The Benjamin & VIA (née One Seaport Square) | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

BKNA said:
I agree with your assessment of the Northern Ave Bridge not curing the traffic problem that is entirely due to 93 on ramps being jammed, but wanted clarify for all that most of the 'goofs' you mention just havent been constructed yet.

Thompson/Fan Pier Blvd is planned to be a four way signalized intersection.
There will be another N/S street near Boston Wharf Rd. This will be one way from Seaport. Its not aligned with BW because it is algined with Marina Park Dr. MP couldnt be placed far enough east to line up with Boston Wharf due to the Harbor. District Hall wasnt located by mistake without thinking of completing grids, the grid simply couldnt extend further north due to the harbor.
There will be a N/S Street across from/between 101 Seaport and 121 Seaport. This will be one way towards Seaport.
and the 'rump' as you call it, was already reconstructed (partially) 4 months ago. Northern Ave is straightened and there is a new intersection of Northern at E Service Rd (which is called Pier 4 Blvd north of Seaport).
Click to expand...

BKNA -- thanks for the update on whats not yet here

I disagree with your assessment of Northern Avenue not extending across the channel -- not only is that needed, but there is a need for a new automobile and others crossing of the channel somewhere in the in the middle of the Gillette parking lot

And of course now with GE there needs to be a pedestrian bridge below Summer Street at the fure Park edge of the GE HQ

I certainly hope that there is in the works at least one addition major Cross District road ultimately connecting through to Broadway
 
Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

But traffic demand doesn't seem to show a need for a Northern Ave. car bridge as multiple other people have explained the traffic is caused by people trying to get to the interstate 93 ramps in Dewey Square which Northern Ave doesn't give effective access to. Even if the you are claiming that it is needed for people who aren't going to the interstate 93 ramps the reality is that opening it to cars will only increase capacity a small amount and induced demand would get things right back to where it is right now very quickly.

On the other hand adding a bridge further down has been proposed but I believe it has always been proposed as a pedestrian only bridge and I don't see why anyone driving would want to use a bridge located that far from Dewey Square. Plus any proposal for developing that area never seems to show Dorchester Ave having more than one lane in each direction so it seems like it would be a bad idea to encourage drivers to use that as an alternate route to Seaport Blvd., Summer St., or Congress St.
 
Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

Glass almost finished on tower 1, about 2 floors up on tower 2

HTtFxEEh.jpg


KFfymT6h.jpg
 
Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

This development looks great so far. I'm still pretty skeptical about the Seaport but if this and the M-parcels succeed we might have something salvageable.
 
Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

I was there like 3 days ago and there was no cladding on tower 2 other than a couple sheets on the back side of the base. Ill have to go check this out this cladding is supposed to have more detail than the 1st tower. The windows are way darker than the renders that also have black trim with some accents. This is going to look badass.

60714_1395181555_3.19.14onessSZ.png


01.seaport-square.jpg
 
Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport







 
Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

The International place reflection pic is awesome, that's what I like about these new glass buildings is the reflections of the older buildings even ones from the 80's, of course we learned that back in the early 70's with the Hancock Tower 🙂
 
Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

Fully agree about the great reflections here and on the John Hancock. It just means you can't have only glass buildings, or else you have nothing to hold a mirror to.
 
Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

citylover94 said:
But traffic demand doesn't seem to show a need for a Northern Ave. car bridge as multiple other people have explained the traffic is caused by people trying to get to the interstate 93 ramps in Dewey Square which Northern Ave doesn't give effective access to. Even if the you are claiming that it is needed for people who aren't going to the interstate 93 ramps the reality is that opening it to cars will only increase capacity a small amount and induced demand would get things right back to where it is right now very quickly.

On the other hand adding a bridge further down has been proposed but I believe it has always been proposed as a pedestrian only bridge and I don't see why anyone driving would want to use a bridge located that far from Dewey Square. Plus any proposal for developing that area never seems to show Dorchester Ave having more than one lane in each direction so it seems like it would be a bad idea to encourage drivers to use that as an alternate route to Seaport Blvd., Summer St., or Congress St.
Click to expand...

