Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)

Then don't go there if it offends you so much. :rolleyes: Moakley bridge sidewalks are plenty wide enough for people to walk over. Also nobody made you the final decision maker on the quality of the restaurants. Too much whining. Why is it so hard to understand why a neighborhood with two convention buildings in it would have to cater somewhat to cars?

I also take issue with the "responsible people who walk or bike" crap. Bikers need not be considered a deity or demigod. Good for people who can get to their jobs via bike. For the vast, vast majority of us that's not an option.

+1.

Kinopio - I'm genuinely curious about why you specify the need for a pedestrian-only bridge. The Moakley bridge is very safe for pedestrians unless you plan to be criss crossing over from side to side as you walk over it (I don't know why anyone would..).

In fact, the Moakley bridge is infinitely more useful vs. a pedestrian-only bridge because it has space for both cars and pedestrians to use safely. Of all things, I don't ever see pedestrian foot traffic backed up on the bridge because there isn't enough room to walk.
 
The Seaport should be amazing. It was a blank slate on the waterfront steps from downtown in a city with tons of money, brainpower, and a big demand for offices and residential. But it is far from amazing.

The fact that there is no pedestrian bridge is a joke. How can something be on the Harborwalk and not have such a thing?!? Getting there by public transit sucks too and they have done absolutely nothing to improve it. Not putting in protected bike lanes is a terrible idea. The buildings are bland and full of chain steak houses(the most bland type of restaurant imaginable). And now they are using tax payer money to put in not one but two parking garages. Meanwhile the responsible people who walk, use public transit and bike continue to get screwed. I can't believe they designed a city neighborhood in the 21st century almost solely around the automobile. What a failure.


Gee .....someone on this board that actually agrees with what I see going on.
Seaport is an epic failure concerning public efficiency.

The buildout was all geared towards corporate/developer profits and the taxpayers got looted concerning infrastructure costs that did not solve public transit efficiency to the area.

Menino and the BRA missed a serious opportunity concerning this area to build for the public good.

Think about this: people can't even afford to buy real estate in Boston. But our elected officials are giving tax incentives for prime waterfront property to the developers and the corporations.

Something is really wrong with that logic
 
Last edited:
Gee .....someone on this board that actually agrees with what I see going on.
Seaport is an epic failure concerning public efficiency.

The buildout was all geared towards corporate/developer profits and the taxpayers got looted concerning infrastructure costs that did not solve public transit efficiency to the area.

Menino and the BRA missed a serious opportunity concerning this area to build for the public good.

Think about this: people can't even afford to buy real estate in Boston. But our elected officials are giving tax incentives for prime waterfront property to the developers and the corporations.

Something is really wrong with that logic

Please elaborate on your model for the public good use in the Seaport. Is it acres and expansive swaths of park, recreational, and public spaces throughout the whole waterfront? It sounds great in theory, but it would be a large financial commitment for ongoing upkeep by the city and/or state. I get that a lot of taxpayer money went to developers, but the businesses, condos, and apartments will be generating on-going streams of tax revenues, even with the incentives in place. Public parks generally do not generate sufficient revenues to be self-sustaining. Exceptions exist of course, but they generally also rely on corporate sponsorship and payments from nearby property owners on top of public funding.

Just as one example, the Rose Kennedy Greenway is fairly new, but as expected, continued public funding is in jeopardy. I for one really hope for the best here, but there will always be that realistic chance of public funding suddenly drying up.

Don't forget that the Seaport was NOT a desirable area for many years. No businesses were going to take a chance on setting up shop on a field of surface parking lots and also agree to fund the development and on-going maintenance of large public spaces by the water. They needed incentive to build in the Seaport.

By the way, I have no connection with developers or any of the businesses in the Seaport. I'm also no expert at all on urban planning/building. I just think the Seaport is a result of current economic forces. It's also still a work in progress which other posters kindly remind us from time to time.

Just my two cents. Hoping for an engaging discussion here and to learn a thing or two if I'm wrong.
 
Please elaborate on your model for the public good use in the Seaport. Is it acres and expansive swaths of park, recreational, and public spaces throughout the whole waterfront? It sounds great in theory, but it would be a large financial commitment for ongoing upkeep by the city and/or state. I get that a lot of taxpayer money went to developers, but the businesses, condos, and apartments will be generating on-going streams of tax revenues, even with the incentives in place. Public parks generally do not generate sufficient revenues to be self-sustaining. Exceptions exist of course, but they generally also rely on corporate sponsorship and payments from nearby property owners on top of public funding.

