Fan Pier Developments | Seaport

On the other hand, large-footprint buildings don't have to be ugly. I never hear any objections to the 1920s Park Square Building, which occupies an entire long Back Bay block on St. James Ave. between Arlington and Berkeley streets.
 
I think an area that Fan Pier and Seaport Sq can draw from is downtown DC. I like it, it's urban, and nothing is taller than 15 stories or so.
 
Ron Newman said:
Don't 20 small buildings collectively have a higher market value than one big one?
Click to expand...

They might have higher market value, but the cost of designing and building 20 separate buildings, presumably by a number of different developers with different architects, contractors, etc. offsets the higher market value. For the owner of a large block, it is much easier to build one large building than to divide up the block into smaller parcels. It's all about maximizing profit, the "urban end users" are left with the spoils.

It's much like 20 mom-and-pop stores vs. 1 wal-mart; only with buildings.
 
^ And it's incredibly boring brown brick above the first couple floors.
 
Zoning an area for huge buildings with giant footprints also makes it more risky to develop because the costs to build are so high. If the Seaport were zoned for dozens of smaller, more modest multi-unit residential and commercial buildings, I think it would be mostly built-out by now. The risk would be spread out. Instead, it's zoned for hulking, blockbusters that require investments of hundreds of millions of dollars to get built. All the risk has been consolidated. Is it any wonder Fallon is building these ridiculous temporary pavilions until it looks like a sure thing?
 
Interesting comments.

When the area was planned (1997-2000) what could have been the rationale for using squat megablocks as a framework for rezoning the entire Seaport, if it wasn't in the financial interest of Pritzker, McCourt, Karp, et. al.? The FAA height limits were known, so elegant skyscrapers were never possible. There were plenty of calls at the time for a more finely grained street layout.

I don't get it.
 
A good discussion indeed.

I agree that the best way to get the fine grained texture of a livable urban neighborhood is to have small footprints. Unfortunately, in the current developer-driven world, that really isn't going to happen, hence we get single-block mega projects.

The only real way to change that dynamic is a change in zoning or direct fiat by the powers that be at city hall. Clearly this will never happen, but what would the effect be if the BRA mandated that one street of the Seaport district has to be composed of 30' wide footprints?
Let the rest of the area go to hell but build one modern-day Newbury St...

It would take a booming economy for this to be feasible (since right now the city would be happy for anything to get built), but what if the BRA said it would only give approval of 50' chunks at a time, once a year per street?
Would we get the incremental development that a true city is composed of?

Some might say that it would tremendously constrain development, but then again the current system has given us either abject banality or nothing at all after 20+ years.
 
jass said:
Ill object to it. Its a monster.
Click to expand...

Just a question: to those who object to the Park Square building, have you been inside of the building?

It has a long public arcade cutting through the building with tiny shops (15' deep) on either side for the entire length, and a nice ornate turn of the century interior.
And the piece-de-resistance, finally some subtle architectural genius in this town: the arcade is not perfectly straight, it bends in the middle at the major lobby and each of the wings are off by about one degree; therefore when you walk the length of it you have a much more dynamic view of the depth. Try it sometime, enter at the Arlington end... you'll see it most obviously in the ornate hanging light fixtures that seem to curve away hinting at something down the other end of the building. Much more interesting than a dead straight hallway...

IMO although not particularly handsome in its long facade on St James, it is one of the more understated buildings in back bay and really helps the life of that area.
 
el raval said:
...what if the BRA said it would only give approval of 50' chunks at a time, once a year per street?
Would we get the incremental development that a true city is composed of?
Click to expand...

An interesting idea, but I don't think it is the answer. What would keep one large developer from replicating the same mundane 30' wide building once a year on every block? For small parcels to work, ownership of the parcels needs to be fragmented (or the large developer needs to partner with smaller developers / builders to treat each parcel as a separate project). That way, different designs (within prescribed standards) using a variety of materials contribute to a vibrant streetscape.

Time itself isn't the enemy here. After all, entire blocks of the Back Bay and South End were built in a matter of just a few years. Those buildings are owned, maintained, and decorated individually from one another, which is ultimately what builds character over time.
 
