Widett Circle Development, so it begins.

[stellarfun]

Image from the Globe accompanying the article on the Charles River watershed letter.

 

[JeffDowntown]

This is a link to the letter from Charles River.

https://www.crwa.org/uploads/1/2/6/...rs_re_climate_resilience_at_widett_circle.pdf

I've just glanced at it, so won't comment now. I was looking for a reference to the BCB elevation for Widett, but didn't see it.

I don't know the BCB elevation for Widett. But I am pretty sure that on the FEMA flood risk maps it has the highest risk level for flooding due to sea level rise and storm surge. It is really a bathtub waiting to fill up.

 

[JumboBuc]

Coalition of environmental groups, including CLF, send a letter to the mayor and city council expressing concerns about potential redevelopment / flooding of Widett Circle:

Environmental groups criticize potential development of Widett Circle because of flooding issues - The Boston Globe

A coalition of more than 15 environmental advocacy organizations, led by the Charles River Watershed Association, sent a letter to Mayor Martin J. Walsh and members of the City Council on Tuesday, expressing concerns about tidal flooding in the low-lying Widett Circle area.

www.bostonglobe.com

Wetlands and permeable surfaces in Boston are going to do about as much to protect against the effects of climate change as a low-sugar diet is going to protect you against a gunshot wound or a car crash.

Cutting back on sugar is good and healthy and recommended, and you should totally do it for your health! But it will do nothing to protect you from serious trauma, and living next to the ocean in the time of climate change is serious trauma. In the same way, periodic flooding from precipitation events is a totally different risk from that of storm surge flooding resulting from sea level rise and climate change.

The only possible way to protect our city from the rising sees is an engineering solution. We will need to address this over the next century. A couple acres of wetlands here and there will do nothing. If our solution to climate change is to not build at Widett then we are doomed as a civilization. I wish people could devote all the energy they pour into preventing things from being built into more constructive solutions encouraging climate protection solutions to be built. But it's easier to say no than it is to say yes.

They write that the public works yard has already experienced drainage issues, and this area could be regularly flooded “a mere two decades into the useful life of any development,” based on the city’s projections for sea level rise.

A "mere" two decades sounds like a very long timeline for an Amazon warehouse.

 

[found5dollar]

Image from the Globe accompanying the article on the Charles River watershed letter.

wow. I always forget just how much space there is here between the highways, train tracks, parking lots, and Widett Circle itself.

 

[curcuas]

Wetlands and permeable surfaces in Boston are going to do about as much to protect against the effects of climate change as a low-sugar diet is going to protect you against a gunshot wound or a car crash.

Cutting back on sugar is good and healthy and recommended, and you should totally do it for your health! But it will do nothing to protect you from serious trauma, and living next to the ocean in the time of climate change is serious trauma. In the same way, periodic flooding from precipitation events is a totally different risk from that of storm surge flooding resulting from sea level rise and climate change.

The only possible way to protect our city from the rising sees is an engineering solution. We will need to address this over the next century. A couple acres of wetlands here and there will do nothing. If our solution to climate change is to not build at Widett then we are doomed as a civilization. I wish people could devote all the energy they pour into preventing things from being built into more constructive solutions encouraging climate protection solutions to be built. But it's easier to say no than it is to say yes.



A "mere" two decades sounds like a very long timeline for an Amazon warehouse.

Exactly! We need to focus on the long term solution, which incidentally is *checks notes* 12th century technology used in the Netherlands, especially. We should be smart about Widdett, but turning it into parkland is not that.

 

[stick n move]

Id love to see the fort point canal extended for a new canal district if theyre talking about some type of restoration. Obviously not south bay but there was a point where the bay was filled in with a left over channel which extended much further than it does now. Ive never seen any great pictures of it but you can see it in the distance of some older pics.

Unfortunately it was so polluted and filthy back then that it was better to just fill it in, but I always wonder what could have been. Would have had a ton of potential today for redevelopment.

heres one picture showing part of it

A map showing the extended channel

I think it must not have been this way for long because its near impossible to find detailed maps or pictures of it in this condition. Still, though its not the full bay, there is historical precedent here.

 

[BronsonShore]

As recently as 1965 it still extended all the way to Newmarket:

And both of those waterways are still there, in the form of culverts that empty into the channel here:

If full-scale development in this location is just too difficult at this point, can we at least deck a park over the tracks and daylight the canals? We can even get some houseboats going, like London's canal district:

 

[Blackbird]

If full-scale development in this location is just too difficult at this point, can we at least deck a park over the tracks and daylight the canals? We can even get some houseboats going, like London's canal district:

Would those canals not be suuuper gross?

 

[stellarfun]

Would those canals not be suuuper gross?

No.

The principal pollution source for Regent's Canal in London is surface runoff from roadways during rainstorms.

Furthermore, road runoff from canal side is a major issue for water pollution as runoff contains chemical and metal substances such as lead, zinc, nickel etc. (Wang, et al., 2012). Canal side road and parking lots may contain lead, oil and other toxic pollutants and can occur water pollution through road run-off. The London Sustainable Drainage Action Plan has no any plan to stop canal side run-off from London's road network but it is a significant water pollution source (London Waterkeeper, 2016).

