Tag: pedestrian network

Comments on proposal for development of One Bromfield Street

Comments on proposal for development of One Bromfield Street

July 29, 2016

Brian Golden
Christopher Tracy
Boston Redevelopment Authority
City Hall Plaza
Boston, MA 02201

Re: Comments on proposal for development of One Bromfield Street

Dear Mr. Golden and Mr. Tracy:

WalkBoston reviews proposed public and private developments for their potential impacts on walker’s safety, convenience and amenity in municipalities across the Commonwealth.

We are particularly interested in the One Bromfield Street proposal because of its significant size and consequent effects on the pedestrian network in and around the Ladder Blocks in Downtown Boston. We recognize that the project proponent has been asked to reconsider the currently existing proposal to examine significant changes that might integrate the project more successfully into its proposed setting. In keeping with the process of reconsidering the designs of the project, we offer the following comments:

1. We are concerned that the project will significantly alter pedestrian patterns on surrounding streets. Impacts on Province Street are especially likely because so many of the project’s vehicular access points take place at its intersection with the narrow Province Court.

  •  All vehicles passing through Province Court have the potential for disrupting pedestrian flows on the sidewalks along Province Street, especially abutting this project’s site. Pedestrians will have to wait for vehicle movements from Province Street into Province Court in substantial numbers given the proposed size of the building. In addition, queues of vehicles may stretch from Province Court toward School Street – the principal access to the site – causing congestion of vehicles and potentially significant hazards for the many pedestrians using the businesses and residences along School Street, Province Street and Bromfield Street.
  • Trucks trying to get to the loading docks will have to maneuver forward on Province Street to get into a position where they can back into the docks located off Province Court. They will need to back in slowly because of the severe physical limitations of the access path. This may cause delays and safety issues for the many pedestrians walking on Province Street, and also contribute to traffic backing up along the narrow street.
  • Delivery vehicles will turn from Province Street into Province Court to get to the porte cochere area (also connected to Province Court) where there are slots reserved for them. Delays in deliveries caused by drivers carrying materials into or out of the building may cause delivery vehicles to gather in Province Street awaiting a slot in the porte cochere area.
  • Drivers of vehicles heading toward the parking area within the building are to be served by only two elevators a few feet off Province Court. Waiting for space on the elevators will result in vehicles waiting on Province Street, potentially double-parked on the street. Given the other activities taking place on Province Court, it is very unlikely that private vehicles will be able to wait for elevators within the narrow access provided by Province Court.
  • All privately-operated taxi or other carrying services will pass through this intersection into the porte cochere. Any congestion within the porte cochere will cause waiting vehicles to stand outside on Province Street prior to moving into the building.

2. The project emphasizes vehicular access.

  • The focus of vehicular access on both Province Court and Province Street will result in new traffic patterns and new vehicles that will be competing with pedestrian traffic on the narrow, pedestrian-scale streets in the area. Traffic congregating on Province Street will severely limit successful access to the project while enlarging its impacts on its surroundings.
  • Parking for the project’s residences and businesses should be scrutinized to ascertain if the scale is appropriate. Limiting the size of the building would reduce the need for some of the parking. Examining and detailing the market for residences in this location may result in a lesser need for so many spaces. Providing customer parking for any of the businesses appears unnecessary. It is difficult to discern why anyone would drive to this location and require parking on-site, given the difficulty of driving here and the location at the heart of the region’s transit system.

3. Bromfield Street has retained the look and feel of the historic Ladder District, which has been a prominent feature of planning for Downtown Boston for decades.

