Fan Pier Developments | Seaport

In the same way we value ourselves, Boston must value itself.

For example, you can say "my time is worth $30/hour" or "my time is worth $300/hour." You might be surprised to find the client saying, "you know, you're right, for that job I'll pay $300/hour. You value yourself highly and it's worth it for me to pay the higher price."

Similarly, Boston has a lot to offer that has little to nothing to do with the mediocrity of its administration and regulators. It has history, great historic buildings, a walkable scale, etc. The city has much more to offer than most American cities.

So, in my view, if the city said to developers, "Screw you, if you want to build Route 128 crap go to Route 128. If you want to build in Boston, you're going to have to invest in architecture and live within the land use provisions of progressive master planning.

My bet is that not only would developers find a way to do better and meet high standards -- developers and property owners would thrive. Property values on neighboring parcels would escalate. And the hacks that currently run the show would be relegated to an industrial park in the suburbs.

Just a dream at this point.
 
Last edited:
Sicil --"So, in my view, if the city said to developers, "Screw you, if you want to build Route 128 crap go to Route 128. If you want to build in Boston, you're going to have to invest in architecture and live within the land use provisions of progressive master planning. "

The problem is the same as the folks who don't trust other folks to take care of themselves -- But they trust some special group (the government to take care of everybody) -- if you can't trust an individual then you can't trust the government either

so it is with planning and architecture -- the wnner is enlightened self interest -- if you own and develop- there will be a much better outcome then if you develop based on a detailed checklist (e.g. LEED) so that you can sell it quickly

the Back Bay was successful in large measure because the requirements were minimal but uniformly enforced -- principally the set back and the minimum height -- then the 1%ers hired the good architects and competed for quality. It also helped that the land was filld and released slowly enough to keep the process going for decades

The SPID should simply define a minimum height, minimum sidewalk width and let the developers hire good architects and develop -- if its done right initially (e.g. Vertex) as the next Vertex moves in they will want to 'one-up" Vertex, and so forth -- for decades
 
^whighlander

Your theory in favor of a largely unregulated development environment has been tried and failed. Downtown Houston might be one example. And in our own backyard, the Massport land (not subject to City zoning) is another. Aside from Liberty Wharf, I can't see how anyone could call that area a success of projects that "one-up" each other.

My suggestion (of a city valuing itself and setting a bar accordingly) has never been tried in any city as far as I know. So it remains nothing more than a theory.

You may be correct that gov't is setting its bar lower than the development community. That seems evident, but I'm not sure.
 
nm88 said:
I don't believe that every building has to be a signature architectural statement. Sometimes just being a good neighbor has its merits. I believe - I hope - the community these buildings create will be more important than the architecture - or, good in spite of the dull design.
Click to expand...

This is how NYC (or at least most of Manhattan) works. If you actually look most of the buildings are lackluster at best, quite a few are downright ugly. But the vibrancy they create along with multiple varied and interesting storefronts and lobbies make up for it ten fold. Then of course there is also the issue of how hard it is to build in Boston to begin with, there is so little development every site is criticized and critiqued to death. I love ArchBoston, but really there is an issue when a rather small site can easily follow practically every project in the metro-area.

I think forcing everyone to build an architectural gem will make things worse, not better. By relaxing development standards and allowing more total building to happen, it will force those who want to stand out to spend the money to do so, and allow people who just want to put up a building to serve a purpose to do so as well. These buildings will continuously evolve, and what works will stay and what doesn't will be demolished and replaced.


As a disclaimer, I personally think that the lack of detailing, shoddy materials, and questionable massing that we see so much of today are disheartening. However an improvement has to be something the public itself demands, taste should not be legislated. If anything, the massive costs that are necessary to lay real brick, cut real stone, or fabricate attractive metal are what should be legislated. When the choice is to use shoddy materials, pay through the nose for labor, or have picket lines for going non-union, the former becomes far more attractive. Perhaps if the costs associated with good design weren't so high we would have more of it.
 
Walked by Fan Pier today to see the ground floor potential of One Marina Park Drive.

The side facing the park is almost entirely one long private lobby with the rear one-fourth carved out for retail (Strega) There is no sign of the cafe from outside -- that must be tucked inside Strega.