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Analysis-of-water-quality-in-Regents-Canal-London
(Editorial and grammar issues in the original)

The photo is probably proof enough. If the canal were noxiously polluted, there wouldn't be houseboats on it. In the older B&W photos of the Dorchester Canal, the distinct gray color of the water is usually a tell-tale sign of very gross pollution; they don't call it gray-water for nothin.

 

[Equilibria]

Would those canals not be suuuper gross?

Also, would houseboats really line canals through Widett Circle and along the back fence of BU's virus lab?

 

[stellarfun]

Wetlands and permeable surfaces in Boston are going to do about as much to protect against the effects of climate change as a low-sugar diet is going to protect you against a gunshot wound or a car crash.

Cutting back on sugar is good and healthy and recommended, and you should totally do it for your health! But it will do nothing to protect you from serious trauma, and living next to the ocean in the time of climate change is serious trauma. In the same way, periodic flooding from precipitation events is a totally different risk from that of storm surge flooding resulting from sea level rise and climate change.

The only possible way to protect our city from the rising sees is an engineering solution. We will need to address this over the next century. A couple acres of wetlands here and there will do nothing. If our solution to climate change is to not build at Widett then we are doomed as a civilization. I wish people could devote all the energy they pour into preventing things from being built into more constructive solutions encouraging climate protection solutions to be built. But it's easier to say no than it is to say yes.



A "mere" two decades sounds like a very long timeline for an Amazon warehouse.

Charles River Watershed's letter, while thoughtful, is unrealistic for two reasons.

First, the scale of what they want the city to undertake with respect to restoration of tidal marsh and a tidal stream is not the 20 acres proposed for commercial re-development, but 300 acres. In fact, the commercial side of Widett Circle is a secondary, even tertiary element in their very ambitious plan.

Restoring the wetlands, bay, and tidal stream that originally existed in this location would mitigate existing and future stormwater flooding, protect neighboring homes and businesses—including many low-income residents in the South End, Dorchester, and Roxbury—and provide much-needed green space for Bostonians.

The restoration called for is of the so-called Bass River, probably so-named for the anadromous fishery.

A 300-acre wetland in this area could store runoff from a 10-inch storm from over 1,000 acres of the surrounding developed area, protecting homes and businesses, including many low-income residents in the South End, Dorchester, and Roxbury. Even a partial restoration project to restore the stream would protect the surrounding area against modest rainfall events (~1 year storm).

Second, the letter's scheme simply ignores the railway tracks (some with third rail) and the MBTA's Cabot Yard that surround the Widett Circle commercial parcel. Tidal wetlands will simply overflow and inundate this infrastructure during the storm events forecasted.

 

[Blackbird]

No.

The principal pollution source for Regent's Canal in London is surface runoff from roadways during rainstorms.


https://www.researchgate.net/project/Analysis-of-water-quality-in-Regents-Canal-London
(Editorial and grammar issues in the original)

The photo is probably proof enough. If the canal were noxiously polluted, there wouldn't be houseboats on it. In the older B&W photos of the Dorchester Canal, the distinct gray color of the water is usually a tell-tale sign of very gross pollution; they don't call it gray-water for nothin.

I was referring to the Boston canals, not the London ones..

 

[stellarfun]

I was referring to the Boston canals, not the London ones..

A hypothetical Boston canal could actually be rather clean. Assumes three things.

First, there are no combined sewers in the neighborhoods mentioned. If indeed there are none, there would be no overflows from combined sewers into what presently is a covered culvert, and prospectively a canal. (Combined sewers carry both domestic sewage and stormwater runoff.)

A future canal receiving combined sewer overflows would be unsanitary, and a health hazard from a contact standpoint. (The overflows would very likely be illegal.) This also presumes there would be no direct discharges into this culvert from interior building drains that have bypassed the sewer system. Also illegal, but, who knows if these exist.?

Second, any drains currently emptying into the culvert are exclusively street drains. This flow is usually 'mildly' polluted, with contaminants from streets and urban surfaces, similar to that described in the Regent Canal reference. I wouldn't swim in it, but you could recreationally boat on it, and fishing might be safe. Presumably, stormwater runoff is currently draining into the culvert from separated storm sewers, else the culvert would be dry.

Third, the water in the canal is not stagnant, and/or anoxic. This requires the canal to have flow and be flushed, probably by the tide.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Second, the letter's scheme simply ignores the railway tracks (some with third rail) and the MBTA's Cabot Yard that surround the Widett Circle commercial parcel. Tidal wetlands will simply overflow and inundate this infrastructure during the storm events forecasted.

