Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)

No prob I feel like these are all kind of seen as separate projects right now but they are designed to all tie into one another.
 
I'm not sure we've seen any real programming for parcel D. So, not sure we're looking at another 3 levels of retail, and that might not be a bad thing. Don't want to overdo it. Street level retail in level 1 will probably be more than fine. Maybe portions of the podium could all be amenity space (restaurant or whatever) that utilizes what is indicated as a substantial setback above level 3, at least in the massing.
 
Picture of the small pool that has been installed:

picture.php
 
jl326 said:
What's going to happen with the Silver Line entrance (lower right of photo) that is currently just next to the building and taking up sidewalk space? It's not accounted for in the renders. Will it be removed/moved? Has this already been covered in this thread?
Click to expand...

If memory serves, that's temporary and there will be a new one inside the building.
 
the existing one in front of Block C (Via) stays as is. There will be a new one constructed near District Hall.
 
BKNA said:
the existing one in front of Block C (Via) stays as is. There will be a new one constructed near District Hall.
Click to expand...

Will this be at the end of the existing stairway to nowhere in the courthouse station?
 
BKNA said:
the existing one in front of Block C (Via) stays as is. There will be a new one constructed near District Hall.
Click to expand...

That kind of sucks. It takes up so much sidewalk space. I made a post earlier in the thread saying that sidewalk space is more than adequate on Seaport Blvd, and while still true for the most part, this section here, albeit small, is an exception.
 
SeamusMcFly said:
I'm not sure we've seen any real programming for parcel D. So, not sure we're looking at another 3 levels of retail, and that might not be a bad thing. Don't want to overdo it. Street level retail in level 1 will probably be more than fine. Maybe portions of the podium could all be amenity space (restaurant or whatever) that utilizes what is indicated as a substantial setback above level 3, at least in the massing.
Click to expand...

Since Seaport Square is owned by WS now I think we can expect lots of retail. That is what they have the most experience with. I agree that isn't necessarily bad, but I do worry about a lot of multi story retail and whether that will actually be enough of a draw. One of the things I didn't totally get about the NPC was changing so much residential to office--they are going to need people to buy stuff and residents seem like a better bet to me.
 
Thats for them to asses and build accordingly to. They wont waste their money if they don't think the market is there. Since their money is on the line I trust them over a hunch that me or anyone here has.
 
BKNA said:
its also not accurate. the NPC includes an increase in residential and office uses and a decrease in hotel, retail, and cultural uses.

The NPC has Block D as office and ground floor retail.

the head house does suck and should have be incorporated into Block C building.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. While public statements by the proponent and a chart in the NPC indicate a decrease in hotel uses and and an increase in residential uses, the devil is in the details. In the text of the NPC, every remaining block identified as residential (and used to arrive at a total of 3,200 units) includes a caveat allowing hotel use. So the actual total residential and hotel use at full build is indeterminate.
 
Sicilian said:
Not exactly. While public statements by the proponent and a chart in the NPC indicate a decrease in hotel uses and and an increase in residential uses, the devil is in the details. In the text of the NPC, every remaining block identified as residential (and used to arrive at a total of 3,200 units) includes a caveat allowing hotel use. So the actual total residential and hotel use at full build is indeterminate.
Click to expand...

And holding residential even steady requires the significant increase in the size of all of the remaining buildings. The NPC largely proposes extending the blocky flat-top of the area further.

And if there is the market for this kind of office space that's great, but we know we need residential in Boston. We also know that residential (along with retail in the form of restaurants that stay open) is going to help with a lively evening life. Recreating the financial district isn't living up to the potential of the area.
 
estyle said:
And holding residential even steady requires the significant increase in the size of all of the remaining buildings. The NPC largely proposes extending the blocky flat-top of the area further.

And if there is the market for this kind of office space that's great, but we know we need residential in Boston. We also know that residential (along with retail in the form of restaurants that stay open) is going to help with a lively evening life. Recreating the financial district isn't living up to the potential of the area.
Click to expand...

Even if 100% of the upper-floor space to-be-built in the Seaport goes office, and not a single additional residential unit opens, the Seaport will still be more alive "after hours" than the financial district. Any chance of "recreating the financial district" has already, thankfully, passed.
 
BKNA said:
I always read that text as meaning that the residential blocks could be partial residential/hotel mixes not a complete replacement of residential with hotel.
If one of the 3 residential blocks becomes completely a hotel (or 2 of them become mixed), it would be the same amount of residential that was previously permitted.
Which, agreed, it would seem like a miss if the increased density of the NPC didnt increase residential at least partially.
Click to expand...

Development of at least one hotel on a site claimed in residential totals seems more than likely.

As one example, the Convention Center authority's comment letter on the NPC states, "The MCCA is also encouraged that WS Development has included plans for an additional, and a substantial full service hotel on Parcel N."

In the NPC chart, Parcel N is cited as housing (350,000 sf residential, 72,000 sf retail). In the text of the NPC, hotel would be an allowed use on Parcel N.
 
I'd be interested in seeing a study on whether Boston's affordable housing requirements push Seaport developers towards office and away from residential.
 
Well, that sure is a key factor with a certain developer trying to build on the Downtown Waterfront.
 
JumboBuc said:
I'd be interested in seeing a study on whether Boston's affordable housing requirements push Seaport developers towards office and away from residential.
Click to expand...

It may also lead to downgrades in residential building material quality, finishes, and design as developers find ways to cut costs to make the numbers work. That wouldn't be good for anyone.
 
Updated Seaport Square Master Plan Directory:

Seaport-Square-B1-651x516.jpg


A: Envoy Hotel, Complete
B: One Seaport Square, Under Construction
C: One Seaport Square, Under Construction
D: Old Our Lady of Good Voyage Chapel. Spec Office Proposed
F: District Hall, Complete, & Seaport Memorial Park, Partially Complete
G: TBD
H: New Our Lady of Good Voyage, Complete, & Boston Global Investors Office Building, Complete
J: Yotel Hotel, Under Construction
K: Watermark Seaport, Complete
L1: 101 Seaport Blvd, PWC Building, Complete
L2: 121 Seaport Blvd, Skanska spec office, Under Construction
L3-L6: "Harbor Way", TBD
M1-M2: Cottonwood Development mixed use, Under Construction
N: TBD
P: TBD
Q: Q park, Complete
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top