Channel Center | Fort Point

[ParkerChris]

I don't think most people were hoping for a furniture or appliance store at Channel Center. More realistic is coffee shop, cafe, restaurant, drug store, sub shop, bodega, dry cleaner, etc... And if this is an area of new residential and growing commercial, why can't we expect new retail?

Right, and last I heard there was a stronger demand than supply for restaurant space in the SPID. And roughly 2 convenient stores and zero drug stores exist today.

 

[Sicilian]

No -- that is what markets and developers and owners are for.

If someone wants to buy the garage and convert part of the ground floor to retail or add a green wall on the outside -- they should be free to do so -- buying out the interests of any lots deeded parking, etc.

The BRA's roll is not to micro-manage -- but rather to define the overall requirements for the district, specify the detailed acceptable trade-offs such as FARs, and if necessary arrange the key infrastructure such as roads.

Once the Zoning or Planning Overlay District is set -- then live with the decisions until and unless the circumstances change drasticly -- e.g. the closing of the Navy Yard, taking of land for highways or in the aftermath of some natural or human caused disaster.

Do you mean the so-called free market champions cheerleading for a $1 billion Convention Center expansion and publicly financed hotel to "kickstart" the Seaport?

Or the parking lot owners that pioneered an entire movement to secure $15 billion in public works projects over the past two decades?

Or the advocates working on the "Innovation District" initiative as a means to generate broad interest across a swath of land to stimulate investment capital?

The fact is that public planning and public investment — not the so-called "free market," create direction and guidance for private investment.

The purpose of planning is to attain the highest potential of a broad swath of land, so your neighbor isn't likely to decide that the best use of his/her parcel is an outdoor concert pavilion while you're securing financing for a hotel tower. And public investment creates value, which calls for a measure of investment in return from private property owners.

This is a key reason an above-grade parking garage is nothing shy of a travesty in Fort Point, a fledgling waterfront neighborhood with incredible potential and billions of dollars of recent public investment. It sends a signal to other property owners that there really is no Master Plan. We're learning that BRA Master Plans are a farce, and that is what is so disappointing in this entire conversation.

 

[whighlander]

Do you mean the so-called free market champions cheerleading for a $1 billion Convention Center expansion and publicly financed hotel to "kickstart" the Seaport?

Or the parking lot owners that pioneered an entire movement to secure $15 billion in public works projects over the past two decades?

Or the advocates working on the "Innovation District" initiative as a means to generate broad interest across a swath of land to stimulate investment capital?

The fact is that public planning and public investment — not the so-called "free market," create direction and guidance for private investment.

The purpose of planning is to attain the highest potential of a broad swath of land, so your neighbor isn't likely to decide that the best use of his/her parcel is an outdoor concert pavilion while you're securing financing for a hotel tower. And public investment creates value, which calls for a measure of investment in return from private property owners.

This is a key reason an above-grade parking garage is nothing shy of a travesty in Fort Point, a fledgling waterfront neighborhood with incredible potential and billions of dollars of recent public investment. It sends a signal to other property owners that there really is no Master Plan. We're learning that BRA Master Plans are a farce, and that is what is so disappointing in this entire conversation.

Sicil -- I think that we've had this debate before:

No planners intended for Newbury St. to become the retail capital of New England-- The planners of the filling of the Back Bay were planning a single family residential street with some churches

No planners intended for Faneuil Hall / Quincy Market to be one of the leading tourist draws in the world (18 Million) -- they were planning for a daily/weekly wholesale / retail food district for a growing but still only medium sized city (43,298 in 1820 growing to 61,392 by 1830)

No city planners planned for Fenway Park, BU, NEU -- none of these iconic quiticential Boston institutions were involved other than for the developing entities to receive the necessary building permits

On the other hand -- city planners did plan Charles River Park, and Government Center

I rest my case and ask the Judge for Res ipsa loquitur ruling

 

[underground]

Cherry picking your history doesn't make a good argument. NYC went the private route for it's first attempt at a water system. The thing failed horribly and the city had to bail them out. Doesn't mean we should give up on private enterprise though.

 

[czsz]

Sorry, whigh, no judge is going support an argument made entirely on grounds of circumstantial evidence without any causal argument advanced or analysis of the opposing side's argument.

