Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)

[Proposition Joe]

We should never settle for mediocrity but at the same time we have to be realistic about what is achievable with a wasteland of parking lots.

Isn't literally anything possible with a wasteland of parking lots? The Seaport was a blank slate and a lot of potential is being lost for buildings that aren't the best they can be, that's the cause for disappointment here.

 

[SeamusMcFly]

I think we sometimes forget there is a big difference between 'best they could be' & 'best they can be'.
We'd all love the former, but most understand the latter is the best we can hope for. Also, what should be pushed for.

 

[HenryAlan]

Looks like some 1960s superblock development. How are they still fucking up the SBW so bad?

My first thought when I saw that image was "wow, something different!" Then I realized I had already seen this over at the Prudential.

 

[Sicilian]

I think we sometimes forget there is a big difference between 'best they could be' & 'best they can be'.
We'd all love the former, but most understand the latter is the best we can hope for. Also, what should be pushed for.

No. It's actually a travesty.

Consider:

1. Upwards of $8 billion in public investment improving prospects for waterfront landowners including Harbor cleanup, MBTA, CA/Tunnel ramps, MBTA Silver Line tunnel, BCEC, etc.
2. Moratorium on development for 2 years (1997-1999) for BRA's hired urban planners at Coopers & Robertson Partners to develop a land use and public realm plan
3. Engagement of BSA Seaport Focus Team and Urban Strategies (Pritzker planners) in contributing to multi-year land use planning dialog
4. Junkets by BRA planners and waterfront advocacy org representatives to waterfronts worldwide to study architecture, public realm and best practices in planning/zoning/enforcement
5. Original PDAs (Master Plans for each large project) that required minimum 33% residential density and max 33% office space; each PDA quietly amended in years following significant public engagement
6. Years spent by Seaport speculators (aka Master Developers) flipping pre-approved large projects (unbuilt) for profit, siphoning upwards of $1 billion from the waterfront before a shovel hit the ground
7. Breadcrumbs leveraged from landowners during large project approvals providing incessant hype regarding development of non-commercial and/or civic uses, including District Hall (a 5-year lease, 5-year option) and some remnant civic/cultural spaces required under state guidelines
8. 37 of 50 (74%) of Seaport's large projects were designed by 9 local firms. 21 of 50 large projects (42%) were designed by 2 local firms.

Call me an outlier, no worries!

EDIT 7/29: Corrected error in stat from "21 of 50 (80%)" to "37 of 50 (74%)"

 

[cca]

No. It's actually a travesty.

Consider:

1. Upwards of $8 billion in public investment improving prospects for waterfront landowners including Harbor cleanup, MBTA, CA/Tunnel ramps, MBTA Silver Line tunnel, BCEC, etc.
2. Moratorium on development for 2 years (1997-1999) for BRA's hired urban planners at Coopers & Robertson Partners to develop a land use and public realm plan
3. Engagement of BSA Seaport Focus Team and Urban Strategies (Pritzker planners) in contributing to multi-year land use planning dialog
4. Junkets by BRA planners and waterfront advocacy org representatives to waterfronts worldwide to study architecture, public realm and best practices in planning/zoning/enforcement
5. Original PDAs (Master Plans for each large project) that required minimum 33% residential density and max 33% office space; each PDA quietly amended in years following significant public engagement
6. Years spent by Seaport speculators (aka Master Developers) flipping pre-approved large projects (unbuilt) for profit, siphoning upwards of $1 billion from the waterfront before a shovel hit the ground
7. Breadcrumbs leveraged from landowners during large project approvals providing incessant hype regarding development of non-commercial and/or civic uses, including District Hall (a 5-year lease, 5-year option) and some remnant civic/cultural spaces required under state guidelines
8. 21 of 50 (80%) of Seaport's large projects were designed by 9 local firms. 21 of 50 large projects (42%) were designed by 2 local firms.

Call me an outlier, no worries!

