NEMA Boston | 399 Congress St. | Seaport

Re: Madison Seaport Hotel

If the BRA has approved thousands of housing units, but they aren't being built because of financing or economic conditions, that hardly seems like the fault of the permitting agency.
 
Re: Madison Seaport Hotel

If Boston's planning agency can't stimulate development of a mix of land uses to fulfill a master plan through rezoning and approving significant new density it isn't a planning agency. It's an economic development agency. Fire the planners.

Maybe you can help explain why the BRA placed a moratorium on development in 1998. At the time, the Seaport was already destined to be a commercial office/hotel/destination district.

As I remember, the moratorium on development was for the BRA to embark on a planning process to develop a land use strategy. That process cost $$$ millions in taxpayer financed planning efforts.

The forward motion of office stumps and hotels with no significant residential construction is entirely the fault of the permitting agency. Entirely.

I've told John K. before -- we're not talking about as-of-right projects. We're talking about land for which the BRA has enriched with the approval of significant density above what was originally purchased.
 
Re: Madison Seaport Hotel

but you were talking about residential projects that the BRA did approve over the past decade, but that the developers didn't build. Seems like that's more the fault of the developers (or their banks). Those projects didn't stall because of a temporary moratorium back in 1998.
 
Re: Madison Seaport Hotel

It doesn't frustrate me that the projects didn't get built.

It frustrates me that:

A) the BRA and Mayor continually have portrayed the Seaport as a work in progress with a mix of uses moving forward while the reality is that only a lame homogeneous series of office and hotel stumps are actually being built. All those approvals were for PR purposes only. They serve NO other purpose.

B) In the case of the project described in this thread, a developer is coming forward with a residential project, a land use DESPERATELY needed to enliven the Seaport and greater area (Fort Point, Greenway, Downtown, etc.). But instead the BRA nixes the idea because of the demand of the BCEC, itself a sprawling project that failed to fulfill its own promise. Meanwhile, as the BCEC is throwing around money at the Tea Party Ship (a private commercial venture), Summer Street is practically falling apart with sidewalks pitched at 10 degrees. The patronage and parochial decisionmaking is indefensible.
 
Re: Madison Seaport Hotel

I'm not sure that responds to Ron's point, though. How are the residential permit approvals PR only? Did the BRA have reason to believe none of them would be built? Did they purposefully permit construction they knew could not happen?
 
Re: Madison Seaport Hotel

With respect, Henry, there should be a healthy friction between planning and economic development.

Look at the density approved for new construction of office space and hotels in the Seaport over the past 10 years, either developed or moving forward under the BRA's oversight. Then look at all other commercial uses including residential.

The responsibility of the BRA, if it broadcasts to the world that it is planning a mixed-use district to garner support for its mission, is to REQUIRE the property owners to proceed with a mix of uses including residential.

If the property owners don't want to proceed with a mix of uses, they should proceed with projects as of right on the land they rightfully purchased, without the involvement of a planning agency.

My point earlier is that the BRA has involved itself in the approval of rezoning, but has not functioned as a planning agency in enforcing the requirements necessary to ensure the development of a mix of uses -- notably residential (and I've complained about groundfloor use requirements repeatedly).

Here we have a residential project and the BRA inserts some new, unstated agenda regarding support for the BCEC's sprawling plans. Another PR effort is the branding of some amorphous boundaries as the Innovation District, with the older Seaport Public Realm Plan thrown overboard.

***

On another note, forum members who routinely remind me that the BRA can't "require" a developer to build something should probably not arrive here and defend the BRA when it requires a hotel against the wishes of the developer. That seems hypocritical.
 
Last edited:
Re: Madison Seaport Hotel

So if I understand you correctly Sicillian, you want the BRA to not play a role in guiding development, because when it does, it isn't draconian enough. If they permit the variety of uses that are in the plan, but only some uses actually materialize, that is because they aren't forcing the developer to carry out the plan?

And to be clear, I don't think anything should be required of the builder with very few exceptions (like FAA height limits, safety provisions, etc.).
 
