Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Metropolitan Boston’ Category

Cronin's Landing, Moody Street, Waltham

Readers can check out a 10-minute summary version of a presentation on “Planning the Hub’s Metropolis” that I made at the Lincoln Institute for Land Policy, in Cambridge, MA, on October 23. In this presentation, I discussed the difference between the development and implementation of urban and regional plans, often undertaken by government or transportation companies, and the use of vernacular development templates employed by legions of developers and builders. Please view the video Two Kinds of Regional Planning.

Read Full Post »

For a short five-minute overview of The Hub’s Metropolis, check out this intereview on Quincy Access Television. This interview was taped to promote Jim O’Connell’s September 24 presnetation at Thomas Crane Library in Quincy. The prohgram starts at 7:00 PM.

O’Connell Interview in Quincy

Read Full Post »

 

Jim O’Connell has been interviewed by Ellen Meyers on “Books and Beyond,” a program featured on NewTV (Newton Cable TV). Jim discusses how his book The Hub’s Metropolis helps explain the development of Newton, MA. The first railroad trip from Boston traveled on the Boston & Worcester Railroad line to West Newton in 1834. Within a decade, Newton was becoming one of Boston’s first railroad suburbs. A key developer was Congressman William Jackson, who supported building the Boston & Worcester Railroad through Newton, instead of Watertown and Waltham. In 1844, Jackson laid out Newton’s first residential subdivision–Walnut Park–adjacent to his estate (today’s Jackson Homestead & headquarters of the Newton Historical Society) near Newton Corner. Jackson was also instrumental in developing Auburndale three years later.

You can find the interview at http://www.newtv.org/video/booksandbeyond/april2013/

 

Read Full Post »

Jim O’Connell has been interviewed in print on “The Urbanologist” website about his perspectives on living in metropolitan Boston.  Jim’s observations address the question “Boston How Did You Grow?” They expand upon the findings in his book The Hub’s Metropolis: Greater Boston’s Development from Railroad Suburbs to Smart Growth.  “The Urbanologist” website is written and curated by Max Grinnell, an historian and urban planner who is particularly active in Chicago and Boston.  Find the interview at

http://theurbanologist.com/post/52381953690/boston-how-did-you-grow

Read Full Post »

Review of The Hub’s Metropolis in Architecture Boston (Boston Society of Architects), Fall 2013

The Hub's Metropolis

The Hub’s Metropolis: Greater Boston’s Development from Railroad Suburbs to Smart Growth
James C. O’Connell
MIT Press, 2013
Reviewed by David Luberoff

Preparing to move to Boston in 2000, James O’Connell went “scouting for a home to buy” in Milton near the Blue Hills Parkway. As an urban and cultural historian, he recognized that the road and nearby neighborhoods were typical of Boston’s inner-core suburbs and thought it would be interesting to learn more about how they were built. Thus began a more than decade-long exploration that culminates with The Hub’s Metropolis.

O’Connell, a community planner for the National Park Service in Boston, fills three notable gaps with this book. First, rather than focusing on the city’s historic core, O’Connell turns his eye on the entire region. Second, rather than focusing on well-known epochs and structures, he is interested in the full sweep of development, including the region’s ubiquitous and largely undistinguished split-level houses, Cape Cod–style homes, and McMansions. Finally, O’Connell recognizes that there is a gap between guidebooks, which tell us what to see but not why, and history books, which tell us why but often ignore the what. To fill this third gap, he describes nine waves of development, starting with “Traditional Village Centers and Proto-Suburbs,” continuing through such eras as “Metropolitan Parkway Suburbs” and “Postwar Automobile Suburbs,” and ending with the current “Smart Growth Era.”

The book’s “guidebook” elements point to extant buildings and communities that exemplify each era. In Newton, where O’Connell ultimately settled, he not only suggests well-known sites such as the Jackson Homestead and the MBTA Green Line station in Newton Centre but also points to Oak Hill Park, a development of 418 small, cottage-style homes the city built in the late 1940s for veterans of World War II and their families.

