Fan Pier Developments | Seaport

I know this joke has been made a million times before, but I don't care.

128-by-the-Sea
 
^ Vancouverization is the new Manhattanization. It must be avoided at all costs.
 
blade_bltz said:
^ Vancouverization is the new Manhattanization. It must be avoided at all costs.
Click to expand...

The difference is Manhattenization was never a real thing. No matter how it hard it tried (not that it ever did) Boston could never emulate Manhattan.

This, this however is almost to the point of being inevitable.

But hey, better than a parking lot, eh?
 
armpitsOFmight said:
^How will this affect the owner's insurance policy if two building share the same foundation? Is it considered one building?
Click to expand...

2 separate addresses. They share below grade parking, much the same way as the East WTC, Seaport Hotel, and West WTC share underground parking.
As far as insurance.... no idea. I would assume, the same owner has a poloicy which covers both buildings. If the owner wanted to sell one off, the insurance would get trickier because of the shared below grade parking.
 
Will this underground parking also be for the new residential building that is supposed to start next year?
 
statler said:
I know this joke has been made a million times before, but I don't care.

128-by-the-Sea
Click to expand...

In appearance, maybe. The question remains what will the street level emulate? One Marina Park has done a great job filling up its bottom level with restaurants, if this is the plan for these buildings at least there is a possibility of making Fan Pier a vibrant destination. Same cannot be said for 128.
 
ParkerChris said:
One Marina Park has done a great job filling up its bottom level with restaurants
Click to expand...

What?

I guess I haven't been there in a while. I thought the groundfloor of the building was largely private use (lobby) and maybe empty retail. Beyond Strega on the rear corner, has anything else opened?
 
Sicilian said:
What?
Click to expand...

I agree: What?

I was most recently at One Marina in the late summer and I don't recall anything but lobby space and maybe a couple ground floor office-type rooms which were focused inward.
 
Caffe di Marina is a cafe associated with Strega, but seperate storefront - looks differentiated.
 
Sicilian said:
What?

I guess I haven't been there in a while. I thought the groundfloor of the building was largely private use (lobby) and maybe empty retail. Beyond Strega on the rear corner, has anything else opened?
Click to expand...

My mistake, I didn't realize Caffe di Marina was connected to Strega at all. I was referring to Strega, Caffe and the new Shrine that is set to open. In the release for Shrine they mentioned how the bottom floor was now completely rented. Full article is archived here - http://www.bostonherald.com/business/real_estate/view/2011_0924southie_waterfrontto_get_new_shrine/
 
ParkerChris said:
My mistake, I didn't realize Caffe di Marina was connected to Strega at all. I was referring to Strega, Caffe and the new Shrine that is set to open. In the release for Shrine they mentioned how the bottom floor was now completely rented. Full article is archived here - http://www.bostonherald.com/business/real_estate/view/2011_0924southie_waterfrontto_get_new_shrine/
Click to expand...

I'm assuming Shrine is next to Strega, facing the ICA. Haven't seen what's going on with that.

It would be interesting to learn (or see the groundfloor scheme) if the potential exists for commercial and/or civic uses for spaces facing Seaport Blvd, courthouse and Harbor. Two sides will be abutting new development, but I think there are new roads between.

****
<edit>

Boston02124 --- Our conversation is drifting into urban design hell. Can you insert some images of the project site to break things up, maybe some images showing nothing new? LOL

</edit>
 
Last edited:
nothing showing above ground yet!
024-24.jpg
023-30.jpg
025-26.jpg
> from Dorchester ave
012-38.jpg
going into South station
014-38.jpg
046-21.jpg
 
Last edited:
These cranes are visible from the small park next to the Gah-den. Pretty cool.
 
Bland background buildings are always a plus. They make nice object buildings like ICA all the more unique.
 
porter said:
Bland background buildings are always a plus. They make nice object buildings like ICA all the more unique.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Though bland they are better than parking lots, and the streetscape they will hopefully create appears more compact and people friendly than many of the Seaport's other arteries.

Still, be nice to have more than just the contemporary to admire.
 
Except these will not be background buildings. They'll actually be some of the most prominent buildings in Boston.
 
porter said:
Bland background buildings are always a plus. They make nice object buildings like ICA all the more unique.
Click to expand...

This line of thinking has been repeatedly stated on ArchBoston threads.

The philosophy seems contrived for a pro-development agenda (maybe a DevelopBoston forum), given the miserable state of affairs of contemporary architecture in Boston over the past two decades.

Why point to the ICA as a jewel to excuse other projects? I have no problem agreeing the ICA is in the top tier of Boston's recent pluses. But it has an entire face that is terrible by any standard, no?

Will someone explain the pro-development agenda on ArchBoston that doesn't care about architecture? Do people think that Boston advances long-term without exceptional buildings?

I don't expect any of the above to be answered. Just some thoughts.
 
My stance on it Sicialian, is that the position you question is based on practicality. If it were so easy to design and build a great building, why would there be so many that aren't? You can come up with any list of reasons why a mediocre building shouldn't be built, but in the end, we all know that many, if not most, will be mediocre just the same. This has been true throughout history, I don't think we can will a different result just because we might have a different aesthetic than the actual result. But the good news is that this isn't such a bad thing. The gems still get built, and are more noticeable for the less spectacular buildings around them. The Seaport is starting to fill in. When all is said and done, we'll have the ICA, Liberty Wharf, and no doubt a few other special buildings, all of which is great. But even more importantly, we'll have a neighborhood of mixed use buildings where once had been parking lots, preceded by rail yards.
 
Sicilian said:
This line of thinking has been repeatedly stated on ArchBoston threads.

The philosophy seems contrived for a pro-development agenda (maybe a DevelopBoston forum), given the miserable state of affairs of contemporary architecture in Boston over the past two decades.

Why point to the ICA as a jewel to excuse other projects? I have no problem agreeing the ICA is in the top tier of Boston's recent pluses. But it has an entire face that is terrible by any standard, no?

Will someone explain the pro-development agenda on ArchBoston that doesn't care about architecture? Do people think that Boston advances long-term without exceptional buildings?

I don't expect any of the above to be answered. Just some thoughts.
Click to expand...

I'll attempt an answer - though I can only speak for myself.

I agree with many on this forum who describe Fan Pier architecture as Rte 128 suburban bland. However, I don't believe that every building has to be a signature architectural statement. Sometimes just being a good neighbor has its merits. I believe - I hope - the community these buildings create will be more important than the architecture - or, good in spite of the dull design.

I remember the last design the Pritzkers submitted for the Fan Pier conjured by world class architects. Though I'm not sure it was perfect, I loved the boldness of the concept. A canal?! Damn! Love to see a canal!

Agreed, ICA front is formidably unappealing - that is, the side that faces landward.

I would not call me pro-developer. I'm not anti either. I like thoughtful design, modern or otherwise. You say the "miserable state of modern architecture." I'd go farther and say the lackluster state of most design in this city, save a few examples. I put the blame squarely on Menino.

If the Seaport district becomes a place where people congregate it may endure and succeed despite its design failings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top