Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)

shockingboston said:
Why are the residential buildings scattered throughout?
Click to expand...

The simple answer is that there is no intention at City Hall to impose that level of planning on the project, where residential parcels are actually identified with a larger purpose in mind.

The Seaport Square rendering on John's site shows approximate massing. Nothing is firm in terms of which building will be residential, office, hotel or otherwise.

Any vacant parcel indicated as office can be changed from office to residential or vice-versa with the filing of a Notice of Project Change and a 30-day delay for approval.

Large development projects, although subject to years and years of "master planning" and approvals, are entirely market-driven. There is no zoning imposed that can't be changed, no land use that can be morphed into something else.
 
shockingboston said:
Why are the residential buildings scattered throughout?

Wouldn’t it be better, if they dedicated one block or general connected area to residential? I would like to believe this would create more of a community feel and attract more long term residents. With the buildings being scattered, I think this layout would attract more seasonal renters, people looking for vacations homes or 2nd homes.

Long term residents would frequent the shops and retail in the area more often. A community would bring a lasting character to the area (i.e. community events, more people with a vested interest in the area, etc.)
Click to expand...

Shock -- the dirty truth of luxury housing is that the owners typically own several in various places around the country or around the planet -- the houses, apartments, country estates, ski lodges, beach cottages are in effect just "pied a terres" -- nothing more than privately owned hotel rooms -- available when you are in Boston or the Cape or Shanghai

In fact the U.S. Census Bureau has a problem because its hard to decide where someone in that financial demographic actually has their principle domicile -- this issue came-up in a small way during the 2010 election for Auditor -- the candidate listed her principal domicile to be in two different parts of Massachusetts on two different documents
 
That's a pretty small group, it can't be a statistically relevant problem for the census.
 
TheRifleman said:
Originally Posted by shmessy
1) Evidently, you're one of the few who've missed the public campaign Warren Buffet has waged the past several months regarding his personal taxes. He has made his secretary into a folk hero.

2) What's wrong with making money in a capitalist society? If one is successful and builds things through business that SHOULD be rewarded.

McCourt, however, delays and FAILS, leaves others with a mess to clean up and PROFITS through lawsuits and bankruptcies. He has proven to be the antithesis of progess and development.

Not MY hero.

----------------------

The entire planning for Seaport has been a debacle. How could any developer get anything done in this city? The City does not make it easy to build especially when you’re able to continue to flip properties and make 15 or 30% without taking risk over 5-10 year span. It’s tough to justify Long-term investing and building in area with so much open space without some type of incentives from society.

-------------------

Quote:
Buffett is full of hot air. If he is so adamant about paying more taxes then why does he spend millions of Berkshire Hathway dollars to avoid paying more taxes?
I am all for Capitalism.......The problem is its over. We are heading for Fascism possibly totalitarianism. Bailouts and Stimulus money will continue to keep the Super Rich Elite in power and the Politicians will be there puppets controlling who gets the money and who doesn’t through policies & regulations. We are not in Capitalism anymore. With Interest rates at 0% they have destroyed the value of buying power for the average worker. So the question now is what is everything worth without price stability.

---------------------------------




Let’s keep this stuff off this board. If you want to reply to the Buffet crap…… move it to the General Thread Open topic. If not who cares.
Click to expand...

The second quote, to which you replied in bold, is not mine.

You made it look like both quotes were mine. I would appreciate it if you were more careful with your attributions.
 
Is there any plan to 'maintain' the Northern Ave Bridge? It's looking pretty sad.

37055.jpeg
 
A timeline as best I can do it...

The City of Boston was to demolish the bridge once the Evelyn Moakley Bridge was completed. That was in the legislation for the bridge.

In early 1999, opposed by Congressman Moakley, the City of Boston issued an RFP to find a developer willing to propose a commercial project on the bridge that would help pay for its rehabilitation.

A half-dozen proposals came forward including ones (as I recall) them: Beal Company (glass market), Forest City Enterprises (galleria mall on bridge) and Architectural Heritage Foundation (glass museum).

The BRA awarded the project to Forest City Enterprises. That particular proposal was roundly slammed for its crassness, memorably by a Boston Globe Editorial. But, in fairness, it may have also been seen as the most economically viable at the time.

In late 1999, the Boston Landmarks Commission voted unanimously to designate the bridge as a Boston Landmark. Something was afoot, and demolition entered conversations once again.

Within a month after BLC designation as a Landmark, in January 2000 Mayor Menino vetoed the BLC designation and Forest City Enterprises withdrew its awarded bid to redevelop the bridge. If I were to guess, I'd say this reversal by the City of Boston might have been due to some pressure by Congressman Moakley. Not sure.

Congressman Joe Moakley passed away on May 28, 2001.

No action between 2000-2003. What we heard was that there were no funds available to demolish the bridge.

Around 2003, in part due to A) advocacy by preservation community, B) lack of demolition funds and C) support for continued use as a pedestrian overpass by some high-ranking folks at the Federal Courthouse, the City of Boston announced it would support continued use of the bridge as a pedestrian overpass. Some funds were budgeted for some stabilization.

Since 2003, I don't think substantial funds have been allocated to upgrade or maintain the bridge beyond current level of stabilization, and operability by boaters on call.

As for the tender house, about 5 years ago the front either caught fire or fell into the pilings, so that portion was removed and the remaining section was stabilized.

