Seaport Neighborhood - Infill and Discussion

Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

Whigh,
Don't compare Sicilian to me. His posts are actually well written and puts some time into what he writes. That’s like comparing Sesame Street to Family Guy

Myself: It’s like I just need to THROW UP all over the board whatever thoughts are bouncing in my head especially when I see common sense thrown out the window.

Why does it take so long to commute to the Innovation District?
“Hows that Silver Line bus riding through the Innovation District in this 1st class city”
Great City Planning

Fan Pier actually looks okay (granted the taxpayers funded the foundation)
128 Burlington Office Park by the Sea (A better version)
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

IMO, one will only achieve excellence in design if there is a single land-owner / developer, and/or there is an architectural review board with some teeth.

Comment by such a board on Smithsonian trying to cheapen the facade for a new museum.

In its meeting of 19 September, the Commission of Fine Arts reviewed a submission for several building and landscape elements of the National Museum of African American History and Culture at 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW. The Commission did not take an action to approve any part of the submission and provided the following comments to guide the resolution of the design of this highly significant building on the National Mall. In general, the Commission members expressed concern that key aspects of the compelling design are not being developed as originally intended; they strongly urged the Smithsonian Institution to remain faithful to the quality of concept and materials that this museum deserves.

Noting again the importance of the corona as the most iconic element of this new institution, the Commission members reiterated their support for the use of actual bronze in the finish of the character–defining corona panels. Dissatisfied with the presented choice to use a metal–colored polymeric painted finish (Duranar) instead of bronze, they recommended that a finish containing real bronze material be used. They observed that the Duranar paint finish imparts a putty–like appearance under overcast conditions and will not behave like bronze over time; alternatively, they noted that the mockup panel of LuminOre–a finish containing bronze metal–is far superior in its depth of color, richness, and luster. They expressed frustration that engineering decisions to proceed only with the Duranar finish have already been made, despite the Commission's continuing and unequivocal advice that the LuminOre finish better conveys the spirit and intended effect of the approved concept design. In conclusion, they did not approve the proposed Duranar paint for the corona panels.

Regarding the night lighting, the Commission has been highly supportive of illuminating the corona to promote the legibility of this monumental building–through a soft glow behind the bronze panels–during evening hours within the setting of the National Mall. However, as noted in the report from the August 5 site visit to the corona mockup and again by the Commission members in their formal review, the inconsistent material and plane of enclosure panels behind the silhouette of metal openwork–resulting from design changes intended to improve thermal performance–will create distractions that will be easily perceptible under a variety of conditions. The Commission members noted the hot spots apparent in the mockup created by the reflection of light off the insulated metal panel in comparison to the insulated glass units; they found this phenomenon will create large, visually discordant shapes within the elevations that conflict with the purity of the building's form and the subtlety of the intended filigree of bronze. Therefore, they recommended careful reconsideration of the material and location of these opaque panels, with the goal of either creating a uniform plane to reflect the light evenly, or one that distributes the opaque panels more randomly, following the general logic of the episodic composition of the bronze screens and lens openings.
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

Excellence in design does not necessarily correspond to a lively and interesting district. Single developer / commission-based design typically detracts from the latter.
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

Sicil ... I essentially have 0 respect for most city planners .. by the time all the studies and such are done .. .the economy has moved along and the planning is mostly irrelevant

Ultimately the only planners who matter are property owners and the others should mostly stay out of their way and let them do their best

As for topics that you seem most concerned about:
1) Solar is dead
2) Wind is going
3) Green in general is passe
4) What the hell is climate change planning?

Besides the continuation of the new biology stuff in Kendall -- The future at least for the next decade is:
1) mobile network tech / exploitation
2) robotics
3( Internet of Everything [With apologies to Cisco]
4) Oil and Natural Gas exploration and exploitation
5) nano materials and processes

Boston / Cambridge is leading or a major player in all of the above including the oil / gas through Schlumberger which has a major research presence across the street from Draper in Kendall area

I always wondered why I read your posts. This one is very interesting.
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

Dontcha know we're entering an ice age?
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

^ I dunno, Westie seems pretty sure of himself this time...
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

I thought this news from Detroit is interesting in light of the argument many of us have made that the Seaport's ultimate failing is in the footprint size of its developable parcels - i.e., instead of dividing the Seaport into small lots encouraging diversity of ownership, buildings and architecture, the city decided to make lots of 1-4 buildings per block.