  • Buildings generally have a modest number of floors, reflecting a pattern of walk-up offices and residences. All buildings are small-scale, occupying only a few feet of street frontage thus allowing a clustering of many businesses into a short and very walkable street. Bromfield Street contained, in the recent past, a small cluster of owner-operated camera stores, as well as a few stores focusing on hobbies such as stamp collecting. Restaurants have occupied some sites, with new operations likely as Downtown recovers its economic footing.
  • The proposal’s frontage on Bromfield Street is out of scale with the existing street. The proposed massive opening of the vehicular exit on Bromfield is inappropriate, given present and anticipated traffic patterns of Downtown Boston, especially low-traffic ways like Bromfield Street. Any vehicular access should be kept narrow and unobtrusive in keeping with the pedestrian scale of the district. Small-scale shops on both sides of a vehicular exit would help integrate the street frontage into the historic fabric of Bromfield Street.
  • It seems unlikely that traffic on Bromfield Street will grow from sources other than this project. The pedestrianization of Washington Street will remain. New vehicular traffic from Franklin Street remains an unknown. Consideration is needed for potential access to the project site from Franklin Street – which in the recent past was used only for taxis and buses. Maintaining these limits on traffic will help retain the pedestrian feel of the street and actually make it safer for pedestrians by limiting the number of vehicles that will travel there.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important project. It seems clear that reducing the scale of the project and its accompanying vehicular access and trips is needed to reduce negative impacts on local pedestrian patterns and facilities. We hope that the City and the proponent will keep walkers prominently in mind during revisions to this project – the quality of life for pedestrians is what gives this neighborhood and this development the value that it has for existing and future residents, neighbors and visitors.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman
Executive Director

Comments on the Charles River Resource Management Plan

Comments on the Charles River Resource Management Plan

October 31, 2014

Secretary Maeve Vallely Bartlett
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA)
100 Cambridge St., Suite 900
Boston MA 02114

RE: Comments on the Charles River Resource Management Plan

Dear Secretary Vallely Bartlett:

WalkBoston reviews public planning documents to identify potential implications for pedestrians. The following comments are based on our review of this document:

We are very excited about the opportunities presented for potential improvements in the 3- mile long section of riverfront between the Harbor and the BU Bridge. Because the document gives each proposed improvement a priority ranking, we are able to sense where DCR is moving in its schedule to improve the Lower Charles River Basin.

Many of the improvements proposed are essential for all users of the parks and nearby neighborhoods. We commend DCR for its foresight in working toward protection from flooding that might be anticipated in the wake of Hurricane Sandy two years ago. Improvements to the dam between the river and the harbor will protect the basin, and much of the Back Bay and portions of Cambridge, from flooding.

We are also happy that DCR has been active in working on both the proposed South Bank Bridge behind North Station and the “drawbridge walkway” to be constructed as part of an MBTA replacement bridge. These measures will complete the connection of the riverfront paths with the Harbor Walk.

A related improvement is the proposed walkway behind the Science Museum that would provide connections into the museum, pass over the locks with a new bridge and perhaps through the state police barracks to connect with riverside paths and the existing sidewalk in front of the Museum. This improvement would add capacity of the paths around the basin by providing a new pathway for walkers and runners who currently have no option other than the narrow sidewalk that lies along the reconstructed Craigie Dam roadway.

The partnership of DCR and The Esplanade Association has resulted in proposals that are also moving forward. The relocation of Storrow Drive under one of the Longfellow Bridge arches will provide new park space. Overall goals of the Association’s Esplanade 2020 proposals include revitalizing the area around the Hatch Shell with redesigned paths, a café, and areas for audiences attending Hatch Shell performances. One of the recurring issues in the Hatch Shell work has been the mixing of pedestrians and bicycles at the proposed café that cannot be avoided until a high-speed bicycle path, separated from pedestrian ways, is provided under the Fiedler Footbridge.

We are very pleased the concept of providing separate paths for pedestrians and cyclists is a major feature of the report. In some cases, this kind of separation already exists, as in portions of the Boston Esplanade. In others, such as the Cambridge Esplanade, it will be a major improvement to separate paths for a substantial portion of the riverfront. This design provides high-speed bicycle commuters a special route away from quieter activities, such as strolling or playing with children. We trust that the users of the Cambridge Esplanade will benefit from a proposed greensward with trees and a slight differential in elevation that promotes safety by discouraging a mix of fast cyclists and slower users of the paths.

The report also cites several management issues that require relatively small expenditures. For example, the attention given to removing or controlling geese is important because the birds have become dominant in some sections of the Basin, interfering with safe, healthy and pleasant walking on paths near the River. Snow removal is extremely important to walkers and runners who use the riverside facilities during all months of the year.