CityLover --you can't know what the traffic demand will be given that much of the property directly adjacent to Northern Avenue or located on streets connecting to Northern Ave is still under construction

However, ignore the fact that you need a bridge to connect Northern Avenue to Atlantic Ave and indirectly to Dorchester Ave. If some one was to propose a development connected by only a couple of roads to Seaport Blvd -- the AB forum would rise up in righteous indignation and accuse the developer of trying to recreate the former New England Executive Park in Burlington

Now connect Northern Avenue to Atlantic and indirectly to Dorchester Ave and all the rest of the grid on the Financial District side of the channel and you see a far more robust network. Adding that extra connectivity makes the overall network much more able to tolerate one or more temporary losses of cross-channel connectivity

I think that the ideal system would be to provide 2 traffic lanes on a new Northern Ave Bridge with a combination of Moakley / Seaport and Northern Ave / Northern Ave set up as needed for the traffic.

So for example in the Morning because of the superior connectivity from the rest of the City through Oliver St.-- In bound traffic would all flow one way over the Moakley with outbound traffic flowing over the Northern Ave.

In the Evening with superior connectivity to I-93 via Northern Ave., both lanes of the Northern Ave Bridge continue to be outbound with the Moakley split 2 in and 2 out
 
Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

How does one indirectly connect Northern Ave. to Dot Ave. 3 blocks away? Teleportation, of course! :rolleyes:

Here's how that Innovative™ new bridge reshapes traffic patterns for our great Future™:
Take right on Atlantic. 2 sets of lights to India Row. Take left on India. Light at Surface. Take left on Surface. 4 lights to Congress. Take left on Congress. 2 lights to Dot Ave. Take right on Dot Ave.
​
Wow! That is so much more convenient and time-saving than literally every possible Seaport-side combination getting 2 blocks across from Northern to Congress. I can't believe how much time I'm saving over the new bridge vs. 2 lights down Sleeper, right on Congress, and left onto Dot at first light. And 93! Sure...you're literally staring at the ramp already descending from the Seaport intersection when Northern Ave. hits Atlantic. And it's a 100.0% physical impossibility to cross that block. But it's only 7 lights to back-track to that very same ramp for such superior connectivity, so [voice trails off]...



The same traffic patterning BS repeated for an 8th time does not make it any less BS than the previous 7 times. Lane configuration on the prospective bridges doesn't matter. And property value "unknowns" on Northern are utterly irrelevant. It's a two-dimensional fixed street grid; you...cahnt...get...theya...from...heya. Now, you can either keep carpet-bombing this thread and every other thread tangentially related to past/future bridge with ad hominem-laced deflections to every poster who points out the factual--and verifiable with one's own eyes--movements the grid permits. Or you can try to offer some factual evidence for your own assertion that the connectivity will indeed be superior in spite of this.

Exercise: You are flagged down on the sidewalk on Fan Pier Blvd. by a car full of the executive team of a really Innovative™ startup who just cut a major business deal with GE and are going to consummate said deal with Jeff Immelt's team over drinks at Wynn Resort. They want the fastest directions possible to 93 North because they're running late, it's their first time in Boston, and they don't trust their GPS after Siri got them lost from the Airport that morning.

Difficulty: Long-winded spiels about the history of the Seaport and/or the spirit of Innovation™ terraforming the area, peer-reviewed whitepapers about improving GPS accuracy, and tsk-tsk's spiked with local-flavor talk radio memes about how they're just not seeing the big picture will be met with their full scorn and derision. Causing them to drive up to the next guy, who can rattle it off in 25 words or less and advise them to grab the Fellsway exit instead of Sullivan when the school buses are letting out. Such that his accuracy and efficiency gets rewarded with an invite to come have a beer with them and Jeff Immelt. Where somehow in that blur of an evening he agrees to leave his public-sector union construction job to become their new CTO on this joint venture.

Okay...go! Rattle off those superior driving directions from New Northern Ave. Bridge. Don't deflect; time is money!
 
Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

F-Line to Dudley said:
... Causing them to drive up to the next guy, who can rattle it off in 25 words or less ....

Okay...go! Rattle off those superior driving directions from New Northern Ave. Bridge. Don't deflect; time is money!
Click to expand...

If I knew the grid and traffic patterns on the path from Seaport to Winn's site really well (which I don't), and if I could see Immelt and other potential job-providers in the car, my answer would be "Just move over and let me drive, you'll never grasp the directions. When we get there, you can buy me a beer."