If the state were directing any construction here, flood provisioning would be front-and-center because MassDOT has self-controls now on mandatory planning that bakes in a flood risk. Much like NJ Transit (albeit, reactively after being devastated by Sandy first) now has on-the-books evacuation plans for all of its low-lying storage yards, fortifications for vulnerable utilities, and means of turning off said fortified utilities preemptively. We probably would've been okay there if they were the coordinating agency with ground-prepping for a bottom-level storage easement with underwriting agreement for the second-level decking. The elephant in the room now is why the BDPA felt so motivated to move heaven and earth to grease the skids for a privileged private developer who up-front admitted they had no clue what such provisions were necessary because they had no clue what the actual development was going to be or what type of upzoning they were going to agree to. Hence, if this falls apart and they have to go "Mommy, help?" at MassDOT after the fact for solutioneering...the whole slapdashedness of the process is going to be self-immolating. The CLF et al. wouldn't have anything to be running their mouths about right now if anti-planning hadn't been the M.O.-in-motion ever since this transaction was cooked up.


This has evolved into a full-on breakout for City of Boston of the same case of planning brainworms Cambridge has with Alewife. The default expectation is now maximum stupidity with every move, and they can't help themselves to stay out of their own way. There's truly no bottom to how pants-on-head this can go in the hands of this collection of dunces.

 

[bakgwailo]

Also, would houseboats really line canals through Widett Circle and along the back fence of BU's virus lab?

Why not? I doubt in the end most people would care or even know.

 

[Equilibria]

Why not? I doubt in the end most people would care or even know.

Because those areas are ugly, hard to access, and will likely be that way for a long time.

Widett is ideal for an Amazon distribution center, a railyard to support Urban Rail, some sort of flood relief infrastructure, or some combination thereof that works. It isn't ever going to be a neighborhood in my lifetime.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Widett is ideal for an Amazon distribution center, a railyard to support Urban Rail, some sort of flood relief infrastructure, or some combination thereof that works. It isn't ever going to be a neighborhood in my lifetime.

Great. So why was a promise to upzone it way, way grander than that the headline the BDPA used as cover to go all-in with its institutional might brokering a sale to a privileged developer when it was clear as day the privileged developer was just talking out their ass and had absolutely no intention to follow thru with anything behind the advertised hype? Up to and including giving zero fucks about what environmental considerations would support any development, however downsized, there at all.

This thread's active not because somebody was trying to find the true level of what Widett was good for. The great troubleshoot here is now that the transaction was apparently all a giant bait-and-switch aided and abetted by public institutions that should've known better by now, and now has devolved into a giant self-immolating mess. The City told us what this area "should" be when it facilitated the deal. That was not the public's misconception.

 

[Equilibria]

Great. So why was a promise to upzone it way, way grander than that the headline the BDPA used as cover to go all-in with its institutional might brokering a sale to a privileged developer when it was clear as day the privileged developer was just talking out their ass and had absolutely no intention to follow thru with anything behind the advertised hype? Up to and including giving zero fucks about what environmental considerations would support any development, however downsized, there at all.

This thread's active not because somebody was trying to find the true level of what Widett was good for. The great troubleshoot here is now that the transaction was apparently all a giant bait-and-switch aided and abetted by public institutions that should've known better by now, and now has devolved into a giant self-immolating mess. The City told us what this area "should" be when it facilitated the deal. That was not the public's misconception.

And unless you're a tenant of the New England Food Market who's unhappy with the new digs in Chelsea, who cares? If the City sold a bill of goods to a developer to buy the site and he's now discovered it's not worth decking the whole thing to put in a mixed-use development, who cares? If he knew that the whole time and always intended for the site to end up as distribution (unlikely, since the kibosh was only put on the Dot Ave site for the fulfillment center a couple of months ago), who cares? And if anyone truly believed the pie-in-the-sky developers and construction moguls pushing luxury condos or soccer stadiums, that's their problem. Rich developers make big plans and don't execute them all the time. Why is this one such a major betrayal of public trust?

As you've said yourself, the true danger of any development at Widett is the threat to future use to facilitate Urban Rail. I don't care whether the rest of it is re-established wetland, vaccine manufacturing, or anything else.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

And unless you're a tenant of the New England Food Market who's unhappy with the new digs in Chelsea, who cares? If the City sold a bill of goods to a developer to buy the site and he's now discovered it's not worth decking the whole thing to put in a mixed-use development, who cares? If he knew that the whole time and always intended for the site to end up as distribution (unlikely, since the kibosh was only put on the Dot Ave site for the fulfillment center a couple of months ago), who cares? And if anyone truly believed the pie-in-the-sky developers and construction moguls pushing luxury condos or soccer stadiums, that's their problem. Rich developers make big plans and don't execute them all the time. Why is this one such a major betrayal of public trust?

As you've said yourself, the true danger of any development at Widett is the threat to future use to facilitate Urban Rail. I don't care whether the rest of it is re-established wetland, vaccine manufacturing, or anything else.

So...we as sheeple should continue normalizing rank corruption?

 

[Charlie_mta]

Major parts of flood prone developable lands should be made into wetlands. This should have happened at Cambridge Crossing and should now happen at Widett Circle. This mad rush to zip up areas that were historically marshlands, wetlands and creeks is extremely short-sighted given the reality of worldwide climate change. And besides, it benefits a city (and developments) to have some natural open space to break up the sprawlsville.