Block G | 120 Seaport blvd | Seaport sq

Isn't this the same city where the intrinsic value of parkland for the public good has been so long-understood that it's legally codified that new developments in our densest downtown areas can't negatively impact even the light cast from the sun onto our central park?

I personally think that, especially given the canyon effect of the squat boxes of the seaport with no setbacks and uniform height, having 300' of waterfront public park space vs. 150' is indeed a meaningful difference.
 
stick n move said:
Yea theres really not much info out there about this particular project, even on the bpda website. Its hard to tell exactly what was approved and it never really says anything about the particular proposal and if this is what were getting. Because of the lack of info the only other site I could find is construction journal linked in the first post that says construction is starting early 23’, but who knows if thats definitely the case. The bpda site does say it is approved, but I have the same questions you have due to the lack of info to be found out there. Usually there is more documentation that would be up on the site showing the design process for the architecture and what has been changed etc to get to the current proposal. If anyone else can find more info feel free to post it here.
Click to expand...

I would be very surprised if we're that close to construction - the other parcels in Seaport Square all got individually reviewed by BCDC and went through a monthslong process, and this one has only been seen in concept.
 
Sorry I tried to edit my post and deleted it by accident. Heres the text.

DwnTwnr said:
Is this even a project? There was a change to the PDA made recently but AFAIK there is no actual proposal for this site (or there isn't one on the BPDA website or in the news). Does someone know more?
Click to expand...
Yea theres really not much info out there about this particular project, even on the bpda website. Its hard to tell exactly what was approved and it never really says anything about the particular proposal and if this is what were getting. Because of the lack of info the only other site I could find is construction journal linked in the first post that says construction is starting early 23’, but who knows if thats definitely the case. The bpda site does say it is approved, but I have the same questions you have due to the lack of info to be found out there. Usually there is more documentation that would be up on the site showing the design process for the architecture and what has been changed etc to get to the current proposal. If anyone else can find more info feel free to post it here.
 
Yeah, seems to be inconsistent. I'm going to write the BPDA contact who I've interacted with on other projects and see if he can clarify. "Approved" seems to be the wrong status here, or at least can easily be misinterpreted.
 
curcuas said:
Yes, Boston, where the sun is in the Northern sky so often.

And seriously, if one great wide lane of park is not enough and you need diagonals too, why let anything get built, they'll always crimp out your view.
Click to expand...

I think this render is attempting to show morning sun, the water isn't due north of the park. I am assuming their model is using an actual sun path and followed the other shadow lines.

Any in any case, I think its very reasonable to be pro-development but also pro-accurate representation. It think omitting details like this one of the reasons why the public are so distrustful, which in the long run isn't helping the entitlement/development process. I also think its very reasonable to want better and more public/green areas and that doesn't need to be exclusive of being pro-development and pro-density. It's a good tension to have and a reasonable conversation.
 
MjolnirMan said:
Isn't this the same city where the intrinsic value of parkland for the public good has been so long-understood that it's legally codified that new developments in our densest downtown areas can't negatively impact even the light cast from the sun onto our central park?

I personally think that, especially given the canyon effect of the squat boxes of the seaport with no setbacks and uniform height, having 300' of waterfront public park space vs. 150' is indeed a meaningful difference.
Click to expand...
There's parks all along the waterfront! Putting in more large grassy fields does not equal parkland and at some point we need actual utilization of space. Let's not fetishize parks, but instead build great ones.

I guess I find this entire conversation bizarre: the BPDA and developers have gone through multiple iterations of masterplans over decades and the building(s) here are long anticipated. And now there's a demand for more parkland in tight markets in a city with a housing crisis? We're going to have some great parks here (and already do!). I'd worry far more that the "park" on part of Parcel G and next door will be poorly used if not permanently shops and beergardens as they are now, rather like the adjacent one on Fan Pier is. There's so much good space for recreation there, the field by the water is exactly that.
 
Last edited:
Seaport square master plan works like this, master plan approves uses/SF/envelopes of buildings (that's what the recent NPC was) and then each individual block goes through BCDC. It's always been this way (eg, 88 Seaport already through BCDC a couple years back, but not built). Block G has not gone through BCDC
 
curcuas said:
There's parks all along the waterfront! Putting in more large grassy fields does not equal parkland and at some point we need actual utilization of space. Let's not fetishize parks, but instead build great ones.