However, WalkBoston is concerned that the aspirations expressed in the document do not extend as far as they might. We hope that DCR will explore giving more attention to the following issues.

Minimum widths for paths
The report points out that some stretches of paved paths are only five feet wide. This is insufficient to serve the mix and volume of users, often including both pedestrians and bicyclists. It is clearly inadequate for a multi-use path.

Reliance on multi-use facilities
Pedestrian volumes in the riverfront between the BU Bridge and Boston Harbor are significant. These volumes are reflected in user surveys undertaken by DCR and others, where “walking for pleasure” was shown to be the single most important purpose for many people using the parkland. In another survey, 55% of the respondents cited “congested pathways” as an issue they hoped would be addressed. In the same survey 86% of the respondents would support “separating paths by user types.” 67% of respondents reported a negative experience in using the park, with the majority citing the conflict of pedestrians and cyclists.

These surveys indicate that walkers desire safe and pleasant alternatives to multi-use paths. While it is not feasible to provide separate pedestrian paths along the full length of the corridor, it is clearly a desirable feature to include throughout the wider portions of the park. Multi-use paths would thus be limited to those locations where there are no other options such as narrow stretches of parkland or the recently completed North Bank Bridge.

Provisions for runners and joggers
One of the goals stated in the report calls for safe and continuous bicycle, skating and pedestrian access along the entire length of the park. We would add to that list of users the many runners and joggers who use River paths because they are relatively safe and removed from vehicular traffic.

While runners and joggers do not directly compete with pedestrians for space, they are better served by softer surfaces than asphalt or concrete. “Soft surface” paths have been discussed in locations such as the Greenough Boulevard reconstruction, where separate paths are proposed to serve cycling, walking and running. While the separation of walking and cycling paths is a recurring theme in the report, the possibility of also providing a separate path for runners is not. We would suggest including it in any revisions that might be forthcoming. The presence of so many “goat paths” adjacent to the paved paths clearly point to the need.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important project. Please feel free to contact us with any questions.

Sincerely,

Robert Sloane
Senior Planner

Comment letter: Supporting the Whittier Choice Neighborhoods Initiative

Comment letter: Supporting the Whittier Choice Neighborhoods Initiative

July 24, 2014

Wenda Tai, Real Estate Department
Boston Housing Authority
52 Chauncy St., 8th floor
Boston, MA 02111

Dear Ms. Tai: WalkBoston strongly supports the Implementation Phase of the Whittier Choice Neighborhoods Initiative.

The Choice Neighborhoods Initiative comes at a very opportune time. It presents a unique chance to build upon the many transportation and development projects that have begun in Roxbury– the planning area for the Whittier Choice Neighborhood– over the past five years. The City of Boston’s commitment to encouraging walking, bicycling and transit via the Complete Streets Policy adopted two years ago, continues to contribute to the revitalization of Dudley Square and illustrates the benefits of including easy pedestrian access in the Whittier Choice Neighborhood Initiative.

In the coming year, the Complete Streets principles will be applied to the re-design of Melnea Cass, an arterial boulevard in the northern section of the project area. The community has already engaged in a three year planning process of re-design, and implementation funds are available. Alongside re-building Whittier Street Housing, the Initiative can use Complete Streets strategies to achieve the Initiative’s goal of integrating the residents of Whittier Street Housing and Madison Park Village into the overall Roxbury community. Such strategies include slowing traffic on Melnea Cass Boulevard and making it safer and easier for pedestrians to cross Melnea Cass Boulevard, Malcolm X Boulevard and Tremont Street.

After working with many community groups and local residents, WalkBoston agrees with and endorses the recommendations of residents about improving walking connections linking Madison Park Village, Whittier Street Housing and nearby destinations, notably Dudley Square and parks and fitness facilities. In several community meetings that WalkBoston attended, we noted that residents did not indicate high levels of usage or identification with nearby Ruggles Station and the adjoining Southwest Corridor Park– a five mile linear park that includes walking, jogging and bicycle paths as well as tennis and basketball courts, and playgrounds. WalkBoston firmly recommends that a key portion of the Initiative should enable easy access to this major recreational resource.

