Ron Newman
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2006
- Messages
- 8,395
- Reaction score
- 9
These places remind me of Solvang, California.
They got the Seaport right after all.
- Thread starter ablarc
- Start date
czsz
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 6,043
- Reaction score
- 5
More red herrings. No one doubts this. I thought we were having a debate about style, not structure?
If I have to be aggravatingly up front: why invent a past when there is the whiff of possibility of urban future? The North End isn't art, but that's not the point. The point is that the North End was not set up as an Italian theme village. If Amsterdam can articulate a contemporary take on its vernacular architecture and urbanism, why can't Shanghai? Why can't Boston?
I'd like to think that the future is something that is both more original and more contextual. And no, when I say original, I do not mean putting too much credence in long-discredited ideas of progress, but celebrating human energy, creativity, and skill.
Last edited:
Well, we've come full circle. You've posted my first take on Boston's Seaport, eons ago. Lost in the server crash. Or maybe it was on the old board?
Would have been nice to see Boston take this route. [Traditional] urbanism in Modernist clothes (there is no Modernist urbanism). But why this ongoing obsession with clothes? Who cares about the clothes if the urbanism is sound?
Would have been nice to see Boston take this route. [Traditional] urbanism in Modernist clothes (there is no Modernist urbanism). But why this ongoing obsession with clothes? Who cares about the clothes if the urbanism is sound?
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,962
- Reaction score
- 1,578
Those are the most beautiful pictures I've ever seen 
kennedy
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 2,820
- Reaction score
- 7
You kidding? Concrete boxes, if you put a lot of windows and doors, can be urban. Put clothes on 'em, and people will actually go to them. This "ongoing obsession with clothes" is actually this little thing called "architecture." It's been around for centuries. But I don't think that architecture can exist on it's own, nor can urbanism. They need each other and they complement each other.
THEY GOT THE SEAPORT RIGHT AFTER ALL, part 2
A city roughly Boston?s size, an in-town seaport made obsolete by the scale of modern shipping operations. Therefore, a windfall of developable land, now largely developed.
?A? marks the spot. City center is distinguished by concentric rings:
Like ?South Boston?, it?s accessed by bridges:
On the far shore, a place with its own pungent flavor, not like others:
You can arrive on a bicycle or a boat ?
? on foot ?
by bus, streetcar, light rail, or by car:
The car isn?t banned, it?s just not dominant.
The streetcar arrives unpromisingly in the usual tangle of wires ?
You can see it below (upper left):
You can also see that some industrial functions survive, along with a few older buildings?
?and you can see that some of the housing is not nearly as finely-scaled as the little townhouses over which I can hear you oohing and aahing:
Some parts, in fact, are refugees from Ulbricht?s Germany:
These are concentrated at the east end and along the shoreline ?
If the fundamentals of the urbanism are right, the style of the buildings hardly matters.
? while the centers of the block sometimes indulge in the usual Corbusian green space:
In modern planning, is Corbu ever far away?
Corbusian space always comes equipped with children:
So here?s how it works: the main street for cars and buses is on the north shore. It?s called Sumatrakade (major streets are named for Indonesian isles) and is accessed by vehicles directly from a bridge:
The south shore road, Javakade, discontinuous for cars but not for bicycles, is quietly devoted to the angle parking of cars and waterside promenading:
Javakade, right; Sumatrakade, left.
Both perimeter roads are lined with midrise apartments:
Cutting across from one to another are short streets with canals, like Lamonggracht.
These small cross streets --like their counterparts in New York-- host the little townhouses everyone likes so much (and only the wealthy can afford):
The blocks have soft cores, somewhat green. Tiny footprints for the town houses, and smallish ones for the individuated apartment buildings. Parceled out to different developers:
As at Poundbury and Seaside, most Italian towns and elsewhere in Amsterdam, you can drive (slowly!) on the sidewalk-less canal banks ruled by pedestrians and bikes. It?s how you get to your parking spot on Javakade, and it?s how you move the couch into your town house:
A traffic light that stops cars for bikes; wonder what triggers it to change?
Land o? bikes:
The bridge at canal?s end is for bicycles to navigate Javakade, and the wiggly bridge is for pedestrians to avoid the bikes:
Bicycle bridge and fronts of town houses:
Backs of town houses. Fenced back yards with gates. Shades of Lawrence Street?