The front face of the building on Seaport Blvd is also roughly one-half private lobby, then a 16-foot solid wall, then roughly one-half of the front face is retail on the corner facing the Courthouse.

That single large retail space, with tremendous ceiling height, wraps around three-fourths of the side facing Vertex. The rear one-fourth of that side and the entire back streetwall except a small piece of Strega are for utility/ramps/service office.

So, the retail space on the Southwest corner (currently empty) is substantial. I suppose it can be broken into smaller spaces.

If it were me, I would have put the building lobby on Seaport Boulevard and reserved the street along the park for retail. Not sure what the thinking was there.
 
Sicilian - I like your thinking. You'd have my support.
 
davem said:
As a disclaimer, I personally think that the lack of detailing, shoddy materials, and questionable massing that we see so much of today are disheartening. However an improvement has to be something the public itself demands, taste should not be legislated. If anything, the massive costs that are necessary to lay real brick, cut real stone, or fabricate attractive metal are what should be legislated. When the choice is to use shoddy materials, pay through the nose for labor, or have picket lines for going non-union, the former becomes far more attractive. Perhaps if the costs associated with good design weren't so high we would have more of it.
Click to expand...

Think you nailed it.
 
davem said:
As a disclaimer, I personally think that the lack of detailing, shoddy materials, and questionable massing that we see so much of today are disheartening. However an improvement has to be something the public itself demands, taste should not be legislated. If anything, the massive costs that are necessary to lay real brick, cut real stone, or fabricate attractive metal are what should be legislated. When the choice is to use shoddy materials, pay through the nose for labor, or have picket lines for going non-union, the former becomes far more attractive. Perhaps if the costs associated with good design weren't so high we would have more of it.
Click to expand...

Problem is that its the architects themselves who demand the modern materials -- this whole fraud was well described by Tom Wolfe in "From the Bauhouse to Our House" -- he was pre-convinced, as is everyone, that stone masons aren't available and that's why we don't have beautiful modern stone work

So he went to Italy and found all the old stone masons who would love to work in the American cities as did their fathers and grandfathers -- But there is no architect who wants to hire them

He found that aside from doing stonework on old cathedrals and other hirstoric restorations -- stone masons don't have any modern architectural function.

Then just for completion he asked architects and developers why there was no stone work on modern buildings -- they both said "there are no stone masons" -- so who are you to believe:
a) the artisans whose life as well as living is devoted to stone
or
b) the architechts for whom stone is no different than precast or Alucobond

That said, I don't think that we can have legislation that demands stone or brick -- what is needed is to educate the developers and building sponsors / owners that they can have stone or brick if they just demand it of their architects --the public would certainly support more and larger buildings if the buildings had some nice elements as well as the novelty of form that the architects want to create

This issue also relates to the debate that we can have mundane (not necesarily mediocre buildngs in the background) -- in the past a lot of the shapes and grand stuff on most buildings was mundane -- yet the pedestrian experience was not -- the answer in part was the inclusion of small architectural elemens whose function was to enliven the building -- small details (e.g. dentals, cornices, pilasters) or artistic flourishes (sculpture carved into the building), clocks, brasswork
 
Last edited:
Great posts, and I agree that taste can't be legislated.

I'm also starting to understand the "gem in the rough" point of view. To a degree.

But don't confuse a developer has no motivation and/or pressure to build a quality project with one who claims he can't afford to build a quality project. The $$$ argument is a load of crap, particularly on the Seaport. Property owners are the prime beneficiaries of upzoning and significant public investment. Not sure why the cost argument is routinely propagated... show me the site and any proforma to back it up.
 
Just to be clear, when I speak of cost, I'm not necessarily saying that the developer lacks adequate access to funding to build something expensive and beautiful. What I mean is that in doing so, he spends money he might otherwise allocate to something else. That's what I mean by cost. It could be a cost to profit, or it could be a cost to other projects. I agree that most could build something spectacular if that was their only interest. I believe this is why the best buildings were built either by or for a specific occupant.
 
I understand your point. You and I can disagree about whether or not profit should be considered a "cost." To me, profit margin is a valid consideration when critiquing "appropriate" investment in a project. Building a sewage system or choosing a quality material is a cost on the other side of the ledger.