Residents did express strong interest in safe and direct walking routes to Dudley Square, the commercial and historical heart of Roxbury. To create the lively, human scale community that residents envision, safe and convenient walking connections need to be made between housing and nearby destinations.

In addition to Dudley Station, which provides bus service throughout the City, the Square has restaurants, shops and social services. Dudley Square is also experiencing a renaissance as  historical buildings that defined the Square, the Ferdinand, Waterman and Curtis buildings, are being or have been renovated and new office uses like the Boston School Department will relocate there.

WalkBoston looks forward to working with the community on the following walking projects during the Implementation Phase.

1. Provide better street- and sidewalk-level visibility for many of the area’s recreational facilities that are not highly identifiable because of the superblock on Malcolm X between Shawmut and Columbus/Tremont. The Campus High Urban Renewal parcel is a barrier not only for abutters, but other residents of Lower Roxbury.

2. Improve walking connections for residents of Whittier Housing and Madison Park to reach Dudley Square. Residents say the most highly used walking route is along Ruggles Street that runs directly from the housing developments to Dudley. Of particular concern is the intersection of Ruggles/Shawmut where drivers along one-way Shawmut fail to yield to walkers.

3. Improve walking connections between housing and the Post Office at the Shawmut Avenue/Malcolm X Intersection and the Social Security Office on Malcolm X Blvd near Dudley Street.

4. Create a more direct and visibly obvious route from Madison Park and Whittier to the track facilities at Reggie Lewis Track and Athletic Center. The Athletic Center is a major recreational resource for this neighborhood. Residents can easily access these facilities without crossing any major roadways, but its location is not highly visible.

5. Assess the potential of the proposed Fitness Loop to meet resident needs/interest for a formalized walking route. The Loop would circle the Whittier/Madison Park neighborhood, running along Malcolm X Blvd, Tremont Street, Melnea Cass Blvd and Washington Street. While the Loop layout has an aesthetic appeal, pedestrians do not generally seek out walkways along heavily traveled roadways and transportation corridors. Instead they prefer walking routes that incorporate multiple destinations, such as shops and restaurants. Additionally, cars tend to travel much more slowly along such routes than along the arterial roadways that make up much of the proposed fitness route.

In summary, WalkBoston looks to the Implementation Plan to address the creation of improved pedestrian access through short blocks, safe street crossings, and improved connections to the many extant recreational facilities in the area.

Sincerely,

Dorothea Hass
Senior Project Manger

cc: Patrick Hoey, Boston Transportation Department
Friends of Melnea Cass Boulevard

Garden Garage Project DPIR Comment Letter

Garden Garage Project DPIR Comment Letter

January 17, 2012

Geoff Lewis, Project Manager
Boston Redevelopment Authority
One City Hall Plaza
Boston, MA 02201-1007

RE: Garden Garage Project DPIR

Dear Mr. Lewis:

WalkBoston is the Commonwealth’s leading advocate for pedestrians and safe walking. We work throughout the state encouraging walking, advocating for pedestrian improvements and working for design improvements. We have worked with over 65 communities throughout the state, helping residents and local government with pedestrian issues, safe routes to school, and safer street crossings.

The proponents of the Garden Garage Project have worked hard to include a singular emphasis on pedestrian access to and through the site. We are impressed that the barrier that the existing garage creates between the West End apartments and North Station will be removed. Its replacement with a series of pedestrian paths and a plaza abutting the proposed structures is very welcome as a measure to reinvigorate the pedestrian network in the area.

As the focus of a pedestrian network that will extend from the West End and across Lomasney Way/Nashua Street/Red Auerbach Way, the new project appears to enthusiastically attract walkers along the internal paths that were part of the original Charles River Park Project. Chief among these is the existing, wide Thoreau Path, which will be lengthened to connect directly into paths leading to North Station and toward the river. This is a welcome addition to the path and sidewalk network serving pedestrians. It brings a focus of this network right to the edge of Lomasney Way/Nashua Street/Red Auerbach Way.