Some seriously narrow row houses for wealthy people who like to climb stairs. Corner house has entrance on side street, which is for pedestrians:
Erm ? I meant cyclists: That path also leads to Corbusier?s green inner realm:
Paris? suburbs are full of places that look like this:
This is how I wish new development in Boston looked. It?s Beacon Hill with today?s detailing ? oh, and a canal:
On nearby Borneo Island, some of the townhouses even back up to a canal, Venice style:
About sixty custom townhouses on an inlet, though they?re surrounded by the usual repetitive machine order that afflicts most multi-family developments:
Love those commercial vessels lined up like piglets.
Other canals in the vicinity accommodate floating houses?
?and even a sinuous apartment building disguised as a bridge:
Older buildings lightly folded into the batter:
Leavened with a dash of Brutalism:
Loft living:
A place with flavor:
Ducks. In the absence of ornament, the entirety of each building is ornament:
Ducks in a row:
An engaging clutter:
A catalog of Modernist detailing:
An inspiring lesson. If the urbanist fundamentals are right --and here they mostly are-- the buildings' style doesn't matter --though it?s refreshing to see Modernism applied in this context.
Now that austerity is upon us, the time for this kind of project may have passed. Time for sobriety and sensible shoes.
Street-level pictures in this post by Troyeth, posted on Wired New York.
A city roughly Boston?s size, an in-town seaport made obsolete by the scale of modern shipping operations. Therefore, a windfall of developable land, now largely developed.
?A? marks the spot. City center is distinguished by concentric rings:
Like ?South Boston?, it?s accessed by bridges:
On the far shore, a place with its own pungent flavor, not like others:
You can arrive on a bicycle or a boat ?
? on foot ?
by bus, streetcar, light rail, or by car:
The car isn?t banned, it?s just not dominant.
The streetcar arrives unpromisingly in the usual tangle of wires ?
You can see it below (upper left):
You can also see that some industrial functions survive, along with a few older buildings?
?and you can see that some of the housing is not nearly as finely-scaled as the little townhouses over which I can hear you oohing and aahing:
Some parts, in fact, are refugees from Ulbricht?s Germany:
These are concentrated at the east end and along the shoreline ?
If the fundamentals of the urbanism are right, the style of the buildings hardly matters.
? while the centers of the block sometimes indulge in the usual Corbusian green space:
In modern planning, is Corbu ever far away?
Corbusian space always comes equipped with children:
So here?s how it works: the main street for cars and buses is on the north shore. It?s called Sumatrakade (major streets are named for Indonesian isles) and is accessed by vehicles directly from a bridge:
The south shore road, Javakade, discontinuous for cars but not for bicycles, is quietly devoted to the angle parking of cars and waterside promenading:
Javakade, right; Sumatrakade, left.
Both perimeter roads are lined with midrise apartments:
Cutting across from one to another are short streets with canals, like Lamonggracht.
These small cross streets --like their counterparts in New York-- host the little townhouses everyone likes so much (and only the wealthy can afford):
The blocks have soft cores, somewhat green. Tiny footprints for the town houses, and smallish ones for the individuated apartment buildings. Parceled out to different developers:
As at Poundbury and Seaside, most Italian towns and elsewhere in Amsterdam, you can drive (slowly!) on the sidewalk-less canal banks ruled by pedestrians and bikes. It?s how you get to your parking spot on Javakade, and it?s how you move the couch into your town house:
A traffic light that stops cars for bikes; wonder what triggers it to change?
Land o? bikes:
The bridge at canal?s end is for bicycles to navigate Javakade, and the wiggly bridge is for pedestrians to avoid the bikes:
Bicycle bridge and fronts of town houses:
Backs of town houses. Fenced back yards with gates. Shades of Lawrence Street?
Some seriously narrow row houses for wealthy people who like to climb stairs. Corner house has entrance on side street, which is for pedestrians:
Erm ? I meant cyclists: That path also leads to Corbusier?s green inner realm:
Paris? suburbs are full of places that look like this:
This is how I wish new development in Boston looked. It?s Beacon Hill with today?s detailing ? oh, and a canal:
Robert Campbell said:
On nearby Borneo Island, some of the townhouses even back up to a canal, Venice style:
About sixty custom townhouses on an inlet, though they?re surrounded by the usual repetitive machine order that afflicts most multi-family developments:
Love those commercial vessels lined up like piglets.
Other canals in the vicinity accommodate floating houses?
