Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)
- Thread starter briv
- Start date
I know
What is so difficult to understand by planners that transport ought to be segregated by kind & speed? IOW vehicle lines AND vehicle parking - then bicycle lines-then pedestrian!!
People need to stop whining. You're all starting to sound like Squirrely Shirley Kressel. Some of these complaints are pure nonsense. Traffic? No shit. That's what happens when people want to be in a place. Bland architecture? What exactly were people looking for? The high demand for space combined with strict height limits due to proximity to the airport guarantee boxes. Why? Because that maximizes developer profits. If you wants spires, crowns, or phallic tops, you'd need to compensate the builder via tax breaks which I don't think makes sense for anyone. Its coming along. There is some variety to the buildings, particularly the ones right on the water. Otherwise suck it up and deal with it already. Of the problems Boston does have (psychotic NIMBY's, non-functioning T, sky high real estate prices, shitty Bruins ownership) the Seaport build out is pretty far down the list.
What a totally garbage "story", if you could even call it that. Instead of actually writing a piece, they published what is essentially a quotation and a couple paragraphs around it. How about some comments on what people in Boston actually think about Elkus Manfredi's architecture (I cant speak for other cities, but it's totally bizarre and disgusting how one single firm dominated the architecture here). The article almost seemed snuffed out but the very powers that were being bashed in the quote. Ugh. Real journalism is dead.
timsox6
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2013
- Messages
- 683
- Reaction score
- 0
Your words are a sort of simplification of the situation. Traffic only happens when people want to be in a place and drive their cars there: when mass transit is improved, cycletracks are in place, less parking is constructed for buildings, or driving is disincentivized financially, traffic is not necessarily a given. There is indeed a strict height limit on buildings, you've got that right. And developers are indeed interested in making money, that is true. But two things should be noted: 1) even cube-buildings can be architecturally inspiring and 2) as you note, there is high demand for space, demand which would exist even if there were to be more rigorous standards when it comes to design and architecture. Perhaps if Boston, like other cities that actually exist in real life, were to embark on a more rigorous design process and leverage that high demand with developers to say "Hey, if you wanna build and make any money, you'll have to have a better design," then things wouldn't look so bland.
Just trying to point out some flaws in your argument. There are cases around the world of cities with better architectural review processes and less traffic in popular neighborhoods. It is not really on us to "deal with" our lack of those things.
I agree with Rover. I think some people live in this unrealistic world where buildings can have these crazy looks and still be built at a reasonable price. These aren't public buildings, they are private. The developers can do whatever they want as long as Marty isn't giving them any large tax breaks to improve public areas. Maybe he should do that instead of pouring taxpayer money into the Grand Prix or Boston Calling.
FenwayResident
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2013
- Messages
- 760
- Reaction score
- 3
Even if there are viable alternatives to driving, a non-trivial percentage of the population will still prefer to use their cars. You can see this in cities with well-funded public transit and bike lanes that still have traffic problems (see: NYC, London, Beijing, etc.). At a certain level of density traffic becomes an issue no matter what because there will always be people who want to drive.
Who cares what the head of Jamestown says? What has his company done architecturally? Sure, they put a lot of money into the interior and slapped a logo on the end. I guess they put out shipping containers; I like that it goes along with the location, but it is hardly inspiring.
That's a point that people don't get. I have no problem with bike lanes and all that. Problem is biking isn't a solution to traffic, and it never will be. If you work a professional job, and don't have access to shower and change of clothes biking isn't an option. In bad weather (snow, rain, extreme cold) biking isn't an option. In extreme heat, biking isn't an option. If you're elderly or having health problems, etc etc. It might be for hardcore enthusiasts but not for the vast majority of the population.
Back bay has good public transit access and bike lanes. Yet it still has traffic. Sometimes you just need to use your car. In that regard the Seaport isn't any different than the rest of the city. Until we all get those flying jetpacks we were promised when I was a kid, I suspect it will remain that way.
I can't speak for Beijing as I've never been but in New York and London, there seems to be a much higher percentage of people using cabs and ubers/hired cars. According to a University of Michigan study from 2012 I found on Wikipedia, New York is 56% car free and Boston is 37% car free. I couldn't find the London numbers but I would have to guess it's at least 65%. Speaking anecdotally, of my friends and business colleagues who generally live in Notting Hill, South Kensington/Chelsea, Clapham/Brixton and Islington/Camden maybe six of about fifty actually own cars and I’d be surprised if any of them are used more than once or twice a week. When I was thinking about buying something about a year ago once I finally had my wits about me to drive on the “wrong side of the road” I was successfully talked out of it in about ten minutes.
