How Boston is rethinking its relationship with the sea
1–10 of 28 posts
Re: How Boston is rethinking its relationship with the sea
#2The feat of engineering to create the Back Bay is impressive by itself. Just a matter of time before more changes are needed.
Re: How Boston is rethinking its relationship with the sea
#3Yea... so as a Bostonian this will never happen. There are cheaper options like dropping a flood-wall out in the middle of the harbor.
If anyone thought the Big Dig was a clusterfuck then they have seen nothing if this vision became a reality... the idea of turning the Back Bay into a series of canals... an area built on landfill and poorly documented about where infrastructure is located along with tons of historic residential architecture is going to cost many times more money. Not to mention the Back Bay neighborhood association, which is probably the most powerful neighborhood associations in the United States due to a combination of power and wealth would throw a nutty (and rightfully so).
Re: How Boston is rethinking its relationship with the sea
#4I was under the impression that in places like Amsterdam, canals were useful historically because people didn't have motor vehicles so they were a highly effective way to move goods around town (and to/from remote farms, towns and cities via rivers like the Amstel and IJ, other canals, and the sea).
Today, while extant networks may remain quite decorative and interesting, urban canals seem unlikely to be used for any purpose other than high-end recreation / tourism, and the article does not address any way they'd be directly useful for flood control. It's not even made clear they'd really assist in keeping seawater out of peoples' homes and businesses.
Re: How Boston is rethinking its relationship with the sea
#5Yea... so as a Bostonian this will never happen. There are cheaper options like dropping a flood-wall out in the middle of the harbor. If anyone thought the Big Dig was a clusterfuck then they have seen nothing if this vision became a reality... the idea of turning the Back Bay into a series of canals... an area built on landfill and poorly documented about where infrastructure is located along with tons of historic…
The big dig was not nearly as poorly executed as you might assume, digging in the middle of a major city is simply rediculusly expencive.
IMO, the best option is to simply raise buildings following the Chicago model. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_of_Chicago. A major advantage being you don't need to worry about flood control measures failing. It's not like the buildings are actually worth all that much it's 90% pure land value with a token for the structure. (Aka move the same building to the middle of an Iowa cornfield and suddenly there not so valuable.)
Re: How Boston is rethinking its relationship with the sea
#6I was under the impression that in places like Amsterdam, canals were useful historically because people didn't have motor vehicles so they were a highly effective way to move goods around town (and to/from remote farms, towns and cities via rivers like the Amstel and IJ, other canals, and the sea). Today, while extant networks may remain quite decorative and interesting, urban canals seem unlikely to be used for any…
I was under the impression that the canal networks in the Netherlands were similar to the South Florida Water Management District's canal system. The primary purpose of the network is to prevent southern Florida from reverting to swampland, which is the natural tendency due to the geology, geography, and weather patterns. Since much of the coastal Netherlands is in a similar situation, I always assumed the canals were primarily for moving water to the North Sea without flooding out the low-lying areas.
Re: How Boston is rethinking its relationship with the sea
#7I don't understand how this will keep the houses from flooding. Creating some canals won't lower the sea levels and keep buildings from flooding.
Re: How Boston is rethinking its relationship with the sea
#8Yea... so as a Bostonian this will never happen. There are cheaper options like dropping a flood-wall out in the middle of the harbor. If anyone thought the Big Dig was a clusterfuck then they have seen nothing if this vision became a reality... the idea of turning the Back Bay into a series of canals... an area built on landfill and poorly documented about where infrastructure is located along with tons of historic…
The big dig was not nearly as poorly executed as you might assume, digging in the middle of a major city is simply rediculusly expencive. IMO, the best option is to simply raise buildings following the Chicago model. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_of_Chicago . A major advantage being you don't need to worry about flood control measures failing. It's not like the buildings are actually worth all that much it's…
Either it was poorly executed or disingenuously planned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig
'The Big Dig was the most expensive highway project in the U.S. and was plagued by escalating costs, scheduling overruns, leaks, design flaws, charges of poor execution and use of substandard materials, criminal arrests,[2][3] and one death.[4] The project was originally scheduled to be completed in 1998[5] at an estimated cost of $2.8 billion (in 1982 dollars, US$6.0 billion adjusted for inflation as of 2006).[6] However, the project was completed only in December 2007, at a cost of over $14.6 billion ($8.08 billion in 1982 dollars, meaning a cost overrun of about 190%)[6] as of 2006.[7] The Boston Globe estimated that the project will ultimately cost $22 billion, including interest, and that it will not be paid off until 2038.[8] As a result of the death, leaks, and other design flaws, the consortium that oversaw the project agreed to pay $407 million in restitution, and several smaller companies agreed to pay a combined sum of approximately $51 million.[9]'
Re: How Boston is rethinking its relationship with the sea
#9Yea... so as a Bostonian this will never happen. There are cheaper options like dropping a flood-wall out in the middle of the harbor. If anyone thought the Big Dig was a clusterfuck then they have seen nothing if this vision became a reality... the idea of turning the Back Bay into a series of canals... an area built on landfill and poorly documented about where infrastructure is located along with tons of historic…
The big dig was not nearly as poorly executed as you might assume, digging in the middle of a major city is simply rediculusly expencive. IMO, the best option is to simply raise buildings following the Chicago model. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_of_Chicago . A major advantage being you don't need to worry about flood control measures failing. It's not like the buildings are actually worth all that much it's…
I can't find the answer with Google, but maybe someone here knows.
During the raising of Chicago, how did they get the jackscrews under the buildings in the first place? Especially those (presumably) positioned in the interiors (as opposed to edges) of the buildings?
Re: How Boston is rethinking its relationship with the sea
#10It'd be nice to know in exactly what capacity this was discussed.
The article just says that "architects, developers, real estate experts and business owners were brought together in May to discuss ways of preserving the city's buildings in this watery cityscape of the future".
Who set this up? Were canals a serious suggestion with a reasonable amount of support, or just thrown out as a possibility during a brainstorming-type exercise?