^commuter_guy
Thanks. My views are not universally appreciated, especially because the facts make clear that the level of mediocrity we see is and was completely avoidable. There is a reason that the Seaport remains as parking lots for years. There is a reason the megablocks have dictated the design of the few structures that have arisen.
I think the problems are actually quite simple:
1) The BRA allows property owners to secure variances for new construction (beyond as-of-right under existing zoning) and the property owners can then hold onto the rights without building anything. The property owners can choose to sit on the approvals indefinitely or sell them for profit without adding any value to the originally purchased property. The profit is milked from the approvals during this sale. This places a 2nd owner/developer in a position where they are much more susceptible to tanking or succeeding based on market forces. SOLUTION: Project approvals should be USE IT OR LOSE IT, with a fixed time schedule requiring re-application upon property sale or construction delay.
2) The BRA allows property owners to visit City Hall to secure variances for new construction (beyond as-of-right under existing zoning), to sit on the vacant or underutilized parcels, and to return to the BRA in future years for new and imaginative goodies, including new tax breaks, changes to the project, revisions to jettison less lucrative components, etc. In other words, it makes sense to make multiple visits to the candy store as long as the door is open. And it makes even more sense if you can sit back on a parking lot and collect substantial parking revenue while you accumulate development rights. SOLUTION: The BRA should be a one-stop operation for a project approval, not a revolving door offering new incentives year after year.years.
3) The BRA allows the property owners to control the phasing of their plans, so the market dictates which building components move forward. Since there is a lot of pressure on the Seaport for office and hotel construction to suit demand from the Financial District and the BCEC, significant residential development is continually offloaded to future phases of each project -- even in times when the residential market is fairly strong. If we are to believe the BRA, there will be a point in Boston's history over the next 50 years, when the only remaining empty parcels left on the Seaport will have been approved exclusively for residential construction and at that time 2500+ units will magically appear. I believe that at that time, if commercial space is more lucrative, the property owner will revisit the BRA and new administration and simply have the old plan updated to eliminate the residential. SOLUTION: Phasing of residential and other critical mixed-use pieces should be REQUIRED concurrent with office/hotel construction when the property owner is the beneficiary of significant variances for new construction.
4) Lastly, as I've said before, the bar for architecture (throughout the City) is surprisingly low given the fact that Boston is a "world-class" city like no other. I can't explain why the BRA and Boston Civic Design Commission approve the stuff that gets built, but I think it's an insiders game that I know little about. And I don't blame the architects -- my guess is they are given a substandard budget and do what they do within the limitations of the budget.
By the way, I am not a developer, architect, or urban planner. Just a resident and observer.