Tag: Boston

Comments on Barry’s Corner Residential and Retail Commons Project

January 8, 2013

Gerald Autler

Boston Redevelopment Authority
One City Hall Square
Boston, MA 02201-1007

RE: Barry’s Corner Residential and Retail Commons Project
Expanded Project Notification Form
Submitted Pursuant to Article 80 of the Boston Zoning Code

Dear Mr. Autler:

WalkBoston has reviewed the EENF for the Barry’s Corner Residential and Retail Commons Project in Allston. This project is a first step in a major redevelopment of the surroundings of the intersection of North Harvard Street and Western Avenue, and thus will set the stage for many additional improvements in the vicinity. Our comments reflect the aspects of the proposal that most affect pedestrians, as these components are likely to play an important role in the way in which the project functions and relates to its surroundings.

The area is planned to become the principal focus of North Allston
Preliminary plans for this site are generally following the consensus presented in the 2005 North Allston Strategic Framework for planning and in Harvard’s Institutional Master Plan from 2012. Both plans call for intensive retail and other development at the intersection. The site of this proposal is but one of several sites that will comprise the North Allston activities. Considering only the north side of Western Avenue, plans call for 200,000 square feet at the Charlesview site, 45,000 square feet on the site of this proposal, and, on the arena site, 60,000 square feet for the arena and 140,000 square feet for the office/retail structure that encloses the basketball court. This totals 445,000 square feet altogether – a number that suggests a need for intensive analysis of the vehicular and foot traffic that will be utilizing all of the sites, including the one that is currently being analyzed. Any proposal for a center that will include at least 400,000 square feet should provide for carefully-considered pedestrian interconnections between its parts.
The proposed basketball arena/office building
The Institutional Master Plan of the Allston campus recently distributed by Harvard introduces a combination of a 3,000-seat basketball arena and 140,000 square feet of retail/office/residences on land immediately north of the project site. The arena will attract many people to games during the basketball season, and perhaps, depending on uses of the facility, in other months as well. What it means in terms of future pedestrian or vehicular traffic is not at all clear from this EENF. The scale of the arena project warrants consideration of its effects on this site. For example, retail activities on the proposed site might benefit from consideration of additional retail on the street level under the arena to make the retail functions of the intersection more prominent.
The sidewalk in front of the arena
The arena site is nearly a mile from Harvard Square. People coming to the area will be largely on foot (they will be discouraged from driving because of the paucity of nearby parking spaces). Large numbers of people will be attracted to the basketball arena for games and perhaps for other uses that may be scheduled there, but the volume of visitors has not been described in the EPNF. Many people will walk from Harvard Square, the Yard and from residence halls north of the river, and most will arrive via the west side of North Harvard Street. These walkers should be provided with a very wide sidewalk along the full length of North Harvard Street (currently shown as a wide sidewalk in front of the existing building but not along the stadium or this development proposal). We would recommend that it be wider than the standard 10’ – 12’ width for multi-use paths, something on the order of 20’ would be appropriate.
Extending the sidewalk to the south
A wide sidewalk along North Harvard Street should not end at the arena, but should provide access to the intersection of Western Avenue and the North Allston activity center. This wide sidewalk would pass directly along the North Harvard street side of this project, and connect to the 45,000 square feet of retail activities that occupy most of the ground floor of this proposal.
The Charlesview site
This site on the northeast corner of the intersection of North Harvard and Western has been planned for retail activity and some residential or office development. The current plan estimates 200,000 square feet for the building complex. Access between sites will take place at the intersection, where crosswalks should be redesigned to more directly connect the two sites.
The parks at the North Allston Center
Two potential sites for parks touch directly on the intersection. The existing grove of trees in front of the Charlesview development and the triangle occupied by the gas station are potential assets to the retail center and should be further developed as landmarks within this center. Either of the two sites could become intensively used by walkers as outdoor spaces to get fresh air, to sit, to read or have a picnic. Pedestrian access to either or both of the sites should be carefully considered as a part of developing the network of sidewalks and street crossings.
Crosswalk redesign
The layout of the existing crosswalks at the intersection of North Harvard Street and Western Avenue maximizes the crossing distances for walkers because all the crosswalks have been laid out as diagonals. This layout makes pedestrian crossings unnecessarily long and require walkers to stay in the street longer than they would if the crosswalks were perpendicular to the streets they cross. One example on Western Avenue shows that the existing crosswalk is nearly 80 feet long, while a perpendicular crossing would be approximately half that length. As part of the intersection improvements associated with this project, crosswalks should be redesigned for the safety of pedestrians. Removal of the refuge island on the Charlesview corner should also be considered as part of the project’s efforts to improve the North Harvard Street/Western Avenue intersection.
A new pedestrian crosswalk on North Harvard Street
Access to the proposed arena and to the site of this proposal will require pedestrian access across North Harvard Street. This is particularly important for people arriving by northbound transit, currently served by bus stops at the north and south ends of the Charlesview site. The existing pedestrian crosswalk at Western Avenue may need to be supplemented by an additional crosswalk at the intersection of North Harvard Street and Smith Field Drive Extension, which is more than 500 feet from Western Avenue, suggesting that a new crosswalk at that location would be convenient and well used. It is made particularly important because it does not make sense to have a crosswalk at Grove Street, because the distance between Western and Grove is very short.

