Fan Pier Developments | Seaport

[DZH22]

Anyone else surprisingly impressed with how this is turning out? I don't know what it will do for ground level, but I think these two new buildings are purrrrdy. It's better than most Seaport crap, has a hint of Kendall, but minus the 128-esque feel.

Yes. I have very low hopes for the area, due to the restrictive height limit, and have accepted that most of it is just going to be superblock buildings. Thus, in this case, I am most impressed with the cladding used here. They are both far superior to the first fan pier building.

 

[AmericanFolkLegend]

Yes. Waaaaayy, better than 1 MPD.

 

[TheRifleman]

Yes. I have very low hopes for the area, due to the restrictive height limit, and have accepted that most of it is just going to be superblock buildings. Thus, in this case, I am most impressed with the cladding used here. They are both far superior to the first fan pier building.

+1

 

[SeamusMcFly]

The height as we all know can't be fixed, and with it we also expected the girth.

Given these knowns, I am also pleasantly surprised by how the development is coming together. It's moving faster than much of the doom and gloom forecasted by many based on the many failed developments of this large parcel(s).

It hink what is working best is that the Fan Pier site, aside from the big lawn they built next to 1MP. The development is dense. It's tightly packed. The buildings are not surrounded by 50' of lanscaping on all sides. There is street level retail in every building and on multiple fronts of all of the buildings. They will be full of people. Yes, all the things that we want (almost). The residential portion has been rumoured to be moving forward repeatedly, and this 4th office building is hopefully the straw on that camels back.

This could turn out to be a very surprising success. Not all it could have been, but the sum looks like it will really turn out to be greater than its parts.

I'll keep my fingers crossed still of course, and hope the neighboring seaport square and pier 4 really hit their stride soon. Then we will really need to start importing cranes instead of moving them from job to job. Doesn't that sound fantastic?

 

[Sicilian]

Another new building apparently gets a tenant.

http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/real_estate/2012/12/goodwin-proctor-headed-to-hub-waterfront.html

15 story building next to Vertex.

Let's get this straight.

Four office towers on the highest potential waterfront in the USA.

No residential.

No public civic or cultural uses on ground floors, as was intended of all tidelands parcels when the land was filled.

Scant retail and large corporate lobbies on ground floors.

This is what I would characterize as the milking of $8 billion in public investment in the Seaport.

And the BRA has the gall to suggest that the Seaport is evolving with a mix of uses according to a Master Plan. And further suggesting that the evolution of the district will be affordable/attractive to young entrepreneurs.

As for the architecture...

Please.

 

[AmericanFolkLegend]

Sicil, I agree with 95% of what you post, but in this case:

No residential.

In all the recent site plans these sites showed office, no? The residential hasn't gone up there yet, but it's going up on Pier 4 and in multiple spots along D Street.

No public civic or cultural uses on ground floors, as was intended of all tidelands parcels when the land was filled.

Chapter 91 provides access to the water. Is there special language about putting a YMCA in your lobby? If so, everything on filled land in the Seaport, North End, Charlestown Navy Yard, Fort Point, etc. is guilty of the same crime you reference.

Scant retail and large corporate lobbies on ground floors.

Agreed this is frustrating, though 1 MPD has Strega and Empire (plus Louis/Sams). Not enough, but don't discount it.

And the BRA has the gall to suggest that the Seaport is evolving with a mix of uses according to a Master Plan. And further suggesting that the evolution of the district will be affordable/attractive to young entrepreneurs.

You know the Master Plan better than anyone on this board, but are we not getting a healthy mix of uses? South Boston (and the Seaport in particular) has a tremendous amount or res being built given the economy.

I highly value your posts because you're absurdly knowledgeable about the history of permitting/development in Southie, but I feel like you're refusing to see the forest through the trees.

 

[TallIsGood]

Four office towers on the highest potential waterfront in the USA.

No residential.

No public civic or cultural uses on ground floors, as was intended of all tidelands parcels when the land was filled.