In 2010, the BRA posted a document online titled, "Bridge Restoration Project Announcement – November 14, 2008" including a conceptual rendering of a possible bridge redevelopment. (I don't have any recollection or record of ANY such announcement being made publicly in 2008 or thereafter for a public or private plan.)

Through 2012, Fort Point bridges have been targeted to receive public funds and private payments by Fort Point and Seaport property owners. Atlantic Wharf (Boston Properties) was required to pay $2m toward capital improvements and programming, including the dock and $500,000 for rehabilitation and maintenance of historic lights on the Congress Street Bridge.

But, as far as I can tell, the Old Northern Avenue Bridge or tender house is not being identified as a target of funds now coming online for Fort Point capital improvements. So I'd suggest the fate of the bridge remains unknown.

EDIT: Added the date of Congressman Moakley's passing.
EDIT: Added the 2010 BRA entry, thanks to a post by DirtyWater
EDIT: Added 2012 Update
 
Last edited:
For the love of nancy, just tighten the bolts and throw some christmas lights on the thing...
 
Tear down/out the old tender house and the pilings in the channel. Those make the bridge look derelict.
 
Just a random tidbit of history;

I didn't know about it until about a month ago, but the Union Freight Railroad (the one that ran in the streets from South Station to North Station) used this bridge, but primarily in it's final years -- the connection at South Station had been severed, requiring all thru trains down the Union Freight to be via Southie Seaport only.
 
Might also add to the chronology that Cong. Moakley died in 2001.
 
Sicilian said:
A timeline as best I can do it...

The City of Boston was to demolish the bridge once the Evelyn Moakley Bridge was completed. That was in the legislation for the bridge.

In early 1999, opposed by Congressman Moakley, the City of Boston issued an RFP to find a developer willing to propose a commercial project on the bridge that would help pay for its rehabilitation.

A half-dozen proposals came forward including ones (as I recall) them: Beal Company (glass market), Forest City Enterprises (galleria mall on bridge) and Architectural Heritage Foundation (glass museum).

The BRA awarded the project to Forest City Enterprises. That particular proposal was roundly slammed for its crassness, memorably by a Boston Globe Editorial. But, in fairness, it may have also been seen as the most economically viable at the time.

In late 1999, the Boston Landmarks Commission voted unanimously to designate the bridge as a Boston Landmark. Something was afoot, and demolition entered conversations once again.

Within a month after BLC designation as a Landmark, Mayor Menino vetoed the BLC designation and Forest City Enterprises withdrew its awarded bid to redevelop the bridge. If I were to guess, I'd say this reversal by the City of Boston might have been due to some pressure by Congressman Moakley. Not sure.

No action between 2000-2003. What we heard was that there were no funds available to demolish the bridge.

Around 2003, in part due to A) advocacy by preservation community, B) lack of demolition funds and C) support for continued use as a pedestrian overpass by some high-ranking folks at the Federal Courthouse, the City of Boston announced it would support continued use of the bridge as a pedestrian overpass. Some funds were budgeted for some stabilization.

Since 2003, I don't think substantial funds have been allocated to upgrade or maintain the bridge beyond current level of stabilization, and operability by boaters on call.

As for the tender house, about 5 years ago the front either caught fire or fell into the pilings, so that portion was removed and the remaining section was stabilized.
Click to expand...

Sicil -- you might point out that most of the project proposals involved the bridge being permanently in the open position -- that necessitated a complex and expensive structural frame and support pilings in the entrance to the channel as the original design didn't have any load on the bridge when open

I always thought that a simpler solution would be to jack up the bridge by a few feet (need some ramps for ADA) and leave it closed with the same clearance as under the Moakley -- part of it could function as a pedestrian bridge with the rest used for open but glass roof gallery of tourist shops in the summer
 
IAM thinkin SCABY SCABY McKourT man mAKIN these BRIgdits fallin apart mItt Der RUSTLINGS like DoDger peeples!!!!
 
The Northern Avenue Bridge Restoration Project is still listed as a Planning Initiative on the BRA's website here. This page was supposedly last updated on January 22, 2010. There is a link on this page to an interesting proposal from November 14, 2008,which you can go to here.
 
As great as that looks, I'd guess it is a conceptual drawing commissioned by the BRA, not a proposal.

I think if there were a call for proposals, there would have been more knowledge of it, and also a timeline.

My understanding is there is little money for the bridge, and no active RFP's.
 
You are undoubtedly right. That is why it is listed as a Planning Initiative by the BRA - and not a very active one judging by the dearth of information on the webpage and lack of any public discussion regarding the Bridge in quite some time.
 
I always thought the city should have leased the right to operate a restaurant where the tender house (since the footprint is grandfathered into the harbor). A high end chain (e.g., Chart House) out on the end of a narrow gangway would make a killing with tourists.
 
^AFL

Your idea is not far afield of the proposals submitted in response to the BRA's 1999 RFP. Some proposed restaurants in the middle of the Channel, although not exactly a rehab of the tender house.

Strangely, the 5 or 6 developers that took the time to put together serious proposals for redevelopment of the bridge remained completely quiet when Forest City Enterprises withdrew only months after being awarded the project.
 
Old Sleeper Street, now the Barking Crab’s parking area, would become a pedestrian plaza connecting the Harborwalk. The eatery would share loading and waste facilities with the hotel.
Click to expand...

Not sure whether we should welcome this as pedestrianization or fear it as superblockization. Probably the latter given the nature of this area and its already massive blocks...
 
is the building design going to be the same as the previous plan for the site? that was an awesome design.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top