Twenty-two words, and I've seized the initiative on having that beer, rather than waiting passively for them to invite me. They will notice this and correctly perceive me as a "forward-leaner", or whatever the jargon of the week is.
 
Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

"Step out of the car and walk to the barking crab instead"
 
Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

whighlander said:
CityLover --you can't know what the traffic demand will be given that much of the property directly adjacent to Northern Avenue or located on streets connecting to Northern Ave is still under construction

However, ignore the fact that you need a bridge to connect Northern Avenue to Atlantic Ave and indirectly to Dorchester Ave. If some one was to propose a development connected by only a couple of roads to Seaport Blvd -- the AB forum would rise up in righteous indignation and accuse the developer of trying to recreate the former New England Executive Park in Burlington

Now connect Northern Avenue to Atlantic and indirectly to Dorchester Ave and all the rest of the grid on the Financial District side of the channel and you see a far more robust network. Adding that extra connectivity makes the overall network much more able to tolerate one or more temporary losses of cross-channel connectivity

I think that the ideal system would be to provide 2 traffic lanes on a new Northern Ave Bridge with a combination of Moakley / Seaport and Northern Ave / Northern Ave set up as needed for the traffic.

So for example in the Morning because of the superior connectivity from the rest of the City through Oliver St.-- In bound traffic would all flow one way over the Moakley with outbound traffic flowing over the Northern Ave.

In the Evening with superior connectivity to I-93 via Northern Ave., both lanes of the Northern Ave Bridge continue to be outbound with the Moakley split 2 in and 2 out
Click to expand...
I dont even know why Im going to bother, but by paragraph:
1, People can and do project traffic volumes based on future development. and for office and residential its pretty accurate, if not skewed a little high.
2, you dont need a bridge to do this, there are already 3 bridges that do this. As F Line said, any new bridge north of Congress cant provide access to a re-opened Dot Ave anyway. and propose a development with 2 connections to Seaport Blvd? you mean like Fan Pier?? 2 connections (3 if you count Sleeper). Or how about Pier 4? 1 connection. Neither anything like Burlington.
3, the only connection that is created by opening Northern Ave is to the Greenway (Atlantic Ave) northbound. no connection to the financial district that isnt more convoluted than existing connections, no connection to 93 (other than encouraging people to drive up the greenway to the North End on ramp--exactly what we shouldnt be encouraging).
4, 5, and 6.
your conclusions are so out there I cant even tell which way your 'inbound' and 'outbound' are.
The biggest inaccuracy is that you think there is a peak hour volume traveling in 1 direction that then switches to the other direction during the other peak. In reality, the traffic volumes east and west are about the same in both directions across the 3 bridges. This is because the traffic in Seaport/Fort Point is largely regional traffic that is cutting through (mostly to avoid the SE Expwy in either direction) and not traffic associated with the new developments. There's always been traffic in the area. The only difference is nobody cared in past because it was a wasteland.
 
Last edited:
Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

F-Line to Dudley said:
How does one indirectly connect Northern Ave. to Dot Ave. 3 blocks away? Teleportation, of course! :rolleyes:

Here's how that Innovative™ new bridge reshapes traffic patterns for our great Future™:
Take right on Atlantic. 2 sets of lights to India Row. Take left on India. Light at Surface. Take left on Surface. 4 lights to Congress. Take left on Congress. 2 lights to Dot Ave. Take right on Dot Ave.
​
Wow! That is so much more convenient and time-saving than literally every possible Seaport-side combination getting 2 blocks across from Northern to Congress. I can't believe how much time I'm saving over the new bridge vs. 2 lights down Sleeper, right on Congress, and left onto Dot at first light. And 93! Sure...you're literally staring at the ramp already descending from the Seaport intersection when Northern Ave. hits Atlantic. And it's a 100.0% physical impossibility to cross that block. But it's only 7 lights to back-track to that very same ramp for such superior connectivity, so [voice trails off]...



The same traffic patterning BS repeated for an 8th time does not make it any less BS than the previous 7 times. Lane configuration on the prospective bridges doesn't matter. And property value "unknowns" on Northern are utterly irrelevant. It's a two-dimensional fixed street grid; you...cahnt...get...theya...from...heya. Now, you can either keep carpet-bombing this thread and every other thread tangentially related to past/future bridge with ad hominem-laced deflections to every poster who points out the factual--and verifiable with one's own eyes--movements the grid permits. Or you can try to offer some factual evidence for your own assertion that the connectivity will indeed be superior in spite of this.

