Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)

Here's a simple fact that both greedy, corporate developers AND elitist enviro-activists need to grasp:

I will never, ever take public transportation as long as it is easier and not much more expensive for me to drive my car.

Capitalism will solve our problem when parking costs increase as everyone begins driving more and gas costs rise. Socialism has proven for decades to solve nothing. Unbridled capitalism will save us.

(Maybe I just need some coffee)
 
Last edited:
^I'll second that. 95% of the time I'm in town I drive. It's easier, it's nice to have the car there, and no matter where you're going (even Fenway on a game night) it's easy (and cheap enough) to find a good spot that's within easy walking distance of wherever you want to go. If you have more than one person with you, taking the T can absolutely add up to more than the cost of metered parking (or free depending on where you go and what time).

As far as Seaport Square making street parking prohibitive, I doubt you'll have any problems. If you find parking on Newbury Street easy enough during Christmas season, then Parking anywhere in the SBW area will be a breeze (even after Fan Pier, Seaport Square and Ft. Point developments are complete).

I would however, take public transit more often if it were A) cleaner, B) more reliable, and C) further reaching. Madrid is the perfect model for a rapid transit system. It's easier than taking a car anywhere, it's affordable, it's squeaky clean, it's close to EVERYTHING and it's still expanding. And believe it or not, Madrid is not an ancient European city and it's (the metropolitan area) is comparably sized to Boston. There's no (good) reason that Metro-Boston can't have a similar system.
 
I don't think there is too much parking. There are currently 3,800 spots for commuters. The proposal adds 700 to this, making it 4,500 spots, to be used by office workers in the area, tourists, and shoppers. Another 2,000 spots will be used by tenants and owners of the new 2,500 units of housing.

I think Mr Hynes and everyone was perplexed amused and a bit annoyed when I asked at last night's meeting, "Um, where do the 3,800 cars go when you take away those 23 acres of parking lots?"
 
The important question for the developer and the city to be asking is "how much traffic do we want on the streets?" If you provide more parking, you get more traffic.

To answer this question, "Um, where do the 3,800 cars go when you take away those 23 acres of parking lots?", some park somewhere else and some switch modes.
 
pelhamhall said:
Capitalism will solve our problem when parking costs increase as everyone begins driving more and gas costs rise. Socialism has proven for decades to solve nothing. Unbridled capitalism will save us.
Click to expand...


I?m not sure I understand you here, or if you are being sarcastic. Do you mean that if everyone starts driving it will force more parking lots to be built? Or do you mean as costs rise, it will force private developers to create their own mass transit systems? That might be kind of interesting.

I don?t really want to start a socio-economic debate, or expose my environmental elitism, but it would be terrible if we got rid of intra-city mass transit. Maybe I completely misunderstood, but if everyone who takes the T started driving, you?d have mass chaos in the streets, not to mention the pollution that would cause. Also, mass transit makes a city pedestrian friendly and encourages density. Cars on the other hand, encourage sprawl and are the mothers of suburbia. Cars pose a serious threat to pedestrians, especially when people are circling the blocks in their cars, waiting for a spot and getting progressively more frustrated and aggressive (pelhamhall, not to be presumptuous, but I?m sure you felt like running some people over during your holiday shopping). Most people behind the wheel should not even be there. Cars suck.

No, I don?t think they suck, but I think they are a transpiration tool that is grossly overused. If more people used the T, it would provide funds needed to expand the system and make it more reliable, which I agree is something that should happen. There?s really not much you can?t get to right now by using the T. And the T encourages you to walk. Walking is good.

I really don?t think the T is that expensive, especially when you take in account the monthly payment on a car, insurance, the cost to keep it somewhere, maintaining it and gas. Sure it could be improved, but anything can be and should be. Capitalism really never solves anything on a social scale, since it is selfish by its very nature. But that?s fine, it should be; it?s not meant to be a form of governance. It?s an effective way to create surplus. It?s what you do with that surplus that matters, and that?s what is going to solve problems, whether you call it socialism or something else.

Anyway, I think the SBW is going to look amazing with fan pier, seaport square and all the other developments popping up. Underground lots are better than surface parking.
 
The T sucks; whether it be delays, the smell of rotten ass, the old cars, the dirty seats and floors, the graffiti, or limited reach.
 
