Seaport Neighborhood - Infill and Discussion

Re: South Boston Seaport

I've been doing a lot of reading on Green Roofs recently and I see the lack of any type of green roof requirements the next in a long line of planning failures in the SBW. Look at the convention center from space, all that roof is just wasted space, reflecting light and heat back into the atmosphere when solar pannels could be powering much of the utilities in the building. Same goes for this Waterside mall. The giant roof could be a park in an area will almost no openspace (parking lots don't count.)

This isn't surprising since the mayor has always been full of hot air when talking about sustainability and going green (no green roof on city hall?! Chicago did it years ago!)

[/rant]
 
Re: South Boston Seaport

^ I believe Rafael Vi?oly's original proposal included photovoltaics. The Convention Center Authority cheaped out.
 
Last edited:
Re: South Boston Seaport

That's exactly the problem, solar and green technology is seen as a luxury. The city/state/feds need to subsidize these things to really get them built.
 
Re: South Boston Seaport

I've been doing a lot of reading on Green Roofs recently and I see the lack of any type of green roof requirements the next in a long line of planning failures in the SBW. Look at the convention center from space, all that roof is just wasted space, reflecting light and heat back into the atmosphere when solar pannels could be powering much of the utilities in the building. Same goes for this Waterside mall. The giant roof could be a park in an area will almost no openspace (parking lots don't count.)

This isn't surprising since the mayor has always been full of hot air when talking about sustainability and going green (no green roof on city hall?! Chicago did it years ago!)

[/rant]


I'm not for forced implementation of things like that, but I do think that most new buildings should have green roofs as a part of their design. It would be good for existing buildings as well....at least use a highly reflective material.

Unfortunately, there are many old buildings that can't support a full green roof without increasing the structural capacity. Rain-soaked soil weighs quite a bit.
 
Re: South Boston Seaport

The original plan for the BCEC roof was for it too be 100% clad in stainless steel, and then they cheaped out. I had not heard of a plan for PV's.

Menino has called for all new building over a certain size to be LEED "certifiable", but this really is not doing a lot. Most of the points required to reach LEED Certified status are no brainers, or already there when you build within a major metropolitan area like Boston. It's just politics, there is no real drive to "green" the area coming out of City Hall.

So it then ends up back on the developer, whose good intentions don't always jive with his shallow pockets. Going green to any great extent costs cash, and the payback period on most of those investments is seen as being way too long for a developer who is looking to sell the property within 2 years anyways.

Green roofs are not necessary to reach a certified status within the LEED system, and you can still reach Silver level with out them. Are they a great idea? Yes. But, when there is no incentive to build them, why spend the cash.

We have designed a few buildings in the area with green roofs, and there is usually a specific reason for this. Be it as part of a marketing scheme to make one condo tower appear more "luxury" than another, or for educational purposes in another instance. You will almost never see money spend without a damn fine reason. So unless there is a mandate that things like green roofs be designed into buildings, you're going to continue to see so few.

But, on the flipside. With the park crazy city officials and activist groups in this city, it would seem like almost a no brainer to start planning some green rood spaces within these new mega developments. If you put your park in the sky, that's more street level retail and housing revenue you can squeeze out of the space.

What the city should do in lieu of mandating green designs, they should take a page out of other cities books, and offer incentives for meeting certain green design standards. LEED being the best known. They can't go overboard like Las Vegas did with their incentives, but a plan should be made to provide some type of payback for the extra money put in.
 
Re: South Boston Seaport

I am an advocate for solar power - but in 2008, the economies of today make PV solar power a luxury. Until the next generation of thin-film PV comes out (10 years?) the cost of PV panels far outweighs the meager output they produce. They are sexy, they are cool, and they are great if you can afford them as a luxury... but for a government building, you can save more money and energy by simply focusing on energy efficiency. For private developers or well-endowed Universities who want to make a statement or an impact, they are an excellent solution. Not so much for civic buildings on short budgets.
 
Last edited:
Re: South Boston Seaport

As I understand it. PV panel efficiency has really skyrocketed in the past decade. Going from something around 11% efficient in 1997 to around 45% today. Of course the ones getting installed are still around 15% or so, as the latest more efficient model are still being developed in labs, and are far too pricey to consider using in construction just yet.

But this increase is definitely good news, and it should only increase now that everyone sees that oil prices just ain't going down again.

What I thought was the best news (and kinda pissed me off cuz I thought of it, but everyone has thought of everything), is that they now have translucent glass panels which can be used as windows but are also solar panels. Obviously these are lower efficiency, but the entire skin of a building is a huge amount of energy, and no one complains about what an eyesore it is, cuz it's the skin. Also, very expensive at this point.
 
Re: South Boston Seaport

yes - this is called "building integrated photovoltaic" or "BIPV" for short.