Uses of land within the site
The relatively small size of the site and the need for specific services results in relatively constrained pedestrian access.

Vehicle uses
Almost one-quarter of the parcel will be devoted to vehicle access and surface parking because of the proposed new streets. Vehicular access to the site is one-way northbound from Western Ave. on Smith Field Drive, and two-way on Grove Street between Smith Field Drive and North Harvard Street. The description of vehicular access needs (particularly on-site loading and unloading requirements) implies that a further extension of Smith Field Drive will be constructed soon – perhaps in conjunction with this project, to allow full site access in- and out-bound from its intersection with North Harvard Street. Three streets are to be devoted to providing access to a 2.74 acre site. This may be excessive, unless they are necessary to serve the proposed arena, either temporarily or permanently
Parking on the site
The proposal calls for 180 below-grade parking spaces and 41 surface private spaces, making a total of 221 spaces on-site. These spaces will serve the 325 residences proposed for the site, and potentially some of the retail uses as well. A question remains of whether the underground parking could be reached from Smith Field Drive rather than Grove Street, which seems destined to be degraded by many autooriented uses.
New on-site street – Grove Street
Grove Street is primarily a service street designed to provide truck access to the buildings, access to the below grade garage, and 23 surface parking space. The EPNF does not discuss whether service for the arena (potentially including loading/unloading access for trucks and access to underground parking) will also be provided on the street. The combination of service uses could compromise the character of the street and the street-facing residential units as well. In terms of pedestrian use, Grove Street was designated as a “pedestrian trail” in the university’s Institutional Master Plan. This suggests continuity between Charlesview and Smith Field via Grove Street, which would need a crosswalk located midway between Western Avenue and the Smith Field Drive Extension. Such a crossing – likely to be unsignalized – could be dangerous for pedestrians and drivers alike.
A bulky arena as a neighbor
Depending on its design, the proposed arena may loom dramatically over the site of the current proposal. The project design fort his site actually calls for residential units along Grove Street, along with an irregularly shaped sidewalk and major vehicular access for loading and parking. While the vehicular portions of the proposal for this side of the site are not affected by the neighboring arena, the residential units may well be. Although the dimensions of the proposed arena are unknown, its height may reach more than half of the proposed dwellings on the proposal’s site. The prospect of a looming building also affects the proposed sidewalk, where vehicular impacts are major, and where proposed street trees or wider sidewalks will do little to mitigate the impacts of a large building.
New on-site street – Smith Field Drive and Smith Field Drive Extension
Smith Field Drive and its extension have been designed as a major service way for both this project and the proposed basketball arena. It may have operating difficulties when the arena is in use. A convergence of vehicles and pedestrians would be expected, and traffic control on either has not been discussed.
Open space
Roughly 3,600 square feet of the site’s land has been designated as street-level open space. The two parcels are located at the two corners of the buildings – one facing N. Harvard Street and the other on Western Avenue – and both serve to enhance the entrances to the residences. Additional open space of about 8,000 square feet is provided on the second level above the retail uses, and will only be accessible to residents of the site.
Sidewalks
Sidewalks surround the buildings on all sides and are of irregular widths to accommodate building entrances, potential sidewalk cafes, retail entrances and the vehicular entrances to the building. The proposal for a wide sidewalk on the west side of North Harvard Street suggests the possibility of an overhanging building or a street-level colonnade.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this important project. Please feel free to contact WalkBoston with questions you may have.

