Architect and builder Sebastian Mariscal offered Allston a building that seemed tailored for the neighborhood. He wanted to create all the benefits that flow from new development, like much-needed housing, new green space, and community-oriented retail, without the impacts that normally come hand-in-hand with new development. Mariscal would pull off this trick by skipping the most contentious aspect of any Boston development — parking. His proposed 44-unit apartment complex on North Beacon Street would have included a half-dozen parking spots for car-sharing rentals, but wouldn’t include any parking for Mariscal’s residents. This was, he said, because his residents wouldn’t own any cars.
Unofficially, Mariscal is still working toward constructing a car-free Allston building. It’s just that, to do so, he’ll have to build 35 parking spaces to accommodate the cars his tenants won’t own.
Comments
Given the right combination of public transportation, I'd recommend defining large sections of the city as being off-limits to automobiles. No cars means plenty of room for other things like living your life. Cars are wonderful inventions and they are perfect for certain kind of travel. If you need to travel to NYC for a couple of days there really is no better way to get down there than diving in a modern sedan. I would argue a car is actually better than flying for that kind of distance. Point to point in just a faw hours. For traveling on the highway at 70 or even 80 miles per hour you can't beat them. The problem comes in when you use them for purposes that are inappropriate for their intended use. The car has created the suburbs. No other invention has contributed as much. So not only do we need parking for the person who lives in the city but we need another spot for the person who works there too. Our entire lives revolve around cars. I couldn't agree more with Paul this morning.
The best way to go for a weekend in New York is not by auto but by train. Driving and parking in NY is difficult and unpleasant at best.
Though he does believe in bicycles and mass transit, Mr. Mariscal arrived at all 4 of the public meetings I attended for this project BY CAR . Two of the meetings were within 2 blocks of the location he wants to build and insists people (visitors, tenants, shoppers) won't need/want to bring cars.
Mumbles says that the car is no longer king in Boston. Then he waddles back into his Escalade and his driver whisks him away. Reached for comment, Mumbles said something but nobody could understand him.
Skip Mumbles and stick to the Escalade, and I like the comment.
McMorrow and his Commonwealth think half the commuters in Boston want to live in a car-free city. Sounds to me as if this gang wants to turn Boston into the Beijing of the early 21st Century... Just ask residents of China how many of them want to be limited to bikes and no cars.
Comparing Boston to Beijing? Is this a serious comment?
This comment has been removed.
While I avoid driving as much as possible, there are times when I need an automobile. There's no way to create car-free residential sites unless you restrict sales and rentals to prospective residents whose entire extended families, shopping needs, etc. are all in car-free environments. And once you accomodate cars people will drive, at least some of the time. Best of luck Mr. Mariscol but your vision completely lacks practicality. You need to aim higher, such as building an entire neighborhood that is car-free, not just scattered buildings.
That's what Zipcars are for.
I have a car, but I use it less and less. I think cars are a godsend for mothers with young children. For everyone else, I think they are more of an occasional benefit--I don't know anyone who would prefer fighting traffic on their daily commute over riding public transportation--given that the public transportation runs frequently, isn't too crowded and doesn't require too much walking. That's a big given, and I wish Gov. Patrick well in getting the MBTA up to 21st century standards.
I certainly don't drive for a daily commute, for the reason you stated, and I use my car for weekend and after-work activities as needed. A Zipcar isn't enough of a sure thing when you have kids, dogs, musical instruments, enough groceries to feed the kids.... So I think we are making more or less the same point. I am fortunate enough to live in a community setting where I only need a vehicle for such activities that take me out of that community's boundaries.
This building might work if the no car thing was enforceable...but it isn't. The first parent to move in and find that you can't load your kids and your groceries on a bike, will get a car. Or there is the old medical necessity rule, anyone ever live in a pet free building? The guy above me needed a dog for companionship and then there was dog crap everywhere...we had to allow him to have the pet because he had a doctor's note. And can you extend the no car rule to the people who visit this building? Overnight significant others will be parking all over that neighborhood...put in parking...you may prefer nirvana, but this building is not being built there. Commuter rail stop coming...lol...
let him build it with other limits say no cars, and no kids allowed, only single people no breeders allowed
This comment has been removed.
Seems like there's a simple compromise if this area has resident parking (the sticker program run by the city). Simply specify that residents of the building are not eligible for the stickers and program the address into the City's computer so that they can't get stickers. Then, if someone rents and has a car, they won't be able to park it on the street nearby -- a pretty strong "stick" to go with the carrots already built into the proposal to encourage occupants not to own a car.
Hmm, is exempting this development from the parking requirements that every other developer large and small must comply with, a green thing? Sounds like it is more about the green than being green.
This comment has been removed.
I think the concern that residents will have cars anyway and try to park them on the street is a very real one.
"He’s gone so far as to declare that the car is no longer king in Boston." Of course the car is no longer king. Mumbles is king.
Mr. McMorrow, the very first word of your piece appears to be incorrect. Mr. Mariscal IS NOT an architect, but more of a design/build general contractor. he skipped college and architectural traditional training, but instead worked for his father than at several highprofile architecture houses.
You want no cars, move to Vermont.
Sebastian Mariscal's proposal for a carfree apartment building in Allston is an idea whose time has come. No matter how much individuals feel they love and need their cars, we must reduce our reliance on cars as part of any plan to ensure that our planet remains habitable for our children and grandchildren. We simply have no other option.
As the father of three, who has lived carfree in Cambridge, MA for the past six years, I can say that the benefits of a carfree life far out weight any drawbacks. Our kids experience valuable independence learning to navigate their way around the city. My wife and I experience a calmer pace of life, freed from acting as our kid's chauffeurs, and enforced by the benevolent restrictions of travel by bus, bike and foot. In addition, by being out in the city, we experience a greater sense of community and improved health.
While I understand that any change can be scary, the change that Mariscal is proposing is the only rational way forward and it just might turn out to be as rewarding for everyone as it has been for us.