Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)

czsz said:
The problem with that logic is that pretty much anywhere convenient for government services will also have high land values. Sure, we could stick them all somewhere shitty to save taxpayer money, but it's going to suck for those that have to use them. And remember -- those that have to use government offices and courthouses, etc., include businesses (ask any litigation-heavy law firm about proximity to a courthouse). The land around the courthouse would inevitably become valuable anyway, and removing a courthouse to a remote location would be a drag on legal services and the local economy as a whole.

That said, did it need to be on the waterfront as opposed to a few blocks inland? No. It was put there to please powerful judges who wanted a pretty water view.
Click to expand...

The history of development will not be kind to the Seaport District.
 
Let's remember that this is the where the US First Circuit Court of Appeals sits, not just a state district or superior court.
 
The ground floor also hosts functions and exhibitions.
 
7196985894_fedeed968e_b.jpg


7196988070_1b5eb764c8_b.jpg


For those who want to see ^ bigger, here's the fullsize image.
 
czsz said:
The problem with that logic is that pretty much anywhere convenient for government services will also have high land values. Sure, we could stick them all somewhere shitty to save taxpayer money, but it's going to suck for those that have to use them. And remember -- those that have to use government offices and courthouses, etc., include businesses (ask any litigation-heavy law firm about proximity to a courthouse). The land around the courthouse would inevitably become valuable anyway, and removing a courthouse to a remote location would be a drag on legal services and the local economy as a whole.

That said, did it need to be on the waterfront as opposed to a few blocks inland? No. It was put there to please powerful judges who wanted a pretty water view.
Click to expand...



No -- read the history


Anthony Athanas of Anthony's Pier 4 started buying cheap derelict waterfront property back in the 1960's. By the 1980's was getting old and trying to convert some of his land into money for his family. He cut a deal with the Pritzker family of Chicago - the creators of the Hyatt Regency chain.

But Anthanas didn't like the deal a few years later when Fidelity started getting interested in redeveloping Commonwealth Pier -- Anthony wanted more so he renegged on some detail. Pritzkers sued and Anthony lost. Keep him from having to sell the Pier 4 to pay his judgement -- he pulled a political string.

Remember that at that time -- all of the politicians trying to impress their campaign donors and collect the cash had events called in Boston parlance a "Time" and they were nearly alway held at Pier 4. So Anthony called on his heavy weight political friends to bale him out -- the Federal Court wanted out of the Old Macormack Building in P.O. Sq. -- Fed's took the Fan Pier site for the new Federal Courthouse by eminent domain Anthony got enough to pay the Pritzkers and save his legacy with Pier 4.

The Chief Judge -- a ameteur architect -- chose Henry Cobb and the rest as they say is Histoire

Later the Pritzkers sold the rest of Fan Pier real estate and permits to Hynes -- there might have been an intermediate step
 
TheRifleman said:
Why was the Courthouse built in that location? That property is priceless and so much more valuable to the private sector. Who in their right mind would OK putting a public sector courthouse on the water.

Its like the public housing in E.Boston. They have the best view of the city. That land alone is worth a ton.
Click to expand...

Civic society is the state religion. Courthouses should be seen as the cathedrals of that religion. I'm okay with giving it a spectacular location. Also, the meeting and event space is available, for free, to non-profits and other groups.
 
Moakley arranged the court house location for his good buddy Athanas. Athanas also got he state to pass a law that a hotel could never be built at the end of Commonwealth pier. Wonder how the government explains that as being in the public interest?

On the same topic why does Moakley's wife get to have a bridge named after her?
 
Last edited:
HenryAlan said:
Civic society is the state religion. Courthouses should be seen as the cathedrals of that religion. I'm okay with giving it a spectacular location. Also, the meeting and event space is available, for free, to non-profits and other groups.
Click to expand...

This.

