Boston's Waterfront

[atlantaden]

Better question: what should Norman Leventhal do? Hopefully develop more properties. What's he been doing since Rowes Wharf, resting on his laurels?

Norman Leventhal is the honorary chair of the Board of Directors of the New Center for Arts and Culture, the Museum to be built in front of Rowes Wharf, the complex he developed. I would imagine this means that not only has he contributed lots of money to this project but he probably also had a lot of say in it's design and placement.

 

[riserise]

Leventhal's development company was Beacon Capital. They recently sold most or entire portfolio to Blackstone Group.

 

[TC]

Leventhal's development company was Beacon Capital. They recently sold most or entire portfolio to Blackstone Group.

Beacon Capital was actually the Leventhal's second Development Company.

After Rowes Wharf the construction market went down into a recession around 1990 and their development company Beacon Properties focused more on acquisitions. In 1995 the Leventhals sold their construction group Beacon Construction to Skanska. And two years later they sold Beacon Properties to Equity Office. Instantly making Equity the largest landlord in downtown Boston.

After selling off their companies (and making ridiculous money on the sale) the Leventhal's couldn't stay out of the business. They held a private fundraiser trying to obtain 200 million to start up their new company Beacon Capital. They left with 400 Million........

Beacon Capital didn't focus on the large class A office market that Beacon Properties did. They went into the secondary class B markets at first. They invested in properties like Technology Square near Kendall Square and hit the market at the right time when internet companies were signing up for leases that approached $60/sf.

The Leventhals always seem to be ahead of the curve by buying and selling at just the right times. The only property that I can think of that probably didn't work out for them was the Fort Point -Channel Center. That was supposed to be a huge development for them, but the market never grew to support development at that location.

 

[ablarc]

You don't have to be an urban planner to understand what is working on Boston's waterfront and what is not. All you have to do is walk the waterfront...

In fact, it probably helps if you're not a planner. Planners see with theories; eyes work better.

And while it remains a work in progress, "needs improvement" would be a generous grade for what's happening at the water's edge at this point.

Work in progress perhaps, but that progress is slower than molasses.

Barricades and fences definitely do not work.

Why are these allowed?

Norman Leventhal's Rowes Wharf is the oasis on the waterfront... The red-brick plaza behind the Boston Harbor Hotel, with the boats and the band and the people and the magnificent water view, is the single best space in the city.

A lofty assessment. The real question is: why is it alone??

But telling where the public space ends and the private space begins is hard to know.

So glad he's sensitive to this. Some of the world's best places blur this distinction. Is Grand Central private or public? Harvard Yard? Tivoli Gardens (you even have to pay to get in)? Place des Vosges? Tudor City? MacDougal Alley? Washington Harbour?

The neighboring Intercontinental Hotel, by contrast, has a long way to go. There's a nice green lawn, but no one is there. What's private is private. The entrance to the outdoor cafe is through the hotel, not from the waterfront. All the outdoor seating is sealed off by large planters. There is no programming at all and nothing happening on the water itself... We're stuck with the hotel's glass facade better suited to a Houston inter state, but there is huge room for improvement on the waterside.

Elephant in the room revealed; Imo, this building is a big turkey in every way.

Speaking of improvements, the civic-minded attorneys at Goulston & Storrs, right next to Rowes Wharf, should help take down the six-foot fence and hedge out back and let the rest of us in.

How did they get away with putting this up in the first place?

How much imagination does it take to see the potential of James Hook & Co., the lobster seller? Combined with the old Northern Avenue Bridge, an icon that was nearly lost, this could be a jewel of the waterfront. Instead, the bridge rusts, most of it closed off by a chain-link fence.

Menino's Boston abounds with lost opportunities and outright disgraces.

 

[palindrome]

It's really a shame how much potential this has and how much is squandered away.

 

[Ron Newman]

James Hook is the only real remnant of the working waterfront. I'd rather let it stay where it is, not chase it away.

 

[rayray07]

I think a small theme park would be a great attraction on the waterfront . They could build it on the SBW and it would bring people down there and to the waterfront also. Something like Conney Island in NY or that boardwalk thing in Chicago. :wink:

 

[statler]

Boston Globe - April 2, 2008

North End pier reopens and buoys hope for harbor walk

April 2, 2008

The public quietly reclaimed a sliver of the Boston waterfront yesterday, taking back a wooden pier in the North End that had been closed since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The 40-foot wide wharf runs over algae-covered rocks along the edge of the red brick Coast Guard station.