Sincerely,

Bob Sloane
Senior Project Manager

Group letter to MEEI 8/17/12

September 17, 2012

Mr. John Fernandez
Chief Executive Officer
Massachusetts Eye & Ear Infirmary
243 Charles Street
Boston, MA 02114

Dear Mr. Fernandez,

We write on behalf of the community and advocacy organizations listed below regarding the proposal of Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary (MEEI) to build a 1065-car parking garage beneath the Esplanade, to extend its existing 243 Charles Street building over Charles Street and into the park, and to return to park use the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation’s (DCR) land used currently by MEEI for parking.

Our organizations are a diverse group, some with broad interests and constituencies and others more specifically focused. One or more of us:

Advocates for improved multimodal transportation, meeting the needs of walkers, drivers, riders (on bicycles and mass transit), businesses and residents;
Focuses on the Charles River, its cleanliness, its success as a natural habitat, its recreational opportunities and its accessibility;
Focuses on the parklands along the Charles River, preserving and reclaiming parkland, improving the horticultural and physical plant, protecting the parks’ historic features,enabling all manner of recreational activities;
Addresses public policy issues such as privatization of parkland and ensuring public benefit from government action; and
Represents the interests of area residents.

We all respect the excellence of MEEI, support the continuation of its clinical and research activities, and value its importance to the greater Boston area by treating patients from around the world, burnishing Boston’s reputation as the seat of one of the great medical communities in the world, and providing thousands of jobs to area residents. We understand your interest in expanding your facilities and would like to provide input as you develop more detailed plans.

We know that you are developing an understanding of how your project could impact the diverse interests represented by our organizations. We appreciate that you dropped your plan to press for approval of the proposed land transfer during the current legislative session so that these impacts can be evaluated and addressed further. We also appreciate your acknowledgement and commitment that this project will not go forward without community support.

Our organizations are committed to exploring in good faith how our interests and yours can both be satisfied, and it is in that spirit that we have joined together to identify what we see at this time as our major concerns. Because your proposals are at this point very early stage and few, if any, studies have been completed, we can speak now only in the most general terms, but each of us is available to meet with you to discuss our concerns and identify what information and studies would enable us to explore ways to meet your needs and our concerns.

We are not a monolithic group insisting that all of the concerns of all of the participating organizations be met to the complete satisfaction of each. We are intent, though, on ensuring that all the concerns are clearly communicated to MEEI, are taken seriously, that adequate information about the concerns is provided, and that good faith attempts at resolution are made. We have committed to each other that we will operate in a transparent fashion, alerting each other about upcoming meetings with MEEI and government officials, inviting our representatives to attend such meetings as observers, and summarizing the proceedings. We ask that you similarly commit to a transparent, open process.

As we consider your proposals, we have two over-arching needs:

We need to understand your objectives, your needs, why you see these as a solution, and what alternatives have been considered and discarded. For example, the capacity of the parking garage would seem to be the primary driver behind many of the issues that concern us. Why 1065 spaces? What has changed since you submitted your draft IMP in early 2011?
We need a shared understanding of the likely benefits and deficits of your proposals. Some of this will come from studies commissioned by you (such as a traffic study, which we understand is already underway), and some will come from informed judgments made by all of as to likely effects.

With this in hand, we will all be in a better position to look for solutions. Below we outline in broad terms the concerns we have, recognizing that over time some will vanish, others will grow in importance, and new ones may arise.

Transportation. Adding more than700 additional parking spaces will inevitably increase vehicular traffic in a highly congested area. Storrow Drive is already over capacity, and Charles Circle and Leverett Circle consistently resist all attempts to either reduce traffic counts or improve flow.

