Fan Pier Developments | Seaport

There are many cases in which the zoning code for a particular area requires a minimum lot size. It is actually extremely common. For example, many places require X acres per single-family house, or in the case of some areas in Boston, a parcel must be one full acre in order to build to the maximum allowed height. So, if you can require a lot size minimum, why can't you zone for a lot size maximum? I dont see what would be so difficult. Perhaps you can elaborate.

PDA's are designated arbitrarily on an ad hoc basis. The Fan Pier could have just as easily been intelligently parceled and zoned out. The fact that it is a PDA may help explain the unfortunate manner in which the Fan Pier seems to be coming together, but it has nothing to do with my point.

Also, there are most certainly height limits on the Fan Pier, just as there are on every buildable lot in Boston. They weren't set by the Feds, they were merely informed by the FAA's recommendations.

As for the the Fan Pier building, it is consistent with Fallon's other buildings in the Seaport: dirt cheap materials, an utter disregard for the pedestrian's experience and a design and scale purely driven by maximizing profit. His signature precast concrete exteriors are the larger-scale building equivalent of asphalt siding.
 
I look forward to the day the sun comes back so we can see what this building really look like! today
022-17.jpg
026-20.jpg
this next one I messed with abit
026-20-1.jpg
the rendering to compare
FanPierOffice1.jpg
 
Pathetic.

The glass is way too dark, the precast is monotonous, the nods to current design trends are laughable, and its proportions are stocky at best.

The one thing I like? I'm a sucker for thin mullions on a building -- they're like pinstripes on a well-tailored suit -- and I can't help but like that half of the east facade with 'em. Too bad the whole building couldn't have been done that way; the design could've at least had some integrity then.
 
briv said:
There are many cases in which the zoning code for a particular area requires a minimum lot size. It is actually extremely common. For example, many places require X acres per single-family house, or in the case of some areas in Boston, a parcel must be one full acre in order to build to the maximum allowed height. So, if you can require a lot size minimum, why can't you zone for a lot size maximum? I dont see what would be so difficult. Perhaps you can elaborate.

PDA's are designated arbitrarily on an ad hoc basis. The Fan Pier could have just as easily been intelligently parceled and zoned out. The fact that it is a PDA may help explain the unfortunate manner in which the Fan Pier seems to be coming together, but it has nothing to do with my point.

Also, there are most certainly height limits on the Fan Pier, just as there are on every buildable lot in Boston. They weren't set by the Feds, they were merely informed by the FAA's recommendations.

As for the the Fan Pier building, it is consistent with Fallon's other buildings in the Seaport: dirt cheap materials, an utter disregard for the pedestrian's experience and a design and scale purely driven by maximizing profit. His signature precast concrete exteriors are the larger-scale building equivalent of asphalt siding.
Click to expand...

I thought you were talking about specifying a building's footprint (not lot size) in zoning - I understand your point.

The only height limit on Fan Pier is the one required (not recommended) by the FAA. I have seen buildings get their penthouses demolished because of FAA height violations.

Precast is a cheap material, but as I mentioned before, this building has a 2-story base (stone and glass) which seems to be of a pedestrian scale. I don't have photos of it - maybe someone else does? What I don't understand about this building is why they chose precast with such a relentless window scheme. This is not necessarily a cheap building - there are a lot of projections, recesesses, etc. and enclosing all of that costs money.
 
Fan Pier looks like a BUST. No imagination at all. This city looks more depressing with this building.
 
I agree that was fantastic photo. Actually somewhat made the building look promising.
 
yeah it will be nice when its occupied. Will follow up with those photos in 6 months or so : )
 
This obviously isn't the right place for this but has anyone else seen this:

http://www.innovation-cities.com/top-innovation-cities-75-ranked-worldwide/



Which cities will out-perform economically & socially based on change trends?

These are the #Innovation75 - the 2thinknow NEXUS & HUB Innovation Cities for 2009 - key city destinations for economic & social out-performance globally emerging from recession, ranked based on 2thinknow?s leading innovation analysis.