A green bench there was empty yesterday, with no one gazing across the harbor at the obelisk on Bunker Hill or the masts of the USS Constitution.

"It's a small segment," said Vivien Li, executive director of the Boston Harbor Association. "But it's key. And it's progress on a federal base."

Since 1973, the goal to make Boston's entire 47-mile waterfront an accessible harbor walkway has been slowed by federal agencies exempt from local law. The Coast Guard had once allowed access to the pier, but it was closed after the 9/11 attacks and concrete barriers were placed on Commercial Street to stop would-be truck bombers.

Jitters calmed and the barriers were removed, but the pier remained locked.

"The whole country was shut down after 9/11; security was in overkill," said Captain Scott Keene, commanding officer of the Coast Guard in Boston. "We've come back from that."

The victory has emboldened Li, who might take on another federal agency blocking access to a large swath of waterfront on Fort Port Channel.

"I still have my eye on the Post Office," she said.

ANDREW RYAN

Emphasis mine.

Open public access to the waterfront? Good.
Large, useless open space and regulations blocking development hundreds of feet from the waterfront? Bad.
Here is hoping Vivien has learned the difference by now.

 

[underground]

I hope Vivian realizes the Post Office is moving.

 

[statler]

^^ I figured that is what she was talking about, the redevelopment of that land.

But you are probably right, she probably doesn't even know yet.

 

[unterbau]

She does have a point about the Post Office blocking access, though. It's silly walking all they way around the the channel to get to south station

 

[statler]

Agreed, but she has a habit of hunting mice with missiles.

 

[statler]

Banker & Tradesman - April 6, 2009

Take A New Look At Harbor Regulations

By Vivien Li

Executive Director, Boston Harbor Assoc.

04/06/09

We at The Boston Harbor Association are eternal optimists. Thirty-five years ago when we were founded by the League of Women Voters and the Boston Shipping Association, we believed that Boston Harbor would one day be clean enough for swimming. Thanks to the efforts of the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Boston Water and Sewer Commission, City of Quincy, and the region?s rate payers, Boston Harbor?s water quality has improved so that swimmers can enjoy Boston Harbor beaches more than 90 percent of the time. Boston Harbor islands, neglected for decades, are now vibrant with residents and visitors coming by boat to enjoy activities in new visitors centers, along trails and in historic forts.

Given these improvements, Boston?s waterfront will be one of the first areas in the region to re-bound during the economic recovery. It is thus timely that the City of Boston will soon begin the renewal process for Boston?s Municipal Harbor Plan amendments. Updated harbor plans will provide an opportunity to help shape future demographic, housing, and employment trends, while more effectively incorporating ?green? sustainability practices and taking into account future sea level rise issues.

Current demographic trends show that only about 35 percent of college students stay in the Greater Boston area after graduation, often citing high housing costs and limited housing options as key factors in choosing other places to live and work.

Boston currently requires residential developers to provide up to 20 percent affordable units, with some waterfront developers satisfying the requirement off-site. We support Boston Mayor Thomas Menino?s efforts to promote a mix of housing opportunities on the waterfront, including housing affordable to young professionals and families, as well as artists? live-work spaces.

Relatively large parcels of Boston?s waterfront are still zoned for maritime industrial uses. The U.S. Department of Energy?s recent selection of a site in the Charlestown Designated Port Area for a new national Wind Technology Testing Center demonstrates how maritime industrial sites can also support alternative energy uses and help create new jobs.

In recent days, the national discourse on economic stimulus projects has focused public attention on the importance of updated and improved infrastructure facilities. Planners need to ensure that a built-out waterfront district in Boston includes community-based infrastructure such as schools, libraries, health care facilities, public safety facilities, community centers, and transit facilities for new residents and workers.

Few states or cities can rival Massachusetts and Boston?s commitments to sustainability and actions on climate change. Boston and Massachusetts are leading proponents of ?smart growth? development near public transit and reduced reliance on automobile usage. Waterfront projects near transit facilities need to be not only transit-adjacent, but also transit-oriented, with fewer parking spaces and greater connections to transit.

