Pier 4 Condo Building (Former Anthony's site) | Seaport

...
Given how much good press Skanska got over the ship they unearthed at 121, why in the world would Tishman act like the FSB on this one?

I had the same "WTF?" reaction. If it were my site, I'd be bragging about how I'll set up some sort of commemorative display along the water, including perhaps that boiler itself or any other hunk of the vessel that could look good. Seems like Tishman is not only giving up some cool free publicity, they're looking secretive over something that needs no secrecy....

An own goal.....
 
^ Pure speculation, but...

...maybe there's some liability / cost questions? e.g. if Anthony made representations or guarantees about the condition of the property when it was sold that have proven to be inconsistent with reality, then the lawyers are probably sharpening their pencils. Especially if there is high-cost environmental remediation involved re: oil or other contaminants in the wreck.

Again, pure speculation. On the other hand maybe they just don't have a PR person.
 
In 1968, the ship was brought to Boston by Athanas, who spent a half-million dollars to purchase the flats where the ship would sit at permanent mooring, then another $400,000 to construct an elaborate steel-and-concrete cradle that was considered an engineering marvel...

...The Stuyvesant sank just off the pier, having been ripped from the elaborate cradle that held the ship. For months after the blizzard, the ship sat on its starboard side in the shallow water, its bow yards from what is now the Institute of Contemporary Art, as workers tried to save the Stuyvesant.

Eventually, Anthony Athanas, the famed restaurateur who viewed the Stuyvesant as his floating palace — it was loaded with art and artifacts he’d collected around the world, as well as an extensive wine cellar — made the painful decision to scrap the ship. Crews removed most of the upper decks of the Stuyvesant in September 1979, but the massive hull was left on the ocean floor, its silhouette visible at very low tides.

Didn't realize it was in a 'cradle' and not floating when it was wrecked. Also interesting that he 'purchased' the 'flats' where the cradle (and ship) was - i think this is all below the tide mark so surprised that it could be purchased.

I wonder if the cradle etc. were purely practical - i.e. keep the soup from spilling out of the bowls as the waves came in - or if there is more too it, e.g. something financial or regulatory about having a 'structure' rather than a 'ship'....
 
Didn't realize it was in a 'cradle' and not floating when it was wrecked. Also interesting that he 'purchased' the 'flats' where the cradle (and ship) was - i think this is all below the tide mark so surprised that it could be purchased.

I wonder if the cradle etc. were purely practical - i.e. keep the soup from spilling out of the bowls as the waves came in - or if there is more too it, e.g. something financial or regulatory about having a 'structure' rather than a 'ship'....

I bet if it's floating, you've got a world of Coast Guard regulations to deal with that you can avoid if it's on a cradle.... because then it's no longer a vessel. The guy was running a restaurant, didn't want to be running a maritime venture.

If that's true, then I'd also bet there were insurance issues out the wazoo.
 
i think this is all below the tide mark so surprised that it could be purchased.
Littoral rights in Massachusetts extend 100 rods from the high tide line, so depending on where that is (or was -not sure how that's determined on filled land), it probably falls within that zone.
 
Oil cleanup continues. Hard hat said a bunker tank contained 25% oil, which started to leak once they tried to remove it from the ship. They had insurance, so
they expected something like this.

IMG_0794

https://flic.kr/p/SL7b4g
 
Oil cleanup continues. Hard hat said a bunker tank contained 25% oil, which started to leak once they tried to remove it from the ship. They had insurance, so
they expected something like this.

Wow, thanks - if true, raises so many questions. Why oil on board if ship was in a permanent cradle? And how did Anthony manage to get away with leaving it down there so long? etc. etc.
 
Wow, thanks - if true, raises so many questions. Why oil on board if ship was in a permanent cradle? And how did Anthony manage to get away with leaving it down there so long? etc. etc.

I don't know about ship tanks, but I know in general it is extremely difficult to fully empty an oil tank. 25% residual sounds a bit high, but it is not unreasonable for 15%+ residual to be "unremovable" from the tank short of sawing the tank in half. It could be that, when the ship was in the cradle, it was treated somewhat like a building rather than a ship...where its a liability to have contained oil in a tank, but not necessarily illegal.
 
I don't know about ship tanks, but I know in general it is extremely difficult to fully empty an oil tank. 25% residual sounds a bit high, but it is not unreasonable for 15%+ residual to be "unremovable" from the tank short of sawing the tank in half. It could be that, when the ship was in the cradle, it was treated somewhat like a building rather than a ship...where its a liability to have contained oil in a tank, but not necessarily illegal.

Bunker fuel is really thick tar like stuff. Depending on the grade, you often have to heat it up to get it to flow at all. It is really hard to remove (much harder than heating oil, for example).
 
Got it. Still wonder how and why they were able to leave the wreck there for 40 years though....
 
Got it. Still wonder how and why they were able to leave the wreck there for 40 years though....

Lots of wrecks on the bottom of the sea.

I'm sure someone "forgot" to mention the partially full fuel tank.
 
Wow, thanks - if true, raises so many questions. Why oil on board if ship was in a permanent cradle? And how did Anthony manage to get away with leaving it down there so long? etc. etc.

I don't know about ship tanks, but I know in general it is extremely difficult to fully empty an oil tank. 25% residual sounds a bit high, but it is not unreasonable for 15%+ residual to be "unremovable" from the tank short of sawing the tank in half. It could be that, when the ship was in the cradle, it was treated somewhat like a building rather than a ship...where its a liability to have contained oil in a tank, but not necessarily illegal.

Could it have been part of the heating system? Back when the vessel was an active passenger vessel, I read that it mainly did summer excursions, but I imagine it may have run often enough in cold weather to need some heat. Large ships often have all sorts of pretty substantial machinery that is peripheral to the main propulsion engine. Electrical generators are often a freestanding diesel engine rather than just drawing off the main engine via a belt, like in automobiles. That way if the main propulsion engine goes down, the ship has electricity so the engine room crew can try to do repairs without juggling flashlights (and the bridge still has radar and comms, etc). Could this vessel have had an oil-fired boiler to feed radiators in passenger areas, one that could operate independent of the propulsion plant? If so, and I were Anthony, I'd have just run that for heat, simpler than anything else I can think of.

And then, yeah, just "forget" about it after it sank....
 
from the Mexican Tall Ship Cuauhtémoc, I was wondering the same thing about that structure. I don't recall it being part of the park at the end of the pier

33411807421_488ddb81bd_b.jpg


33540469845_d408582ff5_b.jpg
 
Core up to ground level.



Something fancy being built on the end of the pier (field or Sales office??)

I'm going to guess that's the sales office. If that's the case, it may mean that the park won't be constructed until after the condo is finished and opened?
 
They should have docked a floating sales office just off the side of the pier.
 
Will it be converted to a restaurant or something after all the units are sold? It looks about the right size for something small and intimate, with the kinds of views Anthony's once had.
 

Back
Top