Seaport Neighborhood - Infill and Discussion

Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

Yes, that's what I added the adjective "modern." The modern city planning movement began formally sometime between 1900 and 1915. IIRC the first major convention was held in 1906. That's when you start to see the rise of city planning commissions in cities like NY and Boston. If you look at the Google archive version of their reports, you'll find that the newly formed commissions largely concerned themselves with trying to figure out which buildings to knock down to widen streets, how to spread out population, and how to add greenspaces into urban areas.

Movements like Garden City and City Beautiful also came into existence around the end of the 19th century and became the basis for the "new" field of modern city planning, even though they were fundamentally anti-city in nature. We are still dealing with the fallout from their application: separation of uses, greenspace as a barrier or weapon against cities, and the view of cities as nothing more than a collection of monuments for architects to show off.

There was certainly planning before that, but the idea of zoning as a legally enforceable regulation didn't exist until the teens and twenties. I would like to think that the planners of the mid-19th century and prior had a more acute awareness of the needs of actual cities, since they had to live with their decisions, but I'm sure there were plenty of failures to go along with the successes. And even what many view as success today -- like Haussman's remaking of Paris -- caused a great deal of suffering in their time. I suppose you could say that urban development has always been about "reification" of power relationships in a city, and in modern times those relationships fled outward.

Planning has always been about finding the power balance in a city (developers, politicians, residents, business owners, near-term, long-term, etc.). Even the Haussman example in Paris was as much about military strategy and mob control (hard to barricade wide boulevards!) as about making the city flow effective and livable.
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

Both the South End and the Back Bay were extensively planned. The South End planning started with Bullfinch around 1805 (the locations of Blackstone and Franklin Parks, and the start of the avenue system were designated). The Garden Squares (Chester, Union Park, Worcester, Rutland, Concord) were all planned to attract residents and further development.

Maybe the problem is "modern city planning", rather than planning in general.

Jeff -- I think you are on to something .... The Back Bay was planned -- but the planning allowed the owners of the newly created property the opportunity for entrepreneurial innovation and even whimsy.

Sometimes the developers were individuals moving down from Beacon Hill and sometimes they were the "Mega Developers" of the time .. building a bunch of houses on spec

The City of Boston and the Commonwealth provided the "Bones" of the Back Bay laying out the Streets and even providing un-filled cellar holes for the public institutions

Examples incluide several churches, MIT [Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Rogers Building circa 1864], and the MOS [originally the New England Museum of Natural History built in 1862 by the Boston Society of Natural History] -- [today the new store for Restoration Hardware] --- check-out the fabulous video about there reclamation of the old building into the " The Gallery at the Historic Museum of Natural History Restoration Hardware " http://www.restorationhardware.com/content/page.jsp?id=boston&link=RHBoston-HistoryReimagined

Note -- Both the MOS and MIT buildings were designed by William G. (Gibbons) Preston (1842–1910) who also designed the wonderful Chadwick Lead Works downtown
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

This is an interesting Article on the Innovation District

Office rents soaring in city’s Innovation District
By Casey Ross | Globe Staff January 10, 2014

Article Graphic Comments ( 1 ) Subscribe
David L. Ryan/ Globe Staff/ File

Just a few years ago rents were 43 percent cheaper in the Seaport. Now the average rent is $52.92 per square foot, less than 1 percent below the average in the Back Bay.

Save In many ways, Boston’s Innovation District is far behind the Back Bay as a commercial hub.

It does not have a signature building such as the Hancock Tower or an iconic civic space like Copley Square. Though new restaurants have moved in, its retail mix is virtually nonexistent compared with the eateries and boutiques that line Newbury and Boylston streets.

Yet in one key way the Seaport is beginning to measure up: Rents have surged to the same level as those in the tony Back Bay — making both districts the most expensive office markets in the city.

Just a few years ago rents were 43 percent cheaper in the Seaport. Now the average rent is $52.92 per square foot, less than 1 percent below the average in the Back Bay, according to commercial real estate firm Cassidy Turley. Not only is the landscape of the city’s commercial real estate market changing, but so too are the forces driving it. A number of technology and information companies have moved into the historic warehouses of the Innovation District in recent years, driving up rents and fueling construction of new office buildings along Seaport Boulevard and Northern Avenue.