Although useful, the book does have its limits and flaws. Because it spans vast amounts of both time and space, the accounts of specific projects cannot convey the wide array of values, goals, beliefs, and forces that drove them. Writing about the Middlesex Fells, for example, O’Connell notes that it was part of a seminal plan prepared by Charles Eliot and Sylvester Baxter, creators of the Metropolitan Park Commission, a notable example of regional governance in an otherwise fragmented region. However, he does not mention the significant class and religious differences behind the park’s creation. Indeed, as historian Michael Rawson has pointed out, the park’s very name was a 19th-century fiction designed to suggest a nonexistent Anglo-Saxon past for an area called The Five-Mile Wood, popular with Irish-Catholic immigrants.

Such gaps become more striking when O’Connell, who has strong views on what he considers desirable policies, writes about contemporary issues. He laments the state’s decision not to construct a second major airport at Fort Devens when that facility closed in the early 1990s, but does not note that funding the new airport probably would have required enormous increases in landing fees at Logan Airport during construction and possibly closing Logan after the new airport opened. Nor does he mention that a successful airport at Devens would have spurred the sprawling development he frequently decries elsewhere in the book.

Despite these drawbacks, The Hub’s Metropolis is a welcome addition to my shelves of “books about Boston” and will accompany me as I travel the region.

Read Full Post »

Often I wonder how it has come about that American cities are becoming popular again. There are a number of reasons, but one that tends to go unrecognized is the change in corporate life. During the decades following World War II, many major corporations moved their headquarters and research divisions out of the city and into the suburbs. AT&T’s Bell Laboratories moved to Summit, NJ, in 1942. General Foods moved its headquarters from Manhattan to White Plains, in Westchester County, in 1950. These symbolic acts set off a corporate drift to suburban campuses that lasted more than three decades.

Connecticut General Life Insurance Company (Cigna) vacated Hartford for Bloomfield, CT, in 1957. General Electric moved to Fairfield County in Connecticut. In the Boston area, Raytheon moved out to an office park along Route 128, along with many other technology companies and laboratories.

According to Louise A. Mozingo, in Pastoral Capitalism: A History of Suburban Corporate Landscapes (MIT Press, 2001), Fortune 500 corporations were seeking semi-rural sites that were located near the homes of executives and middle-class, white-collar workers. The corporate buildings seldom took up more than 20% of the campus, which was carefully landscaped to enhance the image of a bucolic campus or estate. The over-riding impression that these corporations made was their isolation, their being walled off from other companies and the rest of the world. This corporate landscape reflected the heyday of the top-down, command-and-control corporation. They did not think they needed to be in the city, rubbing elbows with other businessmen, engineers, and entrepreneurs. They could summon whatever expertise they needed to their suburban lair.

Flash forward to the 21st century and we witness an explosion of corporate and entrepreneurial activity taking place in Cambridge’s Kendall Square. And some of this activity is starting to occur on the South Boston Waterfront (sometimes called the “Innovation District”). Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and many of the largest biotech companies are in on the action. Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer has stated: “Cambridge is a great brand. The mentality is more around MIT, Harvard, and other universities than it is in the 128 corridor.” The cutting edge of innovation, which is more important to corporations in the rapidly evolving global economy than command-and-control, is in the cities. The key elements of the workforce are the “creative” and entrepreneurial classes, which prefer the hub-bub of urban life and the opportunity to rub shoulders with their peers. There are still many corporations operating in suburbia, but, for those prioritizing innovation, the action is moving back to the city.

Read Full Post »

Book Review of The Hub’s Metropolis in the American Planning Association’s magazine Planning, July, 2013

Planners Library
By Harold Henderson

Two centuries of Boston suburbs

James C. O’Connell, AICP, a planner with the National Park Service in Boston, finds that area residents “lack a clear perspective of the entire region and how it has developed.” His response is The Hub’s Metropolis: Greater Boston’s Development from Railroad Suburbs to Smart Growth (2013; MIT Press; 326 pp.; $34.95).
Using a format inspired by Dolores Hayden’s Building Suburbia, O’Connell outlines nine stages of development, from traditional village centers and proto-suburbs (1800–1860) and country retreats (1820–1920) on up to interstates, exurbs, and sprawl (1970–2012) and the smart growth era (1990–2012). Along the way, he includes mill towns, Boston’s urban renaissance, and future possibilities for the Northeast region. The account remains readable while covering a great deal of ground both physically and temporally.