1. Boston
2. Vienna
3. Amsterdam
4. Paris
5. San Francisco
6. London
7. Hamburg
8. New York
9.Tokyo
10.Lyon
11. Stuttgart
12. Berlin
13. Barcelona
14. Frankfurt
15. Washington DC
16. Geneva
17. Copenhagen
18. Strasbourg
19. Toronto
20. Melbourne
21. Milan
22. Sydney
23. Rome
24. Brussels
25. Zurich

32. Philly
33. Minneapolis-St. Paul
53. Dallas
54. Seattle
60. Los Angeles
61. Chicago
62. Pittsburgh
64. Austin
69. Houston
75. Detroit
 
Last edited:
I immediately looked at the middle of the list, scrolled down looking for boston. Then i reached the bottom and I thought "how can philly and detroit beat out boston?"

Then as i prepared to leave the page....WAIT! HOW CAN THIS BE? NUMBER 1.

Thats the first time i've ever seen boston ranked 1 on any kind of list haha.
 
Wednesday, December 31st, 2003: Boston Globe writer Joan Vennochi sees the future - and provides us with some interesting history to keep in mind today...

Profit center
Harbor development presents a huge economic opportunity for the region --- if we can catch the wave
By Joan Vennochi, Globe Staff

The ``new Boston.'' The next frontier. The most attractive development opportunity in the nation.

The 1,000-acre stretch of South Boston waterfront that seems poised at last for major development is now routinely described in the most grandiose of terms. And predictions of its economic impact on the city, state, and region are just as breathtaking.

An analysis done by scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology estimates that the new Seaport District could generate 10 million square feet of new office space, 1 million square feet of retail space, 1 million square feet of entertainment uses, and 2,000 housing units on the waterfront.

It could create nearly 60,000 jobs and pump an additional $2.2 billion annually into the regional economy, the study found. An invigorated harbor economy could require 5,000 new hotel rooms, beyond the 3,000 needed to support the planned convention center on Summer Street.

The MIT analysis paints an optimistic picture of the future for this expanse of mostly undeveloped land. As always, there is a less rosy view to consider.

The MIT projections are, like most projections, ``a reasonable attempt to be realistic. They have more validity than nothing,'' says Peter Linneman, a Chicago-based real estate fund manager who participated in last spring's Boston Harbor Conference on waterfront development. But when it comes to projections, Linneman cautions, ``none of us want anyone to read them five years later.''

Key questions remain about how best to harness the Seaport District's potential. The fundamental tension is over how quickly development can and should take place and what that development should look like.

Some argue for a seize-the-moment attitude. They say that because economic conditions now are just right - low interest rates, high demand for office space, private investor enthusiasm - the Seaport District should be developed quickly, within three to five years.

Linneman would be in this camp, except that he thinks Boston has already missed ``the moment of real bullishness.''

``You made a huge error,'' he says. ``You weren't ready when the cycle was ready.'' Given that reality, ``Get on with it, guys,'' he says. ``Let the market tell you what to do, rather than a bunch of planners.''

Linneman speaks as an expert from outside Boston: He's a senior managing partner in Equity International Properties, a new fund that targets international real estate and related investments for Chicago-based Equity Group Investments, and is on leave as director of the Real Estate Center at the Wharton School of Business.

One local real estate executive who makes the opposing case for caution is Kevin Phelan of Meredith & Grew, who sees a ``built-in conflict'' between proposals for the Seaport District and the amount of major development already under way in other parts of the city. Because of the volume already in the pipeline, he says, ``You can't say the waterfront is a slam-dunk and that's the total future.''

For their part, city planners argue there is no need to rush development of the Seaport District. Rushing, they warn, could lead to the wrong kind of development - too many office towers filled with too many people from the service industry sector of the economy.

The future of the Seaport District is clouded by other unknowns as well.

Will the private sector make the wholehearted commitment necessary for it to take off? How much will private landowners' agendas, neighborhood agendas, city and state bureaucratic agendas, and various political agendas slow things down? What if development in the Seaport goes forward but critical infrastructure decisions do not keep pace?