The current debate about funding of the MBTA transit system through a portion of an increased gasoline tax has highlighted the vulnerability of public transit, with potential transit service reductions and the unfortunate elimination of water transportation service subsidies in the absence of an increased tax. ?Smart growth? waterfront development is dependent upon an adequately-financed mass transit system with a robust water transportation component.

In February, the New England Aquarium and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution hosted a climate change symposium. The expected rise in sea levels, much of which is now irreversible, will result in dramatic changes to Massachusetts? coastline, according to the symposium?s scientists. As Boston?s waterfront continues to be developed, we are reminded that appropriate land use and tidelands safeguards are key for future generations.

Ever the optimists, we believe that with continued thoughtful planning and coordination between public, private, and community leaders, the best days on Boston?s waterfront are still to come.

 

[odurandina]

Re: Rose Kennedy Greenway

Has anyone on the forum ever expressed their hatred of the IMAX Theatre at the Aquarium or that it either never should have been built, or should be removed? Or for that matter has relocating the Aquarium ever been proposed?

Things change. The area is no longer a seedy, derelict wasteland. It would seem that Central Wharf could become a much greater waterfront landmark, and serve the neighborhood and Boston to far greater extent – and the Aquarium surely isn't helping the Wharf be all that it can be. Not even close.

 

[fattony]

Re: Rose Kennedy Greenway

Has anyone on the forum ever expressed their hatred of the IMAX Theatre at the Aquarium or that it either never should have been built, or should be removed? Or for that matter has relocating the Aquarium ever been proposed?

Things change. The area is no longer a seedy, derelict wasteland. It would seem that Central Wharf could become a much greater waterfront landmark, and serve the neighborhood and Boston to far greater extent – and the Aquarium surely isn't helping the Wharf be all that it can be. Not even close.

These things have been discussed extensively in the Aquarium Garage thread. I know its very long, but you will find lots interesting history and information if you read it top-to-bottom.

EDIT: Also, this thread hasn't been posted to in 7 years...

 

[statler]

EDIT: Also, this thread hasn't been posted to in 7 years...

That was me. I moved his post here from the Greenway thread.

I thought we had a recent NEA redevelopment thread, but I can't find it?

 

[West]

Re: Rose Kennedy Greenway

These things have been discussed extensively in the Aquarium Garage thread. I know its very long, but you will find lots interesting history and information if you read it top-to-bottom.

EDIT: Also, this thread hasn't been posted to in 7 years...

While I generally share fattony's implicit expectation that you ought to go read that thread yourself, I'll note a few salient bits of the story to spare you some time. First, there was a very serious plan to relocate the Aquarium, and secondly, the way in which it all fell apart involved Boston / Massachusetts politics at its ugliest. This has left a legacy of Aquarium board members being justifiably deeply suspicious of proposals to relocate them. Some details available at the garage thread, plenty more elsewhere on line. Have fun.

You're allowed your opinion of the Aquarium, as is everyone else. But if anyone in any position of authority and/or financial influence is actually thinking of reviving that Aquarium relocation plan (I doubt they are), I would estimate such a plan is about seventy-five rungs down the local political priority ladder from fixing the T. Which is where it belongs.

 

[tangent]

If anything the City should be trying to bring together donors to fund the proposed expansion of the Aquarium that had to be shelved.

But even as-is, attracting 1.3 million visitors to the waterfront far exceeds the benefit of anything else that could be imagined there.

I am no fan of the architecture of the aquarium (either the original concrete or the more recent expansions), but to suggest anything else would bring more people there is really absurd. Most people have only been to the Boston waterfront at all because of the aquarium.

 

[TheRifleman]

Why didn't the BRA/Commonwealth outline the Greenway and Boston Waterfront before the GreenMonster came down?

Also how did the IMAX get approved right on the waterfront which creates another barrier in this specific prime location?

 

[statler]

Why didn't the BRA/Commonwealth outline the Greenway and Boston Waterfront before the GreenMonster came down?

Also how did the IMAX get approved right on the waterfront which creates another barrier in this specific prime location?

I remember one of the open space folks (Kressal? Li?) up in arms about the IMAX. The NEA apparently got some sort of exemption because of their non-profit status.