“The Innovation District has offered the most obvious place for the city to grow,” said David Campbell, a managing director at Cassidy Turley. “The Big Dig and the convention center and the Ted Williams Tunnel have really made it fertile ground for future development.”

By the time the current wave of building is completed, the Innovation District will rival the Back Bay in the total size of its office market. It will also have a comparable list of corporate tenants, with new homes for State Street Corp., accounting giant PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, and law firm Goodwin Procter.
In some respects, the district’s recent rise in rents is something of a double-edged sword. The increase will help developers finance construction of expensive new buildings, but it will also make it more difficult for the small firms that have driven the district’s growth to continue to move there.
Even so, the Seaport’s attractiveness has helped to fuel a broader recovery of Boston’s commercial real estate market following the economic downturn. For example, technology companies that cannot find space in the area are instead moving to the adjacent Financial District.

The most prominent example is Internet commerce company PayPal Inc., which moved to International Place. Since then, several other growing companies have leased space in the district, adding firms such as IdeaPaint Inc., CloudHealth Technologies, and the business software company Leaf.
The influx has caused many real estate executives to rethink the area’s moniker as a financial hub.

“We’re not calling it the Financial District anymore. We’re calling it downtown,” said Lori Mabardi, director of research for the real estate services firm Jones Lang LaSalle. “It’s not to say that the traditional tenants are not a gigantic, important piece of the puzzle. But they are structurally right-sizing, while these other companies are new and moving into the city.”
Boston added about 52,000 jobs through November of last year, one of the strongest increases in recent memory. Much of the jump was due to the medical and technology companies that are moving to the city or expanding their offices, a trend property owners hope will continue in 2014.
Commercial real estate specialists said many of those firms opted to move into the Innovation District’s repurposed warehouses and other Class B office space downtown. While rents for that kind of space increased by 20 percent, top-rated space is seeing more modest increases, making it harder for to finance construction of new buildings.

Still, several developers are constructing preleased towers for firms that could not find what they were looking for in existing buildings.
“The product that they prefer is not available, and therefore they will pay the premium to develop,” said Frank Petz, a managing director at Jones Lang LaSalle. “That activity is increasing both downtown and in the suburbs.”
He added that discussion about speculative building is also beginning to crop up.

“I think we’re very close in downtown Boston to someone announcing a spec building,” Petz said. “There are a lot of people that have sites. Financing is still a question, but certainly investors will say to own a building in Boston at the right location is still a good investment.”
Casey Ross can be reached at cross@globe.com.

What bothers me about the article is they don't mention the tax incentives that they present to these companies which is why the Innovation District is so expensive and the Innovation District offers no comparable value like the Backbay or Downtown for better accessability.

These tenants that have relocated will be in for a rude awakening when there employees won't like commuting in and out of the Seaport without a more efficient Transit grid.

How can you call this the innovation district when you are promoting PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, State Street and Goodwin & Protector in the article. These companies are ancient. All they did was lower the tenants costs through tax incentives for certain well connected developers to help financial and law firms relocate to the Innovation district. How is that innovation?

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business...on-district/nqeKNcRiLJiyjKEEGog8GP/story.html

The Innovation District will end up as a Bust for Poor planning the long-term. The writing is on the wall. No easy access in our out of that area.
 
Last edited:
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

Jeff -- I think you are on to something .... The Back Bay was planned -- but the planning allowed the owners of the newly created property the opportunity for entrepreneurial innovation and even whimsy.

Sometimes the developers were individuals moving down from Beacon Hill and sometimes they were the "Mega Developers" of the time .. building a bunch of houses on spec

The City of Boston and the Commonwealth provided the "Bones" of the Back Bay laying out the Streets and even providing un-filled cellar holes for the public institutions

Examples incluide several churches, MIT [Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Rogers Building circa 1864], and the MOS [originally the New England Museum of Natural History built in 1862 by the Boston Society of Natural History] -- [today the new store for Restoration Hardware] --- check-out the fabulous video about there reclamation of the old building into the " The Gallery at the Historic Museum of Natural History Restoration Hardware " http://www.restorationhardware.com/content/page.jsp?id=boston&link=RHBoston-HistoryReimagined

Note -- Both the MOS and MIT buildings were designed by William G. (Gibbons) Preston (1842–1910) who also designed the wonderful Chadwick Lead Works downtown

Whi., thanks for the tip. That was a treat.
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

Jeff -- I think you are on to something .... The Back Bay was planned -- but the planning allowed the owners of the newly created property the opportunity for entrepreneurial innovation and even whimsy.

