Why doesn't another city step up?

[AdamBC]

Perhaps this is a rhetorical question, but since Boston and the BRA seem to desire to shoot themselves in the foot, why doesn't another city step up to the plate and become a good place to work and live?

I was thinking back to my recent trip to DC and staying in Arlington along the Orange line (at Ballston) and there was significant TOD a few blocks around the stop, fairly tall, new residential and commercial buildings for people who didn't want to head into DC.

Why doesn't a city like Quincy or Braintree step up to the plate and rezone the areas around their Red line stops for 20-30 story mixed-use buildings and generate the urban buzz that has been sucked out of Boston by the current 'process'? This development would be a boon to their tax roles and increase their prominence.

Is there anywhere in the 128 area with heavy rail and highway access where the NIMBYs don't run the planning committee that can take the lead on TOD and build up?

 

[BostonUrbEx]

I was thinking the same thing.

What first came to mind was Lynn and/or Salem (especially Salem) if the Blue Line could be extended. But let's go one step at a time...

Next thought was Malden, but Malden likes to pretend it is a little town.

Cambridge is possible, but it's successful and really great as is.

Perhaps Somerville, at Assembly Sq? Let's hope it comes to fruition.... And Wellington in Medford could as well, air rights a-plenty! That would be pretty nice to have some pretty good size development on both sides of the Mystic on the Orange Line.

Other than Assembly Sq, we can hope for Quincy. Otherwise, what else do we have?

 

[Shepard]

TODs on the scale you're describing rarely create "urban buzz" (your words) to rival that of the metropolis. They are often Disney-esque, over-engineered, overly commercial, lacking in quirks and spontaneity. For example, Long Island City in Queens, while taller than Boston's Seaport, is every bit as ghastly urbanistically. Hudson-side Jersey City too. Take these two cases - in each case, it's not the TOD itself that actually gets energized but rather the existing low-rise areas that are proximate - in these cases Astoria and Hoboken.

Downtown Boston - like much of Manhattan - works so well because the new developments are proximate to old neighborhoods that can house the energy. Build a real TOD at Wellington and the question doesn't become whether the new TOD has urban energy - it becomes whether Medford has enough urban bones to support a reneaissance of vitality in its existing neighborhoods. I'm not sure.

I do, however, look at places like Chelsea and see very workable urban bones. With rapid transit and a dense employment center centered onthe existing light industrial areas around the CR line, I think there could be a recipe for a very vibrant success story.

Also worth pointing out that the failure of TODs to create true urban environments is not just a feature of North America. Europe seems to do it better, but still ends up with Canary Wharves and La Defenses. I've also seen many ghastly Asian TODs.

 

[AdamBC]

Shepard - do you think part of the lack of buzz is due to the footprints? In that each building is an entire block which makes a stroll through the neighborhood much less enjoyable?

Also, I return to my question - do any of the cities reachable by T have the right kind of current residents to not chain themselves to the trees near the T-stop when the question of large-scale TODs come up?

 

[JohnAKeith]

Well, I think they've accomplished this in North Quincy, no? It's a mini-financial district.

I don't think the city's to blame for why buildings (residential or commercial) don't get built in the outer-boroughs of Boston. I think it's people - they think living the other side of Mass Ave is too far to go for a luxury building, much less Fenway, Allston/Brighton, or West Roxbury/Hyde Park/Roslindale.

 

[Shepard]

Problems usually involve maximized footprints, minumum parking requirements (usually resulting in above-grade garages because land is cheaper than in urban cores) and a desire to maintain open space - if not inside the complex then surrounding it, which disconnects it from older existing neighborhoods. Also, these TODs often become Park-and-Ride type facilities which necessitate a good deal of heavy-duty road infrastructure (e.g. Alewife, Station Landing) which nip any potential pedestrian feel in the bud.

I think that the area's most successful "urban" development is Marina Bay in Quincy - ironically, it is not a TOD at all (although there may be some seasonal ferry service).

I think this area of Chelsea could have potential, and the city of Chelsea would certainly have the motivation. This would of course need rapid transit along the rail line (many extensions here are possible including Green, Orange and Blue). I'm not sure about flight paths limiting height here: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=chels...,-95.712891&sspn=42.865783,92.724609&t=h&z=16

 

[MonopolyBag]

I think that some places do try this, maybe not so much Boston. Another example is Stamford with relation to New York.

However Boston does have limited transit, and Boston is a big city. Extending public transportation and using new technology may further development outside of the downtown area.

The economy is not helping development now.

And our country is built around suburban life.

All of this put together doesn't really promote practical new developments. Development is slow. However when looked at over the course of 10 years I am always amazed.

But I do see Boston being a bit less developed around its edges as larger cities, and my best guess beyond what I already mentioned would be possibly that Boston's growth is not the same as southern cities. I have seen articles on this, but the population is not growing the way the city wishes. One theory is that people prefer sunny area in Florida, Texas, and Southern Cali.

 

[commuter guy]

Another possible explanation why surrounding cities in this area may be less likely to develop dense urban like areas from the ground up (regardless of whether they succeed as an urban environment) is that Massachusetts allows strong local control over zoning, relative to other states. So many cities/towns and their residents are resistant to have their town change from the way it's been for decades. In other areas of the country residents may be more transient or if they do object to new develoment the local town boards etc. may have less control over what gets built.

With some success, Massachusetts has tried to nudge cities and towns with carrots and sticks to allow for more construction, e.g., TOD incentives, 40B etc.