I guess I find this entire conversation bizarre: the BPDA and developers have gone through multiple iterations of masterplans over decades and the building(s) here are long anticipated. And now there's a demand for more parkland in tight markets in a city with a housing crisis? We're going to have some great parks here (and already do!). I'd worry far more that the "park" on part of Parcel G and next door will be poorly used if not permanently shops and beergardens as they are now, rather like the adjacent one on Fan Pier is. There's so much good space for recreation there, the field by the water is exactly that.
Click to expand...

I won't get into a debate here about the value of various types of parks, gardens, athletic fields and other uses that could benefit the Seaport. "Shops and beer gardens" appeal to one demographic, perhaps not surprising. Maybe most can agree, Seaport parks and public realm have fallen far short of potential, particularly considering the world's greatest waterfronts and waterfront cities.

First, let me correct an earlier commenter that suggested the Seaport was unplanned. The Seaport was under intense scrutiny by thousands of stakeholders during BRA planning (1997-1999). BRA and Pritzker (Fan Pier owner) hired renown planning teams. BSA deployed a highly-skilled "Seaport Focus Team." The Seaport was also under intense scrutiny during Seaport Square permitting (2008-2010).

Back to Seaport Common and Parcel G:

It's important to understand the history of Seaport Common when accurately citing "long-anticipated" elements of Seaport planning. Seaport Common is not expanding exactly as has been characterized. A building that had been added and expanded directly on Seaport Common was eliminated this month. Here are the details:

None of Seaport Common or park area rezoned is "part of Parcel G" as stated by the commenter above. It is entirely on Block F, between Block D (OMA office project) and Block G (this thread). All of Block F had been fully permitted in 2010 as a 1.3 acre public park. District Hall was permitted directly on Seaport Common (Block F) in 2010 as a temporary building. Technically, District Hall still is temporary, with one 10-year lease extension remaining. A small (9ksf) retail pavilion permitted on Seaport Common in 2010 was first expanded in 2014. In 2017, WS proposed an 8-story office/retail building on the footprint of that expanded retail pavilion, again, directly on Seaport Common. A few months later in 2017, WS scaled that 8-story proposal back to 3-stories, for retail use only. That 3-story retail building was eliminated in the latest NPC. The land under that building (formerly permitted as a part of Seaport Common) now returns to what the original plan was.

It's worth mentioning that a narrow two-lane street that ran along the west edge of Block G (Harbor Shore Drive) was pedestrianized in 2017 as "Harbor Way" (a welcome move IMO), so technically that also became part of Seaport Common.

In my view, the games played with public parks and open space in Seaport have had multiple avoidable, detrimental consequences. Misalignments besides those mentioned in this thread include Harbor Way's termination at Fan Pier; the location of Fallen Heroes; the location of District Hall relative to Fan Pier. These misalignments have their own consequences, including compromises of valuable, long-planned view corridors that provide pedestrians with an orientation to the Harbor. By "games" I'm referring to: the above-mentioned addition and subtraction of a building from Seaport Common; the temporary siting of District Hall directly across from Fan Pier Park coupled with, in 2014, the quiet jettisoning of 12ksf of interior "Innovation Space" in Block J (now Yotel); and, in 2017, the loss of formerly-permitted 1.3-acre Seaport Hill Park at the L Blocks, in favor of a linear Harbor Way (sold as "Boston's answer to Manhattan's High Line" during permitting), now a 0.25-acre blob of manicured lawn.

If we want to dig deeper into the archives, Fan Pier Park went through years of planning and a plan by renown designer Michael Van Valkenburgh was fully permitted. That park design was quietly reapproved in 2005/2006 as a manicured lawn and fire pit.
 
Pretty sure the “unplanned” comment from Mjolnirman was entirely sarcastic, underscoring some of the same complaints you’re making.

The hemming and hawing on Parcel F I don’t quite get; didn’t we end up with the same amount of public space as was initially promised? The removal of the small commercial building seems like it should be a favorable outcome. G, L3 and L6 haven’t even been filed with floor plans or final design, and the waterfront has remained 100% open to the public despite multimillion dollar penthouses all around. The city has changed and the contrast between Fort Point and Seaport has started to soften as all the parking lots disappear (and I’m sure raised the value of BWC wharf residential units!).

