culture/ system of government support private ownership as primary. Property owners have influence and will protect what they feel to be their best interest even if it is at the expense of the collective interest. Thus the need for government coordination aka planning.

I would not want to live in a Boston that had a Houston-like approach to planning. It might be more development friendly, it might reduce housing costs, however those trade offs in my opinion would not improve the experience of those living and working in the city. I am pro-development, pro-density, and pro-planning.

Back to the thread. My original point was simply this is not a 'core location' nor is it really a natural location for a node like this thus from a planning perspective smaller scale development could have made sense. I wholly understand why it is being built out the way it is and don't think it needs to be god's gift to Boston to be a success.
Click to expand...
Goody -- You can't be serious in comparing the Netherlands to the US.

You could drop the entire Netherlands into some counties in Texas and the country would vanish

But -- i digress -- the point was the the EU the masters of planning and replanning are a burden on all of their constituent parts to a degree yet unimagined in DC

From the standpoint - purely of plans and planning to plan -- the EU has achieved what Stalin prayed for -- the ability to write a regulation for everything.

Just one example because a noted Dutch company was involved [Phillips] in the decade long struggle with the EU bureaucracy:

There was a concern some number of years ago that most of the EU industry was becoming dominated by "Screwdriver Factories" -- where stuff arrived from the Far East in a crate and the European Factories acted like Ikea Customers -- screwing the panels together and hoping that there were no left over pieces.

So -- first the EU decided that this would not happen with Semiconductors [especially VLSI microprocessors] -- which an EU/EC study deemed the technology of the future. Then the EU/EC commissioned a study which undertook how you would define a Semiconductor to be Certified to have been "Fabbed" [manufactured] in the EU. After several years of study at the most prestigious EU U's supported by major companies such as Siemens and Phillips -- the EU debated and finally officially pronounced that in order to be Certified as a official EU-Fabbed Semiconductor -- the "Final Diffusion" stage of manufacturing had to be performed in a fabrication facility operating within the EU. Sounded -- really good to the bureaucrats in Brussels.

However -- there was essentially a fatal flaw -- by that definition there would be no EU Semiconductors. It just so happens that between the study to study and the study and then the promulgation of the regulation -- well Semiconductor Fabrication Technology evolved and Diffusion was replaced by Ion Implantation [with ion implanters made in the Gloucester /Peabody Area on Boston's North Shore].
The result of these extensive ruminations was that with few exceptions the EU was left behind by Moore's Law -- and there were never any EU Microprocessors to compete with Intel's Pentium [coincidentally Fabbed in Hudson MA]. Now a couple of decades later -- DEC & then Intel Hudson's legendary Fab 17 is gone and things Semiconductor-wise have improved over in the EU and indeed one of the smaller US manufacturers of semiconductors {Cypress] is in the process of being acquired by the Munich HQ'd Infineon [which itself spun-out of Phillips].
 
Coyote137 said:
So Suffolk Downs being redeveloped somehow links up with spurious and frankly revolting claims that the modern EU is a Stalinist enterprise?
Click to expand...
At least read the whole post -- or if you did -- comment on something of substance

From the standpoint - purely of plans and planning to plan -- the EU has achieved what Stalin prayed for -- the ability to write a regulation for everything.
Click to expand...

Emphasis in my sentence -- PURELY of plans and planning to plan -- no one accused the EU of being Stalinist in any other aspect. Far closer to a modern computerized The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union -- which we tried and rejected after ten years as being unworkable 230 years ago.

I've even personally benefited from the EU/EC unique experiment in Bureau-Democracy -- its way of doing all things -- I was an officially sanctioned US delegate to an EC sponsored forum -- and we got to sit in that amazing room in Brussels where everyone can hear their own language.

If you are sitting in the right seat -- flip one switch and Voila -- Écouter en français

Since at one time I'd been interested in Ancient Greek -- I sat in Hellas or Ελλάς and if so inclined could have heard the speaker talking in Greek

But -- it would have been Greek to me -- so I stuck with English :cool: 😋 🙃😜:cool:

Now -- back to the discussion of what kind of planning makes sense for the former Suffolk Downs

As I pointed out -- I kind of like what the Master Developer has done with Seaport Square -- define the blocks and build out some -- then let others buy-in and build

Suffolk is in some ways Seaport Sq on proverbial steroids -- bigger and equally clean-sheet. Of course there are differences -- to date no compelling reason why another developer would want a piece of the action.

I suspect that the much more compact Wonderland as it evolves -- will soon provide a "cook book" for the future development of the Suffolk neighborhood.
 