``If everything is done well, it will be a major contribution to the economy,'' says Lyn Zurbrigg, now a principal consultant with Abt Associates of Cambridge, who worked on the MIT study as a vice president and managing director of Standard and Poor's DRI.

Samuel R. Tyler, who heads the Boston Municipal Research Bureau, says, ``The real challenge is managing the planning - being farsighted enough to predict what the future will look like, being patient enough to make sure it does evolve properly.''

But as an outsider, Linneman again sees it differently: ``You have a neat chance to do something right and an extreme opportunity to do something wrong.'' What would be wrong, he believes, is doing ``what the market doesn't want. There's no shortage of urban areas designed in a way planners think the world should work, as opposed to the way the world really works.''

Linneman thinks planners often ask for too much open space, particularly in cold climates, and worry too much about building heights. ``If you don't make it tall enough, you can't make the economics work,'' he says.

If the market works in the Seaport District, economic ripples will wash through the neighborhood like the waves reshaping a beach.

A developer turns steel, glass, and concrete into an office building. The building fills with people; they need food and transportation and support services. Some decide they would like to live close to where they work, so they need homes. Once they settle in, they need places to shop, eat, enjoy themselves.

The first economic ripples have begun to hit the new Seaport District.

Fidelity Investments opened its 200-foot-high Seaport Hotel across from the World Trade Center last spring. Already, hotel guests are patronizing nearby restaurants like Anthony's Pier 4 and Jimmy's Harborside. Taxis carry them to their business downtown. They take harbor cruises during their down time.

Fidelity is banking on even more ripples. In July, it broke ground for a 250-foot, 16-story red brick office building that will stand next to the hotel. Fidelity, AEW Capital Management, and Cabot Corp. will be the tenants. Another office tower of similar size is planned for the other side of the Seaport Hotel.

The new federal courthouse on Fan Pier kicked off development with public dollars. Now, the expectation is that office towers, paid for with private dollars, will rise around it, filling up with lawyers who want to be close to the judicial action. And significant economic ripples are expected from the new convention center, planned for Summer Street, which taxpayers are also underwriting.

But what if something - a downturn in the economy - or someone - a private landowner - slows down the ripples?

James Pappas, for example. Pappas, 52, is a real estate developer; he is also one of a handful of people who can claim a piece of the Seaport District as their own.

The Pappas family immigrated to Boston from Greece around 1908. They started a grocery business in the North End, beginning with a pushcart, before expanding to a building on Salem Street. In the 1940s, they put their first stake down in South Boston, buying property now listed as 410-540 E Street.

As a boy, James Pappas worked summers in the E Street building, packing olives and cheese in jars. Today, he owns about 20 acres of land in the Seaport District, including a critical one-acre parcel at the edge of the planned $700 million convention center. Already, the one-acre parcel has been the subject of much controversy, as has Pappas.

Pappas says he wants to hold on to the land, to build an office tower there. The state and city want to acquire it so a hotel next to the convention center can be built on it.

``My father and my uncle were as clairvoyant as they come,'' says Pappas. ``Did they say in the 1940s this was going to be the `new Boston'? I think my father felt that way.''

But as Pappas points out, aside from Fidelity's major investment and what is happening via government fiat - the federal courthouse, the infrastructure overhaul, and now the convention center - ``nothing much has happened here.'' The view from his office at 625 Summer Street isn't much different from the view from the E Street buildings where he helped pack cheese and olives.

As a businessman, he says, ``When you own the property, you want the highest and best use ... the highest and best return. If you could go to the moon, you would go to the moon.''

In other words, Pappas is not ready to tip his hand on the critical acre he owns next to the convention center site. The city can take the land through eminent domain, but at what cost? There is speculation Pappas wants as much as $50 million for the one-acre parcel.

The back-and-forth over his property is just one tiny example of the gap between glowing economic predictions and reality. If one individual can slow things down, imagine the impact of a major economic downturn.