The efficiency of these cells is greatly reduced - they become more of an architectural statement than a reliable producer of energy, but they are really, really cool to see in person:

http://www.kolumbus.fi/solpros/images/PV24kWc_01_01_03.jpg

Because the solar panels should be carefully positioned to maximize sun exposure, obviously these integrated solar cells end up facing whichever direction the facade is facing.

When the thin film PV comes out in the next ten years, we should see a real solar revolution. The stuff today is sadly clumsy, costly and inefficient - but there is (hopefully) revolutionary progress on the horizon.
 
Re: South Boston Seaport

ick, i dont like the solar tiles in the glass.
 
Re: South Boston Seaport

To green your building without solar.

1. Green Roof
2. Insulation
3. Temperature-Reflective ceiling materials
4. CFL+LED
5. Motion Sensors
6. Recycled Materials

There you go.
 
Re: South Boston Seaport

^ So true! And so unsexy - solar gets a lot of press, but it's really not the end-all of green buildings, it's just a cherry on top.

If you have a second home that you don't use too much, in a state that offers "net metering" then solar is a great idea. Net metering means the utility company pays you for electricity that you send back out on the grid - when you're not using electricity, your meter spins backwards. If you use less than you produce instead of sending you a bill, the utility company sends you a check.

So if you have a house on the cape that gets good sun exposure, and you're only there on weekends (and you have a lot of money b/c you have a house on the cape) then stick some PV panels on the roof and you might actually have a good investment. Everyone-help-themselves-to-abundant-tax-money Deval Patrick has instituted some pretty great rebate programs here in Mass to make these inefficient and costly systems attainable - which is great for my industry, sad for the rest of the tax-payers.
 
Re: South Boston Seaport

RE: Solar Photovoltaic

The basic problem with Photovoltaic is sunlight is just not very concentrated energy

Something such as the BEC uses massive amounts of energy to heat/cool, move people and materials up/down sideways as well as light, cook/refrigerate food

Sunlight by its nature is feeble -- at noon on the summer solstice with no clouds you might have 1kW falling on a square meter that is facing due south

The best that we can do with deployable PV panels is about 120 to 150 W/m^2 under optimal conditions

When you have fixed panels (no tracking) you essentially get output only for a few hours on either side of noon and in the summer late spring and early autumn

Winter time, most of the spring and fall -- you essentially get nothing and of course you get nothing at night and very very little during cloudy conditions

Take all that into account and the average output of a square meter of photovoltaic panel is about 20 to 30 W especially around here about -- a basically cloudy place

Even if the panels were free there is still additional cost associated with making the low voltage high current DC useful within a major user such as BEC that internally distributes quite high voltage 3 phase AC -- as a result even with free PVs -- you might have at best a marginal case for reducing the external electricity for lighting and some reduction for summer air conditioning

The best bet is to reduce the need for lighting in daytime using the sunlight directly. To reduce the demand for cooling using a reflective roof and to use solar heat for hot water and the limited demands for internal heating, drying the air after cooling. Pushing further use an Ammonia absorption cycle with solar heat for your air conditioning and refrigeration / freezers. PV just is nor justified at the present for such applications.

On another comment -- about how "un-green" is a reflective roof -- actually for a large structure with a enormous volume -- that's exactly what you want -- a lot less heat gets inside that way and since cooling is your major HVAC issue even in the winter during the daytime when the building is full of people -- you want to reject the heat to outer space where it is cold

Westy
 
Re: South Boston Seaport

Banker & Tradesman - Sept 1, 2008
Kickback: Hynes Offers Tuition In Exchange for Project?s OK
By Thomas Grillo
Reporter

The developer of a controversial private school to be built on South Boston?s waterfront has offered free tuition for some public school students to win the project?s approval.

John B. Hynes III, managing partner of Gale International, has proposed a 120,000-square-foot international school for Seaport Square, a planned community on 23 acres of parking lots in South Boston.

But the Boston developer angered Mayor Thomas M. Menino last year when he told a crowd of commercial real estate brokers that a private school on the site is essential to keep the residents from fleeing to the suburbs when their children reach school age.

?If taken the wrong way, my idea for a K-12 private school looked elitist ? which was not our intent,? Hynes told Banker & Tradesman. ?We are better off if these families stay with their kids than leave the city.?

In a private meeting with Menino recently, Hynes said he promised no-cost tuition for up to 225 students or 15 percent of the 1,500-seat school to children from Boston?s neighborhood. The program would work similar to Metco, a statewide initiative launched in the 1960s to reduce the racial isolation of suburban school districts, and to reduce segregation in city schools.

?Many people with young kids who buy a home in Seaport Square are not going to roll the dice with the public schools,? Hynes said. ?It?s not a knock on the schools, but on busing. Families won?t move to Seaport and not know where their kids will be bused. That?s unacceptable to that type of homebuyer who will spend $500,000 and up to buy a condo.?

Until now, Menino has said if Hynes wants to build a school in the Seaport District, it should be part of the Boston Public Schools. But Hynes insists the idea is not practical.