Sometimes the developers were individuals moving down from Beacon Hill and sometimes they were the "Mega Developers" of the time .. building a bunch of houses on spec

The City of Boston and the Commonwealth provided the "Bones" of the Back Bay laying out the Streets and even providing un-filled cellar holes for the public institutions

Examples incluide several churches, MIT [Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Rogers Building circa 1864], and the MOS [originally the New England Museum of Natural History built in 1862 by the Boston Society of Natural History] -- [today the new store for Restoration Hardware] --- check-out the fabulous video about there reclamation of the old building into the " The Gallery at the Historic Museum of Natural History Restoration Hardware " http://www.restorationhardware.com/content/page.jsp?id=boston&link=RHBoston-HistoryReimagined

Note -- Both the MOS and MIT buildings were designed by William G. (Gibbons) Preston (1842–1910) who also designed the wonderful Chadwick Lead Works downtown

I would be down with this idea if I had the slightest of faith in modern developers to follow in their predecessor's footsteps and build something of public worth instead of value engineering each project to the last penny in order to maximize ROI.
Profit was important to ye olde developers but so was their sense of civic pride. Today? Only the former matters.
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

This is from the end of the Globe article: "'I think we’re very close in downtown Boston to someone announcing a spec building,' Petz said. 'There are a lot of people that have sites. Financing is still a question, but certainly investors will say to own a building in Boston at the right location is still a good investment.'"

Is he talking about new pre-leased construction in downtown? If so, where (speculating) might that be?
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

^^^^^

Congress Street Garage? (not sure if this is considered downtown)
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

Just got down driving though Burlington and Waltham. See no difference in buildings being built in the Innovation District compared to those areas.

Similar types of Designs in the buildings. Same type of Architecture.
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

Not that I want everything to be the same height, but those seem really short in comparison to most things around there. Really not even coming close to maximizing.

With podium, we're still looking at maybe 130-150'. Even making one of them 5 storeys taller than the other would make sense from an additional units and setting them apart aspect.
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

Parcel K

Globe article with links.

http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news...residential_building_proposed_for_waterf.html

5843843-thumb-520x307-123830.jpg
I posted grabs from the PNF on the 8th here:
http://www.archboston.org/community/showpost.php?p=194094&postcount=1727
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

BRA board OK's 338 Congress St. project

By Patrick D. Rosso, Boston.com Staff

A nine-unit residential and retail development slated for Congress Street was approved by the Boston Redevelopment Authority’s Board Thursday.

The project by Gate Residential LLC, a subsidiary of the Boston-based Redgate Company, calls for the construction of a six-story building at 338 Congress St. for nine residential units, a roof courtyard, and approximately 2,900-square-feet of ground floor retail/restaurant space, according to documents filed with the BRA

The property is currently used as a parking lot for approximately 17 vehicles.

The condo units, which will be located on the second through sixth floors, will all be three-bedroom residences.

The project also includes ten parking spaces in an at-grade garage.

The building, which will be approximately 69-feet tall, is expected to conform with existing building heights in the area and will be designed in a way that, “maintains continuity and celebrates the district’s industrial past in a modern way through loft-like spaces, pedestrian engagement at the ground floor, outward expression of interior uses, and use of materials and color, which in combination contribute to the building’s timeless elegance,” according to project documents.

Construction is expected to start in the fall, with the project taking 13 to 15 months to complete.

Render included in the article.

http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/south_boston/2014/01/hold_bra_board_oks_338_congress_st_project.html
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

Not that I want everything to be the same height, but those seem really short in comparison to most things around there. Really not even coming close to maximizing.

With podium, we're still looking at maybe 130-150'. Even making one of them 5 storeys taller than the other would make sense from an additional units and setting them apart aspect.