Last edited:
atlantaden said:
www.bostonglobe.com

Activists say Suffolk Downs redevelopment planning is freezing out non-English speakers - The Boston Globe

A civil rights complaint filed Monday alleges that the city hasn’t done enough to communicate with non-English speakers who have concerns about the massive Suffolk Downs development.
www.bostonglobe.com www.bostonglobe.com

Wow, just wow! I mean, no one is being evicted from their home, anew community is in the works to build up to 10,000 units of housing, and yet....!
Click to expand...
95% of the time, I’m anti-NIMBY. This article though is misleading and the concerns that these neighbors have are legitimate. It says that the neighbors want more of a say in regards to what will go into this development. We don’t know what they want? Maybe they want the developer to go back to the drawing board and think up something that would actually bring character to this part of Boston? It’s not all build, build, build, without knowing what’s going on.

And honestly, at the risk of sounding like certain former members who shall not be named, if I lived in that part of town, I’d rather have the Revs build “Putnam Investment Centre,” than some dull 128-ish office park. Because those renders made me have an ugly cry they’re so bad.
 
They have a right.. but holy crap, I really hope Suffolk Downs isnt just going to be a bunch of glass boxes... spice it up a bit.
 
This area begs for the grid to be finished. The diagonals work perfectly as pedestrian connections, especially towards connecting the T stations, as well as restoring wetlends to the NW. It can become another part of what a lot of East Boston is, isolated spots along the Blue line, or it can be used to integrate Orient Hights and Beachmont into a larger cohesive Eastie (chuckle). I see absolutely nothing in their current plans that would accomplish this, and so am going to have side with the protesters on this one.
 
The City Life / Vida Urbana website is entirely in English. Rather ironic for an organization complaining that the city and the developer have inadequately communicated with Spanish-speaking residents.

As to what City Life wants, more affordable housing. More communication in Spanish (and maybe Arabic) to residents in East Boston.
 
So much I could say about all of this...

Thank your "host" for making certain that I won't be saying it here.
 
Last edited:
stellarfun said:
The City Life / Vida Urbana website is entirely in English. Rather ironic for an organization complaining that the city and the developer have inadequately communicated with Spanish-speaking residents.

As to what City Life wants, more affordable housing. More communication in Spanish (and maybe Arabic) to residents in East Boston.
Click to expand...

Stellar -- No -- what they want is clearly a "Slice of Pie"
These kind of entities don't offer anything until a deal is nearly ready for implementation -- then they come begging or threatening for their "Fair Share"

I'm willing to bet that this "Shake-down" has been in the planning stage since the Amazon-II proposal. Now they are trying to get a piece of the action -- aka a payoff -- before things actually start happening.

There might be a strategic component as well -- such as when Southie wanted to limit housing in the Seaport to protect their "Electoral Clout" These groups might be afraid that if they don't act now -- the thousands of new residents who could move into Suffolk might not be their political allies.
 
whigh, that strategy is not limited to advocates of providing more affordable housing, or who 'represent' those on the lower end of the income spectrum against property owners and developers. citylife is not in this to improve the street grid or connectivity between neighborhoods, or to improve the design aesthetic.

In this instance, citylife may not have much of a leg to stand on. Both the city and the developer held community meetings in Spanish, and if I correctly read the city's narrative of its community outreach, several meetings were entirely in Spanish. This undercuts that part of citylife's complaint alleging that English -> Spanish translators at English language presentations possessed an unsophisticated technical vocabulary.

This is a tempest in a small teacup Nothing compared to a 'conversation' with potentially affected parties and property owners about water rights in the West.
 
stellarfun said:
whigh, that strategy is not limited to advocates of providing more affordable housing, or who 'represent' those on the lower end of the income spectrum against property owners and developers. citylife is not in this to improve the street grid or connectivity between neighborhoods, or to improve the design aesthetic.

In this instance, citylife may not have much of a leg to stand on. Both the city and the developer held community meetings in Spanish, and if I correctly read the city's narrative of its community outreach, several meetings were entirely in Spanish. This undercuts that part of citylife's complaint alleging that English -> Spanish translators at English language presentations possessed an unsophisticated technical vocabulary.

This is a tempest in a small teacup Nothing compared to a 'conversation' with potentially affected parties and property owners about water rights in the West.
Click to expand...
Stellar -- the very fact that there is coverage of this is an indication of deep connection with media. The project has been out in the open for a substantial time -- yet they now want to meddle in the implementation -- a Pox [rhetorical of course] on all of their houses.
 
Looks like demolition of horses barns beginning soon
517E5F84-C956-4DE7-802E-8C43AEA197AB.jpeg
8DD47B85-829A-494D-96AC-D322DBD23899.jpeg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top