Detroit is redeveloping a number of parcels in a decimated neighborhood. The city *appears* to be encouraging developers to build townhomes or other differentiated structures on these parcels rather than building one massive building per parcel (the fact that each multiple-lot parcel seems bound for one developer clouds this picture a bit, but requiring incorporation of historic structures + the lots configuration suggests that multiple small structures are expected on each parcel):

http://detroit.curbed.com/archives/...es-steps-to-rebuilt-its-lost-neighborhood.php

Interesting that while one of the country's apparently least desirable places (Detroit) thinks it can encourage development with small lots we keep hearing in Boston (one of the "hotter" markets in the country now) that massive lots are needed to encourage development.

[Mods, please move if you think there's a better place for this.]
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

I think the price of land definitely has something to do with it.
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

Interesting that while one of the country's apparently least desirable places (Detroit) thinks it can encourage development with small lots we keep hearing in Boston (one of the "hotter" markets in the country now) that massive lots are needed to encourage development.

To me this actually makes sense. Bigger lots = Bigger risks. Detroit is not a city where anybody wants to take these bigger risks, hence the encouragement of smaller development. Boston, on the other hand, is booming and thus larger structures are economically viable.
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

To me this actually makes sense. Bigger lots = Bigger risks. Detroit is not a city where anybody wants to take these bigger risks, hence the encouragement of smaller development. Boston, on the other hand, is booming and thus larger structures are economically viable.

Sometimes I think the majority of posters on this board are so connected to the development community there isn't an understanding of what's possible, it always boils down to what is in the best interest of the market (e.g. economics of the given project for maximum profit) at any given time. The defense of large footprints is an example of one such rationalization.

Economists and urban planners alike agree that a market-driven approach can determine the highest and best use of a parcel at a given time. But economists and planners also agree that market-driven development will never result in the highest and best economic value of a district (or the greatest potential value of each parcel) over time. This is the purpose of zoning and planning.

The public has an interest in the outcome reflecting highest and best use of a district, beyond a single parcel, since it invests in the infrastructure. Certainly the Seaport has a public interest in its outcome.

Without an understanding of zoning and planning, market-driven development generally favors projects that use resources liberally, including transit infrastructure and other public resources. Remaining parcels are less likely to evolve at the highest potential since early tracts consumed resources. As one small example, I'll suggest Seaport congestion is a direct result of poor land use policy, one that should require a mix of uses to develop as feasible under market conditions at any given time, in order to balance consumption of available resources. Seaport congestion will have a direct impact on Boston's economy and it will have an impact on the potential of remaining unbuilt parcels.

Traffic impacts are only one small impact of a market-driven approach. I'm no expert, but folks who look closely at this stuff have great concern.
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

Sometimes I think the majority of posters on this board are so connected to the development community there isn't an understanding of what's possible, it always boils down to what is in the best interest of the market (e.g. economics of the given project for maximum profit) at any given time. The defense of large footprints is an example of one such rationalization.

Economists and urban planners alike agree that a market-driven approach can determine the highest and best use of a parcel at a given time. But economists and planners also agree that market-driven development will never result in the highest and best economic value of a district (or the greatest potential value of each parcel) over time. This is the purpose of zoning and planning.

The public has an interest in the outcome reflecting highest and best use of a district, beyond a single parcel, since it invests in the infrastructure. Certainly the Seaport has a public interest in its outcome.

Without an understanding of zoning and planning, market-driven development generally favors projects that use resources liberally, including transit infrastructure and other public resources. Remaining parcels are less likely to evolve at the highest potential since early tracts consumed resources. As one small example, I'll suggest Seaport congestion is a direct result of poor land use policy, one that should require a mix of uses to develop as feasible under market conditions at any given time, in order to balance consumption of available resources. Seaport congestion will have a direct impact on Boston's economy and it will have an impact on the potential of remaining unbuilt parcels.

