Fan Pier Developments | Seaport

Sicilian said:
One of the Crab's owners was a neighbor of mine in the early 1990's -- his nickname for McCourt was Gremmie -- a guy who arrives every day at the beach, places his surfboard in the sand but never surfs (i.e. never develops anything).
Click to expand...

Thanks for the laugh, Sicilian. This nickname for McCourt is particularly funny, because McCourt owns the best house on Carbon Beach (Malibu).
 
I wonder if he developed that house, or if it was already there.

It's worth mentioning that my own limited experiences in meetings with McCourt were always fairly positive, and his representatives were IMO top notch in presenting ideas. It's a shame none of those ideas came to anything. I think there was a lot of friction with McCourt at City Hall, and that stifled forward progress.
 
THe house was already there. Purchased from Courtney Cox if I remember correctly. it's an architecturally significant house built by John Lautner

Right on Sicilian. Seaport Square was the classic case of someone not building because Menino didn't like the developer and made things difficult. Contrast that with Druker - a guy who says he wants to tear down the Shreve Crump Lowe building and get's his landscraper replacement rubber stamped. Or Steve Belkin who is literally bequeathed the rights to a 1000 foot tower from the city.
 
Quite a house... amazing how close the lot lines are there.

On the topic of insider baseball, and I think I've already noted it somewhere here, every hotel in the Seaport area (Seaport Hotel, Intercontinental, Westin BCEC, Renaissance Marriot at Fish Pier) are all by the same developer, the Fallon Company. Not surprisingly, the Fallon Company is building at Fan Pier and did the Park Lane apts. on Massport land at Fish Pier. Easy targets like Vivien Li and NIMBYs, who draw fire because they are the first to be quoted in the Globe and Herald, have been convenient foils to redirect attention from where the issues really exist.
 
About Fan Pier, What industries are actually down in this area that will make this area grow in a positive way? Why would private money flock to this part of Boston?
 
Your just across the Northern Ave bridge (800 feet) from downtown Boston. You've also got the BCEC nearby and Fidelity has a huge presence in the area. When there's as limited a supply of buildable land as Boston has, I'm not sure you need to have an anchor industry to make an area work. Though a revived economy would sure help . . .
 
The Intercontinental Hotel was developed by Extell Development Co. with Brian Fallon, no relation to Joe of the Fallon Co.
 
^JANAM
Thanks for catching that.

^Rifleman
The Seaport has incredible potential for private investment, especially following decades of $billions in public investment including a new T Station, CAT/Tunnel access, harbor cleanup, Ted Williams tunnel and BCEC. Just being among the most beautiful waterfronts in the USA, and proximity (as AmericanFolkLegend mentioned) should draw some interest. Are there doubts?
 
AmericanFolkLegend said:
Everything in this Master Plan is Fallon. The Hynes parcels are all across Northern Ave.
Click to expand...

The scariest thing about that master plan is that no less than 3 of the other propsed buildings are significantly fatter than the box we have there now. Based on the response from the members of this board about our new squat, stout, boxy, "choad" of a new building.... there should be plenty to bitch about on here for the next decade or so. BTW, not a big fan of it either, but it has grown a bit on me.
 
The chode is all the wrong proportions. If the other buildings are significantly wider, built out to the street, each fill an entire block (however disconcerting that is) I think the proportions will look more rational since they won't seem to be aspiring towards towerhood. Our precast chode here seems to be awkwardly striving towards ever-greater glory.
 
I know there's an irrational love of the skyscraper on this board, but apart from a few exceptions most of the world's great cities are not defined by their tall buildings, but by the texture and quality of urban districts.

Other than a overriding penchant for "more height" by most posters, why is a skyscraper appropriate on this site in Boston? How does it fit into the larger plan of the city, including uses, transportation and image of the city?

Can we not advocate instead for well proportioned and well designed buildings that create an active street and contribute to the life of the district?
 
Short, wide buildings hog a lot of the streetscape -- often, too much of it.
 
el raval said:
I know there's an irrational love of the skyscraper on this board, but apart from a few exceptions most of the world's great cities are not defined by their tall buildings, but by the texture and quality of urban districts.

Other than a overriding penchant for "more height" by most posters, why is a skyscraper appropriate on this site in Boston? How does it fit into the larger plan of the city, including uses, transportation and image of the city?

Can we not advocate instead for well proportioned and well designed buildings that create an active street and contribute to the life of the district?
Click to expand...

i think there is more a love of vertically oriented dimension.... h > w

most of the world's great cities are defined by this, regardless of actual height: nyc, amsterdam, san fran, london, chicago, etc. Skyscrapers, rowhouses, brownstones, triple deckers.... heck even hot dog carts. Humans are taller than they are long, cars are not: which do you want your city resembling?

these are squat boxes with footprints that outweigh their height: more height is one remedy, less width is another
 
It's kind of a ratio thing.

If a building is going to be short, it should have a small footprint. If it has to have a large footprint (which I've come to understand is a requirement in today's real estate market, though I don't know why) it needs to be taller to compensate for it's girth.
 
el raval said:
Can we not advocate instead for well proportioned and well designed buildings that create an active street and contribute to the life of the district?
Click to expand...

We certainly should. There are differing opinions on where additional height belongs in Boston. The correct answer is where economics and transit infrastructure will support it.

I think you'll agree that Fan Pier is among the most ill-proportioned buildings you'll find in Greater Boston.
 
statler said:
It's kind of a ratio thing.

If a building is going to be short, it should have a small footprint. If it has to have a large footprint (which I've come to understand is a requirement in today's real estate market, though I don't know why) it needs to be taller to compensate for it's girth.
Click to expand...

+1 and better designs please. I think we all know that it is not reasonable to build anything here of significant height. The FAA has a legit argument over this area.
 
el raval said:
... apart from a few exceptions most of the world's great cities are not defined by their tall buildings, but by the texture and quality of urban districts....

...Can we not advocate instead for well proportioned and well designed buildings that create an active street and contribute to the life of the district?
Click to expand...

In order for this area to be transformed into a successful urban neighborhood, it needs a much more fine grained urban fabric - more buildings (with smaller footprints and varied design), a variety of street widths, active storefronts, and amenities to encourage pedestrian traffic. Unfortunately, with the bulk of the area controlled by Fallon and Hynes, it is unlikely. Market forces make it much easier to build one large building than the same total sq.ft. in a number of smaller ones.
 
Don't 20 small buildings collectively have a higher market value than one big one?
 
Not really, if you consider the amount of available space the addition exterior (or party) walls take up, plus the added cost of building those walls, vs a sheetrock interior wall. Also consider that one large building is far more customizable than 20 small ones, which I think many buyers would see as a plus.
 
^ To pedestrians, residential tenants, and other "urban end-users," of course. But large floor-plates rule the day in commercial real estate. So many of the small-footprint buildings we all love have limited future as repurposed office-space. The best they'll ever be is Class B or C.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top