Just as one example, the Rose Kennedy Greenway is fairly new, but as expected, continued public funding is in jeopardy. I for one really hope for the best here, but there will always be that realistic chance of public funding suddenly drying up.

Don't forget that the Seaport was NOT a desirable area for many years. No businesses were going to take a chance on setting up shop on a field of surface parking lots and also agree to fund the development and on-going maintenance of large public spaces by the water. They needed incentive to build in the Seaport.

By the way, I have no connection with developers or any of the businesses in the Seaport. I'm also no expert at all on urban planning/building. I just think the Seaport is a result of current economic forces. It's also still a work in progress which other posters kindly remind us from time to time.

Just my two cents. Hoping for an engaging discussion here and to learn a thing or two if I'm wrong.

This comes down to commonsense-
I'm assuming everything is unique and depends on the timing and societies needs at those times concerning certain areas to develop.
Currently Boston is in a boom stage
Seaport Area was all Open parking lots to the waterfront-

City/State should have setout goals for the area and ruffled out all the variance& zoning laws out for development in the area according with the FAA and the city/state goals.

City/State should have drew up a plans for Infrastructure that would make the area more walking/friendly and fast commuter-rail efficient/
*Build an underground hardrail stops
*Monorail around the Seaport
*Trolley type Greenline
Something that would give a better options than automobiles.
The city/State should have built out the infrastructure first knowing this area was priceless.

Then let the private developers build according to the variance and zoning laws allowed in the area.
Good & bad architecture would be determined by the Private sector.

Seaport was never going to be the Backbay--on the water. The parcels cost too much. It was going to be highrises----but so far they have failed to activate and connect the area with anything along with being a traffic nightmare to get to.

If the city actually built a located Transit location like
North Station-
South Station
DTX
Park St.
Haymarket

SEAPORT Station===A couple of hardrails cross into the area/along with a commuting from the ocean--This would have added so much value to Boston
This might have took some relief from overall Southie parking/traffic scenario.

TRANSIT----that is very efficient/easy to use makes the cities a fun place to live especially when you don't need a car. Seaport they built the area up only to realize you need a car for convenience.

That is MY GRIPE

Do you really need to hand out massive tax incentives to build-out on Boston most desirable piece of oceanfront? These are open parking lots? So the developers need incentive. The reality is if they just built the infrastructure the demand would have been there.
 
Last edited:
The seaport is a direct extension of the financial district. Theres not many companies that need 50 floors so they can get 20 over here. We need to look at the neighborhood differently. Housing can be infilled near transit in any nook of the city. This is a place where we can dramatically add to office/lab stock in a city with very little space. The street grid and influx of office space is like our mini midtown manhattan. Go to the north end if you want nooks and crannies the seaport is fulfilling its role. We just landed GE for christs sake. Not to mention as its been said a million times this is a huge construction site. Theres already plans for retail, trees, bike/bus lanes, ped bridge... were focusing on the area right on the waterfront. All around the convention center and fort point are going to be filled as well. The only real gripe right now is transit but up to the convention center and over to the waterfront is literally a 10 min walk from south station. Its a brand new neighborhood its going to have an adjustment period and adaptations over time. If you look at whats proposed theres a lot of good coming online soon. Dorchester existed before subways were even a thought. Transit will come theres no way around it.
 
Transit will come theres no way around it.

What do you propose Tax breaks to re-knock down all existing structures in around Seaport so we can actually build proper infrastructure this time. It's a little too late for that--

I think we are stuck with the Silver-line bus
 
The silver line can and likely will be converted to light rail at some point in the future it may just not happen for a while.
 
The silver line can and likely will be converted to light rail at some point in the future it may just not happen for a while.

I'm not that confident: Watching how the much needed Greenline extension has evolved scenario in Somerville has been painful.

Traffic continues to increase at an insane rate in the surrounding areas of Somerville, Everett, Medford, Charlestown, Boston, Southie, Dorchester. I'm really worried about the Casino situation.
 
I'm not that confident: Watching how the much needed Greenline extension has evolved scenario in Somerville has been painful.

Traffic continues to increase at an insane rate in the surrounding areas of Somerville, Everett, Medford, Charlestown, Boston, Southie, Dorchester. I'm really worried about the Casino situation.