Seamus -- Dept of revisionist history -- remember that the 19th C buildings in the post 1872 Fire district -- that we seem to all admire -- had a max height of 100' and most were in the 80' range

Even many of the later buildings [Art Deco era] were 100 to 150 feet tall and typically 100 feet to the cornice line vertically above the sidewalk
50-60-Franklin-Street2-1024x681.jpg


5258155.JPG
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

Uh huh..... and?

More floors = more units = maximizing potential income.

The limits of the past are not drivers for limitations on the present.

They are not going to build the new ones beautiful like the old ones. So either it's a 100 foot turd or a 300 foot turd. Of course cheapening of materials is always the first thing that happens when floors are lopped off by the city. So it stands to reason, better chance of return = better material potential.

But thank you for reiterating things we already know and have discussed umpteen times before.
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

Btw Seamus, you nailed the height. The tip top of the MEP penthouse is at 140' on both. There are sections in that link I provided. One of them even shows how short it is in comparison to the Park Lane, Renaissance, and (Curvy) Hancock:

PagesfromParcel-K_EPNF_Final_12-16-13-Submittalpdf_Page_2_zpse5cbaaeb.png
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

Uh huh..... and?

More floors = more units = maximizing potential income.

The limits of the past are not drivers for limitations on the present.

They are not going to build the new ones beautiful like the old ones. So either it's a 100 foot turd or a 300 foot turd. Of course cheapening of materials is always the first thing that happens when floors are lopped off by the city. So it stands to reason, better chance of return = better material potential.

But thank you for reiterating things we already know and have discussed umpteen times before.

Sheamus -- if you bother to read the link about MIT that I provided today in another thread you'll see that even the great MIT Cambridge campus construction project [aka the 'New Technology"] designed by Wells Bosworth [John D. Rockefeler's architect], and funded mostly by secret gifts by George Eastman [aka Mr. Smith] at a massive scale [$20M + circa 1920] still had to be downscaled and "Value Engineered" a couple of times to permit it to be built:

1) No large hall under the dome,
2) No large hall in the 1920's expansion that led to the 77 Mass Ave. entrance
3) No statue of Minerva {Athena} in the Great Court
4) No Muses or Graces or whatever statues in the "corners" of the 77 lobby holding up the Small Dome
5)

But despite the downscaled and cost reduction the Institute still got a fantastic project -- so its not economy that generates KRAP its attitude
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

If I bother to read it... it changes nothing about what I have said above.

I know what delivers crumby buildings and attitude is only one piece of the equation. You're good with numbers. You can put them all together. Economy is not a silent partner here (or anywhere else) but is a moving piece that is made up of and influenced by many other parts.

Also, not saying that a bigger building will be a better building in any case. The excuses for delivering a craptastic building at a larger scale just become much weaker. If you can build 50% larger and only spend 30% more to get there, you get a better ROI. (Yes made up numbers but you get the point.) We have seen plenty instances of incentives and tax breaks not leading to a better finished product, just more pocket stuffing. Again, as has been beaten into the ground, this is thanks to people in charge not holding the line. If you put crap in front of the BRA, Mayor, Community, and it keeps getting approved, what's the incentive to make it better (read more expensive.) Community members unfortunately go after imaginary issues that affect no one but that individual (and even not really affect then either) which lead to smaller , crappier buildings and are happy because their view is not blocked by a nice looking building, and they now look over some shabby stump. Not one do you hear community groups go 'you know it's ok, but I think you could make it look nicer.' ' Well we'd have to go 5 storeys higher to offset the cost' ' Oh please do, we want our neighborhood beautiful.'

Architects want to design better buildings, yet they are either handcuffed by a stingy developer, or (sad to say) many lack the vision or ability to accomplish better. Many "architects" (not all for sure) are glorified interior designers. Not calling anyone out, but it's the truth. That may very well be because there is not as much demand for the great architect anymore. Everyone learns to follow the latest trends to meet the modern demands. The amount of really nice buildings that are being paid for does not support a large amount of good, visionary, architects.

Now if you want to keep citing instances of almost 100 years ago, long before labor and material prices got ridiculously out of whack, keep at it. I do love reading about history, even when it has no bearing on current events.
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

You guys are so cute when you are angry. :)

cca
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

Brings out the red in my cheeks.
Damn ginger traits coming thru.....
 

Back
Top