Fan Pier Developments | Seaport
- Thread starter stellarfun
- Start date
TheRifleman
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Messages
- 4,431
- Reaction score
- 0
Fallon & Mass Mutual paid $115Million for the site.
Fan Pier area is going to struggle till this economy picks up.
Unless we get more developers ready to build aka(Hynes on the Seaport District) This area will remain very COLD & Industrial. I would love to see a shift like Shepard's picture up above a little San Fran feel in the Residential end to this area. But unless Boston see's massive job creation, I think Fallon paid too much to develop this site. I think he sits on this until the building is 100% occupied before making anymore moves.
I hate the design for the first building but I have to give credit to FALLON.
He BUILT IT.
Fan Pier area is going to struggle till this economy picks up.
Unless we get more developers ready to build aka(Hynes on the Seaport District) This area will remain very COLD & Industrial. I would love to see a shift like Shepard's picture up above a little San Fran feel in the Residential end to this area. But unless Boston see's massive job creation, I think Fallon paid too much to develop this site. I think he sits on this until the building is 100% occupied before making anymore moves.
I hate the design for the first building but I have to give credit to FALLON.
He BUILT IT.
Fan Pier and the Seaport went through extensive planning between 1997 and 2000, and approvals in the 2-3 years that followed. The Fan Pier plan itself was guided by the Pritzker's own renown urban design team (Urban Strategies of Toronto) as well as the BRA's hired top-notch urban waterfront planners (Coopers, Roberston). Urban Strategies was instrumental in putting together a master plan for Fan Pier that reflected many of the terrific recent insights on this forum.
The public reflections of Urban Strategies' work in a public workshop are published at http://www.seaportalliance.org/SAND/Archive/981112fanpier2.html
But few if any of the ideals put forth by Urban Strategies during the public planning process are reflected in the concept of a 21 Acre dominated by megablocks.
As for One Marina Park Drive, it is a building that does not engage the pedestrian. It presents long street walls, with little opportunity for smaller retail spaces, many doors on the street, distributed service entrances, etc. In this regard, it is not much different than the Massport developments further east. That area is an unmitigated disaster.
Regarding residential development, at full build, Fan Pier's 21 acres will only host approximately 650-675 residential units. That is a SCANT fraction of the number of residential units recommended by the planners at the time, as well as by the Boston Society of Architects at the time. Worse of all, the BRA has allowed each property owner to postpone residential projects as long as they determine that their office and hotel market are more lucrative. There are no requirements for concurrent phasing of a mix of uses.
In my view, this project and more generally the progress on the Seaport is nothing short of a travesty. Lets remember that Fan Pier was planned, approved and under construction well before the economy tanked. Now that the development is constrained by financing, we can expect worse.
The public reflections of Urban Strategies' work in a public workshop are published at http://www.seaportalliance.org/SAND/Archive/981112fanpier2.html
But few if any of the ideals put forth by Urban Strategies during the public planning process are reflected in the concept of a 21 Acre dominated by megablocks.
As for One Marina Park Drive, it is a building that does not engage the pedestrian. It presents long street walls, with little opportunity for smaller retail spaces, many doors on the street, distributed service entrances, etc. In this regard, it is not much different than the Massport developments further east. That area is an unmitigated disaster.
Regarding residential development, at full build, Fan Pier's 21 acres will only host approximately 650-675 residential units. That is a SCANT fraction of the number of residential units recommended by the planners at the time, as well as by the Boston Society of Architects at the time. Worse of all, the BRA has allowed each property owner to postpone residential projects as long as they determine that their office and hotel market are more lucrative. There are no requirements for concurrent phasing of a mix of uses.
In my view, this project and more generally the progress on the Seaport is nothing short of a travesty. Lets remember that Fan Pier was planned, approved and under construction well before the economy tanked. Now that the development is constrained by financing, we can expect worse.
I guess a positive spin on the current situation is that the office market is down and will not recover quickly. Hotels will grow near the convention center. And replacing some of these office towers would be an increase in residential, which promotes ground floor retail.
