The Life of the City is in the Streets

[czsz]

What's amazing to me is the one place where there should be lots of people just sitting and relaxing is Downtown Crossing. But there is virtually no place to sit. There should be tables and chairs throughout the whole area. Restaurants should be spilling out into the streets. The whole financial district should be more like this.

An example closer to home - New York closed a lane of traffic on Broadway between 42nd and 34th and did this with it:

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

New York has been doing that in many places and every one I've seen has been a tremendous success.

 

[ablarc]

I wonder what keeps thieves in a van from cruising by at night to swipe the chairs.

 

[Ron Newman]

Perhaps they are chained together at night? Au Bon Pain in Davis Square does that.

 

[czsz]

Wouldn't it crash into one of the heavy planters?

 

[pelhamhall]

In the 1960s and 1970s the brightest and smartest, most progressive and intellectual architects and urban planners put their minds together and gave us City Hall Plaza. Charles River Park. The original Prudential Center plazas. These were seen as the future of development - the vision of tomorrow.

The thinking at the time made total sense, and cities and social life were much different back then - so the thinking worked but the execution was horrific.

Today, the brightest and smartest, most progressive and intellectual architects and urban planners put their minds together and gave us places like Station Landing - seen as the future of development, the vision of tomorrow. It's mixed-use! It's pedestrian-friendly! It's transit-oriented! It's the bold vision of tomorrow! And yet... it sucks

Again, the thinking seems to be on-track, but the execution seems to be all wrong.

I go to Station Landing quite often and find it so sad. I was at a BRA meeting regarding the Bayside site and they used Station Landing to show people what the future of development looks like.

And this is a problem - it might look good on paper, but it feels wrong in person. The "intellectual, ivory-tower new urbanist" thinking is right, the "blue-collar guy who wants a sandwich for lunch" execution is all wrong.

 

[Ron Newman]

Over time, though, the Prudential evolved into something most of us can accept as part of the urban landscape. Could the same happen to Station Landing or Bayside given the same amount of time?

 

[commuter guy]

Perhaps they are chained together at night? Au Bon Pain in Davis Square does that.

^ When I was in NY a few month ago, as nighttime approached, I saw business improvement district workers wearing uniforms gather all the tables and chairs, consolidate them and lock em up for the night.

 

[statler]

Over time, though, the Prudential evolved into something most of us can accept as part of the urban landscape. Could the same happen to Station Landing or Bayside given the same amount of time?

Anything is possible, but it would require a massive redevelopment of the Wellington Circle area.

Currently, it is completely built for the automobile and high speed automobile traffic.
Any kind of change would require large scale reduction in car traffic through the area.
Maybe people smarter than myself can figure out how to make that happen.

 

[cden4]

Anything is possible, but it would require a massive redevelopment of the Wellington Circle area.

Currently, it is completely built for the automobile and high speed automobile traffic.
Any kind of change would require large scale reduction in car traffic through the area.
Maybe people smarter than myself can figure out how to make that happen.

The fact that our "parkways" through there are so auto-oriented is really a shame. That's such an important crossroads, it really should be reimagined into true multi-modal boulevards. Then maybe we'd have people walking around and going to Station Landing on foot or by bike.

 

[pelhamhall]

Well, I want to disagree. I think that thinking is the same thinking that gave us City Hall Plaza back in the day - simply put, I find it too visionary...

My proposed reality is this - the automobile is never, ever going away. Literally - never. Very little will change in the next 50 years. We may not drive gas-powered automobiles, they may drive themselves, they may be any number of different 'personal transportation pods' but 'cars' are not going away.

Removing cars from human life is a radical and wild concept that would uproot and re-invent literally the entire world. It is not going to happen in the next 50 years at least.

So my vision of the future is so much less bold - it's just like today, but with more conveniences. All social evolution has been driven by convenience. Rarely has humanity ever evolved in a manner that inconveniences people.

So I don't see people ever ditching cars for public transportation. So I think it's foolish to design for less cars in society.

We may limit and change our driving habits and vehicles over the years, but my big, bold prediction for 2058 is that we all have 'cars' and 'drive' to where we want to go. Just like today.

I've biked to work, it's fun. I've taken public transportation, I could see it working if I was closer to a stop on both ends. I've walked to where I need to go when the weather is nice and I want some fresh air. But nothing fundamentally changes the automobile society that we live in, and I think it's humorous for designers in 2008 to imagine architecture without the prevalent and heavy use of 'cars'

 

[czsz]

Beyond the obvious design failures (parking lots in Station Landing's case), the line of continuity between City Hall Plaza and Station Landing is simple - they were both built all at once, and by the same people. Earlier "planned" developments may have provided a street grid and some public buildings, but they sold off plots of land for individual development. The result was a degree of architectural unity dictated by setback requirements and contemporary fashion, but otherwise at least some critical variegation.

 

[cden4]

Well, I want to disagree. I think that thinking is the same thinking that gave us City Hall Plaza back in the day - simply put, I find it too visionary...

My proposed reality is this - the automobile is never, ever going away. Literally - never. Very little will change in the next 50 years. We may not drive gas-powered automobiles, they may drive themselves, they may be any number of different 'personal transportation pods' but 'cars' are not going away.

