SBWTC /South Boston Waterfront Transportation Center | Seaport

^ My phrase of choice for these kind of bland newer areas is "so much nothing." As in, "there's so much nothing here."
 
Over-reactions in this thread, man.
 
With the hundreds and probably thousands of parking spots being removed I don't see the problem with this. Its going to be pretty blocked anyways. Yea it would be great if everyone took the commuter rail from out of the city, and rode the silver line into the seaport within the city, but thats not reality. Reality is that the transit blows in this neighborhood and people drive here. This isnt a big deal and its tucked behind the precast monstrosity waterside place A, soon to be B, a highway, the omni, the sausage parcel, and whatever else ends up being built here.




083117SummerStHotelNPC3.jpg


Massport_Omni_Render_Overall-2B-1000x1079.jpg


041317omni002.jpg
 
stick n move said:
With the hundreds and probably thousands of parking spots being removed I don't see the problem with this. Its going to be pretty blocked anyways. Yea it would be great if everyone took the commuter rail from out of the city, and rode the silver line into the seaport within the city, but thats not reality. Reality is that the transit blows in this neighborhood and people drive here. This isnt a big deal and its tucked behind the precast monstrosity waterside place A, soon to be B, a highway, the omni, the sausage parcel, and whatever else ends up being built here.




083117SummerStHotelNPC3.jpg


Massport_Omni_Render_Overall-2B-1000x1079.jpg


041317omni002.jpg
Click to expand...

Is it true that parking spaces are being net removed in the Seaport?

Sure, surface lots are disappearing. But don't all these buildings have underground parking (multi-level), for a net increase in total spaces?
 
Even if they do, this is still a city, I know we all hate it on this board but there are still people commuting in that need to park somewhere. The more ways to sneak a garage behind something else the better.
 
What I don't understand is why they left such a large gap between the garage and D Street. Looks like a great place to put a 3 or 4 story building with commercial at the D Street level.
 
mdd said:
Even if they do, this is still a city, I know we all hate it on this board but there are still people commuting in that need to park somewhere. The more ways to sneak a garage behind something else the better.
Click to expand...

I think the issue is that while some people choose to commute by car, they're not required to. They can switch to a different mode (even though it might take longer) or they can look for a new job that fits with their driver lifestyle. Providing parking affects so many other people through traffic, exhaust, increased building costs, road utilization, etc. The rest of us shouldn't be forced to put up with it because of someone's commuting preference.
 
Perhaps I'm being overly pedantic, but two quick things -

1) What makes this a "Transportation Center" ...? To my mind, only North Station, South Station, Logan and maybe major bus hubs (Ashmont, Dudley. Kenmore, Harvard, etc) can be called such a thing. In my mind, language matters. When a city calls a garage a "Transportation Center" it signals something important about what transportation matters.

2) "South Boston Waterfront" as a term seems awfully outdated, though I recognize it's still the official designation (right?) Assuming that's the case... why? "Seaport" is so much more authentic, evocative and accurate. South Boston Waterfront should be the M Street beach.
 
Isn't this massport building this so I think it says more about how that agency views transportation and the city of Boston. Than about how the city of Boston views things.
 
citylover94 said:
Isn't this massport building this so I think it says more about how that agency views transportation and the city of Boston. Than about how the city of Boston views things.
Click to expand...

That's correct. The City of Boston had no say in this. Consultations with the BPDA were merely for courtesy and not regulatory.
 
You know what the worst thing about this ugly project is? Of all the buildings that you would want to cover a highway a parking garage is probably the cheapest one to build. Just cantilever it over! This still leaves I90 as a gaping hole. What a complete waste.
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
You know what the worst thing about this ugly project is? Of all the buildings that you would want to cover a highway a parking garage is probably the cheapest one to build. Just cantilever it over! This still leaves I90 as a gaping hole. What a complete waste.
Click to expand...

I agree with the sentiment, but what you raise is a conflict: a parking garage is a cheap structure specifically because of how basic/rudimentary the structure is...introduce a multi-story (heavy) cantilever to a parking garage and it instantly becomes a very expensive (if not infeasible) structure.