I agree the harbor step misalignment is annoying and the high line comparisons were overblown, but people in a modern city are very good at voting with their feet and it seems like folks from near and far love the area, including families with small children who probably aren’t in town for beer gardens and late night.
 
I agree with FortPointer above, and I also follow you on Twitter by the way. It does seem like a TON of broken promises and missed opportunity with all these parks and public spaces. However, I was visiting SnowPort last week, and I really enjoyed it. It's a GREAT addition to Boston in the winter. Despite all these disconnected parks and crappy urban planning, it's still a cool area to visit.........and especially on a nice summer day.

My biggest complaint and thought on a missed opportunity are the steps on Fan Pier. They are OK, but I think this highly visible corner of Fan Pier should have something truly monumental and iconic for Boston. A lighthouse spurting a massive column of water into the harbor like the Merlion in Singapore? LOL I don't know exactly, but it needs something more than just a nice stairway for a photo opp. Even the cafe below seems underwhelming to me. In my opinion, even the Louis Boston shipping container was better.

1672357161298.png
 
I actually like the steps a lot because the whole attraction here (besides taking selfies) is having an elevated place to just stand/sit for a minute and look at the ships in the harbor and admire the skyline. Its free, its pleasant, and it subtly nudges you without making it explicitly clear that (after you get your photo), put the phone away and just watch the boats go by for a few minutes. As far as Im concerned the more things there are that get us to stop for a minute and just enjoy the world as it is around us for a bit, the better.
 
Java King said:
I agree with FortPointer above, and I also follow you on Twitter by the way. It does seem like a TON of broken promises and missed opportunity with all these parks and public spaces. However, I was visiting SnowPort last week, and I really enjoyed it. It's a GREAT addition to Boston in the winter. Despite all these disconnected parks and crappy urban planning, it's still a cool area to visit.........and especially on a nice summer day.

My biggest complaint and thought on a missed opportunity are the steps on Fan Pier. They are OK, but I think this highly visible corner of Fan Pier should have something truly monumental and iconic for Boston. A lighthouse spurting a massive column of water into the harbor like the Merlion in Singapore? LOL I don't know exactly, but it needs something more than just a nice stairway for a photo opp. Even the cafe below seems underwhelming to me. In my opinion, even the Louis Boston shipping container was better.

View attachment 32360
Click to expand...
Love the idea of something like the Merlion here in the Seaport somewhere, what would it be, a giant lobster perhaps? Too cheesy!
 
stick n move said:
I actually like the steps a lot because the whole attraction here (besides taking selfies) is having an elevated place to just stand/sit for a minute and look at the ships in the harbor and admire the skyline. Its free, its pleasant, and it subtly nudges you without making it explicitly clear that (after you get your photo), put the phone away and just watch the boats go by for a few minutes. As far as Im concerned the more things there are that get us to stop for a minute and just enjoy the world as it is around us for a bit, the better.
Click to expand...

The issue for me with the steps is that the restaurant below has failed to open over the last 6 or so months it has appeared complete. I heard a rumor about permitting, which could be a sad unforced error on their part. Having a spot to warm up or cool off and grab a drink right there on the water would be great.
 
Vivanna said:
Love the idea of something like the Merlion here in the Seaport somewhere, what would it be, a giant lobster perhaps? Too cheesy!
Click to expand...

Haha, I think probably a bit too cheesy. Anything overtly too touristy or gimmicky looking would probably be too cheesy. I like the steps as well and agree with Justbuildit that the primary issue is with the restaurant downstairs failing to open.

IMG_3848.jpg

IMG_3842.jpg

IMG_3841.jpg
IMG_3848.jpgIMG_3842.jpgIMG_3841.jpg
 
Last edited:
jl326 said:
Haha, I think probably a bit too cheesy. Anything overtly too touristy or gimmicky looking would probably be too cheesy. I like the steps as well and agree with Justbuildit that the primary issue is with the restaurant downstairs failing to open.
Click to expand...