Exercise: You are flagged down on the sidewalk on Fan Pier Blvd. by a car full of the executive team of a really Innovative™ startup who just cut a major business deal with GE and are going to consummate said deal with Jeff Immelt's team over drinks at Wynn Resort. They want the fastest directions possible to 93 North because they're running late, it's their first time in Boston, and they don't trust their GPS after Siri got them lost from the Airport that morning.

Difficulty: Long-winded spiels about the history of the Seaport and/or the spirit of Innovation™ terraforming the area, peer-reviewed whitepapers about improving GPS accuracy, and tsk-tsk's spiked with local-flavor talk radio memes about how they're just not seeing the big picture will be met with their full scorn and derision. Causing them to drive up to the next guy, who can rattle it off in 25 words or less and advise them to grab the Fellsway exit instead of Sullivan when the school buses are letting out. Such that his accuracy and efficiency gets rewarded with an invite to come have a beer with them and Jeff Immelt. Where somehow in that blur of an evening he agrees to leave his public-sector union construction job to become their new CTO on this joint venture.

Okay...go! Rattle off those superior driving directions from New Northern Ave. Bridge. Don't deflect; time is money!
Click to expand...

F-Line -- You are of course correct that if one did want to cross from Northern Ave to Dot that today you would have to head quite away on Atlantic and return on the other side of the Greenway until you got to Summer St.

How about if you want to get from Dot to Northern Ave

That doesn't take any teleportation -- just a bit of logic -- specifically when the phrase
indirectly connect Northern Ave. to Dot
Click to expand...
is read --unless the direction is specified the flow could be in either direction

I think that you have to agree that after the USPS is gone and the traffic flow on Dot is restored that the whole network needs to be re-evaluated

If that is that case you might be traveling from in front of Gillette WSHQ along Dot past Fidelity trying to get to somewhere on Bond Dr. during the mid day so Northern Ave Bridge is 1 lane in each direction

So anyway you drive on Dot to the intersection with Summer -- take a left on Summer to Atlantic then a Right on Atlantic to Northern Ave the cross the Bridge continue on Northern Ave to take a Left on Courthouse Way and then a Right on Bond or continue on Northern Ave to Fan Pier take a Left on Fan Pier and a Left on Bond

In the absence of the Northern avenue Bridge you are dependent on Sleeper St. which is narrow and could be temporarily blocked

The addition of a functional Northern Avenue Bridge and a functional Dot Ave just makes the entire network significantly more efficient and robust through the application of Metcalfe's Law of networking which believe it or not works on roads as well as the Ethernet
 
Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

^ Most sane people would NOT turn left on Summer from Dot Ave to head to Atlantic, because if you have any traffic experience with the area, you would know that the intersection of Atlantic and Summer is a general clusterf**k.
You would go right on Summer to either Boston Wharf Road or B Street and then take Seaport to Northern to get to Bond Drive -- entirely avoiding the way overburdened Atlantic Avenue.
 
Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

F-Line to Dudley said:
Okay...go! Rattle off those superior driving directions from New Northern Ave. Bridge. Don't deflect; time is money!
Click to expand...

"Fuck it - spin up the chopper Jeff, we're doing dinner in Atlantic City!"
 
Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

JeffDowntown said:
^ Most sane people would NOT turn left on Summer from Dot Ave to head to Atlantic, because if you have any traffic experience with the area, you would know that the intersection of Atlantic and Summer is a general clusterf**k.
You would go right on Summer to either Boston Wharf Road or B Street and then take Seaport to Northern to get to Bond Drive -- entirely avoiding the way overburdened Atlantic Avenue.
Click to expand...

Neither Boston Wharf Rd or B St. connect to Summer.
 
Re: One Seaport Square | Parcels B-C@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

whighlander said:
Adding that extra connectivity makes the overall network much more able to tolerate one or more temporary losses of cross-channel connectivity
Click to expand...

And btw the way westie this indicates to me that the entire premise of your proposal is mistaken. To my knowledge resilience against 'temporary losses of cross-channel mobility' is not the root issue.

The route issue is that ten years after the big dig, 93 is again at capacity, and if you want to get in or out of downtown at rush hour in a car you're just going to have to wait in a, slow line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top