The fact is that zoning allows Newbury Street to exist. Faneuil Hall would have never been developed without substantial cooperation and assistance from the city.

The point here isn't that some master-planned entity, planned and executed by central authorities, like Government Center, would be preferable to this design for Channel Center as is. The point is that while the private sector is essential for development, the government is just as essential to ensure that development falls within the realm of acceptable public policy goals -- including the advancement of the neighborhood, city, and regional economy -- and does not seek to advance companies' short term profits alone. Developers aren't always thinking about how they can help an entire neighborhood thrive and thus set the stage for more developments (although occasionally a powerful or visionary one does); and when that's the case, the government needs to step in to ensure this is a productive investment and not a quick cash grab.

 

[whighlander]

Cherry picking your history doesn't make a good argument. NYC went the private route for it's first attempt at a water system. The thing failed horribly and the city had to bail them out. Doesn't mean we should give up on private enterprise though.

Uground -- No one says that there is not a role for planning -- just as Gen. Eisenhower SHAEF said -- “In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.”

Just don't take it too seriously and always have a Plan B, B` and C, etc., which are ready to be implemented as the situation on the ground evolves

 

[Sicilian]

Regardless of our positions whighlander, any time spent in the defense of a 9-story, 300,000 square foot parking garage with four dead streetwalls in the Fort Point Landmark District (think about potential) and especially given the history of public investment and master planning is, on its face, ridiculous.

Not to mention that for the past 10 years the BRA and former property owner (Beacon Capital) trumpeted the fact that the project hosted 1000 underground parking spaces. Twas great for PR during all prior approvals!

 

[whighlander]

Regardless of our positions whighlander, any time spent in the defense of a 9-story, 300,000 square foot parking garage with four dead streetwalls in the Fort Point Landmark District (think about potential) and especially given the history of public investment and master planning is, on its face, ridiculous.

Not to mention that for the past 10 years the BRA and former property owner (Beacon Capital) trumpeted the fact that the project hosted 1000 underground parking spaces. Twas great for PR during all prior approvals!

Sicil -- not defending the parking garage or it being above ground per se -- just that things change between the original proposal and the building (possibly cost and finances, possibly the understanding of the subsurface after investigation) and that things can change again in the future -- see the list of parking garages in Boston which became development sites in the past 30 years

 

[Hutchison]

Just going to point out that res ipsa loquitor is legal theory/doctrine in tort law, concerning negligence, upon which procedural motions can be made, and not a procedural motion in and of itself.

Sorry to kill the joke...I'll shut up now.

 

[whighlander]

Just going to point out that res ipsa loquitor is legal theory/doctrine in tort law, concerning negligence, upon which procedural motions can be made, but it not a procedural motion in and of itself.

Sorry to kill the joke...I'll shut up now.

Hutch -- an ipso facto to you too :=}

 

[stellarfun]

The cost of an underground parking garage at this location might run between $80,000 to $100,000 a space. I'll wager a few feet down, its good old Boston Blue Clay, so hydrostatic forces could be quite interesting..

 

[Sicilian]

Each of three residential buildings at Channel Center were developed 8-10 years ago with underground parking. Two of the three required shoring up historic structures above and digging below. The third building was new (infill) construction.

One of the buildings with underground parking was financed by the Fort Point arts community with Midway Studios. The financing of a second live/work building at Midway Studios included development of a full-size theater below grade.

 

[tobyjug]

Just going to point out that res ipsa loquitor is legal theory/doctrine in tort law, concerning negligence, upon which procedural motions can be made, and not a procedural motion in and of itself.

Yes, and it is also just Latin for "It speaks for itself."

 

[stellarfun]

Each of three residential buildings at Channel Center were developed 8-10 years ago with underground parking. Two of the three required shoring up historic structures above and digging below. The third building was new (infill) construction.

One of the buildings with underground parking was financed by the Fort Point arts community with Midway Studios. The financing of a second live/work building at Midway Studios included development of a full-size theater below grade.

And did any of this below grade parking or other-use space excavate down 90-100 feet?

The only building site that I am aware of where they excavated that deep into Boston Blue Clay near Fort Point was what is now the Intercontinental and the excavation costs were underwritten by the taxpayers.

The general geology of Fort Point (graphic is apparently for the area of Dewey Square). Going down 25 feet would not be difficult; its what comes after.

