Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)

[FenwayResident]

The Boston Globe article quotes multiple black people saying "I don't feel welcome there." referring to the Seaport. I don't remember if it was in the article or a comment on it, but one black person said he was at a social event there, dressed very nicely, and was mistaken as a valet, and it wasn't the first time this has happened. So clearly, something is off with the Seaport (as it is with other parts of Boston as well....)

That specific situation sucks, and the guy who mistook him for a valet is an ass, but I could honestly see that happening anywhere in the country. It's not a Seaport specific problem. Nor is it an issue that could be fixed with any sort of public process or government involvement.

 

[FK4]

Yes, BRA is bad.

However, I think you're underestimating the percentage of Black people in Boston.

For reference:

Percent Black:
Atlanta: 51.4%
DC: 47.7%
Philadelphia: 42.8%
Chicago: 32.9%
NYC: 25.5%
Boston: 24.7%
Minneapolis: 18.6%
Denver: 10.2%
Seattle: 7.9%
San Francisco: 6.1%

I found is amusing that your list of cities was actually in the correct order! (I added Chicago and NYC)

So the fact that a bar in the financial district might be as racially mixed as one in SF, Seattle, or Denver, absolutely points to an issue.

I've never been to Chicago, but I understand they have a huge geographic racial segregation issue.

Boston is as Black as NYC. And yet before seeing these numbers, I would have guessed NYC was 15%+ more Black because in my experience, it's certainly more mixed within the downtown areas.

I havent had time to read the Globe's articles this week and am going to read them all this weekend. Jass, since you posted demographics, I want to point out something that else that's always lost in any public discussion about Boston and race: Boston may be a quarter black, but the towns and cities that surround it are overwhelmingly white. Before people pile on about the multiethnic communities all over the state, chill and realize that they're still in the minority and with very few exceptions, there aren't a lot of majority-black neighborhoods anywhere in Mass. Boston is bordered by Quincy, Milton, Brookline, Newton, Cambridge, Everett, and Chelsea. The last two have a sizeable Hispanic population and the rest are as white as it gets (and please, don't tell me about N Quincy or how Cambridge is diverse (it used to be, before it got yuppified, not now!)). This separates Boston from many of the cities on the list quoted above - leave the city proper and youre in a sea of white. Mass as a whole is an extremely white state, despite all the self-congratulatory talk about diversity... we've got some sizeable nonwhite communities scattered across the state, but very few majority-black neighborhoods. Very, very few. I have heard this remarked on time and again by many people visiting here for the first time. I think the Boston issues are important to examine in a metropolitan, state and regional context, especially since Boston itself is so tiny relative to the dense immediate suburbs. Saying "Boston is as black as NYC" completely ignores the huge differences with the racial and cultural makeup of northern New Jersey, Philly, and the entire urban belt stretching down to DC... which is extremly different than metro Boston... The comparison to NY would make more sense if NY were only surrounded by Westchester and CT.

 

[commuter guy]

Fk4, see posts #2910 and 2915 on the previous page of this thread and you will find the demographic information for Boston metro area rather than just city limits.

 

[Rover]

I don't understand this line of thinking. It's one thing to debate public planning, zoning and amenities (which I agree should be inclusive of the entire community). However it's another thing entirely to tell private property owners what types of restaurants they can open or what sorts of stores they can run. How would this even work? Would there be different zoning classes such as "Retail - Black" or "Housing - Asian"?

Agree completely and its something jass and cden have yet to answer. Instead I got some blah blah blah about "involving blacks in the planning of the neighborhood". Lets say you did that, and I will point out there were/are blacks on the city council who have a voice on this as well as a black state senator representing South Boston which also hasn't gotten mentioned yet either. What does that change? What black focused amenities could have possibly gone in there, aside from the aforementioned basketball court which already exists, that would not be subject to market forces? Do you mandate black centric business? And if so, do you then need to mandate the same for all the other races/ethnicities that aren't white? Who pays for this? What happens if they fail due to lack of customer support or mismanagement?

 

[HenryAlan]

Don't look for rationality or common sense when it comes to the racial third rail, it's all about feelings. So much pearl clutching and fainting couch drama from virtue signaling SJWs applying kumbaya idealism to complex real world situations. The only government enforced obligation should be equal opportunity for all, not guaranteed outcomes.