?I told the mayor that if we built a public school it would be available to the whole city and asked how that would help us if we pay for it?? Hynes said. ?I told him it was unrealistic. The mayor told me that our idea is interesting and that we should keep talking.?

The mayor had no comment on the matter, said his spokeswoman, Dorothy Joyce.

Seaport Square, a 6.5 million-square-foot development that would be built adjacent to the John Joseph Moakley U.S Courthouse, is in the permitting stages. If approved, the $3 billion project would include 3 million square feet of office space and retail space, and up to 2,500 units of housing.
 
Re: South Boston Seaport

He tore up Filene's/Filene's Basement and replaced it with a hole in the ground?

He is publicly, in print, telling the mayor "to be realistic"?

Oh. My. God.

John Hynes is right, but he really knows how to mangle the PR/marketing aspect of development in this town. You'd think with the political capital of his name/pedigree he's be the best at it, not one of the worst.
 
Re: South Boston Seaport

I don't understand. What does he have to do with the Filene's project?
 
Re: South Boston Seaport

last nite
090.jpg
 
Re: South Boston Seaport

Reason To Be Wary About The Waterfront

Developers talk big, but small details may pose problems
By Scott Van Voorhis
Banker & Tradesman Columnist


Scott Van Voorhis

Are long-standing dreams of a vibrant South Boston waterfront set to be dashed yet again?

I am rooting hard for Fan Pier. Just maybe a quarter century of grandiose development schemes and legal battles has finally come to an end. Ditto for the equally star-crossed parking lots just across Northern Avenue, where Frank McCourt spent decades spinning his own development fables.

But I am not holding my breath, either.

On paper, anyway, everything seems right on track. Joe Fallon, the underrated superstar of waterfront development in Boston, is in serious talks with Cambridge-based biotech Vertex Pharmaceuticals about relocating its headquarters to Fan Pier.

Meanwhile, John Hynes, builder of the gleaming State Street tower, has been pounding the pavement, holding court before groups of Southie activists and elected leaders with his sweeping plans for millions of square feet of new homes, offices and shops.

But there are some things that should make even the most unabashed waterfront booster nervous.

While on a roll now, Vertex has a tortured history when it comes to its real estate moves. If its last big headquarters shift is any prelude to what might be in store for Fan Pier, Fallon might hope he had instead signed a lease deal with AIG.

As far as Hynes is concerned, his money is coming from a Wall Street investment fund. While the Morgan Stanley fund likely only has a minimal contribution from the investment bank itself, with the rest of the money coming from pension funds and the like, just having to point that out is a sign of these crazy times.

It?s anyone?s bet which deal is facing the bigger problem now.

Let?s start with Vertex.

That fast-growing biotech was on a tear back in 2001, when it signed a lease for a striking new, 290,000- square-foot glass headquarters in East Cambridge.

However, the ink was still drying on the agreement when I caught word at the Herald, where I covered development, that Vertex would not be moving in after all.

It seemed hard to fathom ? especially since the firm was on the hook for millions in lease payments.

But it turned out to be true. Some of the Vertex? s drug development programs had not yet produced the results the company ? and investors ? had hoped for.

So the big move was on hold, though few at the time would have guessed that would mean not just for a few months, but for years.

That beautiful new research building sat empty right into mid 2004, when Vertex began subleasing space to other local biotech companies.

Today Vertex occupies three floors of its headquarters building, and, with two other floors subleased out to other firms, is looking once again for room to grow.

And the long-awaited Fan Pier project on the South Boston waterfront, which has been in the market for a tenant for roughly two y ears without landing a big fish, has the space.

But there are signs that all may not be well as Vertex explores another big headquarters move.

There?s talk that Vertex has put a halt on some of its architectural planning work ? a rumor the company won?t address since it won?t even acknowledge publicly yet its interest in Fan Pier.

Less bashful, Mayor Thomas M. Menino told another local paper that Vertex is working on wrapping up its financing.

Just what you wanted to hear amid a global credit crunch.

Bubbles Bursting
None of this means that Vertex isn?t a great company. But it?s in a volatile business where a disappointing clinical trial can send a promising firm into a tailspin.

Still, Hynes has his own hands full as he tries to keep his dreams alive of building a mega project on South Boston?s waterfront.

Hynes and Morgan Stanley Real Estate Fund V landed a deal more than two years ago to buy 23 acres of parking lots near the harbor from McCourt, now owner of the Los Angeles Dodgers. At that time, having a top New York investment back backing the deal was a sign of strength. Now, at the least, it prompts questions. An official familiar with the Morgan Stanley fund says the equity is all there to complete the $3.5 billion Seaport Square, and rest assured, the project is moving forward.

It?s a familiar line when it comes to development on South Boston?s long-awaited new waterfront. Here?s hoping this time around everything works out as planned.

Man, he ain't much of a looker.
 

Back
Top