While we support the goal of making it easier for infirm patients to visit MEEI, we want MEEI to explore different ways of meeting that need without constructing such a large facility. Perhaps special drop-off or parking programs can be targeted specifically at patients and visitors needing special assistance. Perhaps MEEI can reduce employee-parking needs by adopting additional programs that encourage employees to use alternative transportation. Perhaps the involvement of state and city leaders can encourage area institutions, businesses and garage operators to increase MEEI’s access to existing parking facilities or even partner with MEEI to facilitate convenient multimodal transportation in the area.
Charles Circle and Leverett Circle appear to be particularly vulnerable to increased traffic generated by the garage. These impacts must be studied and solutions proposed to ameliorate new impacts and perhaps existing problems.
The potential of the garage to interfere with the proposed Blue Line/Red Line connector should be explored.
There are a variety of suggestions of how to make Storrow Drive work better for the benefit of all concerned (not just car drivers), such as reconfiguring ramps, realigning lanes, installing traffic signals and adopting traffic calming measures. Your proposal could benefit from them, enable them or render them impractical. We should all look at all the options.
Traffic caused by the garage during evenings and weekends, when MEEI usage is presumably reduced, should also be studied. The availability of parking could be a benefit if concert-goers and charity-walkers stop parking illegally on area streets, but it could also exacerbate the situation if the incentive to use other means of transportation is reduced.

Parkland. It seems that the Commonwealth’s parks are always at risk. They are underfunded; what used to be true parkways through and adjacent to parks often morph into highways; open, undeveloped land too often gets converted to non-park uses, sometimes to private uses; and parks don’t vote. The history of Storrow Drive and the Esplanade illustrates all too many of these risks. The MEEI proposal comes to the fore during a hard-fought battle over the privatization of Daly Field, alongside the Longfellow Bridge rehabilitation project, and on top of the a long-term “2020” planning effort led by The Esplanade Association which among other things calls for significant changes in MEEI’s neighborhood.

MEEI currently uses for parking parkland leased from DCR. The Esplanade Association’s Esplanade 2020 Vision calls for the conversion of this parkland back into park uses. MEEI’s plan does the same, but at the expense of the other issues raised by this letter. Clearly this is something we will have to explore.
The 2020 plan proposes to return to park uses land adjacent to the Charles River through a significant realignment of Storrow Drive that is also projected to make Storrow safer. At first blush, MEEI’s plan appeared incompatible with the 2020 plan, but you have indicated that design changes could fix that. We look forward to having that discussion.
The Longfellow Bridge rehabilitation project will affect the Esplanade and area business and residents adversely during construction but positively up its completion. We want MEEI to make every effort to ensure that its project not delay the Longfellow rehabilitation and to manage its own construction as much as possible so as not to make it seem like the Longfellow rehabilitation will never end.
The proposed garage is largely underground, out of sight from the parkland, but we will all have to look closely at how the entrances, exits and ramps would affect access to the Esplanade, safety of bicyclists and pedestrians, and enjoyment by all.

243 Charles Street Expansion. This part of the proposal raises classic “parkland” issues, such as dedication of public land to private purposes, and many of the other issues described above. It also raises the issues typically posed by any development in an urban area such as wind, shadow, massing and design, some of which are especially sensitive because the project is close to residential areas.

Environmental and Construction Impacts. You are no doubt cognizant of the environmental issues that must be studied such as air pollution, stormwater run-off, water quality in the Charles River, and the water table impacts, many of which receive heightened attention because of the proximity of the project to the river. These will, of course, be addressed in reviews under MEPA and the BRA’s Article 80, and we suggest that earlier consideration, in consultation with our organizations, would be beneficial to all concerned.

Public Benefit. Privatization of parkland has become increasingly controversial as governments seek to off-load maintenance expense and find low-cash means of advancing private interests that are compatible with government goals. Some work well. Some don’t. Calculating the public benefit is hardly an exact science but, in the case of the proposed dedication of state parkland to underground parking and to landing the extension of 243 Charles Street primarily to support a private activity, it will be important to be able to answer questions such as the following:

Are measurable economic benefits likely to flow to the state, the city and local businesses and residents?
Will use and enjoyment of adjacent public land be significantly enhanced by the project
How significant are the projected adverse impacts of the project?
How can the $30 million state investment requested by MEEI be justified? Does it come at the expense of other priorities?