Sooner or later the developers will need an roi, and if the office market stays low for a while, which is more than likely, residential will replace it. At least, this is my hope
IP has three or 4 retail stores at the base, including outdoor seating.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...id=8TvHPjqi0WkC-FkbYW7LXw&cbp=12,89.34,,1,5.3
AmericanFolkLegend
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2009
- Messages
- 2,209
- Reaction score
- 241
^Thanks. I guess I haven't been down Oliver St. I was thinking of High St and Atlantic Ave (frankly I couldn't even remember what the other abutting street was). The outdoor seating actually looks kind of nice.
But still, the point stands. 12 retailers vs 3. And IP is obviously a much larger development.
But still, the point stands. 12 retailers vs 3. And IP is obviously a much larger development.
briv
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 2,083
- Reaction score
- 3
I agree completely. The Seaport is past the point of no return. It's almost a waste of time to criticize new developments.
This is Menino's true legacy. Toledo-by-the-Sea.
briv
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 2,083
- Reaction score
- 3
TheRifleman
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Messages
- 4,431
- Reaction score
- 0
In my view I don't see too many positive developments coming down the pipeline. Unless we get a bluechip company to move to this area. (which is possible) Job Growth will be stagnat in this state for a while. Menino Legacy will be known as (Mayor for LIFE) Who controlled all developments in the city through an agency called the BRA. The biggest real estate boom in history and the city still has the same skyline since the 90's.
It's impossible to expect, but we need a development environment decoupled from politics.
The BRA spot zones every single large project (designating each large project as a PDA), which incentivizes horse-trading, deal-making, and enrichment of BRA and City coffers at the expense of any sort of broad vision.
The mantra in the development community is "flexibility", but what the area needed was a stable vision, stable zoning and concurrent phasing of mixed-use projects. Considering the area's potential as one of the most incredible waterfronts in the world, and considering the nearly $8 billion in public dollars spent on area improvements (T, BCEC, CAT/Tunnel, BCEC, Harbor cleanup, etc.), it's a disgrace for anyone to suggest that because of the economy we now need to settle for second-rate and third-rate projects of the likes we have seen over the past decade.
The BRA spot zones every single large project (designating each large project as a PDA), which incentivizes horse-trading, deal-making, and enrichment of BRA and City coffers at the expense of any sort of broad vision.
The mantra in the development community is "flexibility", but what the area needed was a stable vision, stable zoning and concurrent phasing of mixed-use projects. Considering the area's potential as one of the most incredible waterfronts in the world, and considering the nearly $8 billion in public dollars spent on area improvements (T, BCEC, CAT/Tunnel, BCEC, Harbor cleanup, etc.), it's a disgrace for anyone to suggest that because of the economy we now need to settle for second-rate and third-rate projects of the likes we have seen over the past decade.
They should have broken up (and should still break up) the SBW parcels into lots roughly the size of those in the Back Bay or South End. Rather than require billions of dollars and a perfectly calibrated economic environment to buy in and start construction, it would take a few million to buy a lot and start up construction; it would have by its nature encouraged a diversity of architecture so that if a few developers built crap it wouldn't kill the whole area off; and construction would've been gradual, piecemeal but more immediate than it is under the status quo.
Not needing massive construction loans or interest from hundreds of tenants, the individual lot owners would've been able to start building much sooner, and there might actually be something there today. Oh, and no superblocks. The notion that anything that gets built must be the size of an aircraft carrier, and that the city needs zoning laws and superblock-parcel sales to encourage that state of affairs, is deadly.
Not needing massive construction loans or interest from hundreds of tenants, the individual lot owners would've been able to start building much sooner, and there might actually be something there today. Oh, and no superblocks. The notion that anything that gets built must be the size of an aircraft carrier, and that the city needs zoning laws and superblock-parcel sales to encourage that state of affairs, is deadly.