The econometric model MIT's analysts used to predict the Seaport District's future assumed that there would be economic peaks and troughs, but that a strong base level would be maintained. ``If we got into a tremendous decline, with Asia going further down the tubes or Latin America imploding, that's a short-term cycle that could stall things,'' acknowledges Zurbrigg, of Abt Associates.

Even in a strong economy, there are possible pitfalls. One is a labor shortage resulting from the current phenomenally low unemployment rate; another is the fact that the new jobs would be mostly either high-end or low-end - lawyers and financial service people at the top, waiters at the bottom - with few in the middle of the market.

A failure to resolve transportation issues would also hurt Seaport development. State officials are still torn over where to build ramps from the Back Bay to the Central Artery, to provide a critical link between the Back Bay and the new district. And a battle continues between the Massachusetts Port Authority and surrounding neighborhoods over building a new runway at Logan Airport.

Warns Linneman: ``The worst-case scenario is that this becomes another Boston political harangue. Everybody talks until they're red in the face, five years go by, nothing gets done, and you miss a real nice opportunity to start something.''

Joan Vennochi is a Globe columnist focusing on business and political issues
Click to expand...

Again, that's December 31st, 2003.
 
Patriots_1228 said:
I immediately looked at the middle of the list, scrolled down looking for boston. Then i reached the bottom and I thought "how can philly and detroit beat out boston?"

Then as i prepared to leave the page....WAIT! HOW CAN THIS BE? NUMBER 1.

Thats the first time i've ever seen boston ranked 1 on any kind of list haha.
Click to expand...
I did and thought the same thing
 
forgot the link

http://www.innovation-cities.com/top-innovation-cities-75-ranked-worldwide/

http://www.2thinknow.com/reference/media-release-boston-no-one-city-for-innovation/

MEDIA RELEASE: Boston #1 for Innovation

>
2thinknow on August J09 2009
Boston has been rated the best US city for innovation, tying scores with previous winner Vienna in Europe.

Boston also edged past Amsterdam, Paris, San Francisco, which rounded out the top five cities in the annual 2thinknow Innovation Cities Index.

European cities dominated the top Innovation Cities, with 61% of the top 75 in the European Union. US Cities were mainly from coastal states or the Great Lakes area.

London rose unexpectedly, followed by Hamburg, New York, Tokyo and Lyon in France. Toronto in Canada came in 19th, as Melbourne fell from 8th to 20th followed by Sydney in 22nd place. Vancouver placed 48th followed by Montr?al.

The Index looks at which cities are taking the steps towards embracing innovation. Innovation now will lead to faster economic recovery and better resources for citizens in the next few years.

The Index looks at 162 Indicators including an active arts scene, architecture, environment, openness, setting up a business, creative media sectors, mobility, internet technologies, diverse base of industries, tourism, and how much market power the city had in world markets to sell innovations.

The often-overlooked market factor formed one third of the Index and resulted in the inter-connected European Union cities in Germany and France scoring highest overall. For the same reason, the need for better infrastructure in Asia impacted their scores

?The biggest story is the rise of networked European Union cities, relative to the decline of middle-America US cities.? said Christopher Hire, of 2thinknow.

?But if you have an idea, the top 150 of the cities analysed all represent a good destination for some type of innovation. Whether it?s a web start-up in San Francisco, laneway retail in Melbourne, smart manufacturing in Kobe or fashion in Paris.

?Your city will have key clusters, key industries that some citizens can use to create future economic & social wealth. We may have a recession, but the key to innvoation success is knowing which innovation can succeed where.? Hire added.

Harvard & the Massachusetts Institute of technology contributed to the rise of Boston, and a temporary retreat of East Europe led to a slight downward movement of Vienna. Paris was very close also to first place, being held back by famous French bureaucracy in business establishment.

However, Vienna and Paris both scored a perfect 10 for Inspiration - which measures the overall strength of the cities cultural assets such as museums, art galleries, airport access, food and wine, music venues, sports industry and fashion design.

Boston was in many ways better placed than New York with a less financial-services reliant city, that has the advantage of global consulting firm connections to roll-out new innovations.