So that bolded sentence is almost a perfect caricature of somebody who refuses to even try to understand the argument being made. At any rate, most of the people you are railing against would agree with your last sentence. The question is what do we mean when we say equal opportunity for all, because what might appear to meet the test for you, might in fact not meet it for all. The basketball/tennis court side discussion is an interesting example of the concept. You can disagree whether it's in play, but it should be easy enough to understand how what may appear equal to all, is not. We all have equal access to the tennis courts, hooray! Well, what about the 90% of the population that doesn't play tennis?

 

[jass]

I havent had time to read the Globe's articles this week and am going to read them all this weekend. Jass, since you posted demographics, I want to point out something that else that's always lost in any public discussion about Boston and race: Boston may be a quarter black, but the towns and cities that surround it are overwhelmingly white.

This is a fair point, and I agree.

However, this is also true of the other municipalities mentioned (Seattle, SF etc). So the point still stands, that if the average downtown bar in Boston is as white as the average downtown bar in SF, that most likely points to an issue.

I don't understand this line of thinking. It's one thing to debate public planning, zoning and amenities (which I agree should be inclusive of the entire community). However it's another thing entirely to tell private property owners what types of restaurants they can open or what sorts of stores they can run. How would this even work? Would there be different zoning classes such as "Retail - Black" or "Housing - Asian"?

Strawman, nobody is demanding this.

That's perfectly fine that you don't understand what needs to be different to make the area feel more inclusive.

The best way to find out what the issue is and what the solutions could be is to talk the black community. The whole point of the article is that the community wasn't included, so that perspective was never raised.

Here's me spitballing:

One solution could be "affordable housing" for retail. Commercial rents are very high in the area, which resulted in homogeneous national chains (aka, 7 steakhouses) opening up shop. Because of the US issues with income and race, expensive rent = expensive chains = aimed at whites.

Perhaps designating 5,000sqft for locally owned minority businesses could be one way to address part of the problem?

 

[FenwayResident]

So that bolded sentence is almost a perfect caricature of somebody who refuses to even try to understand the argument being made. At any rate, most of the people you are railing against would agree with your last sentence. The question is what do we mean when we say equal opportunity for all, because what might appear to meet the test for you, might in fact not meet it for all. The basketball/tennis court side discussion is an interesting example of the concept. You can disagree whether it's in play, but it should be easy enough to understand how what may appear equal to all, is not. We all have equal access to the tennis courts, hooray! Well, what about the 90% of the population that doesn't play tennis?

I'll bite on this, despite the fact that we've shown there are more basketball courts than tennis courts in the Seaport and that entire argument is moot.

If a neighborhood is majority wealthy white people (as is the Seaport), why shouldn't it cater towards wealthy white people? If the majority of residents of a neighborhood want to play tennis instead basketball then I would expect there to be more tennis courts than basketball courts.

Of course, if a neighborhood is something like 55% white and 45% black and we see 100% tennis courts instead of basketball, then there's a problem. But according to the Boston Globe the Seaport is 3% black and 90% white with a median income of $133,000 - so shouldn't the majority of its retail and amenities appeal to that demographic?

 

[FenwayResident]

Strawman, nobody is demanding this.

The poster I quoted literally said that restaurants should be forced to cater to certain demographics. Read it again.

That's perfectly fine that you don't understand what needs to be different to make the area feel more inclusive.

The best way to find out what the issue is and what the solutions could be is to talk the black community. The whole point of the article is that the community wasn't included, so that perspective was never raised.

I've asked numerous times for specifics in good faith and I've received no answers besides your post about basketball courts (which has been disproven), and one anecdote about someone being mistaken for a valet.

Here's me spitballing:


One solution could be "affordable housing" for retail. Commercial rents are very high in the area, which resulted in homogeneous national chains (aka, 7 steakhouses) opening up shop. Because of the US issues with income and race, expensive rent = expensive chains = aimed at whites.

Perhaps designating 5,000sqft for locally owned minority businesses could be one way to address part of the problem?

I think this is a good idea in general (not just for the Seaport). We need more local retail and this is one way to support that. Why not open this "affordable retail" up to any local small business owner without a lot of money? Why does it have to be tied to race?

 

[Rover]

The best way to find out what the issue is and what the solutions could be is to talk the black community. The whole point of the article is that the community wasn't included, so that perspective was never raised.