Highest potential waterfront (is likely Manhattan, but I get your point) is using highest potential uses. High end office pays more than residential. No one wants to live there yet, there is nothing there for them. No shops, services, etc.

The tideland parcels were filled in for rail lines and warehouses, I don't think they thought of civic or cultural uses back then.

I would love to see more residential down there. I was hoping for 25k instead of the 6k the BRA is recommending. I think the South Boston politicians and residents objected since it might dilute their political interests.

 

[Sicilian]

Sicil, I agree with 95% of what you post, but in this case:

Chapter 91 provides access to the water. Is there special language about putting a YMCA in your lobby? If so, everything on filled land in the Seaport, North End, Charlestown Navy Yard, Fort Point, etc. is guilty of the same crime you reference.

No. Chapter 91 requires interior "facilities of public accommodation" which were intended as interior civic and public uses. Historically, when the Harbor was parceled out and filled by private owners, the intention was to ensure that the public would continue to benefit from resources available only on waterfront property.

The BRA has spent the better part of 20 years bamboozling State regulators. From what I understand, the State is no match for the BRA -- understaffed and underfunded while the BRA enjoys unparalleled access to staff and resources.

First the BRA began suggesting that sufficient space on upper floors for civic use would be as good or better than ground floors. That's why you have cobwebbed observation floors at Independence Wharf and observation rooms at Rowes Wharf and unmarked civic space at Atlantic Wharf, active only when someone decides to throw a party and invite people.

You will find EPIC FAIL inactive spaces at nearly every waterfront project, including the ones you mentioned from Fort Point to East Boston. Each project was misrepresented by the BRA to State DEP officials as being world-class civic spaces. In each case, the designated space did the minimum to meet regulations but more importantly met the needs of the commercial owner by keeping the riff-raff at bay.

In the past 10 years, the BRA started rewriting the book on what constituted a "facility of public accommodation." They've made the case that a commercial establishment such as a restaurant qualifies. Why not? Anyone can enjoy a glass of water.

In the past two years, space for business meetings, annual meetings, lobbies with occasional programming have been qualified as "facilities of public accommodation." From what I have read, on Pier 4 and at Waterside Place (Massport land), the BRA negotiated space for startup companies to practice elevator pitches and space for "IT/Rack Space" as a "facility of public accommodation."

Meanwhile, waterfronts worldwide are kicking Boston's ass in drawing the public and visitors to water's edge with art, performance, dance, opera, music and civic functions (school, library, community center, public hospital, police, fire). YES, THESE ARE BEING DEVELOPED IN PRIVATELY OWNED PROJECTS WORLDWIDE. In Boston, developers are receiving the benefit of public investment, tax exemptions and zoning variances from what they purchased without being held to a high standard for civic and cultural uses.

This is the USA's #1 highest potential waterfront, not a blighted industrial subdistrict where the BRA needs to work its tail off to attract investment.

I won't get into dissecting my comments on residential density, scant retail and architecture. I think any independent critic would find the evolution of the waterfront -- BRA and Massport land alike -- devoid of vision, inspiration and aspiration.

The saving grace is that the Seaport has a long way to go. But this BRA has laid down the tracks -- the ridiculous street layouts, the zoning variances already awarded for projects that won't be built until 2050. And the idea that the taxpayer-subsidized waterfront is nothing more than a develoer's playground.

PS. I appreciate your posts as well, AFL.

 

[stellarfun]

IMO, after what Sandy did to Lower Manhattan, the amount of street-level retail going in along the waterfront is going to be limited by prospective, future costs of flood insurance. Mechanicals and electrical are going to be moved upwards. I see no evidence of any measures being taken along the South Boston waterfront to minimize the effect of a surge flood. A streetscape of glass window-ed retail is not going to hold back a surge.

^^^ Stainless steel floodgates for the Embassy of Sweden in Washington.

^^^Steel flood walls for the commercial, residential, and retail complex adjacent to the Embassy of Sweden.

^^^ What happens when one doesn't get all the barriers up in time. Four restaurants totally destroyed. Get flood water into a restaurant, everything must be demolished and tossed. Insurance company agents watched as cases of liquor were emptied.