Removing cars from human life is a radical and wild concept that would uproot and re-invent literally the entire world. It is not going to happen in the next 50 years at least.

So my vision of the future is so much less bold - it's just like today, but with more conveniences. All social evolution has been driven by convenience. Rarely has humanity ever evolved in a manner that inconveniences people.

So I don't see people ever ditching cars for public transportation. So I think it's foolish to design for less cars in society.

We may limit and change our driving habits and vehicles over the years, but my big, bold prediction for 2058 is that we all have 'cars' and 'drive' to where we want to go. Just like today.

I've biked to work, it's fun. I've taken public transportation, I could see it working if I was closer to a stop on both ends. I've walked to where I need to go when the weather is nice and I want some fresh air. But nothing fundamentally changes the automobile society that we live in, and I think it's humorous for designers in 2008 to imagine architecture without the prevalent and heavy use of 'cars'

I agree with your points but disagree with your conclusions. The reason why cars and driving are so convenient in most places (and walking, bicycling, and transit are so inconvenient) is because we've spent the past 50+ years designing for cars (to the exclusion of the other modes).

Plenty of people live in Boston (and Cambridge and Somerville) who don't own cars. They actually have the option to walk, bike, or take transit, and in most cases, it's actually faster than if they did use a car.

People respond to the environment they are given. If you make it driving easy and everything else hard, then they will drive. If you do the opposite (or at least give them options), they will use the many different modes as they see fit.

I think we can change. I think we already are to some extent. But it's a long process, and there has to be leadership and vision from government to build the cities to give people options and not be so car-dependent, not always assuming that things will always be exactly how they are now. It doesn't mean getting rid of cars, either. It just means putting them on a level playing field with other modes.

 

[ablarc]

pelhamhall, you can't and shouldn't remove cars from life; just don't build parking lots if you say you want a place to be urban. Places with parking lots are never urban.

You can provide all the parking you need below or above grade in garages, just so you put shops at grade.

Just don't use street level to store cars. This was known way back when they built the Motor Mart. It remains a paragon.

 

[czsz]

Stacking the parking in Motor Marts might help one place be urban, but otherwise helps distribute auto culture wherever those cars go (not to mention depriving the city of the street-enlivening, tax-generating benefit of having actual offices or residences in that building rather than cars).

In Berlin, city of wide boulevards, almost no one drives. This is because there is almost no parking, what little exists is expensive, and there is a dense and very efficient subway and bus network. The convenience factor has been molded to heavily favor bikes and transit.

 

[ablarc]

People respond to the environment they are given. If you make it driving easy and everything else hard, then they will drive. If you do the opposite (or at least give them options), they will use the many different modes as they see fit.

I think we can change. I think we already are to some extent. But it's a long process, and there has to be leadership and vision from government to build the cities to give people options and not be so car-dependent, not always assuming that things will always be exactly how they are now. It doesn't mean getting rid of cars, either. It just means putting them on a level playing field with other modes.

Dead right!

Do you think the new prez will rise to the occasion? Serves several of his goals: energy independence, environmental healing, better trade balance...

 

[ablarc]

Contrast your pictures with my personal experience today with this "new urbanism"?

I had a meeting in the City Square development in Charlestown - home to two failed restaurants, a Cold Stone, a Sorelle, two vacant blocks of retail space for 5+ years, a Citibank (about to close), and a local gift shop. There is a large grassy "open space" that typically sits unused which is a pity because it is pretty. There is a little archway to baby-mimic Rowe's Wharf, but it's brick plaza opens to a parking lot, not boats. It's usually not used.

Don?t you think what it needs is its subway station back? All those folks ready to hike up Bunker Hill?

What's next in real estate? For me, I just look at ablarc's pictures and think I can see the answer - but don't know how to make it profitable in today's red tape bound and utterly corrupted civic system.

But what ? do you ? really see?

 

[kennedy]

I know that when my family traveled from the suburbs into the city, we used the subway because we knew there would be no parking in the city. It wasn't convenient, or because we cared about the environment, or urbanism-we just wouldn't be able to park in the city. Too hard. As an aside, traveling to my family's house in Norwood, I always pleaded to take the tunnel and go through the city, rather than take 128. In my childhood, I guess my subliminal knew that cities were simply more interesting to stare out the windows at.

Ablarc, in those pictures, I see a healthy neighborhood full of happy people. Interesting people. Smarter people. But it came from a model that today, is very difficult to make economically feasible. It would take strong government intervention to create smaller parcels, and smaller developers to create individual buildings-rather than mega-projects. Or a developer who truly cares about urbanism. Anyone on the board a super-rich developer?

 

[ablarc]

It would take strong government intervention to create smaller parcels...

The government already calls all the shots. Is it too much to ask them to call them in the public interest?

 

[czsz]

Given the outrage over Kelo v. New London I would imagine there is no way the takings clause could be expanded far enough for the government to seize parcels and give them to others, unfortunately.

That means the only way to achieve a breakup would be a buyout, and there's probably little incentive for many propertyholders to sell for anything governments would be willing to / able to pay.

Given all this, the best government strategy would probably be strict zoning regulations to create at least a simulacrum of smaller parcels, but I wouldn't hold my breath for this. There would be arguments it would curtail or disincentivize development, etc., and it has no chance if elected officials are too close to developers (as many of our friends in City Hall seems to be).