Fan Pier Developments | Seaport

Something else that should be considered is the needs of building occupants. The first building is an office building. Like it or not, businesses prefer large floor plans that provide greater flexibility for space management/configuration. Most businesses will take operational efficiency over the interesting quirkiness of an older building's small floor plan forcing them to rent multiple floors.

For Boston to have good buildings, it needs a thriving economy. A thriving economy requires buildings that suit the needs of our business community. My earlier comment regarding the difference between Fort Point and Fan Pier neglected the footprint difference. But unfortunately, that difference makes Fan Pier more appealing to me when I consider location options for my company. Smaller foot prints are good for some types of retail and residential developments, but they can't take the entire neighborhood. Not anymore. That time is over.

I don't think we know enough yet about the ground level of these buildings. If they are nothing more than a lobby entrance and a wall, then I will agree that the foot print is a disappointment. But if they contain stores and restaurants with multiple entrances, will it matter that the building itself is large? If you think that it does, remember that the building likely won't exist at all if it isn't large.
 
You bring up an excellent point, but that doesn't mean the buildings then have to be so bland and ugly. Good architecture balances the needs of the clients with good aesthetic design and a realistic budget.

Fan Pier is only two of those.
 
Well on the bright side, the ugliest building was the first to get built, so at least it can only get better from here haha.
 
The on directly behind the ICA looks like the new BU dorms sister. Same architect or is BU planning a marine campus?
 
By the way, that scale model is in the lobby of the building and open to the public if anyone else wants to see it up close.
 
So, it's just accepted that nothing like Back Bay or the South End will ever be built again? When I think of great niegborhoods, none of them have one megabuilding per block.
 
Seriously...megablocks are fairly disastrous from an urban planning perspective...that said, the new buildings on Boylston in the Fenway have done a reasonable good job breaking up the pedestrian experience with smaller storefronts.
 
I hate to break the news, but the layout of Fan Pier, as envisioned, will be an entirely normal grid - not "superblocks" or "megablocks". Yes, these buildings are large and each take up an entire block, but actually most urban blocks are taken up entirely by connected structures - even a block of South End brownstones can be thought of as one block-sized structure.

What defines a so-called superblock is a larger-than-normal structure or collection of structures that impedes the normal flow of traffic through routes that would otherwise be "natural". In terms of continuity of city streets: BCEC, Prudential Center/Hynes, CRP, GCP, Christian Science complex, even Harvard Yard all qualify.

But these are defined with reference to vehicular through-traffic; we'd have to include DTX or Faneuil Hall/Quincy Market by that definition. And then if you open it up to pedestrians, then is the Pru/Hynes really a superblock if peds can work their way through the grid of interior mall space? Or, CRP or Harvard Yard with their paths?

I think the definition needs to be more psychological than physical. What's perceived as a barrier? Government Center Garage lets both auto and ped traffic through via Congress Street, but it's arguably a much greater mental barrier than the Pru. CRP, which is internally-oriented, is much more of a dead-zone barrier than Christian Science or Harvard Yard.

Fan Pier won't suffer on account of block size. Peds and vehicles will have access to all these streets on a scale that could actually work. And the street-level scale, if varied enough, could encourage people to move in every-which direction. But, whether there will be anything remotely interesting enough to draw people down those streets, however, is an entirely different question. The important thing to follow will be whether these buildings, collectively and individually, focus their energies internally or externally.
 
Last edited:
Shepard said:
I hate to break the news, but the layout of Fan Pier, as envisioned, will be an entirely normal grid - not "superblocks" or "megablocks". Yes, these buildings are large and each take up an entire block, but actually most urban blocks are taken up entirely by connected structures - even a block of South End brownstones can be thought of as one block-sized structure.
Click to expand...
Sorry Shepard, but this is about as silly a thing as you can say. Everything and its opposite are the same thing, and there is no such thing as scale.

Maybe you'd like to take the opportunity to retract this little piece of nonsense; we'd be happy to assume you had one too many.
 
In terms of footprints and connections around different footprints, it is true.

If you can't get between these buildings:

amsterdam.jpg


Then, from a purely geographical perspective, it might as well be this:

1__1222697286_8523.jpg


Of course, it might also help if you read the rest of my post to discover that I'm actually saying the opposite - it's not the geographical layout that matters but how it engages the external environment. We agree.

I think you're hitting that Jaeger a bit too early in the afternoon and it's making you combative.
 
it's not the geographical layout that matters but how it engages the external environment
Click to expand...

When people on this board criticize 'superblocks' they are almost always exclusively criticizing the way they engage the environment, rather than their geographical layouts.
 
Traditionally it's used to mean a block larger than other city blocks which limits through-connections. We should find another word if we're referring to street engagement.

I'm far from impressed with the plans for Fan Pier but I object to throwing nuance out the door and hurling any piggly-squiggly urban planning insult which may or may not apply.
 
Shepard said:
Traditionally it's used to mean a block larger than other city blocks which limits through-connections. We should find another word if we're referring to street engagement.
Click to expand...

There is really not a need when the term is acceptable architectural idiom.

Your Amsterdam example is not a block, but a row.
 
Last edited:
Shepard said:
Of course, it might also help if you read the rest of my post to discover that I'm actually saying the opposite - it's not the geographical layout that matters but how it engages the external environment. We agree.
Click to expand...
Glad we agree, and I guess I owe you an apology. Never good to go off half-cocked, so I'm sorry.
 
Mmm, liquid lunch sounds like a good idea. Might help me get through my afternoon meetings. I think we are all saying much the same thing regarding engagement at ground level. Can we all agree that is preferable, and that it is not impossible with large single structures, even though it may not be automatic in the way that it is with smaller footprint structures?

That said, the point I was making in my first post is that we don't know what will happen at the street level. But going back to the argument that larger footprints are required for economically viable projects, I suggest that our focus should not be on complaining about facts not yet in evidence, but assumed simply due to the building sizes. Instead, we should advocate for outward oriented first floors. It is a more positive option than complaining about lot size. In many ways, such automated complaints about a defined physical attribute remind me of complaints about shadows. Tall buildings cast shadows, new buildings have large footprints. Let's make sure neither interferes with the street level.
 
bdurden said:
Your Amsterdam example is not a block, but a row.
Click to expand...

This is getting silly. I'm sorry I brought it up. You're all correct after all; superblocks blow. And Fan Pier is, of course, an alcubond and glass superblock of auto-oriented chode towers in the park.

HenryAlan said:
I suggest that our focus should not be on complaining about facts not yet in evidence, but assumed simply due to the building sizes. Instead, we should advocate for outward oriented first floors. It is a more positive option than complaining about lot size. In many ways, such automated complaints about a defined physical attribute remind me of complaints about shadows. Tall buildings cast shadows, new buildings have large footprints. Let's make sure neither interferes with the street level.
Click to expand...

Cheers, Henry!
 
Part of the problem is the emphasis on office buildings - we're basically getting "CBD Extended" in the SBW. Office lobbies are typically much larger than residential lobbies (and in the financial district are frequently block-through). That gives you less opportunity to break up the streetwall with multiple retail spaces. Think International Place vs Trilogy. Trilogy has 12 ground-floor retail tenants. IP has zero (that I can think of).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top