^^^ When the barriers work as intended. In this complex, on several occasions, they have deliberately flooded the lowest levels of the underground parking garage to offset the hydrostatic pressure of a severe flood. The garage is designed to be flooded with city water, so there are pumps above the flooded levels to pump out the water once the river flooding has subsided.
___________________________________________

Current estimated cost of repairing South Ferry subway station in New York is $600 million, more than it cost to build it four years ago.

 

[Sicilian]

^Stellarfun

Terrific post Stellar, I've been curious to see examples of what other cities are doing.

Most retail in Fort Point is 1/2 flight above grade. That could simply be carried forward to the waterfront, with the added cost of a single exterior ramp per building for ADA compliance.

Better yet, we could be having a substantive dialog about sea level rise in Boston instead of depending on developers to solve every problem. We're building a $1 B expansion to the Convention Center instead of a $1B levee, dike, seawall upgrade or other moderately reasonable approach.

A 1' rise in sea level won't kill retail. It will kill districts. Is the BRA going to convince pedestrians to wear hipwaders to get to work every day?

You've made my point with the sea level post that Boston's waterfront is being developed with a 5-10 year vision. Get in, get out.

All experts, including the BRA's own hired experts at Coopers, Robertson & Partners in 1998-1999, agreed that the waterfront should be a vibrant, dense neighborhood with a mix of uses and a ground floor activated with civic, cultural uses far greater than a normal district. The goal being: IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD THE BEST WATERFRONT IN THE WORLD.

All I've heard from the BRA and ArchWaltham folks here is... "Wait, the good stuff arrives later after all the 8-lane roadways and ground floor lobbies are in."

 

[AmericanFolkLegend]

Thanks for the explanation of Ch 91, Sicilian. I always thought it was just about protecting access to the water for fishing and fowling. In retrospect, it's probably because it's been applied so poorly that many people misunderstand the purpose of the law.

 

[jdrinboston]

Let me play devil's advocate for a sec on Chapter 91.

Is there a point in time where you reach a level of overkill regarding indoor public spaces i.e. galleries, music venues? If you build 20 to 30 buildings on a stretch of waterfront and they each have an art gallery or performance area in them, don't they eventually reach a point where they are cannibalize each other? For that matter, if a developer wants to locate a police substation, fire, or medical facility in their building....what happens if the city or surrounding health care providers aren't interested in staffing or managing it?

For my own understanding, looking at some other waterfront developments in the city, would the outdoor "Blues Barge" at Rowe's Wharf or the public harbor seal display at the Aquarium fall under the guidelines of Chapter 91? And what role does having large public assembly buildings on the waterfront i.e. the ICA and World Trade Center play a role in fulfilling the objectives of Chapter 91?

Are we truly in a position to know right now if the Seaport District is or is not a success. In the case of Fan Pier alone, we currently only have 3 buildings in an 8-building development at or near completion. The next two buildings in the pipeline will be an office/hotel building and a residential building, as called for in the master plan. Plus there are more residential buildings on the drawing board at Fan Pier, not to mention the units already under construction at Pier 4 and Waterside Place.

Frankly, its hard for me to judge development in this neighborhood at this stage, given that a vast majority of it still remains ugly parking lots. What i"ve seen completed thus far (the area near World Trade, Liberty Wharf), seems to have a lot of potential.

 

[Sicilian]

I've never heard anyone argue that there can be overkill of galleries, music venues, opera, theater, jazz along with restaurants, shops, etc.

As for overkill, the Seaport (Fort Point included) doesn't have a single square foot of public civic space. Not one. No community center, school, etc. And none planned. None. Should we be even debating the logic of "overkill?"

Great developers subsidize ground floors to attract smaller, more interesting tenants. That's why Fort Point's Congress St is a phenominal success... the BRA had nothing to do with it. The developer operating at Congress St has subsidized retail and even has been stepping up to subsidize civic space for the past few years. Amazing.

I'm not fond of Atlantic Wharf in terms of its interior civic use or architecture (IMHO, and I respect others on this one). But Atlantic Wharf presents a world-class retail environment on its ground floor... highly commendable.