It's the same reason we afford prominent real estate to Town/City Halls, State Houses, etc. These are places of civic discourse, upon which many would say our society is based, and represent the three branches of government that we espouse as being critical to our form of democracy. We have a long history of placing these major ideological, symbolic, essential institutions in prominent places, even if they don't always live up to our expectations.
 
whighlander said:
Later the Pritzkers sold the rest of Fan Pier real estate and permits to Hynes -- there might have been an intermediate step
Click to expand...
You mean Fallon, not Hynes. Hynes has never had an interest in Fan Pier, only Seaport Square.
 
Dirtywater is correct. And Fallon got the land from the Pritzkers when they had a family blowout and needed to get liquid fast.
IIRC one of the grandchildren sued saying her inheritance trust was being mismanaged by someone in the preceding generation. She sued, won control of her trust and in order to pay her (and other grandchildren) off the Pritzkers had to sell a bunch real estate holdings.

EDIT: There's an interesting HBS case on the feud between Anthony and the Pritzkers that I read when I was in grad school. I don't remember all the particulars except that Anthony came across as greedy and repeatedly going back on his agreements.
 
AmericanFolkLegend said:
Dirtywater is correct. And Fallon got the land from the Pritzkers when they had a family blowout and needed to get liquid fast.
IIRC one of the grandchildren sued saying her inheritance trust was being mismanaged by someone in the preceding generation. She sued, won control of her trust and in order to pay her (and other grandchildren) off the Pritzkers had to sell a bunch real estate holdings.

EDIT: There's an interesting HBS case on the feud between Anthony and the Pritzkers that I read when I was in grad school. I don't remember all the particulars except that Anthony came across as greedy and repeatedly going back on his agreements.
Click to expand...

AMF -- Thanks to all for filling in many of the sordid and typically Boston details

Yes it was Fallon, not Hynes and yes there was some Pritzker internal squabble on top of the Anthony - Pritzker main event

Anthony was a greedy old man who thought he'd made a good deal on a lot of land -- but then suddenly discovered that like the surprise find on "Antiques Roadshow" that it was worth a lot more -- but he'd already signed -- so he tried wiggle-out and renegotiate and got caught. Then suddenly in 1990 he was in danger of losing everything he'd spent decades accumulating. In Boston if you are connected -- the threat of a judgement is just a minor impediment.

Yes it was Joe Moakley who saved Anthony -- Joe was at that time Chair of the House Rules Committee -- aka the power behind the Speaker's throne -- aka the the "Throne of Tip") who of course only got to be in that illustrius position because he was a "coat holder" for the earlier legendary Congressman (43 years) Speaker (9 years) John William McCormack (of the epoymous Federal Courthouse and Post Office in P.O. Square) and also "Tip" of the eponymous tunnel and Moshe Safdie-designed Federal Building.

Anyway all of the above "illustrius gentlemen" held their 'Times" at Anthony's who in due course helped arrange special favors for whoever, etc. Suffice it to say when Anthony came a calling -- pleading to save Pier 4 for his family -- Joe arranged for the Fed's to suddenly really need that one particular piece of land on Boston Harbor as a replacement for the McCormack CourtHouse and Post Office. The judges were told to act like princes to push the GSA into taking the land -- just enough to make good in cash and one of Anthony's restaurants with the Prizkers and leave the rest of the Fan Pier for the Pritzkers and eventually the ICA and now Vertex.

One however has to give Henry Cobb some cudos in the whole sordid affair -- the Harbor side of the Moakley CourtHouse building is very very fine -- both from inside looking out through that great freely suspeded curved glass curtainwall and outside looking at it -- particularly from Rowe's Wharf.

It was the first major project to be awarded as part of the United States Court Design Guidelines and incorporates General Services Administration's goals for imparting dignity and social significance, while creating modern and innovative justice architecture.

Public access to the courtrooms is provided through a sequence of spaces — Entrance Hall, Rotunda, Great Hall, and Galleries. Twenty-one large-scale paintings were commissioned to Ellsworth Kelly and are installed in these areas.
Click to expand...