Period photographs, plans, and engravings make the book inviting to students of American urbanism anywhere. An example is the view of the Mystic Valley Parkway in 1897: all horses, bicyclists, pedestrians, and carriages. In his postscript, the author speculates on the impacts of climate change, expensive oil, and digital urban management on Boston and environs.

Read Full Post »

Please join us
Book Launch Party for
Jim O’Connell’s New Book

 

The Hub's Metropolis

Newtonville Books
10 Langley Rd., Newton Centre, MA
http://www.newtonvillebooks.com/cms/2013/03/22/sun-apr-21-2pm-james-c-oconnell-author-of-the-hubs-metropolis-greater-bostons-development-from-railroad-suburbs-to-smart-growth/
Sunday, April 21, 2013
2:00 PM
Enjoy refreshment and learn more than you ever knew about the hub’s metropolis
RSPV Ann Marie O’Connell 617-244-4038 or jcoconnell@comcast.net

Read Full Post »

 

JUST PUBLISHED

THE HUB’S METROPOLIS: GREATER BOSTON’S SUBURBAN DEVELOPMENT FROM RAILROAD SUBURBS TO SMART GROWTH
James C. O’Connell
(The MIT Press, 2013)

The Hub's Metropolis 

 

The Hub’s Metropolis: Greater Boston’s Suburban Development from Railroad Suburbs to Smart Growth is the first comprehensive historical overview of Boston’s suburban development, from the earliest country estates to suburban sprawl and the smart growth movement. This book provides historical context for understanding the region’s contemporary planning efforts that are addressing the challenges of low-density sprawl, climate change, and the global information age economy. The Hub’s Metropolis combines the perspectives of an urban historian and an experienced Massachusetts urban planner. A key element of The Hub’s Metropolis is illustrations and maps. The book has 60 maps and historic photographs, many of which have not been previously published.

Ten Periods of Boston’s Metropolitan Development
The Hub’s Metropolis examines ten periods of Greater Boston’s metropolitan development:

•Traditional Village Centers and Proto-Suburbs (1800-1860)
•Country Retreats (1820-1920)
•Railroad Suburbs (1840-1920)
•Streetcar Suburbs (1870-1930)
•Metropolitan Parkway Suburbs (1895-1945)
•Mill Towns (1820-present)
•Postwar Automobile Suburbs (1945-1970)
•Boston Redefines the Center City (1945-present)
•Interstates, Exurbs, and Sprawl (1970-present)
•Smart Growth Era (1990-present)

The book explains how each era of suburbanization produced a distinctive land use development pattern, which left its imprint on the landscape. Each period had particular characteristics related to the built landscape, transportation, real estate development patterns, housing styles, retail activity, and the treatment of open and public space. Transportation developments—the railroad, horse-drawn streetcar, electric streetcar, automobiles—have had a significant influence on the form of the metropolitan area, but each era of suburbanization has also been shaped by cultural attitudes about suburbs, the city, and social class. This book also discusses the respective roles of state, regional, and local planning and private enterprise in shaping each era’s land use patterns.

Boston’s Leading Role in Metropolitan Development
The Hub’s Metropolis describes how Boston has been a national pace-setter for many features of suburbanization, including country estates, railroad suburbs, streetcar suburbs, land use zoning, open space conservation, highway beltways, shopping centers, office parks, edge cities, and central city revitalization. Landscape architecture pioneer Frederick Law Olmsted promoted model suburban designs from his home and office in the garden suburb of Brookline. The Metropolitan District Commission’s park-and-parkway system, which was created around 1900, was the country’s first example of regional planning. The city of Boston is noteworthy for its vibrant central city, which suffered a painful postwar decline, but crafted a nationally-regarded revival.

Boston’s “smart growth” development, which is a response to the low-density, automobile-oriented development pattern that has long dominated, is examined in the closing chapter of The Hub’s Metropolis. Boston has become a leader in “smart growth” because it has an extensive regional transit system to build new development around. It is being forced to cluster development in already settled areas because it is one of the first metropolitan areas to be “built out” under existing zoning, and, thus, it has little open land available for new development.

Read Full Post »