Fan Pier Developments | Seaport

If everything you just said were true NYC should be a desolate wasteland and Detroit the center of the universe.
Locally, the West End would be the place to be and we would talking about how we should fix the North End, South End, Beacon Hill and Back Bay.
Face it. The Seaport is the new West End.
 
Not true - I'm talking about for work. The Back Bay is not the best place to work. Business leaders will tell you this. I find it amazing - crazy even - but it's true. The best place to work is right near South Station. This isn't opinion, this is what market forces have dictated.

Only within the past 5 years has the Back Bay been even considered on par with the Financial District for business. When law firm Palmer and Dodge moved to the Back Bay (the new Pru tower) in 1999 it was heresy. Both Foley and Nutter opted for the Seaport District over moving all the way to the Back Bay.

And nobody wants to work in the South End, Beacon Hill or North End. I'm not talking about quaint little neighborhoods where you can buy expensive cheese, I'm talking about usable commercial neighborhoods here.

That said, in that context, the Seaport ain't bad at all. Even Fallon's site at the fringe of the Seaport District is easier to get to from Cohasset, Wellesley or Weston than International Place or any of the State Street office towers.
 
I dunno I'd like to think there was some place between 'place to buy expensive cheese' and 'soulless suburban office park'.

Still, given a choice between the two I'd take the former. Not to say there isn't a place for the latter, but right on the last stretch of undeveloped oceanfront property in the city, may not be the best choice.
 
Pelhamhall, it sounds like you're advocating that the city should emulate Rt-128.
 
Not at all. I'm talking about a modern city, the 21st Century city - that allows for cars, bikers, walkers, subways, etc. All together, all nicely and smartly. It seems like today's architects only know how to sacrifice one for the other.

In other words, it doesn't have to be 128 office park, and it doesn't have to be tangled hard-to-navigate streets like the North End. There could be a middle ground, where the streets shuttle traffic quickly and easily into large, hidden garages, and the wide open streets are more welcoming to bikers and walkers. In this vision, there would also be a subway connecting to the major transit hub (South Station) and other modes of transportation too (water ferry and Zip cars). And by the way, this vision, is becoming a reality in the Seaport. It's just two decades and one good mayor off.
 
jass said:
Pleanty of room for a protected bike lane
And trees
IMG_1482.jpg
Click to expand...

The initial critique that prompted my statement that 'the problem is that the street was only thought of in terms of cars and not public realm' was about the desolate and lifeless streetscape in this photo.

The conversation has spiralled a bit (which is good in a forum), but I'm sorry pelhamhall, the initial point is still valid. There is zero design in the streetscape relative to the public realm, or what might make a reasonable (or dare we dream?) a good urban street. The image above might as well be on Rt. 9 in Framingham, not in the middle of the city.

Simply put, in the U.S., streets are thought of in terms of catering to the automobile, whereas in many other countries they are conceived of as part of a larger concept of mobility. I'm not advocating for eliminating automobiles, but for design which acknowledges that there are many functions of a street, not just pushing the highest possible number of automobiles through.
 
This is the problem as I see it. People here are generally out of touch with reality. Virtually everybody here thinks that we live in one big happy, progressive commune where everybody cares about their carbon footprint and is going to do whatever the enlightened ones tell them is the thing to do. If the Obamas plant an herb garden, then gosh darn, they're going to plant an herb garden too. It's contagious; like a disease. I've even gone a little green, when I'm sailing instead of simply throwing my empty beer cans overboard, I'll take my knife and poke a couple holes in them so that they sink and who knows, maybe a family of crustaceans will move in, a micro-artificial reef scattered every mile across Buzzards Bay, Vineyard Sound, Rhode Island Sound and Narragansett Bay. What it comes down to is that most people, myself included recognize the fact that more likely than not, they're going to die before the world allegedly will fall apart and therefore they live for themselves; they live to be happy on their own terms; whatever that takes and frankly if you're going to live on anybody else's you probably simply shouldn't.
 
pelhamhall said:
Not at all. I'm talking about a modern city, the 21st Century city - that allows for cars, bikers, walkers, subways, etc. All together, all nicely and smartly. It seems like today's architects only know how to sacrifice one for the other.

In other words, it doesn't have to be 128 office park, and it doesn't have to be tangled hard-to-navigate streets like the North End. There could be a middle ground, where the streets shuttle traffic quickly and easily into large, hidden garages, and the wide open streets are more welcoming to bikers and walkers. In this vision, there would also be a subway connecting to the major transit hub (South Station) and other modes of transportation too (water ferry and Zip cars). And by the way, this vision, is becoming a reality in the Seaport. It's just two decades and one good mayor off.
Click to expand...

Wide streets and traffic are inherently unfriendly to pedestrians... unless they are underground, of course.
 
I would like to have seen the Seaport take the North End, or for that matter Old Town Marblehead, as its model for development. These places work, and work well, and everyone who lives and works in them loves them. You do not need wide streets to make a good neighborhood; usually they get in the way.
 
You need wide, car friendly streets and tons of parking for a profitable modern day commercial district and that's what Fallon is after, at least in theory.
 
kmp1284 said:
You need wide, car friendly streets and tons of parking for a profitable modern day commercial district and that's what Fallon is after, at least in theory.
Click to expand...

Are you being serious or sarcastic? If you're being serious, I have to disagree with you. Newbury Street and Harvard Square, some of the most popular shopping districts in the area, have streets that are pretty narrow, and not a whole lot of parking.
 
You may need the parking, but that's what garages are for. I don't see why you need the wide streets at all.
 
I remember reading a while ago on Cyburbia that streets are designed to be extra wide in order to accommodate ever larger fire trucks. Supposedly narrow streets like those in the North End, Beacon Hill, etc really slow down response time. I don't know how true that is.
 
cden4 said:
Are you being serious or sarcastic? If you're being serious, I have to disagree with you. Newbury Street and Harvard Square, some of the most popular shopping districts in the area, have streets that are pretty narrow, and not a whole lot of parking.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about commercial in the context of office space not strictly retail. It shouldn't have been too hard to figure that one out.
 
About the firetruck thing. I was actually talking about that with a friend who's on the department a few weeks ago. It's not so much an issue of the trucks being able to get down the streets as it is about the ladder trucks not having enough space to set up with the stabilizers needing another three to five feet on each side. There are a lot of streets that are almost impossible to get into and certain trucks can't get in there but the issue is more about set up once there.
 
Except that current financial districts like NYC, Boston, etc are all still successful despite not being 'modern'.
There is no reason to believe that building off that model won't be met with similar success.

And all this assumes that a commercial district is the highest and best use for this area. An idea I'm not sold on.
 
Whether you're sold on it or not, it's happening, unless of course you could buy out Joe Fallon? I'd love to see a Financial district-esque arrangement down there but the fact of the matter is their market research and their intuition is that this is the way it ought to be.
 
Oh, I understand I have no control over it. Doesn't mean I have to like it. :p

And their market research and intuition has told them the best path to short term profit, not the the highest and best use for the land. The two are not even close to equivalent.
 
Narrowing the streets to North End or Marblehead standards would benefit the developers, as they would have more land to develop.

Actually, you don't have to travel that far: Melcher Street right in this neighborhood is a good example of a properly proportioned street.
 
These main streets are too wide. But it's also about the in-fill. What's going to replace the parking lots? M-stumps? Or something distinctive... for example, winding alleys around container-city residences and offices (contextual, economical, and differentiating):

container-city-ii.jpg


2008-05-13_123928-Treehugger-container-city.jpg


container_city2.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top