Many good points here. I like the pointing out of the lack of designer diversity in this area. It does not bode well for its long term richness of place.

cca

 

[jdrinboston]

Many good points here. I like the pointing out of the lack of designer diversity in this area. It does not bode well for its long term richness of place.

cca

I've seen this point raised before. Honest question here: How would you go about encouraging or requiring designer diversity in this or any neighborhood? It seems as if the city tying development rights to a requirement that Elkus or CBT not design the the building would be a good way to smacked around by a federal judge, as those firms would certainly seek an injunction against such a policy?

 

[cca]

Nope. You cant legally require a specific designer. The people who are building should value urban diversity, but in truth, those two groups (as well as others like ADDinc and the like) provide good, fast, cheap product that fits the proforma. One could say that the market needs to adjust (i.e. other firms need to step up and compete) but that is hard to do. Why?

There is a popular feeling that these firms are the darlings of developers (who are risk adverse and bottom line driven), and the developers have an in at City Hall, thus new firms trying to bring new ideas are scary to the system because they are x-factors and uncertainty brings less clear proforma. So ... we get homogeneity of urban design/architectural design.

It does not hurt either that partners of these firms are sit on the BCDC either.

So, what do we get. We get a perfect urban expression of what the people who want to make money by building things think a city should look like. It is life as we know it, and apparently love it or people would protest more loudly then the few NIMBYs.

 

[statler]

So, what do we get. We get a perfect urban expression of what the people who want to make money by building things think a city should look like. It is life as we know it, and apparently love it or people would protest more loudly then the few NIMBYs.

Eh, "love it" is too strong. "Deeply apathetic about the built environment", is more likely behind the silence.

 

[kjdonovan]

. It will never be a Back Bay, North End or South End... we have to be realistic about what is achievable with a wasteland of parking lots...

I just finished Jonathan Franzen's novel Strong Motion, which takes place largely in Somerville, and there was one high-pitched ecological squawk of a page that stuck in my mind—and which this post reminded me of:

"The country whose abundance had sustained the Indians and astonished the Europeans had in less than 150 years become a land of evil-smelling swamps...and treeless vistas... If you'd looked very closely, though, you would have seen that the wealth had merely been transformed and concentrated... The towering white pines from ten thousand square miles of Commonwealth had together built one block of brick town houses on Beacon Hill, with high windows and a fleet of carriages...all of it occupying less than an acre. A plot of land that had once supported five Indians in comfort was condensed into a gold ring on a finger..."

Not to give too much credence to this bit of scratch, but there is some truth in the argument for why we don't build any new Versailles. Places look nice, but were they worth what it cost to make them? What's the balance between what it took to create old luxury housing and new? The Seaport could be better, but how much better?

 

[atlantaden]

Point #1 is interesting since the 8 billion spent in public investments just didn't benefit large landowners on the SB Waterfront; the general public in the surrounding areas (even I benefited, easier access to/from the Airport) benefited from the 8 billion investment. A clean harbor, the Ted Tunnel (actually the Big Dig in general), Silver Line, all of it was built for the public good, and yeah, anyone who owned property anywhere near the area, including existing homeowners/property owners in Ft. Point and the immediate area, all benefited. Naturally, the larger the property owned, the more the value of the property increased. You could say the same for any property owner who owned along the elevated highway before it was torn down, it was just plain dumb luck, in many cases, that they owned property in the area which is now worth much, much more today. Point #1 makes it sound as if 8 billion was spent for the benefit of a few large property owners when, in fact, everyone in and outside the immediate area benefited. Now, the rest of your points, yup, politics as usual (if I remember correctly, a school was proposed to have been built but was killed by Mayor Menino). Having said that, I'm curious as to the number of residential units that have been built/are in the immediate pipeline (as to what was planned), along with the square footage of retail/restaurant space. It's got to be literally in the thousands for residential and over one hundred thousand square feet for retail.

 

[xec]

^^^
Here's an approximate count. The numbers came from project filings, newspaper articles, etc. and may not be exactly what was/will be ultimately built, but should give a good estimate.

BUILT
Park Lane Seaport 465
Waterside Place 236
Flats on D 197
100 Pier 4 369
Total Built 1267

U/C
22 Liberty Drive 125
Watermark Seaport 346
One Seaport Square 832
Total UC 1303

Total Built & U/C 2570

PROPOSED
50 Liberty Drive 100
Massport Parcel K 304
399 Congress St 414
Seaport Parcels M1 & M2 750
Pier 4 Phase III 100
Total Proposed 1668

Grand Total 4238

 

[atlantaden]

Hey, thanks!