These are serious issues that may prove very difficult—even impossible—to solve. For instance, the amount of increased traffic may be insurmountable; the environmental issues may be insoluble; the privatization of parkland may fail on its merits for this project or as an unacceptable precedent for other state parks; and the final financials may not prove attractive. But the fact that these hurdles exist should not discourage any of us from looking for solutions to the challenges MEEI faces now and will in the future.

We will do our part, you will, no doubt, do your part, and we expect the myriad of public players—MassDOT, DCR, EEA, the City of Boston and the BRA—to do their part as well.

We look forward to working with you.

With kind regards,

Margo Newman, Chair of The Esplanade Association
on behalf of the organizations identified below

CC: Richard A. Davey, Secretary, MA Dept. of Transportation
Richard K. Sullivan, Secretary, MA Dept. of Energy and Environmental Affairs
Edward M. Lambert, Jr., Commissioner, Dept. of Conservation and Recreation
Mayor Thomas M. Menino
Peter Meade, Director, Boston Redevelopment Authority
Senator Anthony Petrucelli
Senator Sal DiDomenico Senator William Brownsberger
Representative Marty Walz
Councilor Michael Ross

Cooperating Organizations and Contact Information

Boston: City Routes and Downtown Map

Walking in Boston is easy and fun, and the more you walk, the better it is for you. Every hour of brisk walking can add two hours to your life. And brisk walking means bring your sneakers to match the times on this map! Many popular destinations are no more than a 10-minute walk away – and many are closer. You’ll be surprised how short the walks are – from subway stops, commuter rail stations and major thoroughfares to all points of interest in Back Bay, Downtown, Waterfront and South Boston Seaport.

Click for “Boston City Routes and Downtown Walking Map” PDF

Comments on New Brighton Landing EENF MEPA #49909

July 20, 2012

Secretary Richard Sullivan
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
MEPA Office
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114

RE: New Brighton Landing Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF) MEPA # 49909

Dear Secretary Sullivan:

WalkBoston has reviewed the EENF for the New Brighton Landing proposal. The potential improvements that this project will be able to bring to the area are substantial. The pedestrian aspects of the proposal are likely to play an important role in the way in which the project functions and relates to the surrounding neighborhood and nearby public buildings.

The core of the project is a series of new buildings on a campus focused on a new headquarters building for New Balance Corporation. A hotel, offices and a new sports center are included, along with open space and wide sidewalks that will add pedestrian amenities to the area.

We do have concerns that the surrounding area will be impacted greatly and that, so far, the project proponent has specified very little about what changes will be made to the neighborhood streets that will bear the brunt of the access into this site, including the changes that will be made to sidewalks and street crossings for those who choose to walk to the site. In May, we submitted comments to the BRA regarding this project, and had hoped that the proponent would address our comments in this filing. There are many questions remaining, and we repeat our comments to the City below.

The New Brighton Landing Master Plan includes a major indoor sports facility to be shared with neighborhood residents. It includes new office buildings that will house many new workers on the site and small retail facilities to serve people coming to the site. The proposed sports facility is an exciting addition to the neighborhood’s recreation resources and will be a major attraction for the surrounding community, and pedestrians will need access to and from the site from many directions. We have a number of suggestions for the streets that surround the site.

North Beacon Street
Bounding the south side of the site, North Beacon Street will serve as a collector for pedestrian access into the site from several local streets including Etna, Dustin, Murdock (connecting directly to Brighton High School), Gordon and Saunders Streets.

Pedestrian improvements suggested for this portion of North Beacon Street:

Pedestrian signals and signs should be placed at the intersections where most pedestrians are likely to cross North Beacon Street for access into the site: Life/Etna Streets and Arthur Street.
Wayfinding signs should be added at these locations to help residents find the new facility.

The Mass Pike splits the development site from the North Brighton/North Allston community and pedestrians from that neighborhood must access the site via either Everett Street (along the eastern edge of the site) or Market Street/Birmingham Parkway (along the western side of the site). Both of these streets need improvements to provide good access for walkers.

