101 Seaport Blvd (PwC) | Parcel L1@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

I found its parking-obsessed cousin in post-pedestrian, post-industrial-apocalyptic Jersey City this weekend:

ESKr9Sgh.jpg
 
The streetscaping confuses me on this one. The lampposts are not of the style that I thought was mandated in the neighborhood (octagonal lamps) and are not even consistent with other acorn lamp fixtures in the city. Also, the spacing does not conform with the rest of the neighborhood. Is there a reason why they were allowed to break with traditional lighting treatment "requirements" on a public way?
 
cburns said:
The streetscaping confuses me on this one. The lampposts are not of the style that I thought was mandated in the neighborhood (octagonal lamps) and are not even consistent with other acorn lamp fixtures in the city. Also, the spacing does not conform with the rest of the neighborhood. Is there a reason why they were allowed to break with traditional lighting treatment "requirements" on a public way?
Click to expand...

This has been one of my pet peeves with the development of the Seaport. The streetscape is being built piecemeal by the developers as the buildings get built rather than by the city. So despite reams of streetscape guidelines I expect we'll get mismatched paving schemes, oddball streetlights, and weird tree placement throughout.

Seaport Boulevard was supposed to have a consistent treatment (as was Old Northern Ave), the Convention Center had another, and the rest was supposed to use the Fort Point standard lighting.

It's anyone's guess what we will end up with at the end of the day.
 
I was just down there today for the first time in months, expecting to see this hodge-podge of styles that elemenoh describes above, but found that the only non-conformist that I could find is this building at 101 Seaport. All of Fan Pier, Pier 4, Congress St through Fort Point neighborhood, up A St. by State Street's new office, even the new streetscape within the Seaport Square development along the future Parcel F park is the octagonally shaped, capped streetlight and sometimes double streetlight. Only at 101 Seaport do these acorn lamps come into play. They also screwed up their tree planting. So maybe someone's about to get hung out to dry for making PwC or the developer pay for both new streetlights and new trees. I hope they correct their mistake.
 
A few things...

- Completely agree that the street lights look terrible. The standard Seaport lampposts would have fit perfectly here. Instead, they installed cheap looking things on a beautiful new building. Can the city force them to swap them out?

- The trees on Boston Wharf Road that were JUST installed are being cut down and replaced. Guys literally were sawing them off yesterday and digging them up. I asked what was going on and got "these trees were no good". Follow-up questions yielded no discernible other information.

- Also directly across the street (where the city just finished fixing the sidewalk with pavers, etc.), they are now digging up holes, presumably for trees? Kind of funny to watch all this work get done, just to get undone soon thereafter.
 
cjbski said:
A few things...

- Completely agree that the street lights look terrible. The standard Seaport lampposts would have fit perfectly here. Instead, they installed cheap looking things on a beautiful new building. Can the city force them to swap them out?

- The trees on Boston Wharf Road that were JUST installed are being cut down and replaced. Guys literally were sawing them off yesterday and digging them up. I asked what was going on and got "these trees were no good". Follow-up questions yielded no discernible other information.

- Also directly across the street (where the city just finished fixing the sidewalk with pavers, etc.), they are now digging up holes, presumably for trees? Kind of funny to watch all this work get done, just to get undone soon thereafter.
Click to expand...

Yes. I would urge you (and anyone else 'offended') to fill out two cases at Boston 311 (online or via phone). One case for DPW street lighting division (how do they plan to maintain non-standard lamps anyway?) and another for DPW Public Improvement Commission which is the body that would have approved the streetscape improvements.
 
sm89 said:
Yes. I would urge you (and anyone else 'offended') to fill out two cases at Boston 311 (online or via phone). One case for DPW street lighting division (how do they plan to maintain non-standard lamps anyway?) and another for DPW Public Improvement Commission which is the body that would have approved the streetscape improvements.
Click to expand...

Done.
 
"PWC" logo letters have been added to the top right hand side of the building facing Seaport Blvd.

New trees have been installed on Boston Wharf Road.
 
I thought large signage on the outside of towers was a no no in Boston? I remember State Street arguing that they were grandfathered in when they moved to a new building.
 
I thought large signage on the outside of towers was a no no in Boston? I remember State Street arguing that they were grandfathered in when they moved to a new building.
Click to expand...

actually, that's one prim and proper boston rule i would support.... i dont like ubiquitous logos... although i wish we had more neon.
 
FK4 said:
actually, that's one prim and proper boston rule i would support.... i dont like ubiquitous logos... although i wish we had more neon.
Click to expand...

Perhaps that's something companies like pwc and Vertex negotiated with the City when they decided to move their corporate offices to the Seaport. How about the Converse logo atop their new North End HQ? Probably a similar arrangement. I think it's kind of great, actually.
 
dshoost88 said:
Perhaps that's something companies like pwc and Vertex negotiated with the City when they decided to move their corporate offices to the Seaport. How about the Converse logo atop their new North End HQ? Probably a similar arrangement. I think it's kind of great, actually.
Click to expand...

You're right - I guess my opinion is more nuanced than I thought, since I love the Converse logo - I think I do simply because it looks subjectively good to me versus most bland corporate logos such as the one above where it's like the building has a little stamp on it. The logo makes the Converse building but strongly detracts from 101 Seaport....
 
FK4 said:
actually, that's one prim and proper boston rule i would support.... i dont like ubiquitous logos... although i wish we had more neon.
Click to expand...

I say yes to both! In particular, logos for company headquarters make sense. And more neon would be a nice change of pace.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top