^Although I agree with the general thinking about the value of smaller lots, we're talking about private property and I'm not convinced the property owners would ever consider breaking up their large blocks into smaller lots.
Secondly, there may need to construct a minimum of an entire block at one time because of the massive amount of new infrastructure required for development in the Seaport (i.e. sewers, utilities) that require an entire block to be constructed at one time. Underground parking may be another expense that requires substantial concurrent construction.
As someone put earlier, the issue really isn't the massive block size. Fort Point has massive block sizes that work quite well. It's more the monolithic stumps that poorly consider ground level, don't reflect premiere architectural aspirations (that's my own objective call), and worst of all -- aren't phased according to a plan to ensure a mix of uses.
As for zoning, it is intentionally manipulated to require that the developer come to the table at City Hall instead of building as-of-right. So, the property owner is incentivized to collect parking revenue while spending year after year improving their lot through new variances, tax incentives, new public initiatives (i.e. BCEC expansion being the latest). The parking lot owners basically are sitting on a goldmine that the City continues to throw goodies at to entice forward motion.
If we want tall buildings, we should have zoned for tall buildings and gotten out of the way. If we want a 24/7 neighborhood, we should zone for tall residential buildings and get out of the way. The property owners have been enriched by the addition of density beyond as-of-right, and therefore it was entirely possible to defy the market gravity towards office space and hotels. As it stands, the property owners and developers get the variances they want, the uses they want, and no particular constraints on the timeline.
What I don't exactly understand is what City Hall gets by decades of parking lots. I hate to say it, but it appears that the BRA has become a tool for ensuring re-election of candidates and appointees involved in the horse-trading. This might bear out based on who gets the lion's share of approvals. It's entirely a political game, and has been for quite some time.
Secondly, there may need to construct a minimum of an entire block at one time because of the massive amount of new infrastructure required for development in the Seaport (i.e. sewers, utilities) that require an entire block to be constructed at one time. Underground parking may be another expense that requires substantial concurrent construction.
As someone put earlier, the issue really isn't the massive block size. Fort Point has massive block sizes that work quite well. It's more the monolithic stumps that poorly consider ground level, don't reflect premiere architectural aspirations (that's my own objective call), and worst of all -- aren't phased according to a plan to ensure a mix of uses.
As for zoning, it is intentionally manipulated to require that the developer come to the table at City Hall instead of building as-of-right. So, the property owner is incentivized to collect parking revenue while spending year after year improving their lot through new variances, tax incentives, new public initiatives (i.e. BCEC expansion being the latest). The parking lot owners basically are sitting on a goldmine that the City continues to throw goodies at to entice forward motion.
If we want tall buildings, we should have zoned for tall buildings and gotten out of the way. If we want a 24/7 neighborhood, we should zone for tall residential buildings and get out of the way. The property owners have been enriched by the addition of density beyond as-of-right, and therefore it was entirely possible to defy the market gravity towards office space and hotels. As it stands, the property owners and developers get the variances they want, the uses they want, and no particular constraints on the timeline.
What I don't exactly understand is what City Hall gets by decades of parking lots. I hate to say it, but it appears that the BRA has become a tool for ensuring re-election of candidates and appointees involved in the horse-trading. This might bear out based on who gets the lion's share of approvals. It's entirely a political game, and has been for quite some time.
One thing I've wondered is at what point the lots became privately owned. Have they always been? Or were they previously municipally owned and subsequently sold to private owners? I've always thought for some reason that it was the latter, and that the city decided to auction them off to private owners in such massive parcels. This seems to be the way cities privatize municipally owned land these days, and it's almost always a disaster (delayed construction, monotonous, subpar architecture, retail dominated by the BoAs and CVSes of the world, car-dependent, etc.).
Don't agree about the building-as-block contention (that all we need is some ground-floor retail and it doesn't matter if the entire block is one building, or, separately, if there are superblocks). I'll grant that one or two blocks that are covered entirely by one building may not be terrible (though 90% of the time these days it is). But an entire "neighborhood"? Bad idea. The Fort Point warehouses are large, yes, but on a given block you generally have 6-8 buildings -- and the materials, architecture, and urban planning (i.e., not towers in the park) are much better there than we can really hope to expect from any development today.
