Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TuarezOfTheTuareg t1_jb4vcsj wrote

Reply to comment by Marshmallowadmiral in I guess "ugliest" depends on the weather. Looks pretty handsome rn. by oozforashag

Weird take... Why do people need to live there? What's wrong with an area being a destination? Are you saying that every inch of a city needs to be some kind of "neighborhood" where people live? I don't get your point at all. It's nonsensical. Cities need civic and commercial districts just as much as they need residential ones. City hall could be a better destination if, for example, the concrete plaza was replaced with more interesting commercial development or open space, but to criticize it for being a destination is kinda weird.

3

kdmccormick t1_jb4zcov wrote

I'm not completely disagreeing with you, but it's not true that destinations have to be non-residential. The North End is a destination and a neighborhood: people live above all those restaurants. The idea that commercial and residential need to be cleanly separated is weird modern one. People lived above businesses for hundreds of years before mid-1900s zoning laws made it largely illegal to build like that in the US.

All that's to say: another neighborhood of four-story townhouses with shops & restaurants on the first floor would be amazing to have in downtown.

7

TuarezOfTheTuareg t1_jb4zrjc wrote

Yea I agree with that. It's just the characterization of "destinations" as being undesirable that was weirding me out. I'm a town planner and we talk all the time about strategies to make commercial/civic districts into more appealing destinations. That's a desirable trait! Nothing precludes people from living in areas like that too though

2

donkadunny t1_jb54adk wrote

Have you even been to downtown Boston? Do you know how many buildings are already ground floor retail and residences above? There are many. Like that is actually what a ton of it already is. Ground floor retail with commercial or residential above.

2