Maybe its time to have variable parking meter rates.
 
My point - and it's one that i think the "new urbanists" fail to address is that if there is no parking or convenient way to drive to the Seaport District, I am not going to suddenly decide to take the T (i.e. "switch modes") instead, I am not going to go - ever.

I am born and raised in Boston and I tend to know the "gold mine" streets for parking (the strip of Newbury Street beyond Mass Ave along the turnpike is always fertile - as are all the zone-timed streets that come available at 6pm and 7pm) and so I am not going to suddenly go through the expense and hassle of taking the miserable T to Seaport Square because there's no parking - I'm just not going to ever go.

I'll say it again - I am never, ever going to take public transportation when getting in my car and driving to where I need to go is easier and not much more expensive.

Taking the T doesn't save me time, but it greatly increases my hassle. Someday, the economics will change, and people like me will take the T.

That, however, is a massive, societal change - not something some urban planners can fix.

If I can't drive into Downtown Crossing - I'll go to South Bay Shopping Center

If I can't drive into Seaport Square - I'll drive to the Back Bay

If I can't easily and cheaply drive into the North End for Italian dinner, I'll go to Rocca in the South End for a quality Italian dinner (free valet parking)

etc, etc.

It's a simplistic view - but it's realistic.
 
Last edited:
Pellham, don't worry- by the time this project is completed, gas will easily be at ten dollars a gallon.
 
I think the idea is that if the neighborhood is already full of people living there then you don't need gigantic parking garages to coax people to hop in their car and visit.

The best parts of Boston, and just about any other decent city for that matter, were all built before parking requirements.
 
I don't think the T sucks. I think it has weaknesses and fails at some things, but I don't think it's dirty or smells. It suffers from popularity, to a certain extent. And, it doesn't go where it should? Maybe. It goes a lot of places people like - Fenway Park, financial district, etc.

I find it damn convenient, actually!

I don't really want to get into a conversation about it, though!
 
It can certainly teach the NYC subway a few things in the dirt/vomit department. Face it, no city in North America is going to have a transit system comparable to Madrid's in our lifetimes. The best we can do is get the people out of their cars who are loathe to spend 15 minutes circling Newbury Street for a spot (as someone who has spent more in Boston parking fines than the developers of the Kensington have ever given up in taxes, I can say unequivocally that I will not be driving into the Back Bay anytime in the future).
 
Well, then you can all appreciate the following exchange from last night's community meeting. I'm giving the abbreviated version, mostly so I can make a humorous comment.

Toward the end, a woman from the neighborhood (South Boston, not Seaport District) stood to express her concerns about traffic, parking, and public transportation.

"You have to do something about traffic in the neighborhood, and about getting to and from it, using public transportation!" she sputtered (I'm paraphrasing.)

"I work at the World Trade Center and I can see my condo from my window, but it's faster for me to walk to it than take public transportation - it would take two buses and a subway ride."

"But, I don't walk, it's too far and inconvenient. I take a cab to and from work ... and just about everyone I know does, too."

Not a sentence later she said the following.

"Oh, and you have to do something about all the traffic in the area! It's out of control. In the morning, cars are backed up all the way into South Boston."

I almost couldn't stop myself from saying, "Lady, that's because you're all taking cabs to go the length of three city blocks!!!"

To walk from the middle of the South End to Newbury Street is approximately .9 miles, the same distance as it is from West 2nd Street in South Boston to the World Trade Center.

I don't think twice about the walk to Copley Square, neither should this woman be unhappy she needs to walk a mile. (Although, to be fair, I haven't walked a mile in her shoes.)
 
Sounds like she's complaining about the T never implementing the proposed SL4 bus route.
 
"I want all these cars off the road! (Except the one I'm riding in, of course)"
 
What are the buildings in the bottom left of the rendering, where it says Education and Cultural.
 
The food was so terrible ... and the portions, too small!

The "educational" is a new private school. The "cultural" is TBD, I believe. The "Menino Museum of Accomplishments" was one suggestion.
 
JimboJones said:
The "cultural" is TBD, I believe. The "Menino Museum of Accomplishments" was one suggestion.
Click to expand...

Might I suggest a repurposed telephone booth for this new cultural institution? The aluminum and glass should be contextual with the rest of Seaport Square.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top