We are concerned primarily about the ways in which pedestrians will be served by future pedestrian connections into and across this rather wide and busy intersection. There are two proposed pedestrian crossings that are of concern:

  1. The intersection of Nashua Street, Lomasney Way and Red Auerbach Way, at the northwest corner of the O’Neill Federal Building is at present unsignalized, and has a crosswalk that is perpendicular to the southeast side of Red Auerbach Way. Under the proposed plan, pedestrians accessing this crosswalk from the West End will be forced to follow three segments:
    A. The plaza sidewalks pointing toward North Station.
    B. A dogleg turn from the plaza, to follow Lomasney Way a short distance (which unfortunately involves crossing the two entrance and exit lanes at the mouth of the project garage) to get to this crosswalk.
    C. Another turn is required to cross the street without the protection of a signal.
  2. The intersection of Martha Road and Nashua Street may include a similar dogleg for walkers moving from the proposed plaza to the pedestrian crossing of Martha Road, where sidewalks along Nashua Street lead to the Charles River, the Suffolk County Jail and the present and future structures of Mass General Hospital. At this intersection there is an existing traffic signal, which may mitigate some of the safety implications for an increased flow of pedestrians. If a dogleg is included in these plans, crossing the mouth of the garage on this separate entrance/exit location, it will require careful design to make it safe for pedestrians.

The two street crossings are extremely important to the proposed uses of the paths and plaza in the proposed development. They already have considerable volumes of pedestrian traffic, and will grow substantially when this project is constructed. We suggest that the two crossings be given very careful design review and traffic management and traffic calming design to make sure that they provide a safe environment for the thousands of pedestrians who will use them each day.

Thank you for the opportunity to common on this important project. We think it is a good project that could be even more pedestrian-friendly with some modifications to surrounding traffic signals. WalkBoston will continue to work with the city on this issue and would be pleased to participate in a meeting to review the two crossings.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman                     Robert Sloane
Executive Director                   Senior Planner

Comments on ENF New Quincy Center Redevelopment

Comments on ENF New Quincy Center Redevelopment

September 9, 2011

Secretary Richard K. Sullivan, Jr.
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA)
Attn: MEPA Office
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston MA 02114

RE: Comments on Expanded Environmental Notification Form with Phase 1 Waiver Request, New Quincy Center Redevelopment, Quincy,
MA EOEA No. 14780

Dear Secretary Sullivan:

WalkBoston has reviewed the Expanded Environmental Notification Form with Phase 1 Waiver Request for the New Quincy Center Redevelopment. The project comprises 30.8 acres, with a total of 3.4 million square feet of space in more than 15 buildings, containing office, retail, hospitality and entertainment uses, and 1210 residential units. It is planned for construction in four steps over 7-10 years.

The proposal will have very significant impacts on future pedestrian activity in the central area of the city of Quincy. We are concerned that the potential for improving walking for users of the project area has not been examined in an intensive way. The proponent will need to be cognizant of detailed pedestrian needs throughout the development, because the pedestrian aspects of the site will play an extremely important role in the way it meshes with its surroundings and the possible help in alleviating traffic congestion.

Summary of key points:

  • Analyze pedestrian traffic at levels matching vehicular traffic analysis.
  • Maximize use of Adams Green project as gateway.
  • Need to establish plans for interim periods to ensure pedestrian activity.
  • Consider use of small-scale retail frontage for lively places.
  • Address pedestrian safety in traffic plans.
  • Establish sidewalk and amenity standards to ensure quality.
  • Integrate open space/pedestrian space as integral to the big idea – not yet expressed in the plan

In our comments below, we have outlined some of the ways pedestrian planning could benefit the project and the city.

Planning for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic
Project vehicular traffic is projected to increase by 15,479 trips per day, making a total of 37,256 trips total each day. The project envisions mitigation measures including the widening of 6 streets in the area, restriping for exclusive left-turn lanes, and signal changes at 2 intersections to provide concurrent pedestrian phasing. (other intersections are not cited for measures dealing with potential pedestrian conflicts and safety.) In addition a new bridge over the MBTA tracks is deemed important and has become the focus of a proposed Phase 1 waiver.

Discussion of auto traffic in the report consumes 47 pages of text and 66 figures of traffic analysis, leading to discussions of parking garages, street improvements, traffic lanes, turns, and signals in some detail. Mention is also made of relaxed parking requirements to handle vehicle demands.