FenwayResident
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2013
- Messages
- 760
- Reaction score
- 3
I'm not disputing any of your points. But mathematically speaking, if X% of people own a car and X > 0, then if density increases, traffic increases. I would say almost everyone agrees we want to drive X lower by giving people better alternatives to driving, but as growth happens we will always see an increase in traffic.
bigpicture7
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2016
- Messages
- 3,746
- Reaction score
- 8,606
Yes...unless we can somehow simultaneously drive down car usage by those who already live within an area so that the net effect is a reduction in traffic.
(for the Seaport, which is being built up from almost no residential, I agree your point is pretty much sure to be valid).
(I also feel that it is extremely unlikely for already-haves to change their ways...I am just making this point to make the math fully work out)
(one last point: all humans eventually die...which means that some day there will in fact be generational turn-over, so maybe future generations will drive less).
In the immediate near term: yes, growth = positive traffic: its just a matter of how much
bigpicture7
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2016
- Messages
- 3,746
- Reaction score
- 8,606
And to kpm1284's point (since I used to work in London for a bit in the mid-2000's): that city has been really aggressive policy-wise about reducing car usage. I don't know how London compares to other cities globally in this regard, but I have to imagine they are near the top in terms of policy initiated to strongly dissuade driving (tolls for bringing cars into the CBD, etc).
JumboBuc
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2013
- Messages
- 2,646
- Reaction score
- 1,515
New York is the least car-dependent city in the country; Boston is third [source]. It's silly to compare us to New York in that sense, as its urban environment is such an outlier in so many ways. And London and Beijing are so different culturally that they don't really make fare comparisons either. Compare Boston to just about any peer city (other than DC) and we're less car-dependent. But this really isn't the thread for this discussion...
Put me in the camp that thinks complaints about the Seaport's architecture are overblown. Is it perfect? No. But the stuff that has gone up post-recession has been solidly "good enough". Waterside place is the only truly bad new building in my book, and that was just about the first of the current crop. Other than at Waterside, material quality has been consistently at the higher end (and getting better), design decisions have respected the urban form, and street levels have been activated. The worst buildings in the Seaport Blvd stretch from an urban perspective are the older 1990s-ish ones around and including the Seaport Hotel. Each post-recession building has been better than the last. I take much greater issue with the design of Seaport Boulevard itself than any of the buildings on it.
Taking the realities of today into account, the Seaport was always destined to be a bunch of large floor-plate mid-rises, with big garages forced by ubiquitous American zoning. We simply weren't going to get another Back Bay or South End in the Seaport (nor should we have), and FAA height limits prevented a "new Downtown". No matter what got built, people would complain about its architecture. If buildings aren't "bland glass boxes" they are "crazy ugly eyesores". We'd either be "another boring suburban office park" or an "over-the-top wannabe Dubai". You can't have it all, and all things considered I'm happy with what we have.
Put me in the camp that thinks complaints about the Seaport's architecture are overblown. Is it perfect? No. But the stuff that has gone up post-recession has been solidly "good enough". Waterside place is the only truly bad new building in my book, and that was just about the first of the current crop. Other than at Waterside, material quality has been consistently at the higher end (and getting better), design decisions have respected the urban form, and street levels have been activated. The worst buildings in the Seaport Blvd stretch from an urban perspective are the older 1990s-ish ones around and including the Seaport Hotel. Each post-recession building has been better than the last. I take much greater issue with the design of Seaport Boulevard itself than any of the buildings on it.