?and even a sinuous apartment building disguised as a bridge:
Older buildings lightly folded into the batter:
Leavened with a dash of Brutalism:
Loft living:
A place with flavor:
Ducks. In the absence of ornament, the entirety of each building is ornament:
Ducks in a row:
An engaging clutter:
A catalog of Modernist detailing:
An inspiring lesson. If the urbanist fundamentals are right --and here they mostly are-- the buildings' style doesn't matter --though it?s refreshing to see Modernism applied in this context.
Now that austerity is upon us, the time for this kind of project may have passed. Time for sobriety and sensible shoes.
Street-level pictures in this post by Troyeth, posted on Wired New York.
statler
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 7,908
- Reaction score
- 496
And how has that been working out for Venice lately?
Oh yeah, not so well.
Just because it looks cool doesn't mean it's the smart thing to do.
Seawalls should be added to Obama's infrastructure package.
Don't know what to do about Florida, a low-lying sandbar.
Has anyone thought about promoting global cooling as a way to counteract global warming?
For example, instead of only reducing CO2 emissions, could scientists devise a way to bring CO2 back down out of the atmosphere or neutralize it up high?
Don't know what to do about Florida, a low-lying sandbar.
Has anyone thought about promoting global cooling as a way to counteract global warming?
For example, instead of only reducing CO2 emissions, could scientists devise a way to bring CO2 back down out of the atmosphere or neutralize it up high?
czsz
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 6,043
- Reaction score
- 5
Let it drown.
Most of it will be abandoned soon anyway.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/us/08lehigh.html
Yes, through massive plankton blooms and such. It would only be a partial solution.
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,962
- Reaction score
- 1,578
OOoooo I want to go there... *drool*
Kinda reminds me of Roosevelt Island, but with more townhouses.
Kinda reminds me of Roosevelt Island, but with more townhouses.
czsz
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 6,043
- Reaction score
- 5
I see it now. What's with the snarky undercurrent? True, there are imperfections, but mostly because the planners and architects had to work with what was there before. True, the townhouses will be inhabited by "the wealthy", but so would high density waterfront condo towers, such as those being thrown up in the Boston Seaport. Even the grassy courtyards are almost exactly what exists in the remaining 19th century neighborhoods of Berlin - nothing so pernicious as to be chided as "Corbusian".
Yeah, me too; but this is better.
You?re certainly a pessimist. You seem to feel circumstances have been deteriorating since the first millennium, to the point where it?s impossible to equal the ?vastly superior? products of times past. It?s not ?how things are done in 2007.? Maybe Posts 82 and 87 of this thread will cheer you up; this project was under construction in 2007.
It suggests things aren?t so hopeless after all; where there?s a will, perhaps there?s a way.
Lacking at Boston?s Seaport is the will, not the way. That?s something surmountable --though I?ll grant you folks aren?t looking very hard for the way.
They need to adjust their goals.
And it would help if they knew less about what?s impossible.
Is all that pessimism justified? What do you think?
pelhamhall
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2008
- Messages
- 855
- Reaction score
- 0
Having worked in commercial real estate development, marketing and finance, I can say without a doubt that it was my time working in commercial real estate finance that has turned me into a pessimist and shown me the futility of proper architectural planning.
Because the financier looks at it and says "make the floor-plates fatter, lose the store-front crap, and take away the decorative plaza and it'll work".
You are really talking about "boutique" architecture which is tough in Boston because all the special interest groups are pecking at your balance sheet. 20% afforable units, linkage bribes, union work throughout, overbearing environmental review, shadow studies, community outreach programs... the costs just build and build and build until boutique real estate, really thoughtful buildings, just turn into super-block monoliths that can at least get financed and hope to turn a profit.
It's not the design phases, it's the financing stage, where good architecture gets lobotomized and castrated.
Because the financier looks at it and says "make the floor-plates fatter, lose the store-front crap, and take away the decorative plaza and it'll work".
You are really talking about "boutique" architecture which is tough in Boston because all the special interest groups are pecking at your balance sheet. 20% afforable units, linkage bribes, union work throughout, overbearing environmental review, shadow studies, community outreach programs... the costs just build and build and build until boutique real estate, really thoughtful buildings, just turn into super-block monoliths that can at least get financed and hope to turn a profit.
It's not the design phases, it's the financing stage, where good architecture gets lobotomized and castrated.
Ron Newman
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2006
- Messages
- 8,395
- Reaction score
- 9
But doens't "store-front crap" make more money for the property owner or developer, by adding in commercial rents? I don't see why it would ever be advantageous to omit storefronts.