Would 315 on A and it's 200 units be considered part of the new Seaport construction or more Fort Point?

 

[whighlander]

No. It's actually a travesty.

Consider:

1. Upwards of $8 billion in public investment improving prospects for waterfront landowners including Harbor cleanup, MBTA, CA/Tunnel ramps, MBTA Silver Line tunnel, BCEC, etc.
2. Moratorium on development for 2 years (1997-1999) for BRA's hired urban planners at Coopers & Robertson Partners to develop a land use and public realm plan
3. Engagement of BSA Seaport Focus Team and Urban Strategies (Pritzker planners) in contributing to multi-year land use planning dialog
4. Junkets by BRA planners and waterfront advocacy org representatives to waterfronts worldwide to study architecture, public realm and best practices in planning/zoning/enforcement
5. Original PDAs (Master Plans for each large project) that required minimum 33% residential density and max 33% office space; each PDA quietly amended in years following significant public engagement
6. Years spent by Seaport speculators (aka Master Developers) flipping pre-approved large projects (unbuilt) for profit, siphoning upwards of $1 billion from the waterfront before a shovel hit the ground
7. Breadcrumbs leveraged from landowners during large project approvals providing incessant hype regarding development of non-commercial and/or civic uses, including District Hall (a 5-year lease, 5-year option) and some remnant civic/cultural spaces required under state guidelines
8. 21 of 50 (80%) of Seaport's large projects were designed by 9 local firms. 21 of 50 large projects (42%) were designed by 2 local firms.

Call me an outlier, no worries!

Sicilian -- let's look at a historic analogy perhaps somewhat enlightening in the context of the current discussion about rebuilding a neighborhood in the Seaport / Innovation District

Great Boston fire of 1872 burned a huge swath of the existing commercial district some 65+ very very valuable acres were essentially incinerated -- in fact the much larger Chicago Fire did less $ damage

*1

Within 2 or 3 years the entire area had been rebuilt giving rise to the well defined 6 to 10 story street walls along Washington and other streets in the area

The City didn't do much in the way of planning except for some street widening and rerouting across the burned landscape

from the wiki article

City planning during the post-fire reconstruction caused several streets in downtown Boston to be widened, particularly Congress Street, Federal Street, Purchase Street, and Hawley Street, and reserved the space for Post Office Square. Most of the rubble and ruins of the buildings destroyed by the fire was dumped in the harbor to fill in Atlantic Avenue.

*1 full disclosure I walk by this image every time that I climb or descend my stairs

 

[xec]

Hey, thanks!

Would 315 on A and it's 200 units be considered part of the new Seaport construction or more Fort Point?

I would count that as Fort Point, but if you want you can just add 200 units to the total.

 

[FortPointGuy]

Does it really make sense to split out Fort Point from Seaport? I live on Congress Street and walk my dog over to Q Park. Am I really leaving the neighborhood? What if I cross Seaport Boulevard to Fan Pier park? That's a 5 minute walk (or it was before the parcel B & C jersey barriers came in).

If the Convention Center is in the Seaport, so is all of South Boston-side Fort Point. As I think about it, the Convention Center might be bigger than Fort Point. Fort Point is more of an area than a neighborhood. It is part of downtown and it is part of South Boston, but the South Boston portion seems to be squarely within the Seaport.

 

[JohnAKeith]

School assignment: Compare the acreage of land "created" by the Fire of 1872 to the urban renewal projects of the mid-20th century.

 

[xec]

Does it really make sense to split out Fort Point from Seaport? I live on Congress Street and walk my dog over to Q Park. Am I really leaving the neighborhood? What if I cross Seaport Boulevard to Fan Pier park? That's a 5 minute walk (or it was before the parcel B & C jersey barriers came in).

Sure, you could consider Fort Point part of the Seaport. For my own purposes I don't, mostly because Fort Point is developing at a slower pace than the Seaport proper and has more constraints on development. I think conditions are different enough to warrant treating it as a separate development area.