Here's me spitballing:

One solution could be "affordable housing" for retail. Commercial rents are very high in the area, which resulted in homogeneous national chains (aka, 7 steakhouses) opening up shop. Because of the US issues with income and race, expensive rent = expensive chains = aimed at whites.

Perhaps designating 5,000sqft for locally owned minority businesses could be one way to address part of the problem?

First things first, have you ever heard of this lady: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Dorcena_Forry

See jass, I'm going to break something to you. Sometimes a newspaper with a pre-conceived narrative doesn't give you the full story. Sen. Forry is 1) black, 2) represents the neighborhood in question and 3) has been in office for the last 4 1/2 years as a state senator. Are you trying to tell me nobody included her in any discussions, or she didn't include herself, at any time over what's going on in her district? That.Makes.No.Sense.

Your spitballing is unworkable. Who pays for subsidizing the businesses? Taxpayers? Developers? What happens if a business goes under? Do we keep using $$$ to prop it up? Do you ever stop to think that the businesses in the city currently being patronized by black customers are going to be furious that their competitors a few miles away are able to reap subsidies while they have to make it on their own?

EDIT - Fenway has a better idea about subsidizing local business (presumably through a lower tax rate or rebate?) not on the basis of race but on being a local business.

 

[elemenoh]

One solution could be "affordable housing" for retail. Commercial rents are very high in the area, which resulted in homogeneous national chains (aka, 7 steakhouses) opening up shop. Because of the US issues with income and race, expensive rent = expensive chains = aimed at whites.

Perhaps designating 5,000sqft for locally owned minority businesses could be one way to address part of the problem?

There is a new "retail incubator" space in the Seaport, but it looks more like a curated pop-up shop than an actual small business development program to open local stores:
https://www.itsfornow.com/our-store/

 

[jass]

I'll bite on this, despite the fact that we've shown there are more basketball courts than tennis courts in the Seaport and that entire argument is moot.

You have failed to grasp the entire point.

Lets go back:

Imagine you are developing a public park that has 6 tennis courts and 0 basketball courts (ahem, northeastern).

That's racist.

We don't know if it's the result of "we dont want something that will encourage black people to come here" racism, or "everybody at the office plays tennis lets do that" racism, but the end result is a clear message to the community that what they would like was never considered.

Speaking of which, how many basketball courts are in the seaport district?

Which was in response to:

I've never seen anything that appears like racism (to me)

And a bunch of similar arguments.

Tennis vs basketball is an example of something we see every day that at face does not appear to have any relationship to race. However, once you pay attention to what's going on behind the scenes, it becomes a lot more clear.


Pointing out that the seaport has 0 tennis courts and 1/3 of a basketball court doesn't in any way "debunk" the point.

It just highlights that the brand new neighborhood has garbage recreational options (for everybody).

Oh wait, isn't there a plan to build a kayak launch? Another great example of a public amenity that is aimed at the 1%. Who the fuck owns a kayak in Boston?

Might as well build some new polo grounds while you're at it.

 

[falcon42]

This is a fair point, and I agree.

However, this is also true of the other municipalities mentioned (Seattle, SF etc). So the point still stands, that if the average downtown bar in Boston is as white as the average downtown bar in SF, that most likely points to an issue.



Strawman, nobody is demanding this.

That's perfectly fine that you don't understand what needs to be different to make the area feel more inclusive.

The best way to find out what the issue is and what the solutions could be is to talk the black community. The whole point of the article is that the community wasn't included, so that perspective was never raised.

Here's me spitballing:

One solution could be "affordable housing" for retail. Commercial rents are very high in the area, which resulted in homogeneous national chains (aka, 7 steakhouses) opening up shop. Because of the US issues with income and race, expensive rent = expensive chains = aimed at whites.

Perhaps designating 5,000sqft for locally owned minority businesses could be one way to address part of the problem?

I don't believe developers should have to set aside 5k SF to cater for reduced rents. Its a free market. If the product is good, people will come and they will afford the rent. Case in point, the new Farm to Table opening at Pier 4. Locally owned from Concord. Flour Bakery. Craft Beer Cellar. Hopsters. Better Bagels. Sorelle. Gather. Frank Anthonys etc. There are plenty of non chain locally owned businesses in Seaport that can afford the rent. Sure some area should be set aside for cultural/civic, but suggesting the landlords offer discounted rents, which then trickles down to their employees, investors and shareholders doesn't sit well with me.