 

[Sicilian]

As you know, stellarfun, I'm no expert and appreciate facts (as you've provided) more than conjecture.

But I'm not clear why substantially more excavation depth would be required given that the entire new project site could be utilized.

Here's a graphic showing the existing underground parking (purple and blue) and the new site (orange). Wouldn't 1000 spaces fit on this single level, or maybe at most a second level? Just eyeballing the proposed parking garage, the entire lot would seem to accommodate its 9 stories, much of which is taken up by ramps.

It's worth reiterating that since 2002 or so, the entire Channel Center project has undergone amendment after amendment, and a change of ownership, yet underground parking remained consistent as an element of the most significant piece, the office building of Phase II. In other words, the excavation issues were likely known over 10 years. The above ground parking garage was proposed only within the past year.

My concern here remains that not only does this decision impact this project and neighborhood, it sets a precedent in a Waterfront district that may not be being managed responsibly in terms of architecture and urban design relative to public investment.

 

[stellarfun]

Sicilian, I counted spaces (approximately) on Google Map for the current surface lot that starts at Iron St and wends south. Looks to be about 150 spaces max. The adjacent truck lot looks to be about the same size. So 300 spaces surface parking. But the number of spaces would be reduced when one builds up or down because of ramps, walls and pillars, elevator shafts, etc. Assume you lose about 25 percent of the surface spaces. Using the entire lot for a 900 space garage, either up or down, results in a four level garage at 225 spaces a level.

Another factor is, what was this land used for before it became parking lots? I can recite tales of woe from contractors who discovered when excavating that the soil was contaminated with the residue from hazardous chemicals used in industrial operations of yesteryear. The Federal government spent $200,000 removing phenols and other toxics from an early 20th Century coal gas plant that had seeped into a 400 cubic foot section of riverfront mud. (If they didn't have to excavate for a new bridge abutment, the contaminated mud would have remained in place.)

 

[Sicilian]

^stellarfun

You may be on target with your count, but my recollection is that the Gillette lot on A Street, roughly twice the size of the orange parcel, is permitted and striped for 1200 spaces. So two levels might suffice including the 25%.

It's reasonable to assume 3 levels and I understand your point.

Maybe my disappointment would have been tempered if we weren't going to be looking at a precast concrete box with 4 dead streetwalls. It just screams MEDIOCRITY to me.

 

[AmericanFolkLegend]

Maybe my disappointment would have been tempered if we weren't going to be looking at a precast concrete box with 4 dead streetwalls. It just screams MEDIOCRITY to me.

Sicil, I don't think you need to qualify your disappointment. It's reasonable to assume that the concessions, agreements, public improvements, urban planning, etc. that went into the original permitting process would be included. An above ground garage in this location sucks.

 

[SeamusMcFly]

Whatever color the clay is.... they are doing 3 levels of underground parking throughout seaport square, they are doing 3 levels below at fan pier, they did 5 levels I believe at Russia Wharf. If they wanted to, they could do it. Parking levels are like residential levels, in that they are short. 3-4 below grade levels may only be 30-40 down. It all sounds do-able besides the possible look what we found, but that's inherent in every job.

Now as far as the BRA saying you must include street level retail or public use or whatever. That's hardly micromanagement. They start micromanaging when they start dictating finishes and/or making the finish uglier so as not to draw eyes. Micromanaging would be saying, you must include a bank of america, a CVS, and a DD on the first floor of whatever is built here.

Having a non-specific requirement for let's say a minimum 60% of first floor shall be dedicated to retail, would not be micromanagement, but would be reasonable requirements for an up and coming future bustling neighborhood.

I don't think ground level retail is something that needs to be in every building. I actually like the new residences at A/Broadway with walk-out apartments. But, in general I think street level retail should be included in the majority buildings in neighborhoods expected to survive and thrive.

 

[czsz]

Can I just take some time to point out the small-scale repetition of Seaportesque planning errors all over this map? Three parks in one block, including two surrounding a single small building (yes, I know they're intimate compared to the Seaport parks and that the area is relatively lacking in parks, but still...there's also Wormwood Park a stone's throw from here.) Horrifically uninspired street naming ("Channel Center Street"). Alleyfication through garage entrances and superblockification by eradicating small streets.