Traffic impacts are only one small impact of a market-driven approach. I'm no expert, but folks who look closely at this stuff have great concern.

This is why the planning in the Harrison Albany Corridor of the South End (New York Streets Area and on) is forcing the developers to break up the mega blocks that are there now. For example, the Ink Block developer wanted a monolithic set of connected buildings, wrapping around the entire former Hearld site. But the BRA got them to break up the block and create two new thru streets. beginning to restore the human scale to the block. Only district planning can make that happen.
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

It's also fair to say that the planning process itself has tended to tip the economic balance toward larger projects and larger lots ... that is to say, it is expensive and time-consuming to jump through the hoops required to get the necessary approvals and variances. That's easier for larger players with deep pockets and (often) connections to contemplate, and the transaction cost is smaller as a percentage of a bigger project. In a more perfect world, the BRA would actively work to offset this, and in a more fair world, the "risks" of being shot down by zoning, historic, the BRA, etcetera would be more transparent to the unconnected. In practice, the BRA's own economic incentives lead them to favor mega-projects by mega-developers.
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

The very existence of zoning creates an incentive for mega-projects with enough money to cut through the red tape at the expense of small projects which can't fight the zoning board.
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

Very interesting. Between Polaris and Battery, that is several billion of AUM of VC investors moving to the waterfront. Cool stuff.

And Polaris is moving to the same building. They are just as important to Massachusetts VC as Battery.
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

The very existence of zoning creates an incentive for mega-projects with enough money to cut through the red tape at the expense of small projects which can't fight the zoning board.

With the right zoning and planning, the big projects do not necessarily mean only big buildings. Big projects can be broken up into human scale elements.

We often forget that many of the small, old buildings we enjoy today in Boston were built as part of mega projects -- massive neighborhood creating landfill; single developer blocks of row houses in the South End, etc.
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

With the right zoning and planning

Sure, but what a precondition! Even today, we still don't have the "right zoning and planning" despite a century of learning the hard way. The old buildings that we enjoy were created before the era of zoning and modern city planning. How many have been created since?
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

Sure, but what a precondition! Even today, we still don't have the "right zoning and planning" despite a century of learning the hard way. The old buildings that we enjoy were created before the era of zoning and modern city planning. How many have been created since?

Both the South End and the Back Bay were extensively planned. The South End planning started with Bullfinch around 1805 (the locations of Blackstone and Franklin Parks, and the start of the avenue system were designated). The Garden Squares (Chester, Union Park, Worcester, Rutland, Concord) were all planned to attract residents and further development.

Maybe the problem is "modern city planning", rather than planning in general.
 
Re: Innovation Dist. / South Boston Seaport

Yes, that's what I added the adjective "modern." The modern city planning movement began formally sometime between 1900 and 1915. IIRC the first major convention was held in 1906. That's when you start to see the rise of city planning commissions in cities like NY and Boston. If you look at the Google archive version of their reports, you'll find that the newly formed commissions largely concerned themselves with trying to figure out which buildings to knock down to widen streets, how to spread out population, and how to add greenspaces into urban areas.

Movements like Garden City and City Beautiful also came into existence around the end of the 19th century and became the basis for the "new" field of modern city planning, even though they were fundamentally anti-city in nature. We are still dealing with the fallout from their application: separation of uses, greenspace as a barrier or weapon against cities, and the view of cities as nothing more than a collection of monuments for architects to show off.

There was certainly planning before that, but the idea of zoning as a legally enforceable regulation didn't exist until the teens and twenties. I would like to think that the planners of the mid-19th century and prior had a more acute awareness of the needs of actual cities, since they had to live with their decisions, but I'm sure there were plenty of failures to go along with the successes. And even what many view as success today -- like Haussman's remaking of Paris -- caused a great deal of suffering in their time. I suppose you could say that urban development has always been about "reification" of power relationships in a city, and in modern times those relationships fled outward.
 

Back
Top