Compared with past years, one major surprise was Washington DC at No 15. This was largely indirectly due to the Obama Effect - as the US capitol is now critical to innovation in sciences and business as one of the nations largest shareholders.

Singapore 31st just won close race with Hong Kong 38th as the pre-eminent Asian hub.

Abu Dhabi at No 50. outranked Dubai, as financial problems overtook the more well-known Mid-East hub. Shanghai followed at No. 52, largely on broader China issues.

The 2thinknow Innovation Cities Index has been published since 2007, and is available from the website www.innovation-cities.com for with 256 cities scored in 2009.

? ENDS ?

USEFUL LINKS:

256 Cities Index: http://www.innovation-cities.com/2thinknow-innovation-cities-global-256-index/
Understanding the Index: http://www.innovation-cities.com/executive-summary-research/
Media Resources: http://www.innovation-cities.com/media-resources/

SPOKESPERSON:

Christopher Hire
Executive Director of Innovation
2thinknow (twitter )

Phone: +61 3 9225 5284 (during 8.30 to 5.30 AEST M-F)
Email: media@2thinknow.com
On Twitter follow @christopherhire or @2thinknow
 
Shepard said:
Wednesday, December 31st, 2003: Boston Globe writer Joan Vennochi sees the future - and provides us with some interesting history to keep in mind today...

Again, that's December 31st, 2003.
Click to expand...


So in less than six years we have:

- Four major office properties have been built (WTC East, West, Manulife, Fan Pier) representing about 3 million SF of office space
- One major office property re-developed and leased to former Financial District blue-chip tenant, JP Morgan (Seaport Center)
- One major residential development (Park Lane)
- Two major new hotels (Renaissance & Westin)
- A Public transit line with three stops
- Almost TWO DOZEN brand new restaurants
- A major waterfront development under construction (Liberty Wharf)
- Boston's first new museum in a thousand years (ICA)
- Four new parks (Maritime on D Street, Eastport Park, Westport Park, and Fan Pier Park under construction)

If you want to count the Fort Point Channel area, you also have the FP3 and Channel Center residential developments.

Not bad, considering you're really talking about a build-able period between 2004-early 2008. My big issue isn't the amount of development, it's the quality of development. Boss Menino's developer stooge, Joe Fallon, has built shit crap garbage all over the place (Park Lane, Fan Pier, Rennaissance, Westin).

Only the World Trade Center complex and the Manulife building exhibit any signs of quality construction worthy of being called a "New Boston". Fallon's garbage is more "Old Houston-by-the-sea".

If we had a real mayor, things would be different. I don't think we'd have more Seaport development (there's been so much already) but I think we'd have better Seaport development.
 
Pelham, Very good post. I will have to agree with that. At least GMACK24 pictures came out nice especially with the Bridge lit up.
 
Pelham - I agree that the article I posted was actually more dire than what we actually got in the last six years.

I wonder if it's the implied do-it-now-or-do-it-never mindset that the article implied that's carried over to the developments themselves. Virtually everything beyond Fort Point looks cheap, ill-conceived and rushed - maybe because of this do-it-now mindset - and by the way, I'd apply those same adjectives to the "Public transit line with three stops" you mentioned (with the kicker being that courthouse station is easily the most beautful on the entire MBTA sytem! But ill-conceived nonetheless.)

To say this another way, I wonder if the Seaport's promise is actually its downfall.

Great neighborhoods can evolve gradually and largely organically in unexpected places. But in the Seaport, which is hailed as the "New Boston" and which is expected to reach greatness, that rush to get in there and reap massive economic windfalls could result in a cobbled-together array of cheap profit-motivated stumps... and the area ultimately emerging as less than great.

Am I making sense?
 
What about the future of the developed space, closer to the industrial portion of the SBW? Like the land Pappas owns, can anyone see the future of that? Redeveloped into a new neighborhood? Office towers? Or do you think it will just remain industrial land?
 
And yes, Shepard, you make perfect sense. I couldn't agree more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top