 

[bigpicture7]

People, let me ask you to try something that is extraordinarily simple and costs you nothing.
1) take a deep breath
2) say: "we could have done better"

...Why not open this "affordable retail" up to any local small business owner without a lot of money? Why does it have to be tied to race?

Umm, how about the simple gesture of being sure the opportunity was marketed to the black community? That gesture in and of itself would mark a huge stride toward quelling the sorts of feelings that fueled these Globe pieces.

I'll go back to something I said umpteen pages back in this thread: great leadership unites.
And yes, we could have done better up to now.

 

[jass]

Incidentally...

Inner Harbor Ferry Could Connect Lovejoy Wharf, Eastie, Charlestown, Long Wharf, Fan Pier and More

https://northendwaterfront.com/2017...wharf-eastie-charlestown-long-wharf-fan-pier/

Now, personally, I love ferries.

But let's think about this in terms of equity.

Ferries require a very high subsidy (as does commuter rail). Much, much higher than subways or buses.

The proposed ferry would connect North Station (commuter rail hub) with the Seaport.

At face value, adding a new transportation option is a win for everybody right?

More mass transit, yay! Who could be against this? Traffic is an issue, this is a solution!

Well, transit funds are limited.

So why would you spend the limited funds to carry 400 people on a fancy ferry, when the same funding could probably move 4,000 people around in buses in a different part of town that also has crushing transportation needs?

Ask yourself, what demographic of people are riding the commuter rail from Winchester to North Station and transferring to a ferry going to the seaport?

 

[FenwayResident]

I don't believe developers should have to set aside 5k SF to cater for reduced rents. Its a free market. If the product is good, people will come and they will afford the rent. Case in point, the new Farm to Table opening at Pier 4. Locally owned from Concord. Flour Bakery. Craft Beer Cellar. Hopsters. Better Bagels. Sorelle. Gather. Frank Anthonys etc. There are plenty of non chain locally owned businesses in Seaport that can afford the rent. Sure some area should be set aside for cultural/civic, but suggesting the landlords offer discounted rents, which then trickles down to their employees, investors and shareholders doesn't sit well with me.

I think something like a tax incentive to build "affordable retail" in new developments could work. Similar to the existing Low Income Housing Tax Credit. Still let the free market decide what goes where, but give some incentive for cheaper/more affordable retail.

One of my favorite things about NYC is that no matter where you are, there's a cheap slice waiting for you within a few blocks. It would be nice if Boston could have that too.

 

[HenryAlan]

I'll bite on this, despite the fact that we've shown there are more basketball courts than tennis courts in the Seaport and that entire argument is moot.

It's moot only if you take it literally, rather than as an illustration.

If a neighborhood is majority wealthy white people (as is the Seaport), why shouldn't it cater towards wealthy white people? If the majority of residents of a neighborhood want to play tennis instead basketball then I would expect there to be more tennis courts than basketball courts.

Here you are ignoring the topic, which is an exploration of why the neighborhood is majority wealthy white people.

Of course, if a neighborhood is something like 55% white and 45% black and we see 100% tennis courts instead of basketball, then there's a problem. But according to the Boston Globe the Seaport is 3% black and 90% white with a median income of $133,000 - so shouldn't the majority of its retail and amenities appeal to that demographic?

And here we just need an emoticon for a guy banging his head against a brick wall. That's entirely the point -- the neighborhood was designed to be 90% white with a median income of $133,000. That's not equal opportunity, not by a long shot.

 

[jass]

And to toss in something else related to the ferry proposal....

So Elon Musk the other day said this when talking about mass transit:

Jarret Walker, a noted transit expert, replied to him with this article:

Elite projection is the belief, among relatively fortunate and influential people, that what those people find convenient or attractive is good for the society as a whole. Once you learn to recognize this simple mistake, you see it everywhere. It is perhaps the single most comprehensive barrier to prosperous, just, and liberating cities.

http://humantransit.org/2017/07/the-dangers-of-elite-projection.html


Elon responded by calling him an idiot.


So what does this have to do with anything?

