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.
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.
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.
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.
You mean Fallon, not Hynes. Hynes has never had an interest in Fan Pier, only Seaport Square.Later the Pritzkers sold the rest of Fan Pier real estate and permits to Hynes -- there might have been an intermediate step
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.
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.
...and also "Tip" of the eponymous tunnel and Moshe Safdie-designed Federal Building.
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).