 

[Archibald "Harry" Tuttle]

Does it really make sense to split out Fort Point from Seaport? I live on Congress Street and walk my dog over to Q Park. Am I really leaving the neighborhood? What if I cross Seaport Boulevard to Fan Pier park? That's a 5 minute walk (or it was before the parcel B & C jersey barriers came in).

If the Convention Center is in the Seaport, so is all of South Boston-side Fort Point. As I think about it, the Convention Center might be bigger than Fort Point. Fort Point is more of an area than a neighborhood. It is part of downtown and it is part of South Boston, but the South Boston portion seems to be squarely within the Seaport.

I think it does. All neighborhoods must have boundaries, otherwise they wouldn't be neighborhoods. Some boundaries are more fuzzy than others, but the Fort Point neighborhood is actually pretty rigid - both in its look/feel and its municipality-designated boundary. Fort Point development will always look different from Seaport development as long as the landmark district guidelines are in place and enforced.

 

[Sicilian]

I think it does. All neighborhoods must have boundaries, otherwise they wouldn't be neighborhoods. Some boundaries are more fuzzy than others, but the Fort Point neighborhood is actually pretty rigid - both in its look/feel and its municipality-designated boundary. Fort Point development will always look different from Seaport development as long as the landmark district guidelines are in place and enforced.

I don't disagree with your point, but generally think of Fort Point as part of the Seaport District.

Either way, the Landmark Commission bounds are tightly defined around the historic buildings (with some abutting developable parcels included as "Protection Zones"). These bounds represent only a fraction of what most consider the Fort Point neighborhood. For example, State Street tower is within the bounds of Channel Center but not the Boston Landmark Commission defined bounds. Fort Point's new A Street Park was planned in Fort Point 100 Acres Plan (final draft 2006, in a slightly different configuration) and was funded in part through the 100 Acres Plan Sinking Fund. The garage at State Street tower is inside the bounds of Fort Point 100 Acres (PDA 69), but outside the bounds of Channel Center (PDA 53). The Fort Point 100 Acres Plan bounds include a number of parcels south of Summer St that are not in the Landmark District guidelines. Gillette's facility, outside of BLC bounds and 100 Acres bounds, is also considered as an integral part of the Fort Point neighborhood.

To date, there isn't one official set of boundaries defining Fort Point District. Over the years, BRA maps have routinely bisected the district into different names and developers have proposed a number of new names. The recent branding effort by the community was somewhat motivated by a desire to put a meaningful and lasting marker on the district.

Disclosure: I served as Spokesperson for the Petitioners in the community's filing of a petition to landmark Fort Point (2001); an appointed member of the Study Commitee developing the boundaries and district guidelines through the designation in early 2009; and as appointed member of the 100 Acres Plan Advisory Committee.

 

[FortPointGuy]

I think it does. All neighborhoods must have boundaries, otherwise they wouldn't be neighborhoods. Some boundaries are more fuzzy than others, but the Fort Point neighborhood is actually pretty rigid - both in its look/feel and its municipality-designated boundary. Fort Point development will always look different from Seaport development as long as the landmark district guidelines are in place and enforced.

Hmmm...South Boston is a neighborhood with boundaries, yes. The areas and places within South Boston, no.

And even the city disregards its own boundary lines. On St. Patrick's Parade day bars close early in South Boston. But not all of South Boston. The dividing line is Congress Street. So Lucky's is forced to close for the day before Drink, which is permitted to open that day, unlocks its doors. (These bars are across the street from each other for those who don't know.)

Keeping the focus on Fort Point, if a distinction must be drawn one could argue that the church/office building and Yotel parcels are actually in Fort Point, not in the Seaport. Each parcel is currently a parking lot for a Fort Point building and are both separated by fence from and depressed several feet below the grade of Seaport Boulevard. One of the main access points to both parcels will be Farnsworth Street via Congress Street in Fort Point. If they aren't in Fort Point, they are straddling the boundary line.

I can only conclude Fort Point is not a neighborhood so much as an area comprised more or less within the Seaport.