I'm with you on not going too cheesy, but I wouldn't mind this guy (currently at the East Boston Shipyard) moving across the harbor and getting lit up at night:

Screen Shot 2023-01-04 at 10.10.16 AM.png


Legal Seafoods also has an abstract fish sculpture on top of its headquarters, but the Marine Industrial Park is so out of the way that no one not on a boat even knows it's there:

legal-seafoods-cod-sculpture-boston-allen-beatty.jpg
 
What we have going on in Boston right now is as wonderful as any city. I live in hell, Manhattan, I mean. I travel throughout the contiguous US' largest cities and it makes me evermore proud of almost everything Boston has, does and is doing.

We nitpick, we complain about height from purely an aesthetic standpoint, but it is the everything in the bottom 50 feet that really drives the ethos. The cleanliness, the dichotomy of old and new, the compartmentalization of city neighborhoods in a cultural way creating uniqueness is unlike anywhere in this country. Seaport is nothing but a '+++'. The initial development there had to be 'boxes', many, in order to maximize return in an area constricted by height with no gentrification, to make it profitable for development. It is primarily the initial companies that are THE 'boxes' for the obvious point that in order to catalyze development of an area which had parking lots and nothing else, the risk outweighed the need to create something 'beautiful'.

Boston, coming off the 'Great Recession' was fortunate for Frank McCourt's dire financial situation or else we wouldn't be here, not here as it is. Even with that, it was hard to push development. The city has continued to build leverage for what they accept architecturally as the stages and phases continue. Further, they are getting these companies to pay for much of the urban development, parks, etc. I'm just proud and grateful, and I can't wait to move back.
 
Last edited:
Gunner02 said:
What we have going on in Boston right now is as wonderful as any city. I live in hell, Manhattan, I mean. I travel throughout the contiguous US' largest cities and it makes me evermore proud of almost everything Boston has, does and is doing.

We nitpick, we complain about height from purely an aesthetic standpoint, but it is the everything in the bottom 50 feet that really drives the ethos. The cleanliness, the dichotomy of old and new, the compartmentalization of city neighborhoods in a cultural way creating uniqueness is unlike anywhere in this country. Seaport is nothing but a '+++'. The initial development there had to be 'boxes', many, in order to maximize return in an area constricted by height with no gentrification, to make it profitable for development. It is primarily the initial companies that are THE 'boxes' for the obvious point that in order to catalyze development of an area which had parking lots and nothing else, the risk outweighed the need to create something 'beautiful'.

Boston, coming off the 'Great Recession' was fortunate for Frank McCourt's dire financial situation or else we wouldn't be here, not here as it is. Even with that, it was hard to push development. The city has continued to build leverage for what they accept architecturally as the stages and phases continue. Further, they are getting these companies to pay for much of the urban development, parks, etc. I'm just proud and grateful, and I can't wait to move back.
Click to expand...

I generally agree with all you have written. I can't help but wonder what the Hyatt Regency and canal proposal of the late 1980's would have looked like. I tried to search for images online, but I can't quickly find anything. The proposed Hyatt Regency Hotel tower on the current site of the Federal Court House probably wouldn't have been able to be built because of Logan height concerns, but I thought all the canals linking Seaport with the Fort Point Channel would have been a better connection with the water's edge. The FortPointer has a VERY valid point that the park on Fan Pier seems more like an amenity for the condo owners rather than a word-class urban park by the water's edge. I think Piers Park in East Boston is the waterfront park we should emulate for any future waterfront park. It's simply spectacular and well maintained.
 
Speaking of good/bad parks now that theyve decided to forego one of the smaller buildings for a bigger park at seaport sq I think that instead of going with just an inverse of the existing side copied onto the other side they should do more to make it a “parkey” park vs the 3 pampered and prepped grassy knoll slices they want to do now. Theres a pretty good chunk of room on that parcel, why not try to make it have a useful chunk of grass in the middle with some elevation, and then surround it with trees to enclose it a bit.

As it stands now its too segmented and exposed to be able to do any parky things and instead its just a couple green zoomba matts. I know that theyre appealing to the rich wives in the towers nearby, but this should be a spot for everybody and even moreso people who cant afford the neighborhood that want to check out the waterfront and restaurants nearby and then stop at the park while theyre in the neighborhood. The way it is now it screams keep off unless you paid for the yoga class.

1D87225D-0390-4F4A-947F-C44D1D52650E.jpeg
 
Ideally the current large grassy part and both halves on the other side of Northern Ave would be a plaza and the street would be shut down. Barring that, I agree more big open grass would be ideal for ball sports, picnics, whatever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top