Everett Street
Everett Street connects North Beacon Street to Western Avenue and Soldiers Field Road via a bridge over the Turnpike. The street has sidewalks along its entire length, but they are of poor quality: most are asphalt that is indistinguishable from the roadway surface and may thus be dangerous to walkers. No curbs separate sidewalks and vehicular traffic lanes.

Pedestrian improvements suggested for Everett Street:

Everett Street is so important to neighborhood walking and for access to the river that its sidewalks should be totally rebuilt for pedestrian safety – widened and separated from road traffic by a curb where none now exists.
Crosswalks should be added at all major intersections on Everett Street, including North Beacon Street and Soldiers Field Road.
Cut-through traffic should be discouraged and pedestrian safety should be considered along streets where traffic diversions are predictable, such as Franklin Street.
Wayfinding signs on Everett Street should be added at intersections to help local residents and visitors find the proposed site. Wayfinding signs should also be provided to help pedestrians find the Telford Street pedestrian overpass across Soldiers Field Road. This is the only place where there is pedestrian access from Allston to the river that does not require crossing at least four lanes of relatively high-speed roadway.

Market Street/Birmingham Parkway
On the west side of the site, Market Street and Birmingham Parkway form a continuous straight route that links North Beacon Street to Soldiers Field Road. Sidewalks exist on both sides of Market Street and on the east side of Birmingham Parkway between Lincoln Street and Western Avenue. Birmingham Parkway may be unique in the city; for more than one-half mile – between Western Avenue and its intersection with Soldiers Field Road near Watertown – it has no pedestrian crosswalks of any kind, although there are traffic signals where crosswalks might be located.

Pedestrian improvements suggested for Birmingham Parkway and Market Street:

The sidewalk on the east side of Birmingham Parkway will provide the primary pedestrian access route between the proposed development and the North Brighton/ North Allston neighborhood and is also the primary access route to the parks along the Charles River for on-site workers. Given New Balance’s product line and work force we anticipate that there will be a significant number of runners who will seek to reach the Charles River’s world famous running paths.
Birmingham Parkway between Lincoln Street and Western Avenue is very wide. North of Lincoln the Parkway has two southbound traffic lanes and four northbound, this widens to five lanes between Lothrop Street and Western Avenue. This wide street provides an opportunity: one lane of northbound Birmingham Parkway plus the existing sidewalk should be converted into a combined bicycle-pedestrian greenway between the New Brighton site and the river.
Pedestrian crosswalks and pedestrian countdown signals should be added at the intersection of Western Avenue and Birmingham Parkway (where signals already exist) to allow walkers to safely gain access to the riverside parklands.
The sidewalk along the east side of Market Street connects via a crosswalk at Lincoln Street to the sidewalk on the east side of Birmingham Parkway. Pedestrian countdown signals may be appropriate at this location as traffic may increase as a result of the proposed development.

Suggestions for future walkways in the area

A master plan for pedestrian and bicycle access between this site, its surrounding neighborhoods and the river should be considered. There are presently no high quality connections and there are great opportunities to link the existing and proposed residential and commercial uses to the wonderful open space resources that are nearby.
The portion of Birmingham Parkway between Lincoln Street and North Beacon Street is an access road to just a few adjacent properties, and provides “back-door” access to Soldiers Field Road businesses via Wexford Street. It appears to have low traffic volumes and would seem to be a candidate for a ‘greenway’ toward the west where it meets the river. This portion of Birmingham Parkway should be examined to see if its vehicular use could be reduced in speed by physical reconstruction of lanes to a narrower width, and whether the road could be reconfigured into a greenway comprised of major walking and biking routes to the river.

Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposal. Please feel free to contact us with questions you may have. We look forward to hearing how our suggestions are addressed in subsequent revisions to the plan.

Sincerely

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Cc: Keith Craig, Project Manager
Harry Mattison, Allston/Brighton North Neighbors Forum
Herb Nolan, Solomon Fund
Guy Busa, Howard/Stein-Hudson

Boston: Dorchester Walking Map

Walking distances are shorter than you imagine. This two sided map gives you walking routes in both North and South Dorchester showing walkers just how walkable Dorchester really is.