In a major information gap, existing and anticipated daily walking trips are not discussed in the report, nor are there suggestions that future planning will include such analysis. It is essential to have some notion of the overall number of walkers to plan adequately for pedestrian connections between building sites. Based on information about numbers of walkers, it would then become possible to think about incremental features that might benefit pedestrians.

Standards for sidewalk widths are not discussed in the report, suggesting that there may be reliance on either state or local standard widths that have not been included or referenced in this report. The widths of the sidewalks should be adequate to address the volumes of traffic that are anticipated, while adding sufficient space for trees, street furniture and signage in a way that does not interfere with pedestrian throughput. We suggest that the proponent use state design standards for sidewalks in central areas that provide a minimum of 12’ for heavily-used sidewalks, and 6’ in all other areas. In areas of heavy foot traffic, the width should be related to anticipated pedestrian volumes. These widths should be clear and continuous in all affected blocks. Street trees, lighting fixtures and other street furniture should not intrude on these minimum clear and continuous widths. Sidewalk paving surfaces should be smooth and easily shoveled during winter snowstorms. Curb cuts for vehicles should be severely limited.

On streets along the sidewalks, retaining a pattern of two lanes of parked traffic is best for pedestrians, because parking on both sides of the street acts as a buffer between moving traffic and pedestrians walking alongside.

Each of the proposed pedestrian corridors follows streets (open space internal to structures does not appear to be available for general foot traffic.) Each street can be classified distinctively, based on a street typology and character as a general guide to function and potential design. Although it is not yet known what pedestrian traffic volumes and issues may arise, each of the streets seems to deserve unique treatment, as far as pedestrian service is concerned.

  • Temple/Hancock/Granite Streets is a new facility and a major route for vehicular traffic. It appears to be set to act as a pedestrian promenade at the edge of the development. The boulevard’s frontage may become a retail focus serving primarily pedestrian traffic.
  • Hancock Street between Granite Street and QC Concourse appears to be envisioned to be a local street – not a major vehicular thoroughfare. The street could become a very interesting, relatively quiet and rewarding pedestrian corridor, especially because it is a direct extension of the pedestrian promenade of Adams Green. Sidewalks along Hancock Street can become integral portions of the open space network, with off-sidewalk paved areas to enlarge upon the feeling of openness, creating at the same time places where people could congregate, meet, sit, watch, and enjoy the daily progression of walkers through the district. This may involve widening the sidewalk in some instances to provide inlets or off-sidewalk squares as useful spaces for walkers. Staging of the Hancock Street portions of the project may allow re-use of existing small-scale commercial uses. Retaining Hancock Street as the focus of the new development is exciting and, we think, essential. There are several elements of the design that would be useful to better understand. Only a few of the existing small-scale businesses appear to be dislocated by Step 1 of the proposed development, and not until the arrival of Step 3 will all of the existing commercial along Hancock Street be replaced by new buildings.
  • Revere Road/QC Concourse will complete a ring-road around downtown and the Quincy Center project. This road will not be expected to facilitate commercial development to a great extent, although a major large retail facility is proposed for the block closest to the bridge over the MBTA tracks.
  • Ross Way appears to be primarily an access road for parking garages, vehicular deliveries and service access. If so, it will be a difficult area for pedestrians to navigate, especially because it will require numerous curb cuts.
  • Chestnut and Cottage Streets will both be minor collectors that might become useful locations for small businesses (some existing buildings are to be retained) because the location of  the two streets may provide spillover space linked to retail opportunities along Hancock Street.
  • Hancock Market Square Connector. This new street seems designed to provide access directly into parking structures. It seems unlikely, from the limited information available that this street will attract walkers. However, the market square located at the Hancock Street intersection holds a promise of a retail focus for pedestrians.
  • Pathway along the MBTA tracks. The project includes paths immediately adjacent to the MBTA tracks that seem unconnected to a larger network. The function of these paths is unclear. Intersection design is important for pedestrian safety. Potential vehicular/pedestrian conflict areas exist in several locations. Already noted are potential conflicts in the Adams Green area, where pedestrian volume from the MBTA stations, the schools and other uses result in walkers crossing busy streets. The entrances to the project on Granite Street where it meets Hancock and Chestnut Streets are likely to have significant areas of conflict. Within the project boundary, all intersections may have significant conflicts and should be analyzed.