MoakleyFederalCourthouseRear.JPG



Unfortunately -- nothing much should be said of the city-side except -- for those who think bricklaying is a lost art -- well stand there and count the acres of brick
 
The build-out of Fan Pier would have been so different in Anthony A. had just listened to the old adage......Pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered! And rightfully, Anthony Athanas got slaughtered! Lost practically everything...the millions he got from selling his land to the US government (thank you Congressman Moakley) to build the courthouse was used to pay off the Pritzer family! I do think if the Pritzers had had their way and built out Fan Pier, not only would it be finished by now...it would be much different...and nicer IMO! But, who knows!

I do hate that courthouse as much as I hate the Transportation Building in Park Square! Ugh, a massive fortress of bricks! The glass, on the glass side of the courthouse is bearable but it still reminds me of the glass wall of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City that was blown up by that white supremist, Timothy McVey!
 
Ever hear of the brick layers union? Guess what union supported Dukakis the year he planned the state transportation building, even the lintels are brick!
 
Seaport of the future: More gridlock?
Boston Business Journal by Thomas Grillo, Real Estate Editor
Date: Friday, June 1, 2012, 9:57am EDT

Critics question whether the city’s emerging new frontier can handle added vehicles that will come with more large-scale development in the Seaport.

Thomas Grillo
Real Estate Editor- Boston Business Journal
Think there’s gridlock driving out of Boston’s Seaport District at rush hour now? Wait until the 40 million square feet of mixed-use development in the pipeline gets built over the next two decades.

The vision of turning a sea of surface parking lots into a 24/7 neighborhood comes with a price. There are fears congestion in the district will be exacerbated by the influx of new visitors and workers who will pack the three bridges into the district as well as vehicles from Route 93 and the Massachusetts Turnpike.

Some observers question whether the city’s emerging new frontier, already bogged down with traffic tie ups at rush hour, can handle added vehicles that will come with more large-scale development.

Fred Salvucci, the former state transportation secretary who played a key role in the creation of the Big Dig, said without better public transportation, he envisions “ridiculous gridlock.”

For more on the future of Seaport’s traffic, read “Seaport squeeze: Fan Pier development fuels fears of transit mess” (premium content).
Click to expand...

GEE......This was probably the most important thing in Planning for the Seaport District? HELLO BRA, MBTA OFFICIALS, MASS HIGHWAY, MR. MAYOR?

The MBTA Grid & Road infrastructure which should have been the first situation resolved.
Lets just build everything without the proper foundation.

This article makes too much sense.

http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/real_estate/2012/06/seaport-of-the-future-more-gridlock.html
 
I'd hardly call exiting the waterfront at rush hour to be anything near "already gridlocked".

The traffic flow out of the area, particularly to 93 is not very heavy at all. It backs up, because 93 is already gridlocked, and the trickle out of Southie cannot merge into it.

This is why, even when I have my bike in town, I'll cut through Southie and pick up 93 at either Colbia circle or at Morrisey ( I do Columbia mostly so I can get across and into the HOV lane.)
 
Also, I believe that a cap is in place on the total number of parking spaces in South Boston. So I very much doubt that the car count in the future will be all that much more than now.
 
The point Thomas Grillo is making is without a proper foundation in place to support the future developments of 40 Million square feet over the next decade Boston should have had a plan in place to support a better traffic grid.

#1 I doubt we even get 15 Million square feet over the next decade built.
#2 He is right about Traffic (its the city their will always be traffic, but lets use some common sense.)

If the city planners are planning to develop 40 Million Square feet of development it would make sense that the MBTA has a plan for expansion to develop a very accessible way in & out of the city of Boston in that area. (Besides the Silverline Bus)

I think that is the point he is making in the article also I have stated this many times about these developments in this area, That a major transportation grid is nessary for the success in the Long-term.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top