New Bar and Restaurant for Long Warf

Re: Marriott Long Wharf makeover

If there was a ever a time to open a pop-up Dunks franchise out of spite...

I got no problems with a community fighting to preserve public space - I just have a problem when the fight is theoretical, not pragmatic. That's to say: do a lot of people use this pavilion (I'm rarely over there)? If they do, that's ok. If they don't, then just preserving shit because it sounds nice, but if it isn't actually utilized, is fucking annoying.
 
Re: Marriott Long Wharf makeover

Shepard said:
From a planning standpoint it's silly. From a legal standpoint, it's the correct decision until the laws concerning commercial leases on parkland are rewritten.
Click to expand...

How did we get the Earl of Sandwich on Boston Common?
 
Re: Marriott Long Wharf makeover

JeffDowntown said:
How did we get the Earl of Sandwich on Boston Common?
Click to expand...

The Common didn't have direct involvement with the National Park Service, or have any question about prior use of federal funds.
 
Re: Marriott Long Wharf makeover

Bos77 said:
The Common didn't have direct involvement with the National Park Service, or have any question about prior use of federal funds.
Click to expand...

The BRA produced a map in 1980 which it attached to its application for Federal funds to repair Long Wharf. That map said the end of the wharf was to be parkland. Based on that application, the Federal government awarded BRA a grant of money for the repair.

In seeking to use the space commercially, the BRA recently said it couldn't find the 1980 map, and instead said a 1983 map, produced for another purpose and which would have allowed a commercial use, was governing.

Unfortunately for the BRA, the 1980 map was found, apparently in the government's grant application files.

I think the only option possibly available to the BRA at this point would be to pay back to the Federal government the full amount of the Federal grant plus interest, and remove the restriction on use.
 
Re: Marriott Long Wharf makeover

Putting the Earl of Sandwich on the Common took an act of Congress. Um, actually, act of the state legislature.
 
Re: Marriott Long Wharf makeover

stellarfun said:
The BRA produced a map in 1980 which it attached to its application for Federal funds to repair Long Wharf. That map said the end of the wharf was to be parkland. Based on that application, the Federal government awarded BRA a grant of money for the repair.

In seeking to use the space commercially, the BRA recently said it couldn't find the 1980 map, and instead said a 1983 map, produced for another purpose and which would have allowed a commercial use, was governing.

Unfortunately for the BRA, the 1980 map was found, apparently in the government's grant application files.

I think the only option possibly available to the BRA at this point would be to pay back to the Federal government the full amount of the Federal grant plus interest, and remove the restriction on use.
Click to expand...

Stell -- Remember -- When you dance with elephants -- beware of the falling [uh] material

This is front and center a prime example of why the City of Boston and the Commonwealth should be paying for these projects directly

As there is no such thing as Federal Funds -- just redirected funds from Taxpayers -- the closer the decision maker is to the taxpayers the less likely the taxpayers will get screwed
 
Re: Marriott Long Wharf makeover

datadyne007 said:
Bravo, North End morons. You get to keep your pointless pavilion at the end of Long Wharf and not get a restaurant that would bring steady activity and urban life to the end of the Wharf. Since when do judges get to make urban planning decisions? Bull.

docswharf.jpg
Click to expand...

http://www.archboston.org/community/showthread.php?t=2793
 
Ahhh AB...
It's like you'll sell any piece of open land for development, just for the gratification of street level retail and a new building.

New buildings aren't always good, and we don't need thriving shops, bars and restaurants in the right and left peripheral visual fields everywhere we go.

This is a nice and quiet space in a perfect location - a plaza at the end of a pier in the middle of the harbor. It's one of the few places one can go to escape the throngs of screaming idiots clogging up the sidewalk restaurants and tourist traps all around this area. It's nice. People do enjoy it. I don't live anywhere near here, but I enjoy it.

