Seaport Neighborhood - Infill and Discussion

Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

jdrinboston said:
Is there some sort of itemized list out there detailing the $8 billion in public investment? I've been searching the web for it and I can't find it. The only $8 billion I've found is the amount of goods that travel through the port on an average year.
Click to expand...

From meeting notes of a BRA presentation in 1998 during drafting of Seaport Public Realm Plan, the number was at $7.5 billion for public improvements impacting the waterfront including CA/Tunnel access (I90,I93), Silver Line, BCEC, haul/bypass road, misc. roadway improvements, harbor cleanup (a fraction of total cost was factored as a direct impact), Moakley Bridge, existing bridge improvements, etc.

That was before overruns in CA/Tunnel and other projected costs.

The BRA might be able to provide an update, these were their numbers.
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

Sicilian said:
From meeting notes of a BRA presentation in 1998 during drafting of Seaport Public Realm Plan, the number was at $7.5 billion for public improvements impacting the waterfront including CA/Tunnel access (I90,I93), Silver Line, BCEC, haul/bypass road, misc. roadway improvements, harbor cleanup (a fraction of total cost was factored as a direct impact), Moakley Bridge, existing bridge improvements, etc.

That was before overruns in CA/Tunnel and other projected costs.

The BRA might be able to provide an update, these were their numbers.
Click to expand...

In other words, much of the public investment was in the CA/T project, which whatever you think of the amount of that investment, benefited the entire City and region. So too for the harbor cleanup. Many of the other investments were necessary regardless of what the Seaport was or would become. To suggest that there was an $8 billion investment in the Seaport that might have been invested elsewhere is very misleading.
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

Sicilian said:
mpOWAbt.png
Click to expand...

Its not like the $8 billion went into building these particular mediocre towers.
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

Nope. It went to the mediocre infrastructure to support those mediocre (you're being too nice) buildings.
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

dirtywater said:
In other words, much of the public investment was in the CA/T project, which whatever you think of the amount of that investment, benefited the entire City and region. So too for the harbor cleanup. Many of the other investments were necessary regardless of what the Seaport was or would become. To suggest that there was an $8 billion investment in the Seaport that might have been invested elsewhere is very misleading.
Click to expand...

I was referring to CA/T work specifically impacting the Seaport, particularly the network of exit/entrance ramps. Silver Line tunnels to Seaport. Harbor Cleanup work linked to making marinas possible on Seaport.

These weren't necessities, they were supported by elected officials and advocated for by landowners. Aside from the Harbor Cleanup which couldn't be line item vetoed, as far as I know nothing on the list were considered necessities.

And I didn't suggest public improvements don't benefit the region. I suggested that the standards of development aren't living up to the level of public investment.
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

Sicilian said:
I was referring to CA/T work specifically impacting the Seaport, particularly the network of exit/entrance ramps. Silver Line tunnels to Seaport. Harbor Cleanup work linked to making marinas possible on Seaport.

These weren't necessities, they were supported by elected officials and advocated for by landowners. Aside from the Harbor Cleanup which couldn't be line item vetoed, as far as I know nothing on the list were considered necessities.

And I didn't suggest public improvements don't benefit the region. I suggested that the standards of development aren't living up to the level of public investment.
Click to expand...

But the connector tunnel was going to run through there anyway. Grafting on/off ramps on a 2 mile tunnel that goes under a neighborhood seems like a fairly logical design element. Regardless, if the on ramps represent a $200 million expenditure of a $4 billion tunnel that serves another, more regional purpose, I don't think it's fair to count that $4 billion number as a direct investment in the district.
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

The numbers were provided by the BRA. Sicilian is merely quoting them.
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

jdrinboston said:
But the connector tunnel was going to run through there anyway. Grafting on/off ramps on a 2 mile tunnel that goes under a neighborhood seems like a fairly logical design element. Regardless, if the on ramps represent a $200 million expenditure of a $4 billion tunnel that serves another, more regional purpose, I don't think it's fair to count that $4 billion number as a direct investment in the district.
Click to expand...

AFL is correct. My numbers came from the BRA. They don't include the cost of the 3rd Harbor Tunnel, just the ramps and Seaport related items (I think Silver Line tunnel serves no other purpose).

The Third Harbor Tunnel was estimated at $4 billion before it was built. Where did you get the numbers $4 billion and $200 million for Seaport ramps?

All said, my point stands whether the Seaport total was $8 billion or $4 billion.

Public investment aside, I'm pretty sure that none of the buildings in that image required a land purchase. There must have been some serious hardship for Massport not to step up the quality of architecture when awarding 99-year $1 leases. (The facts of this paragraph remain unconfirmed.)

