- May 30, 2006
- Reaction score
Isn't the silver line and I-90 through the seaport tunneled through fill in a flood plain?
Not the kind of mush Beacon Park is. That was a landfilled in 1864 for a horse trotting grounds. It was the first landfilling segment of the Back Bay using the fill they brought in from Needham Highlands to do the rest of the Charles Basin fill, and was the test parcel before they moved on to the basin fill east of Kenmore that would actually hold buildings and a street grid. Prior to Beacon Park all the landfilling they had done was from hilltop mining off the tip of Beacon Hill to fill in all the small ponds in downtown, widen the Shawmut Peninsula isthmus, and manicure the wharves with boulders and gravel. There's a reason why it was nothing but trotting grounds, rail yards, and roads for 150 years. They invented their tidal flats landfilling technique there before applying it on the whole rest of Back Bay, South Bay, and Dot Bay.Isn't the silver line and I-90 through the seaport tunneled through fill in a flood plain?
Yep...this. Pumps, pumps, armada of pumps. And to some degree just letting 'er flood by-design like Storrow and the Esplanade by BU and Magazine Beach are designed to when the Basin just can't hold any more after a big storm with big storm surge constraining the dam's outflow throughput into the Harbor.No it is in a potential flood zone because of the ocean but it is not in the Charles Basin flood zone which I assume is the difference.
I'm sure you could build a tunnel but the cost would be incredibly high. I think it would have to be built as though it was an underwater tunnel and the portals would need to be protected from flooding somehow and I am not sure how that could be done.
Under that logic Back Bay's Pru or Hancock shouldn't exist. Back Bay was all filled in swamp. There's always a way.You can't anything underground on mid- 19th century...poorly lanfilled...silt on a Charles Basin flood plain. Nip/tuck the transpo spawl, absolutely, but you are not making it invisible.
Asked/answered in the post. BP was poorly-done early landfill not sunk with pilings to support tall structures. Everything you cite is irrelevant to THAT landfill parcel and THAT parcel only. It's not surface flooding, it's fact that BP and BP only was not prepped for slow-creep liquefaction at the century level. You can't fix that without un-landfilling and re-landfilling that segment of basin.Under that logic Back Bay's Pru or Hancock shouldn't exist. Back Bay was all filled in swamp. There's always a way.
Similarly, Kendall Sq (as was much of Cambridge) was also marshland that was pumped and pumped and pumped-out over the centuries. Also hence the title of "Cambridge Port" in Central Sq. or Lechmere downriver.
The height of the stone walls along that section of the Charles River can be heightened again too. Note, that will have to be done eventually anyways due to inevitable sea level rise.
I've always envisioned a developer getting all the land BHCC owns in turn for a new and (closely/same parcel) relocated BHCC building/campus. I don't know how it would work out or if it would even make any financial sense, but that's how I've always wanted them to handle that set of lots along 93.Could BHCC sell some of their lots directly adjacent to the community college orange line station for development? Even selling one often and turning the other into a garage would make financial sense.
Sorry, I typed that, early on before your response and got side tracked before logging back in and posting it. Thanks for your very thorough post.Asked/answered in the post. BP was poorly-done early landfill not sunk with pilings to support tall structures. Everything you cite is irrelevant to THAT landfill parcel and THAT parcel only. It's not surface flooding, it's fact that BP and BP only was not prepped for slow-creep liquefaction at the century level. You can't fix that without un-landfilling and re-landfilling that segment of basin.
It'd make a great D-Line branch from North Station to Kenmore (and perhaps beyond to West Station), and a great bikeway too.Someone remind me why Storrow is necessary? Just turn it into a normal city street.
I remember when those were built - the projects before were (I think) denser and pretty bad. I think its still all subsidized/section 8, and I would think Wentworth at the very least wouldn't want to see a return of a intensified housing project. Switching to a mixed income model might work, but then you get push back from existing residents and activist groups. Plus, all of that housing is only 14 years old at this point.The Mission Main Apartments (roughly bounded by Smith, St. Alphonsus, Ward, and Parker in Mission Hill) could support some serious densification. It's a huge site (about 20 acres) of suburban garden-style apartments that practically borders both the Green and the Orange Lines. And it's surrounded by institutions that would likely put up (relatively) little NIMBY opposition.
Seems like they could add 1,000+ units of housing there without even trying very hard...
That model also shows the Midtown Motel site redeveloped with an 10 or 11 story project.In the original Christian Science complex render there is a 291' tower at the edge of the complex. Who knows if once the units are sold in 1 Dalton if this could be back up in the air later on down the line. If they've looked at it before theres no reason they cant later once everything else comes together and has some time to settle.