Winter view of 30 Haven St #ReadingMA, example of GreenStaxx building technique proposed for Austin St #NewtonMA. http://t.co/OyQKPPue9V
— Julia Malakie (@JuliaMalakie) May 10, 2015
I think I heard something about the alders having made their visit to 30 Haven Street in Reading, an example of Oaktree Development’s modular GreenStaxx building technique.
I did a quick exterior-only visit back on Saturday morning, January 31 (on my way to a couple of car dealership photo assignments for the Lowell Sun’s Presidents Day auto section, so it wasn’t too far out of the way). I think it was right after the first big snowstorm, and the clips have been in my phone since, one of a backlog of posts I’ve deferred, due to getting caught up in perpetual shoveling, taxes, and spring tree planting logistics. But now I guess it’s timely again.
What surprised me was how easy it was to park, even right after a big blizzard. It’s pretty close to the center of Reading, about three blocks. Parking was unmetered and free for two hours, both on the street and in the municipal lot behind 30 Haven Street, and I had no trouble finding a space on the street. It actually seemed very quiet for a Saturday morning — not a lot of pedestrians either. It is impressively close to the at-grade Reading commuter rail.
Its the first time I have looked at these building blocks. It makes sense they are made out of wood for the build process.
I can see this working well in homes, but apartments I’m suprised – I thought many a city had learned from the past that large structures made out of combustible material (IE wood) are time bombs.
@Simon: Let’s at least be honest here. You’re not “surprised.” You’re delighted to find yet another reason to hate this. You’re also jumping to conclusions about building materials based on no factual information other than some images of a building in another community.
Gregg,
I truly was suprised. Here is the link I looked at http://www.oakdev.com/greenstaxx.php
Tinderbox truly does come to mind.
I bet building insurance on this kind construction vs brick/concrete is significantly more expensive!
I’m assuming any variation of the Austin Street project would be required to have a fire suppression system. So calling it a “tinderbox” is a little unfair. I was required to install a new sprinkler system when I renovated a 100 year old carriage house on my property.
Mike,
That suppressant is buying time to get out. It’s unlikely to save the place. In the instance of large apartment block 1 fire could codemn the whole building.
So I’m not far wrong at all!
http://www.propertycasualty360.com/2015/02/20/one-month-after-massive-fire-avalonbay-faces-lawsu
Greg, in all fairness, you seem to do the same with reasons to support the proposal as you say Simon does to hate it.
@Simon– I’m not dismissing your point. It’s an important one. And it emphasizes the need to require the most stringent fire suppression standards to whatever get’s built on Austin street. But if you read the article from your link carefully, you’ll notice that the apartment building where the fire occurred in New Jersey, did not have a fire suppression system that was up to federal standards.
Mike,
It mentions “national” codes, yet Avalon statement says that the building was upto State code. Interesting, I would have thought that state codes could only supercede national ones.
The article also mentions the sprinkler system is in place to get people out.
This project is so controversial – of all things cost saving/convenience over potential safety hazards should not be tolerated. The NJ incident is nothing new.
@Gregg,
I have no love for this project if is true.
From get go promises have not been kept, at best highly manipulated. At least that was transparent!
If the Aldermen are feeling Alienated then it should be no suprise that many other people feel the same way.
Remind me again why you feel so strongly about this project, especially given the alleged new proposal.