EDIT: Added "I think Silver Line tunnel..."
 
Last edited:
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

Seaport District could have been Boston's crown jewel of development instead its the ever running money pit for the taxpayer incentives club.

All our public officials did was help the politically connected developers relocate exisiting tenants from other areas in the state into their own personal developments with tax breaks incentives which helped lower there costs. This might bankrupt some private existing landlords & investors in the future.
I'm not even sure how this is actually legal at this point.

Then our corrupt officials call it the innovation district. And in the end you still get shitty buildings built in the district.
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

Damn, I was hoping to start this morning with a mimosa.
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

Well if you don't like the design and/or the building materials going into the seaport area, the city or commonwealth could have created a design review / approval entity like this. As part of the review, the public is invited to opine on the design. That could become a cottage industry for some posters on here.

http://www.cfa.gov/shipstead/index.html

Members of the review board.

http://www.cfa.gov/about/bios/index.html
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

stellarfun said:
Well if you don't like the design and/or the building materials going into the seaport area, the city or commonwealth could have created a design review / approval entity like this. As part of the review, the public is invited to opine on the design. That could become a cottage industry for some posters on here.

http://www.cfa.gov/shipstead/index.html

Members of the review board.

http://www.cfa.gov/about/bios/index.html
Click to expand...

Let the private industry develop poor or great designs on their own personal dime. I’m pretty sure we don’t need another state or govt agency to approve designs at this point.

That is the point let the development evolve around on long-term private capital. If the development sucks then tenants will choose to rent from another developer who had better vision.
The fact that the Taxpayers have so much money invested in area that is so underwhelming at this point with Box buildings and so little interesting architecture is a sign of short-term thinking because of so many tax incentives to build it now.
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

Sicilian said:
I was referring to CA/T work specifically impacting the Seaport, particularly the network of exit/entrance ramps. Silver Line tunnels to Seaport. Harbor Cleanup work linked to making marinas possible on Seaport.

These weren't necessities, they were supported by elected officials and advocated for by landowners. Aside from the Harbor Cleanup which couldn't be line item vetoed, as far as I know nothing on the list were considered necessities.

And I didn't suggest public improvements don't benefit the region. I suggested that the standards of development aren't living up to the level of public investment.
Click to expand...

The entire CA/T came in at $14.6 billion. I've yet to find breakdowns of segment costs, so I simply guess-timated that the connector tunnel from I-93 to the TWT came in around $4 billion for the purposes of illustrating my point.

But after thinking about this overnight, I came to the realization that virtually none of the public investments attributed to the Seaport have been done for the direct benefit of the Seaport. The BRAs material on these expenses may reflect that, but without seeing the primary source documents, I can't know for certain.

Consider:

1. The on/off ramps for the tunnels serve the primary purpose of moving traffic from the financial district to the TWT and onto the airport. From the moment the TWT course was re-routed under the Delta Terminal at the airport (neighborhood demand - more on that below) , those ramps became a fata-compli. These would have been necessary regardless of the Seaport's development status. The crossings over Fort Point Channel were built/improved to faciliate the traffic coming to and from those ramps into the financial district. (Summer Street/Congress Street bridges away from the financial district, Seaport Blvd. bridge into the financial district)

2. The harbor cleanup was court ordered and has affected everthing from Hull to Gloucester. Yes, it made the prospect of a marina at Fan Pier and Liberty Wharf viable, but it made marinas in lots of other areas viable as well. (Rowe's Wharf, Long Wharf, North End come to mind)

3. BCEC was built to stymie the loss of conventions and their dollars that the Hynes was losing due to its size and logistics. South Boston made sense because of the availability of large land and its location between downtown and the airport. The fact that spillover business could improve the neighborhood is nice, but not guaranteed and I don't think its reasonable to assert that the commonwealth spending $850 million on a convention center obligates a developer on Seaport Blvd to coat their building in Granite instead of precast.

4. The Sliver Line is the closest thing you could argue as a public investment made specifically for the Seaport District. But the problem with that is the only reason it was built was to satisfy the Conservation Law Foundation, which demanded the Silver Line - among other projects - as a condition to dropping their legal challenges to the CA/T. I would argue one of the reasons the Silver Line was not designed or built to its potential was because its genesis was - in essence - rooted in extortion. The Silver Line or something similar - like Light Rail - may very well have been a worthy project based on its own merits. Certainly it would have been better had it not been a forced add on in order to faciliate a completely unrelated, but necessary extention of 1-90 to the airport. And we certainly would have more money to play with for such an expansion if CLF and other special interest/neighborhood groups weren't loading up the CA/T with every piece of pork and goodies they could gouge.