What would be more reasonable would be to have the garage span over the roadway, with supports on both sides...not cantilever. But my guess is that the parcel that the Omni is on is not controlled by Massport / was already earmarked for the hotel. It would have required a high level of foresight, planning, coordination, (maybe easements?) to install foundations on that side of the roadway...

So what we're left with is Massport plunking this turd directly on top of what they control, nothing more.
 
bigpicture7 said:
I agree with the sentiment, but what you raise is a conflict: a parking garage is a cheap structure specifically because of how basic/rudimentary the structure is...introduce a multi-story (heavy) cantilever to a parking garage and it instantly becomes a very expensive (if not infeasible) structure.

What would be more reasonable would be to have the garage span over the roadway, with supports on both sides...not cantilever. But my guess is that the parcel that the Omni is on is not controlled by Massport / was already earmarked for the hotel. It would have required a high level of foresight, planning, coordination, (maybe easements?) to install foundations on that side of the roadway...

So what we're left with is Massport plunking this turd directly on top of what they control, nothing more.
Click to expand...
The Omni is also on Massport land:

From the Omni NPC:
1.1 Introduction
This Notice of Project Change (“NPC”) is being submitted by OH NBH Owner LLC, an
affiliate of The Davis Companies and Omni Hotel Management Corp. (the “Proponent”) to
provide information on the proposed changes to the Waterside Place Project within the
Commonwealth Flats Development Area of the South Boston waterfront district. The
changes described herein are limited to the proposed development of a portion of the
Waterside Place Project site known as Parcel D2, which is bordered by Summer Street to
the south, the World Trade Center Avenue viaduct to the west, D Street to the east, and the
Track 61 right of way and Massport Haul Road to the north (the “Project Site”). The Project
Site also includes a small (738 square foot) adjacent parcel owned by the Massachusetts
Port Authority (“Massport”) at the northeast corner of the World Trade Center
Avenue/Summer Street intersection, which is currently encumbered by a highway easement
in favor of the City of Boston. Thus, the entire Project Site is owned by Massport. Massport
and the Proponent have entered into a Development Agreement which provides that the
Proponent will enter into a long-term ground lease with Massport for the Project Site and
develop thereon, the Project, as defined below.

While projects constructed on Massport-owned land are exempt from the provisions of the
Boston Zoning Code, as amended (the “Zoning Code”), Massport and the Proponent have
agreed that the Project, as further described below, will be reviewed voluntarily under the
provisions of Article 80B (Large Project Review) of the Zoning Code with respect to project
design, traffic and environmental impacts. The Proponent and Massport have also agreed
that the Proponent will voluntarily commit to housing and jobs linkage payments in
accordance with Article 80B of the Zoning Code.
Click to expand...

But yes, the Omni parcel was always destined to become a new "convention center flagship hotel."
 
datadyne007 said:
The Omni is also on Massport land:

From the Omni NPC:


But yes, the Omni parcel was always destined to become a new "convention center flagship hotel."
Click to expand...

Thanks for the background, data...

Too bad they didn't coordinate a design that made best overall use of the two parcels.
 
The "SBWTC Plaza" can hopefully be redeveloped into some active frontage in the future, to avoid turning WTC Ave into a dead zone.
 
"The more parking we have, the more we're able to drive."

Thought this was an interesting perspective on parking and relevant for this project, and many other projects in Boston.

https://www.facebook.com/Vox/videos/777182679136003/

And in case you don't want to watch the video (I found it informative), here's 3 key pointers that the Donald Shoup, an urban planning professor at UCLA whose specialty is parking, made in the video clip:
  1. Remove off-street parking requirements
  2. Charge the right price for on-street parking to ensure one or two open spaces on the block; vary price by location and time of day
  3. Spend revenue on public services along metered streets
 
Shepard said:
2) "South Boston Waterfront" as a term seems awfully outdated, though I recognize it's still the official designation (right?) Assuming that's the case... why? "Seaport" is so much more authentic, evocative and accurate. South Boston Waterfront should be the M Street beach.
Click to expand...

I think it is awfully outdated. I don't hear many people living in the Seaport referring to it as being part of South Boston. Visitors also have a different place in mind when you tell them "South Boston waterfront" vs. "Seaport."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top