One of the only other places like this is the new ICA steps, which are now in the process of being totally ruined by floating piers for rich assholes to park their speedboats. Leave some space quiet and pristine for those who want to enjoy it. Im against the northenders on many an argument, but they're dead on regarding this one.
 
FK4 said:
Ahhh AB...
It's like you'll sell any piece of open land for development, just for the gratification of street level retail and a new building.

New buildings aren't always good, and we don't need thriving shops, bars and restaurants in the right and left peripheral visual fields everywhere we go.

This is a nice and quiet space in a perfect location - a plaza at the end of a pier in the middle of the harbor. It's one of the few places one can go to escape the throngs of screaming idiots clogging up the sidewalk restaurants and tourist traps all around this area. It's nice. People do enjoy it. I don't live anywhere near here, but I enjoy it.

One of the only other places like this is the new ICA steps, which are now in the process of being totally ruined by floating piers for rich assholes to park their speedboats. Leave some space quiet and pristine for those who want to enjoy it. Im against the northenders on many an argument, but they're dead on regarding this one.
Click to expand...

My thought was simply just to turn the pavilion into a tiny fried food/clam shack or something. Was the plan to tear down the pavilion and build something new and close off the end of the pier for restaurant dining only? That I do not support, but I definitely do support fitting out a small little eatery in the pavilion and then keeping the end of the wharf open to the public.
 
The restaurant would have been in the current structure with outdoor seating (summer only). Pier/walk would have remained open, albeit with less "public" space.
 
Just playing a little devil's advocate, not trying to be a jerk, I promise. I've been trying to think through this issue logically and it raises a lot of complicated questions for me.

FK4 said:
This is a nice and quiet space in a perfect location
Click to expand...

FK4 said:
People do enjoy it.
Click to expand...

Isn't this a bit of a contradiction? It can't be both peaceful and popular. That isn't to say it NEEDS to be popular I suppose, but you have to acknowledge that the only way for a place to be peaceful and quiet is for (almost) nobody to use it. In a small park on some residential street that might be fine, but on Long Wharf?

There is a weird line to walk between peaceful and desolate. What is the secret recipe? Do you make the place just unappealing and uninviting enough that MOST people stay away, but a handful "in the know" get to reap the whole benefit?

Seems to me very similar to Google-vs-park-on-top-of-the-garage controversy. The 30 people who knew there was a public park there lost their own little private oasis and raised holy hell. 99% of Cambridge residents and workers didn't even know there was a public amenity to begin with, let alone care if it was lost.

If access to Boston Harbor is the greatest fucking public treasure that people make it out to be, then maybe there is some public responsibility to make sure the public not only technically has access, but feels invited. That doesn't mean a restaurant was the exact right thing for Long Wharf (though I'm inclined to think an open air restaurant would have been great), but in some ways the peaceful nature of the place is evidence of its utter failure as a public amenity.

Thoughts?
 
It is a fine public space, just rent the covered space out for events if you want to bring some more activity out there. It would be very popular for events like weddings or other festival type activities. Open air concerts, etc. You can have private events in a public space, just not long term leases 100% of the time.
 
Ok, I take back my previous comments entirely. That is horrendous.
 
That particular design is horrid, but I still think the idea is solid. Not a hill worth dying on though.
 
Are there chairs/benches inside the pavilion? If I were roll through one day with my dunks and sandwich, but didn't want to sweat it out in the sun, could I feasibly sit in the pavilion?

Broader question: is there anything that can be done to improve the space, that wouldn't in any way affect public access?
 
CantabAmager said:
Are there chairs/benches inside the pavilion? If I were roll through one day with my dunks and sandwich, but didn't want to sweat it out in the sun, could I feasibly sit in the pavilion?

Broader question: is there anything that can be done to improve the space, that wouldn't in any way affect public access?
Click to expand...

No. It's just bizarrely empty inside. It's post-apocalyptic, like a bombed out ugly PoMo building.

Does anyone know why the pavilion was built in the first place?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top