Pedestrian-oriented open space
Adams Green, immediately adjacent to the north side of the Quincy Center project, encompasses over 10 acres, a significant addition to the overall open space in the area. Served primarily by walking and transit, the project will include existing open space and the Hancock Cemetery, augmented by open space that re-uses the existing paved area of Hancock Street to form a pedestrian plaza and a major axis of usable open space for walkers. This axis will extend into the Quincy Center project.

The Adams Green project will renew an existing focus for pedestrians in the area, capitalizing on the proximity of Quincy High School, the South Shore YMCA, Quincy College, City Hall, Crane Public Library, the MBTA rail and rapid transit station, Stop and Shop national headquarters, and the U.S. Post Office. This aggregation of uses is unique to Quincy, and forms an exciting base for the success of the proposal. The Green appears to play a very large future role as the principal open space for the entire area and as the gateway to the Quincy Center project.

The Quincy Center plans show little additional open space, though open space is stated as an essential element in the overall design. Instead, the proposal calls for large-scale reliance on sidewalks and their landscaping as open space. However, the design standards for sidewalks and how they will function as open space additions (including both walkways and landscaping strips) are not defined. The principal new open space within the project appears to be a market square on Hancock Street near Revere Road/QC Concourse. Other green space may be located internal to proposed residential or office structures, in places that may not be available to the general public. The acreages of proposed open spaces in the project should be quantified in the report. This could aid in public understanding of the project and help in marketing sites, gaining retail attractions, and bolstering business opportunities.

The text suggests that public gathering places will be added as social focal points, venues for seasonal events, and outdoor marketplaces, each connected to others via the public sidewalks and designed with a clear relationship to the proposed pedestrian network. It would be very useful to know where these open spaces will be located and how they relate to sidewalks, as they are intended to engender pedestrian movements.

Activities needing pedestrian access – Quincy Center
The proposal for this project does not include anchors of activities such as those surrounding Adams Green. In fairness, it may be too early in the process to identify specific uses, but a hint may arise from one of the existing strong points of the existing Hancock Street retail area – its human scale. Building frontages are relatively narrow, uses change every few feet, activities spill out onto the street and it can appear that a great deal of human activity is taking place. Retaining the human scale should be a guideline for future development.

The proposal seems designed to guide the area toward larger scale (large-format) retail activities. Many of the proposed buildings will have first floor retail uses, and the vast spaces envisioned for retail suggest a sort of outdoor shopping mall. The conceptual plans and proposed construction schedule do not seem to construct the retail spaces all in one step. We are concerned that much of the retail space may not be occupied until the project reaches full build-out, leaving vacant space and possibly rather empty sidewalks that are uninteresting and perhaps not comfortable for pedestrians walking alone. Ultimately, the retail market will fill the space; in the meantime (perhaps over many years) pedestrians may have neither a lively nor a safe environment in which to walk. It is important to ensure that existing and new small-scale uses will be accommodated by the phasing of the proposed large-scale uses. An area with many activities to be found within a small area is perfect for pedestrian access for errands, other shopping or services and for strolling. One potential approach might be to encourage restaurants and uses appealing to pedestrians along Hancock Street, much like Moody Street in Waltham, to draw walkers into the district and provide essential services for new development.

Perhaps one of the most pedestrian-friendly approaches could be establishing a permanent focus of retail uses that are small-scale and attractive to pedestrians. This focus might be an appropriate portion of the first stage of development, located in the blocks adjacent to the Adams Green project. The area could then grow along Hancock Street as demand for services expands.

A second approach is the development of an entirely separate focal area around which retail uses might concentrate. One such location is the proposed market square, which appears to be partly included in Step 1 activities. The market square has the advantage of providing an anchor to draw pedestrians through the area between Granite Street and the QC Concourse road.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Please feel free to contact us if there are questions.

Sincerely,

Wendy Landman                                   Robert Sloane
Executive Director                                 Senior Planner