My larger point is whenever any discussion on the Seaport takes a somewhat positive or optimistic turn, you immediately come on scene to rile us up over the $8 billion in public improvements number and remind us that the development there is failing to meet some vague, undefined term of architectural quality which - forgive me - seems to follow closely along the lines of your own personal taste and interests. I'm not even sure who gets to be the final arbiter on architectural quality. If its the market - as some would suggest - the popularity of Liberty Wharf, the low vacany rate at the Seaport Hotel, the moving of PWC and John Hancock to the district without direct tax incentives - seems to indicate the public is warming up to the Seaport at a pretty healthy clip.

The reality is if none of the remaining parking lots is ever built on and if the Seaport were to revert back to barren wasteland tommorow, all of the public money invested in this neighborhood would still be there, performing the functions they were intended for and benefiting the larger region. To suggest that developers are being poor stewards of public investments intended directly for their benefit is misleading. If the BRA intimated that this money was spent for the Seaport district development purposes then shame of them, but to perpetuate the suggestion is still wrong.
 
Last edited:
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

TheRifleman said:
Let the private industry develop poor or great designs on their own personal dime. I’m pretty sure we don’t need another state or govt agency to approve designs at this point.

That is the point let the development evolve around on long-term private capital. If the development sucks then tenants will choose to rent from another developer who had better vision.
The fact that the Taxpayers have so much money invested in area that is so underwhelming at this point with Box buildings and so little interesting architecture is a sign of short-term thinking because of so many tax incentives to build it now.
Click to expand...
Tenants rent on the basis of cost and amenities, not on the basis whether the facade is limestone or pre-cast. Tenants have no ownership stake, so developers tend to maximize the economy of construction, because it maximizes their pricing flexibility in a competitive environment.

So don't complain about crappy looking buildings, because that is what capitalism will produce in a district like the Seaport where developers build, and tenants lease.
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

stellarfun said:
Tenants rent on the basis of cost and amenities, not on the basis whether the facade is limestone or pre-cast. Tenants have no ownership stake, so developers tend to maximize the economy of construction, because it maximizes their pricing flexibility in a competitive environment.

So don't complain about crappy looking buildings, because that is what capitalism will produce in a district like the Seaport where developers build, and tenants lease.
Click to expand...

? That reply makes no sense?

There is no capitalism going on in the Seaport? The city along with the BRA are promoting tax breaks to relocate exsisting tenants from corporate buildings from other Mass locations to the innovation district. Thats not capitalism.

If Tenants rented based on costs and amenities then everyone would move their operations onto Gardner Mass.

Cost and Amenities is definetely part of the deal.
But what about location, easy access for transit for your employees.
Quality of service in the management team and building operations.
Quality of Life
 
Last edited:
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

jdr, the legal challenges to the CA/T came from the Clean Air Act, not a whim of the CLF.
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

TheRifleman said:
? That reply makes no sense?

There is no capitalism going on in the Seaport? The city along with the BRA are promoting tax breaks to relocate exsisting tenants from corporate buildings from other Mass locations to the innovation district. Thats not capitalism.

If Tenants rented based on costs and amenities then everyone would move their operations onto Gardner Mass.

Cost and Amenities is definetely part of the deal.
But what about location, easy access for transit for your employees.
Quality of service in the management team and building operations.
Click to expand...

I am talking about the appearance of a building in the Seaport, not a location in Quincy or Lynn or Gardner. Building management can be a factor, access and availability of transportation can be a factor, quality of the neighborhood can be a factor, synergy with other nearby businesses can be a factor, proximity of customers/clients can be a factor. The list of factors is almost infinite.

But we are comparing the appearance of new buildings in the seaport district, an appearance you describe as crappy. So if the universe of available space consists entirely of new, crappy buildings, what is my, incentive, as a developer, to build another new building that is not crappy in appearance?

Put another away, let's hypothesize your are looking at renting a house in Somerville. Two identical houses side-by-side. One has vinyl siding, the other has restored, real wood clapboards. For the 'privilege' of living in a house with real wooden clapboards, the rent is $500 a month more. As you complain about crappy appearances, I expect you would be willing to pay extra to rent the house with real clapboards, not one with a plastic imitation.
Am I wrong to assume that?
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

jdrinboston said:
The entire CA/T came in at $14.6 billion. I've yet to find breakdowns of segment costs, so I simply guess-timated that the connector tunnel from I-93 to the TWT came in around $4 billion for the purposes of illustrating my point.