I think Fan Pier, Seaport Sq., etc., in their current incarnations can already be written off. What I'm hoping for is that either Fallon and Hynes both go bankrupt and the whole thing is redone, or that they build their crap and someone demolishes it all in 30 years hence to put down something decent.
^Well, it all begins as public property, since Boston Harbor was and is not privately owned.
As far as I know, the entire Seaport including Fort Point is filled tidelands, built for commercial enterprise by private entities, not filled as public land that was later resold. In 1804, the original deed for wharfing out (filling, building) the Fort Point District was conveyed from "The South Boston Association" to one private party. I'm pretty sure the Boston Wharf Co. filled the Fort Point area largely at its own expense in the mid-1800's, and built the warehouses through the early 1900's mainly for known parties who would become tenants. Only a few general purpose warehouses were built (i.e. the row of buildings on Wormwood Street) which did not garner the same attention to detail by the architects as, say, buildings on Summer or Congress. Fort Point was the world's hub of wool processing through the early 20th century. Fan Pier was a railyard with tracks fanning out towards the seawall, I'd guess the Fan Pier railway company was responsible for filling the land, but I'm not sure who that exact party was.
So, the short answer is, it was private property from the point it was filled. That said, there were public rights that went with each deed...
When you hear State regulations referred to today as "Chapter 91" are the regulations that were placed on property owners in exchange for their receipt of the right to fill in areas that were formerly part of Boston Harbor. Chapter 91 regulations include rights of public access -- particularly at the water's edge. I think the goal was to protect the viability of a working port by preventing excessive privatization, and by ensuring public access to areas that were once public.
As far as I know, the entire Seaport including Fort Point is filled tidelands, built for commercial enterprise by private entities, not filled as public land that was later resold. In 1804, the original deed for wharfing out (filling, building) the Fort Point District was conveyed from "The South Boston Association" to one private party. I'm pretty sure the Boston Wharf Co. filled the Fort Point area largely at its own expense in the mid-1800's, and built the warehouses through the early 1900's mainly for known parties who would become tenants. Only a few general purpose warehouses were built (i.e. the row of buildings on Wormwood Street) which did not garner the same attention to detail by the architects as, say, buildings on Summer or Congress. Fort Point was the world's hub of wool processing through the early 20th century. Fan Pier was a railyard with tracks fanning out towards the seawall, I'd guess the Fan Pier railway company was responsible for filling the land, but I'm not sure who that exact party was.
So, the short answer is, it was private property from the point it was filled. That said, there were public rights that went with each deed...
When you hear State regulations referred to today as "Chapter 91" are the regulations that were placed on property owners in exchange for their receipt of the right to fill in areas that were formerly part of Boston Harbor. Chapter 91 regulations include rights of public access -- particularly at the water's edge. I think the goal was to protect the viability of a working port by preventing excessive privatization, and by ensuring public access to areas that were once public.
found5dollar
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2007
- Messages
- 1,146
- Reaction score
- 401
Umm... anyone else see the massive problem with this???? any of you been in the ICA? The entire point if one of it's rooms, the mediateque (or how ever you spell it), is that the window shows only water. With the construction of the pier this picture shows, that will completely destroy that. Right now i could care less about the shape and density of the buildings that probably will not get built for a decade or more, i want to save one of my favorite spaces in boston!
For a picture of the room look here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Boston_ica01.jpg
^
This conflict was noted in a posting dated July 10, 2007:
http://www.seaportalliance.org/SAND/Archive/071023fanpier/071023fanpier.html
This conflict was noted in a posting dated July 10, 2007:
http://www.seaportalliance.org/SAND/Archive/071023fanpier/071023fanpier.html
SeamusMcFly
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2008
- Messages
- 2,050
- Reaction score
- 110
That picture makes me dizzy.