Boston's civic and cultural community, completely disengaged from the public planning dialog, has always been in a struggle to find space. Some close because they can't afford space. The fact that Boston's cultural and civic leaders are not active in a public planning dialog tells you everything you need to know.

It is the BRA's responsibility to negotiate a solid mix of uses during the approval process to ensure the development of commensurate civic, cultural, residential, commercial retail, etc.

I retired (and intend) to return to retirement because I am easily outmatched in my view. But I do think, if there were visionaries at work, we'd have Bostonians eager to see stuff get built instead of just being eager to stand in line for a martini at Liberty Wharf.

 

[datadyne007]

As for overkill, the Seaport (Fort Point included) doesn't have a single square foot of public civic space. Not one. No community center, school, etc. And none planned. None.

Seaport Square was/is supposed to provide all that. The "problem" with the Seaport right now is that only the buildings zoned for office use are getting built because the corporations are the only people with plenty of money that can afford to build the buildings. The missing link, and it's a critical one, in the Seaport is Seaport Square.

 

[Ron Newman]

I really like Atlantic Wharf's public exhibit space. (Though that is not on Fan Pier.)

 

[TheRifleman]

Hey, I said the 2 buildings came out much better than I expected but I still stand by what I wrote in the past.

Seaport will be a bust. A glorified route 128 partially paid by the taxpayers of Mass on serious prime opportunity land development in Boston. ( Great Vision)
When the BRA and city officials don't take the necessary steps of making an area excel with basic common sense.

The First steps of making an area successful for the Long-term.
**Build an expansion of the Hard-rails into the area which would have made it an automatic success for the future you know these stupid fucks have no clue.
The Mayor is nothing more than a FAST buck artist. This is no long-term value to the taxpayers of Boston.

 

[Sicilian]

"Seaport Square" is the excuse the BRA uses whenever anyone asks, "Where is the residential density going to be?" "Where are the civic and cultural uses going to be?"

In fact, Seaport Square is just another tract of land. And none of it is at water's edge, where Chapter 91 exists to ensure that ground floors are active. So Seaport Square developers can actually build corporate lobbies without going through State regulators.

The one building rising on Seaport Square is the Boston Innovation Center. The BRA is now calling it the "Public Boston Innovation Center" to let everyone know that product pitches are a civic service. And the kicker is, while negotiating an approval of a 23 acre tract (Seaport Square) the BRA negotiated a 5-year lease and 5-year option for the BIC. Now that's conviction.

 

[choo]

my gut reaction is probably not. If there werent height restrictions, you could probably fill a 1000' residential tower before a 600' office tower in today's market. But if you are limited to 300', i think office will win out nearly all the time (if the current market environment persists)

 

[Sicilian]

Folks, Seaport development is not an exercise in capitalism.

The Seaport benefits from unprecedented public investment, unparalleled resources, and tidelands regulations that could have been used to shape a visionary outcome.

Standards for land use and architecture -- and requirements for production of a mix of uses including public/civic, cultural, retail and residential development commensurate with office space -- should be at the highest level.

What we're seeing is a facade of capitalism, in which developers are being characterized as pioneers, while gaming public investment and historic tidelands legislation. The district is evolving heavy in office/hotel because A) that's where the wind is blowing and B) that's what the convention center is demanding.

I arrived here arguing a single point: That ground floors present the single most important opportunity to define a vibrant waterfront, and that the BRA has abdicated its responsibility in civic and cultural planning of ground floor spaces from Seaport to Fort Point to North End to East Boston.

 

[choo]

^ I think we all agree there could be more vision. And I would certainly rather more housing then less for a variety of reasons. I also think we need some civic spaces and open access to the water (which will be maintained). So I will by no means defined all the decisions and actions by the BRA or developers, because as we know, much is lacking. But to say that its a facade of capitalism because the developers are building to suit the highest bidder is counter-intuitive.
Yes, there was widespread public investment that benefited them and their tenants and tax breaks that we can argue if they are necessary and fair.