To your point about the occupant/tenant...

One Marina Park Drive was built without an occupant/tenant.

The Vertex buildings are being built with an occupant/tenant.

Is the outcome substantially different? Did you notice that the BRA has never described the Vertex ground floors publicly (so far as I've seen)? No public discussion of tidelands requirements for facilities of public accommodation and/or civic spaces that might be included?

How is your theory that an occupant-driven project is significantly better than one without a client being borne out on Fan Pier?

DISCLAIMER: I have only seen two images of Vertex buildings. That's all I know about the project plans.

EDIT: Changed the word "client" to "occupant/tenant."
 
Last edited:
I don't have a good enough sense yet of how the Vertex buildings will look. Be that as it may, I didn't mean to imply that owner occupied buildings would necessarily be gems. Just that they had a greater likelihood. Vertex might not care any more than a speculative developer. But they are more likely to care.
 
HenryAlan said:
Just to be clear, when I speak of cost, I'm not necessarily saying that the developer lacks adequate access to funding to build something expensive and beautiful. What I mean is that in doing so, he spends money he might otherwise allocate to something else. That's what I mean by cost. It could be a cost to profit, or it could be a cost to other projects. I agree that most could build something spectacular if that was their only interest. I believe this is why the best buildings were built either by or for a specific occupant.
Click to expand...

Henry -- that is it in a nut shell!

If you have an enlightened self interest -- i.e. you are building a house, lab, parking garage which you plan to own and maintain for the duration -- you will do the best job of building which you can afford -- erring on the side of spending extra on quality of material and workmanship

If on the other hand you are essentially doing a quicky -- with plans to flip the property as soon as its finished -- you wont bother to do anything more than the zoning or agreements require

Just look at the construction and surrounding landscaping of the MFA, Federal Reserve, favorite Univerity campus and compare it to the typical spec project built during the late phase of a cycle

which one would you wish to Occupy? and which would you want to Buy?
 
Sicilian said:
To your point about the occupant/tenant...

One Marina Park Drive was built without an occupant/tenant.

The Vertex buildings are being built with an occupant/tenant.

Is the outcome substantially different? "
Click to expand...

Sicil -- I believe Vertex is signing a lease for 10 years -- nothing in the story that I remember about a least to purchase of Right of First Refusal

That type of arrangement puts the project somewhere between the Novartis (very long term lease on the land and the Barto Building from MIT) and the Skansa (totally built on spec by a quality developer)

Vertex doesn't own the building and yet its not as far as we know an already designed and permitted structure just waiting for a tennant to start the digging

If as the project proceeds it becomes more Vertex and less One Marina Park Dr. -- we may yet see an improvement in the finishing of the structure and the landscape
 
There's a sample panel and window section of the Vertex building behind the blue fence near Louis. I was underwhelmed.
 
I think I mentioned before, but just to clarify.
The 2 "Vertex" buildings, are indeed developer buildings, and what is being built now is based on the Shell & Core drawings. I don't believe the Vertex fit-out drawings have been completed at this time. Vertex will have minimal, if any input on the finish of the buildings. The only exterior elements that they would control would be signage to an extent. Between the 2 buildings there will be a number of ground floor tenants as well.
Much like the Biogen buildings mentioned in Cambridge threads, which are developer buildings (BP and Alexandria). They know who their tenant is, and coordinate with them, but it's ultimately a developer building, and they control the exteriors and want to maximize their profits.
 
From yesterday

IMG_0228.jpg
 
SeamusMcFly said:
I think I mentioned before, but just to clarify.
The 2 "Vertex" buildings, are indeed developer buildings, and what is being built now is based on the Shell & Core drawings. I don't believe the Vertex fit-out drawings have been completed at this time. Vertex will have minimal, if any input on the finish of the buildings. The only exterior elements that they would control would be signage to an extent. Between the 2 buildings there will be a number of ground floor tenants as well.
Much like the Biogen buildings mentioned in Cambridge threads, which are developer buildings (BP and Alexandria). They know who their tenant is, and coordinate with them, but it's ultimately a developer building, and they control the exteriors and want to maximize their profits.
Click to expand...


Since the taxpayers have donated so much of their money to this specific project I would like to know the private investors who actually own this property by percentage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top