Taking the realities of today into account, the Seaport was always destined to be a bunch of large floor-plate mid-rises, with big garages forced by ubiquitous American zoning. We simply weren't going to get another Back Bay or South End in the Seaport (nor should we have), and FAA height limits prevented a "new Downtown". No matter what got built, people would complain about its architecture. If buildings aren't "bland glass boxes" they are "crazy ugly eyesores". We'd either be "another boring suburban office park" or an "over-the-top wannabe Dubai". You can't have it all, and all things considered I'm happy with what we have.
commuter guy
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2007
- Messages
- 882
- Reaction score
- 108
Not so long ago this area was a blank slate, from the start the city could have laid out the groundwork for smaller development parcels via a more dense network of streets and pedestrian ways, etc. Also tweaking the zoning code to to encourage small and varied ground level activation. Granted the buildings would probably have the same or similar design aesthetic as now, but the area would have been more varied and interesting. You don't need spires or daring designs to make a good urban neighborhood, you just have to lay out better groundwork than Boston did.
I don't hate the seaport, but I also believe it was somewhat of a missed opportunity to develop a significantly more attractive urban neighborhood. I think it is a textbook example of the BRA's ineffective planning and strong emphasis on economic development.
I don't hate the seaport, but I also believe it was somewhat of a missed opportunity to develop a significantly more attractive urban neighborhood. I think it is a textbook example of the BRA's ineffective planning and strong emphasis on economic development.
I'd be happy with more connectivity. Which I think almost everyone on here would agree with. The Seaport would be more "accessible" if the Silver wasn't so jammed... it definitely needs to be converted to a proper light rail, but that seems to just never get mentioned by anyone in the press.
fattony
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 2,099
- Reaction score
- 481
People like to drive and have a certain tolerance for traffic, so traffic always expands to fill the roadways available. If you make more/bigger/more efficient roads, then more people will drive and you'll have the same congestion. The only way to build roads without traffic is to build them from a place no one lives to a place no one wants to go (i.e. a rural or suburban setting). Let that sink in. Once you have any appreciable density of homes or jobs then you have congestion.
At a high enough density public transit becomes viable, but it doesn't resolve traffic. Once you cross a threshold into a high enough density to support transit, you should prioritize adding more transit over adding roadway capacity. Once you are over the threshold there is no reducing traffic. This is the key point that Seaport planning has failed on. Improving the Silver Line and surface buses is the only path to improvement for Seaport transportation.
Furthermore, mixed-use districts have jobs and homes in walking distance, relieving the need for any transportation at all (on a day-to-day basis). That is the secret sauce that makes downtown living so desirable and it is the other ingredient the Seaport has largely missed, though not entirely. The significant amount of housing that Southie is absorbing is mostly walk-to-work-in-the-Seaport housing.
Personally, I find few things more peaceful than realizing I haven't driven my car in weeks.
At a high enough density public transit becomes viable, but it doesn't resolve traffic. Once you cross a threshold into a high enough density to support transit, you should prioritize adding more transit over adding roadway capacity. Once you are over the threshold there is no reducing traffic. This is the key point that Seaport planning has failed on. Improving the Silver Line and surface buses is the only path to improvement for Seaport transportation.
Furthermore, mixed-use districts have jobs and homes in walking distance, relieving the need for any transportation at all (on a day-to-day basis). That is the secret sauce that makes downtown living so desirable and it is the other ingredient the Seaport has largely missed, though not entirely. The significant amount of housing that Southie is absorbing is mostly walk-to-work-in-the-Seaport housing.
Personally, I find few things more peaceful than realizing I haven't driven my car in weeks.
HenryAlan
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 3,901
- Reaction score
- 3,755
It's a mistake in my opinion to think it's possible to not have congestion in an attractive, highly sought out location. The only goal should be alternatives for those who can or will select them. Transit and cycling are very important. Everything should be done to make driving less necessary, but in the end, geometry dictates that Boston will always be congested. The fix is giving better options to those of us who select a non single occupancy personal vehicle option. A bus is fine if not stuck in traffic, but if stuck in traffic, it's a sub-optimal competitor to a car, for example, so we should build bus lanes. And if the bus lane is over capacity (ie Seaport Silver Line), then we should replace the bus lane with rail, etc. People do not have a right to easy, free flowing motor vehicle lanes. They should have a right to select alternative options.
bigpicture7
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2016
- Messages
- 3,746
- Reaction score
- 8,606
Yes - this is enlightenment. In the first 10 years of my career, I drove like crazy. Hundreds of thousands of miles on multiple vehicles (may they rest in peace).
4 years ago a move and a job change transformed everything. There is an entire element of stress that is now gone from my life. I still own a car, but success is when it sits idle.
For peoples' own sake, I wish they could feel it too.