When everybody in the decision room looks the same, they're going to come up with ideas that to them seem fantastic but accidentally may exclude a bunch of other people.

So if everybody in the room lives in an upper class suburban town and commuters to the seaport, then having a new ferry seems like the best damn idea on earth.

Do these decision makers hate black people on Roxbury?

Probably not. They just don't think about that community because they never go there and don't know anyone who does. Why do you need an express bus from Mattapan to seaport, nobody needs to make that trip!


So this circles around to a point that has been made a few times:

The biggest failure in planning the seaport was not having a design and planning team that was inclusive and diverse.

Thats why we have a bunch of boring buildings selling $70 steaks fronting a patch of grass with a "no fun" sign.

 

[Equilibria]

And here we just need an emoticon for a guy banging his head against a brick wall. That's entirely the point -- the neighborhood was designed to be 90% white with a median income of $133,000. That's not equal opportunity, not by a long shot.

I think that the bigger picture is that development in the US right now (not only in Boston) has no concept of building housing for medium incomes. You're either building high-rent ($2,000 and up for 1-bed) or low-income/public housing, with nothing in between. What medium-income housing there is is all out in suburban subdivisions.

That creates a problem for Black families who are still trying to start building cross-generational wealth (and who might prefer to live in historically-Black neighborhoods rather than near I-495). All of these new neighborhoods are too rich for them to buy into, but the only other way to get in is to be poor enough to meet the income ceiling.

That's not a problem that's going to solve itself, either. Walsh has done a good job restarting development in his first term and committing to housing. Now, he has to commit to housing affordability. What does it take to encourage/force developers to build 1-bedroom apartments for $1,000-$1,500 per month around here? Is it really prohibitive in terms of development costs, or is that BS when every development "needs" a pool, fitness center, party space, and a marble lobby?

 

[jass]

And here we just need an emoticon for a guy banging his head against a brick wall. That's entirely the point -- the neighborhood was designed to be 90% white with a median income of $133,000. That's not equal opportunity, not by a long shot.

Exactly!

We had a blank slate. An opportunity of a lifetime to craft a modern neighborhood.

And not just any neighborhood, one in an extremely prime location. Walking distance from south station. Direct access to airport. Beautiful harbor views. Highway access. Freight line access. Direct access to container terminal and cruise port.

Developers werent doing us a favor by building here. This wasnt a superfund site in Worcester.

Yes, you could have probably demanded that 50% of the space be set aside for affordable housing or affordable retail or parks or whatever.... and the same developers would have built it up because it would have still been insanely profitable.

Instead we got a neighborhood that reflects only the desires of the 20 (mostly wealthy, white, males) in the room who called the shots.

 

[TheRifleman]

Bottom Line----The Seaport developments are not based on Racism--
The Boston Globe should be ashamed for this stupidity.

The Seaport Developments are BASED ON MONEY----
Now that being said.

Income Inequality is the driving force of classism going on. Which is based on these factors. Govt rules and regulations are picking the winners in so called free capitalistic market.
*Interest rates pinned at zero percent for a decade which is causing inflation*
*Tax incentives and breaks to certain groups but not others. That's basically stealing
*Bailouts to groups that should have failed but the taxpayers continue to fund these losers so they can finally be successful at the cost of the honest hardworking citizen.
Bad tax deals for the working class only suppresses them and creates an unbalanced society.
GE--Should have not gotten a tax incentive for the area
Vertex- Taxbreak which only lowered development costs for the Developer Joe Fallon.
Liberty Mutual
Giving Tax incentives to these groups only drives the middle class and poor out of the region because they begin to get priced out.
I have been going down to the Seaport from the beginning. There are all types of cultures and most of the people that dine in the area are TOP OF TIER from all over the world. ITS ALL ABOUT MONEY THATS IT.

The SEAPORT IS GEARED FOR THE rich and the SUPER RICH. Black, White, Asian, Blue, Green. MONEY TALKS The area is the WHO'S WHO who relocated in the city of Boston. The area is not even geared towards bringing up a family.

This is what I see going on in the SEAPORT which I have always said.
I have partied with all types of people/cultures. (the area is just a bunch of Rich people that have great jobs or come from family wealth)

Don't blame the wealthy white males. Try blaming the BRA, and your so called leaders the Democrats on the way they built up the area with all their corporate tax breaks.