As a Massachusetts planner, I feel personally and professionally obliged to respond to this misleading, ill-informed history-telling.
1. Development throughout Boston's Seaport is still under construction. Criticizing the urban fabric of a construction site as if it were the final product is like eating the birthday cake before the chef has even put on the icing: it isn't done yet! Hating on the neighborhood today for "huge roads and superblocks that continue to make up the area?" Robertson's own 1999 proposal has more surface area dedicated to vehicular travel, less green/park space acreage, and lower real estate tax generation per acre than what the neighborhood's evolved into 21 years later.
2. Manhattan's Stuyvesant-Town is a textbook example of 'Towers in the Park'--HYM Development's Suffolk Downs redevelopment is not. The land use plan for the development includes 10.15M sq. ft. of residential uses, 5.2M sq. ft. of commercial, 450k sq. ft. of retail, and 400k sq. ft. of hotel. Reducing your remarks about the open space plan as "40 acres will be left as 'green space'" is disingenuous to Strong Towns readers: there are activated spaces designed for this development, including purposefully designed open spaces like the Central Common that will restore Belle Isle Marsh wetlands destroyed by the original race track and mitigate very real flooding concerns during major storms.
3. RE affordable housing at SD (which is consistent with the City's 13% inclusionary zoning policy requirement), please don't write as if 1,430 units is some sort of missed opportunity. As for the parking: in a new neighborhood of 10,000 housing units and a total 16.2M sq. ft. of total development that maximizes the ridership potential of two existing heavy rail transit stations, fills in critical shared use path gaps that will connect the regional network, establishes two new bus routes on site, and commits to 12 new bike share stations throughout the site, the 6,760 parking spaces you cite suggest nothing. The reality is that this development's design is for all users. And despite the large parking space number, it in fact demonstrates one of the lowest parking ratios of any new development in a major city, speaking more to the sheer magnitude of the site and how intense the plan.
4. RE a network of connected parks and greenways: The Harbor Way pedestrian spine, paseos of the recently completed Echelon Seaport, and the knitting of the Harborwalk are there and they're happening. Martin's Park connecting seamlessly with the Boston Children's Museum; the protected bike lane network installed down Summer Street & Seaport Blvd; Pier 4 Park and the Seaport Green; the recently proposed (approved?) development for Channelside Lot that brings additional green space to Wormwood Street that you mourned in your above rendering?
5. I find it incredibly ironic that a writer on Strong Towns of all places mourns a "never-built bridge, a never-built dock, and never-built linear park" along a channel with no fewer than 3 existing bridge crossings AND 1 more (Northern Avenue) that is approved. Strong Towns condemns wasteful infrastructure spending, especially in places where the demand hasn't been demonstrated yet. You're talking about a vision that connects a USPS facility (***completely out of city leadership's decision-making, BTW) and a parking lot (again, queued up for redevelopment very soon). Don't put the cart before the horse.
As for the dock and linear park, Fort Point Pier is smack there today adjacent to the GE Corporate HQ off Necco Street, and the mostly completed Fan Pier development nearby has added additional dock space to the neighborhood. There is a linear park there along Fort Point Channel, and it is part of the Harborwalk Network and connects to the burgeoning South Bay Harbor Trail network inland.
6. The author suggests that developments like Suffolk Downs, Dorchester Bay City, and Seaport development demonstrate as negatives. That "the failure of Boston planners to reestablish its traditional patterns of building and development have left the city poorer, both aesthetically and as a place to live." By numerous objective metrics available, this statement is false. The AAA-bond-rated City of Boston has one of the most resilient property tax bases in the country. Among a highly-skilled labor force, an incredibly diversified economic base, and a laser focus on improving the throughput of people and goods, Boston has experienced dramatic population growth, increased demand for housing/commercial/high tech real estate, and--as a result--increased value across its built environment. Planners reconnected the city with its waterfront; they've strategically negotiated tax policies for employers that had domino effects on enabling local companies to grow and lure new companies to concentrate in their heart. Planners have laid the groundwork for further transformative public realm improvements that not only continue to enrich the experience of living, working, and visiting Boston, but also invite the investment of developers large and small to meet needs and demands of a flourishing city.
The success of Boston planners to establish stronger, strategic, and more resilient patterns of building and development have made the city richer.
Strong Towns
followers should take note.