It doesn't bother me as someone who refuses to drive anywhere in the Boston area. If I can't get there by public transportation I'm not going there. As much as the silver line sucks its still far less of a horrible experience than trying to drive and find parking in Boston.
 
Disagree. As someone who has a car in the Seaport, I waited through 4 SL buses last week during rush hour, dealing with people shoving to get on the bus and a couple drivers not even stopping to pick people up. By the time bus 5 rolled around, it was approaching 30 mins so a lot of people had wondered back to Congress to get an uber or walk to SS at that point. The SL sucks and is over capacity. I find driving 100x easier than the SL.
 
Disagree. As someone who has a car in the Seaport, I waited through 4 SL buses last week during rush hour, dealing with people shoving to get on the bus and a couple drivers not even stopping to pick people up. By the time bus 5 rolled around, it was approaching 30 mins so a lot of people had wondered back to Congress to get an uber or walk to SS at that point. The SL sucks and is over capacity. I find driving 100x easier than the SL.

So the SL seaport is coming thru every 5-7 min and its not enough during rush hour? I dont have any experience with it over there other than weekends and nights when its not busy. SL5 is about the same during rush hour and it usually works well. Occasionally overcrowded but its alright.
 
I use the Silver Line from SS to the Seaport each day at rush hour. It's an operational nightmare.

Buses do not come frequently enough, and when they finally do, they're packed to capacity. Drivers don't always stop at individual stops (sometimes they skip WTC or Courthouse due to overcrowding).

In the morning, they will go for long periods with no buses and then all 3 will come.

We need more buses throughout the day.
 
They simply need bi-articulated buses on that route
 
I've had the same experience with the Silver Line - stand on the platform at Courthouse for 30+ minutes as bus after bus passes by me, packed to the gills with passengers.

The last thing I want is to sound like Rifleman, but the failure of planning that is the Silver Line is pretty astounding. They built a new underground "transit" line from scratch, and within 10 years of opening it was already completely overcapacity and outdated. How did they not see this coming?

Reminds of all the towns around here that build new school buildings, then immediately turn right around and say that they can't support any more housing because the schools are full.

Everyone knows that tying the Silver Line tunnel into the Green Line is what needs to happen, but we live in the city/country/era of no. The workers who will build that connection probably aren't even born yet.
 
The last thing I want is to sound like Rifleman, but the failure of planning that is the Silver Line is pretty astounding. They built a new underground "transit" line from scratch, and within 10 years of opening it was already completely overcapacity and outdated. How did they not see this coming?

C'mon guys...politicized funding cuts. This is not entirely due to planners' blindness. Since when do planners get exactly what they ask for around here?
 
I would blame it on the area taking off a lot quicker than anybody expected given that it sat vacant for 20 years since the initial planning to turn it into Boston's next neighborhood.

Beyond that though, crowded trains/busses are a fact of life for a crowded city, so I'm not sure what helps. I read the transit ideas in the other thread and we're better off waiting for the flying individualized jet packs to get here before the Green Line gets run into the area. A lot of this seems like "run more busses more frequently" which is a pretty solvable problem. Can't be much worse than riding the Red Line out of town from South Station during rush hour.
 
C'mon guys...politicized funding cuts. This is not entirely due to planners' blindness. Since when do planners get exactly what they ask for around here?

I'm not saying that the planners themselves failed, I'm saying the entire planning establishment -- including those who control the purse strings -- failed.
 
I would also add that Logan's remarkable growth (total passengers) has contributed to the capacity issues.
 
I would blame it on the area taking off a lot quicker than anybody expected given that it sat vacant for 20 years since the initial planning to turn it into Boston's next neighborhood.

Beyond that though, crowded trains/busses are a fact of life for a crowded city, so I'm not sure what helps. I read the transit ideas in the other thread and we're better off waiting for the flying individualized jet packs to get here before the Green Line gets run into the area. A lot of this seems like "run more busses more frequently" which is a pretty solvable problem. Can't be much worse than riding the Red Line out of town from South Station during rush hour.

Actually it really is much much worse than the Red Line issues, because heavy rail trains have so much higher capacity than a stupid bus.

It also quickly becomes a operational cost issue. One articulated bus, one driver, maybe 120 passengers. One Red Line train, one driver, maybe 1500 passengers. So it takes 10 x the number of drivers for the same capacity!
 

Back
Top