But after thinking about this overnight, I came to the realization that virtually none of the public investments attributed to the Seaport have been done for the direct benefit of the Seaport. The BRAs material on these expenses may reflect that, but without seeing the primary source documents, I can't know for certain.

Consider:

1. The on/off ramps for the tunnels serve the primary purpose of moving traffic from the financial district to the TWT and onto the airport. From the moment the TWT course was re-routed under the Delta Terminal at the airport (neighborhood demand - more on that below) , those ramps became a fata-compli. These would have been necessary regardless of the Seaport's development status. The crossings over Fort Point Channel were built/improved to faciliate the traffic coming to and from those ramps into the financial district. (Summer Street/Congress Street bridges away from the financial district, Seaport Blvd. bridge into the financial district)

2. The harbor cleanup was court ordered and has affected everthing from Hull to Gloucester. Yes, it made the prospect of a marina at Fan Pier and Liberty Wharf viable, but it made marinas in lots of other areas viable as well. (Rowe's Wharf, Long Wharf, North End come to mind)

3. BCEC was built to stymie the loss of conventions and their dollars that the Hynes was losing due to its size and logistics. South Boston made sense because of the availability of large land and its location between downtown and the airport. The fact that spillover business could improve the neighborhood is nice, but not guaranteed and I don't think its reasonable to assert that the commonwealth spending $850 million on a convention center obligates a developer on Seaport Blvd to coat their building in Granite instead of precast.

4. The Sliver Line is the closest thing you could argue as a public investment made specifically for the Seaport District. But the problem with that is the only reason it was built was to satisfy the Conservation Law Foundation, which demanded the Silver Line - among other projects - as a condition to dropping their legal challenges to the CA/T. I would argue one of the reasons the Silver Line was not designed or built to its potential was because its genesis was - in essence - rooted in extortion. The Silver Line or something similar - like Light Rail - may very well have been a worthy project based on its own merits. Certainly it would have been better had it not been a forced add on in order to faciliate a completely unrelated, but necessary extention of 1-90 to the airport. And we certainly would have more money to play with for such an expansion if CLF and other special interest/neighborhood groups weren't loading up the CA/T with every piece of pork and goodies they could gouge.

My larger point is whenever any discussion on the Seaport takes a somewhat positive or optimistic turn, you immediately come on scene to rile us up over the $8 billion in public improvements number and remind us that the development there is failing to meet some vague, undefined term of architectural quality which - forgive me - seems to follow closely along the lines of your own personal taste and interests. I'm not even sure who gets to be the final arbiter on architectural quality. If its the market - as some would suggest - the popularity of Liberty Wharf, the low vacany rate at the Seaport Hotel, the moving of PWC and John Hancock to the district without direct tax incentives - seems to indicate the public is warming up to the Seaport at a pretty healthy clip.

The reality is if none of the remaining parking lots is ever built on and if the Seaport were to revert back to barren wasteland tommorow, all of the public money invested in this neighborhood would still be there, performing the functions they were intended for and benefiting the larger region. To suggest that developers are being poor stewards of public investments intended directly for their benefit is misleading. If the BRA intimated that this money was spent for the Seaport district development purposes then shame of them, but to perpetuate the suggestion is still wrong.
Click to expand...

I agree on the vast number of points raised here. I also understand your point that it is frustrating for those with optimism for what is going on today to continually be admonished about public investment, undefined standards of quality, personal taste in architecture, etc. As you suggest, most of the public improvements were benefits to the region regardless of private development in the Seaport.

I remain optimistic as well... I continue to believe that the waterfront is Boston's crown jewel, and that if we can overcome parochial barriers (i.e. cronyism), there is a much higher level of potential waiting to be tapped. My objectives are widely shared, I know that from participating in the Seaport planning process along with exceptional members of the development community, not idealists in any respect. We're fortunate to have a few such developers in Fort Point.

Thanks for taking the time to relay your perspective.

Re. CLF -- I think they were responsible, in part, for pressing for the Harbor Cleanup and also the siting of the ICA on Fan Pier.

EDIT: CLF
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

If you only talk about things in terms of profits and money, you can justify alot of shitty things in this world because hey its profit!!

Most of the beautiful things in this world aren't brought about by the sole pursuit of profit. It usually takes a sense of pride and creativity to create beauty and assets that future generations will cherish. Its quite obvious from the hideous mess that is the seaport that the BRA and the local developers are lacking in both creativity and pride. That developers would be short sighted and selfish isnt news but the BRA should have been the mitigating agency of government that would have encouraged beauty, instead it is simply an arm of those connected to the right people the result of which is the ugliness you see rising.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top