They got the Seaport right after all.

czsz said:
Is it completely infeasible to grid a network of streets and sell off lots for townhouses today in the same way that Back Bay was developed in the 19th century?
Click to expand...
010.jpg


055.jpg
 
It's not clear to me that those Amsterdam houses were built individually as I described. But assuming they were, what are the necessary financial/business practice/legal frameworks for this, and are they possible in the US/Massachusetts/Boston?
 
I'm inclined to think these were individually built like the houses in Back Bay, but if it's an illusion, it's a good enough illusion so you can't tell. And if you can't tell whether they were individually built, it doesn't much matter after they're built. The outcome is equally good either way.

In either case, the scale is right, and so is the diversity.
 
Definitely a larger development. Note the repetition of the same sloped 4th floor gray building on each side, in each instance next to the same brick building with the same large glass window on the ground floor.

Does anyone else think that the primary purpose of developments such as these is that they can be photographed for Ikea wall art?

In any case, despite that note of aesthetic cynicism, this is undoubtedly closer to what our Seaport is meant to be. Can this happen? Will it? I'm about ready to grab my shovel and start digging a canal with y'all.
 
Yeah, but remember, Ikea came after the funky modern European row houses.

All aesthetics aside, the concept is sound.
 
So the Amsterdam development owes its aesthetics, in large part, to the foresight of city planners. They even pre-designed the homes, it seems.

I'm not counting on that here. And we've already seen that we can't count on developers, who feel entitled to elephantine lot sizes and footprints.

Sigh.
 
Shepard said:
We can scratch our heads all day and ask why they won't replicate a brownstone Back Bay in the Seaport, or at Northpoint... well, this just isn't going to happen. We're doomed to build in our time.
Click to expand...
Here?s the North End built entirely in our time. Note the buildings? dainty footprints.

Doomed. Did these buildings? developers go broke?

0010.jpg


0020.jpg


0030.jpg



pics from SSC and Wired New York.
 
Is that down by Piraeus in the 2nd pic?

Yeah, Athens is a great example. And not a skyscraper to speak of.
 
blade_bltz said:
Yeah, Athens is a great example. And not a skyscraper to speak of.
Click to expand...

This is one of the reasons I scoff at people who complain about the skyline of the city. It is such a dick waving contest. I'd rather have 100 neighborhoods of the North End/South End than a few more bland glass towers.
 
On the other hand, it must suck to navigate the grey sprawl of Athens without a single vertical landmark, especially given how many of those postwar apartment blocks look the same.

I suspect the third pic is from a different area than the first two. Some of the buildings look older and the street is narrower and more crooked than those in the second pic.

I wonder if this is a good example given how different the Greek economy was before the 1970s. It was not up to "first world" standards until joining the EU. It may have been closer in many respects (efficiency of materials production, labor costs) to the conditions that allowed for the creation of the North End.
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
I'd rather have 100 neighborhoods of the North End/South End than a few more bland glass towers.
Click to expand...
It's not either/or, is it? Our lovely city amply demonstrates that you can have both.

There are many ways to enhance Boston, but the prevailing mode doesn't seem one of the best. The prevailing mode is on display at the Seaport and Kendall Square. This is neither Athens nor New York, and it's inferior to both because it's based on lukewarm cliches and simple untruths ("you can't make a profit from small footprints", and "tall buildings are the devil's work.")

There's nothing inspiring about any of it. It's time we woke up.
 
ablarc said:
It's not either/or, is it? Our lovely city amply demonstrates that you can have both.
Click to expand...

Yes but most American cities don't. Most are suburban sprawl with a few towers that denote a "downtown".

But I'm wondering if our fixation with skyline takes away energy from trying to fix the torn urban fabric in neighborhoods not as lucky as the Back Bay, like Roxbury, Dorchester, East Boston, etc.
 
Fixation with the skyline? Where is this really a problem beyond fora like these?
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
But I'm wondering if our fixation with skyline takes away energy from trying to fix the torn urban fabric in neighborhoods not as lucky as the Back Bay, like Roxbury, Dorchester, East Boston, etc.
Click to expand...

I tried to cover this concept a while back in this thread.

As many of you know, I'm "visible" at meetings in East Boston. The imbecile who wrote this toilet-paper-worthy diatribe (and I don't mean Ron, who was kind enough to share it with us here) plays a leadership role in development planning in East Boston. I hope this illustrates the kinds of challenges that van is referencing.
 
Last edited:
Thanks. If there's any news about the Seville Theatre project, could you add it to that thread? It's been a while.
 
Shepard said:
We can scratch our heads all day and ask why they won't replicate a brownstone Back Bay in the Seaport, or at Northpoint... well, this just isn't going to happen. We're doomed to build in our time.

... If that "best result" isn't worth hoping for today, we can always wait until tomorrow. Of course, we're often left waiting anyway.
Click to expand...
Ah ... the power of the times ...




(Zeitgeist theory at its purest.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top