Re: Madison Seaport Hotel

The problem seems to me to be inconsistency. Sicilian as I understand his argument sees an agenda in that inconsistency and in some instances a collusion between BRA and developers who enhance the value of their properties without building anything. Whether or not an agenda like that exists, inconsistency is still quite bad for the development climate here.
 
Re: Madison Seaport Hotel

Ron Newman said:
If the BRA has approved thousands of housing units, but they aren't being built because of financing or economic conditions, that hardly seems like the fault of the permitting agency.
Click to expand...

But how long have the Seaport parcels and the majority of Fan Pier gone untouched? I'm pretty sure Fan Pier has been seeing plans thrown around since shortly after I was born (1985). The permitting agency may not be the reason the developers can't get financing...but if they gave approval to a project several years ago and nothing has happened in that time, they should be open to a new developer if it can get the financing.

Whatever is going on at Seaport Square isn't working. The last article on the Seaport Square Development (http://www.archboston.org/community/showpost.php?p=112475&postcount=441) said Hynes is looking to sell off parts of the Seaport property...so if his project changes, won't that have to be re-approved anyway? Oh yea, that article was posted 7 months ago.

Perhaps approving other residential units and having other developers swoop in and effectively take money out of their pockets will light a fire under the butts of the Hynes' developers and make them realize they're missing the boat. Meanwhile, we're denying others the right to build based on a project which has been in the pipeline for years and doesn't have financing or even an official rendering.
 
Re: Madison Seaport Hotel

HenryAlan said:
So if I understand you correctly Sicillian, you want the BRA to not play a role in guiding development, because when it does, it isn't draconian enough. If they permit the variety of uses that are in the plan, but only some uses actually materialize, that is because they aren't forcing the developer to carry out the plan?

And to be clear, I don't think anything should be required of the builder with very few exceptions (like FAA height limits, safety provisions, etc.).
Click to expand...

If the BRA triples the value of a parcel by awarding additional density, it has the right to dictate the terms.

That's called planning.

If the BRA is not ensuring the development of a mixed use plan, using zoning as a tool to incentivize uses that the market would not otherwise produce, it should get out of the way.

Since the BRA has not produced any residential on the Seaport but has approved one office stump after another, I think the writing is on the wall.

The BRA has not functioned as a planning agency. It has been used as a PR agency for the Mayor's office, and a tool for developers to increase density regardless of land use.
 
Re: Madison Seaport Hotel

^Shepard

As a separate point, yes, property owners have routinely used the BRA to enhance the values of their parcels and properties without developing anything. It's quite common for the property owner to secure approvals, flip the project for profit, and leave town. The new owner returns to the BRA stating they can no longer fulfill the original planning objectives because they paid too much.
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

Filing and renderings now available for residences at 399 Congress.

Date of filing is 2011 because that is when original project was proposed and nixed (BRA wanted a hotel on this site). Fortunately, IMO, residential proposal is now back on track.

Can an admin create a new thread if there isn't one?

http://www.bostonredevelopmentautho...rojects.asp?action=ViewProject&ProjectID=1473
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

Looks pretty cool, though it would have been nice of they could have covered the on ramp a little bit
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

It looks like a solid project. I was iffy on the yellow, until I saw the page about how they are referencing the yellow brick buildings already in fort point.
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

Thanks Mike, reposting.
 
Re: Madison Seaport Hotel

That "driveport" looks awful...
 
Re: Madison Seaport Hotel

Another super-wide, auto-centric stump with a dead street level for the Seaport. This is getting really sad.
 
Re: Madison Seaport Hotel

Clunky, massive and fit for a suburban office park. That's how we (i.e., the BRA) roll in the Seaport - sorry, "Innovationgrad."

Two things of interest in the PDF:

1) Figure 5-6 suggests a massive parking lot in place of the park/courtyard in "Seaport Square" if I'm not mistaken. I'm assuming this is a placeholder/mistake, but still worth keeping an eye on.

2) Figure 5-10 reveals the architectural inspiration for this project: Northpoint ("the one in Cambridge, you know, the massive railway yards," as I believe the ArchBoston thread describes it).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top