PlanBoston said:
For small parcels to work, ownership of the parcels needs to be fragmented (or the large developer needs to partner with smaller developers / builders to treat each parcel as a separate project).
Click to expand...

Good point. The Seaport land (and Fort Point's vacant parcels) were owned during the rezoning by a half-dozen large-property owners, not hundreds or even dozens of owners.

But it doesn't explain why the Pritzkers and others didn't support a block size of maybe 1/2 the scale we see today, especially if megablocks would be harder to finance. Assuming they were aiming to maximize density on buildable parcels, could buildings have reached the 300' FAA height limit on a parcel half the footprint of the Fallon building?
 
ok all I have to say is holy shit.
did you guys see the show that building put on last night?

The lights "Dance" on the crown like a graphic equalizer. They were red white and blue then green then blue and the lights light up along the sides in sync with the lights on the crown.

Amazing.

I have this shitty short video but man it was cool to watch.
I think they were just testing it out.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gmack24/4100806112/
 
PlanBoston said:
After all, entire blocks of the Back Bay and South End were built in a matter of just a few years. Those buildings are owned, maintained, and decorated individually from one another, which is ultimately what builds character over time.
Click to expand...

One major thing to keep in mind, though, is that while many of the Back Bay brownstones appeared over a short span of time, their uses didn't. Newbury Street's ground floor retail for instance emerged piecemeal over a long period of time - and the creative re-use of those ground floors is one of the things that makes the street so visually stunning.

I could take a Jane Jacobs line of thinking here and parrot her saying successful neighborhoods need a mix of both old and new construction. Maybe the Seaport, all told, has this appropriate mix between Fort Point and the new developments. The test for these new developments may not be their first use, or their second use, but rather in their creative re-use down the line as residents seek and demand greater vibrancy.

Kendall is still a disaster, but is moving somewhat along in this process. At a glacial pace, I think we're already seeing that area slowly neighborhoodizing.
 
GMACK24 said:
ok all I have to say is holy shit.
did you guys see the show that building put on last night?

The lights "Dance" on the crown like a graphic equalizer. They were red white and blue then green then blue and the lights light up along the sides in sync with the lights on the crown.

Amazing.

I have this shitty short video but man it was cool to watch.
I think they were just testing it out.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gmack24/4100806112/
Click to expand...

If they can do this every night, then it would look amazing when the rest of the pier builds out. I still think Fan Pier should become the entertainment district of Boston with theaters, restaurants, clubs, strip clubs, a time square project, and shopping area. The whole theater district should relocate here along with the proposed time square project and maybe a new police station (since this will draw a good share of sketchy activities at night).
 
The theatre district should move? Why would you want to tear down the Paramount, Opera House, Colonial, Majestic, Wilbur, Shubert, Wang, and Charles Playhouse? (You can't move these buildlings.)
 
Today.
DSCI0017.jpg

DSCI0018.jpg

DSCI0030.jpg
 
Ron Newman said:
The theatre district should move? Why would you want to tear down the Paramount, Opera House, Colonial, Majestic, Wilbur, Shubert, Wang, and Charles Playhouse? (You can't move these buildlings.)
Click to expand...

I wasn't being clear. I didn't mean like literally move it. I meant like declaring South Boston as the new entertainment district with Boston main theater district there as well. I wouldn't want to tear any of the current theaters. They should also put an ESPN Zone at the S. Boston too! Anything to make it the nightlife area of Boston.
 
Park Square - the first mall of America.

The lights on the Fan Pier building? They're sending messages to our superiors in space ... attack at will!
 
el raval said:
Just a question: to those who object to the Park Square building, have you been inside of the building?

It has a long public arcade cutting through the building with tiny shops (15' deep) on either side for the entire length, and a nice ornate turn of the century interior.
And the piece-de-resistance, finally some subtle architectural genius in this town: the arcade is not perfectly straight, it bends in the middle at the major lobby and each of the wings are off by about one degree; therefore when you walk the length of it you have a much more dynamic view of the depth. Try it sometime, enter at the Arlington end... you'll see it most obviously in the ornate hanging light fixtures that seem to curve away hinting at something down the other end of the building. Much more interesting than a dead straight hallway...
Ive been to the ballroom. I did not notice any shops
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top