Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)

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:
stellarfun said:
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.
Click to expand...

The one thing that makes the South Boston parking freeze a bit toothless is that you can build new parking if it's an accessory use to the property. So if you build a 500,000 SF office building you can say, "I need structured parking for 400 cars" or whatever the number is. Those parking spaces would be as of right.
 
AmericanFolkLegend said:
The one thing that makes the South Boston parking freeze a bit toothless is that you can build new parking if it's an accessory use to the property. So if you build a 500,000 SF office building you can say, "I need structured parking for 400 cars" or whatever the number is. Those parking spaces would be as of right.
Click to expand...

The cost for parking will be another reason for the volumns to stay down. It's about time someone is talking about this issue. Our pols and public agencies have ignored it from the beginning. "Planning, what planning?"
http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/bottom_line/2012/06/south-boston-seaport-parking.html
 
The first article says there will be gridlock because too many commuters will drive to the Seaport. The second article says nobody will be afford to drive to the Seaport. More likely there will be some kind of equilibrium where rich execs drive in and poor cubicle monkeys carpool or take the T or commuter rail. That's not such a bad thing in the long run (i.e., look at parking prices in parts of Europe and Asia, they blow away even Midtown NYC).
 
AmericanFolkLegend said:
The first article says there will be gridlock because too many commuters will drive to the Seaport. The second article says nobody will be afford to drive to the Seaport. More likely there will be some kind of equilibrium where rich execs drive in and poor cubicle monkeys carpool or take the T or commuter rail. That's not such a bad thing in the long run (i.e., look at parking prices in parts of Europe and Asia, they blow away even Midtown NYC).
Click to expand...

I think part of the point is that there aren't enough efficient options for that equilibrium to exist. The Silver Line is not mass transit. It's a 15mph bus in a tunnel. South Station is just out of easy walking range for most of the Seaport. You can't argue the investments in transit for the area haven't been made - the Silver Line was not cheap - but they were made stupidly, to the point where they are almost worthless.
 
Equilibria said:
I think part of the point is that there aren't enough efficient options for that equilibrium to exist. The Silver Line is not mass transit. It's a 15mph bus in a tunnel. South Station is just out of easy walking range for most of the Seaport. You can't argue the investments in transit for the area haven't been made - the Silver Line was not cheap - but they were made stupidly, to the point where they are almost worthless.
Click to expand...

Fair point. I guess I was saying that if you don't believe there's enough access for the common man to get to the Seaport, than "gridlock" probably won't happen. And if you think gridlock is an issue, than enough people are getting there. Isn't this the same issue in the Back Bay, FiDi, Kendall, etc.
 
Equilibria said:
I think part of the point is that there aren't enough efficient options for that equilibrium to exist. The Silver Line is not mass transit. It's a 15mph bus in a tunnel. South Station is just out of easy walking range for most of the Seaport. You can't argue the investments in transit for the area haven't been made - the Silver Line was not cheap - but they were made stupidly, to the point where they are almost worthless.
Click to expand...

Equilib -- actually the Silver Line does quite well when its in its tunnel -- its performance is not a whole lot diffient than the Greenline leaving North Station heading for Science Park for example

The real problems with the Silver Line have to do with what happens when the Silver Line joins the traffic at D Street

However -- while this should have been part of the original plan -- it can be fixed with a relatively do-able project with only a few 10's of M$ or so -- then you can have a sequence of electric Silver Line buses departing South Station for Silver Line Way in a fully grade-separated ROW with some of the buses continuing on with diesel power to Logan, etc.

Eventully, the electrifield tunnels can extend as the SPID develops over the next few decades with electrified Silver Line tunnels branching out from Courthouse Station and heading into the midst of the SPID -- meanwhile planning can begin for more rapid transit capability int the heart of the SPID
 
whighlander said:
Equilib -- actually the Silver Line does quite well when its in its tunnel -- its performance is not a whole lot diffient than the Greenline leaving North Station heading for Science Park for example
Click to expand...

Are you sure that indicative of the Silver Line... or the Green Line....
 
ant8904 said:
Are you sure that indicative of the Silver Line... or the Green Line....
Click to expand...

15 mph for a run of less than a mile + stops is quite reasonable -- that translates into about a 10 minute R/T South Station to Silver Line Way if you don't have to content with traffic at D Street and the occasional idiot trying to drive into the tunnel
 
AmericanFolkLegend said:
The one thing that makes the South Boston parking freeze a bit toothless is that you can build new parking if it's an accessory use to the property. So if you build a 500,000 SF office building you can say, "I need structured parking for 400 cars" or whatever the number is. Those parking spaces would be as of right.
Click to expand...

I am not aware of any such matter of right that allows a developer to exceed the geographically based cap imposed by the freeze, whether in South Boston, East Boston, or downtown.

http://www.mass.gov/dep/air/community/daqcpu09.htm

http://www.cityofboston.gov/environment/airpollution/parkingfreezes.asp
 
stellarfun said:
I am not aware of any such matter of right that allows a developer to exceed the geographically based cap imposed by the freeze, whether in South Boston, East Boston, or downtown.
[/url]
Click to expand...

You might be right Stellar. I think I'm confusing my South Boston Parking Freeze District with my South Boston Restricted Parking Overlay District. My company owns some property in the latter and I know we're allowed as of right accessory parking and conditional ancillary parking. I don't know about the parking freeze district.
 
Actually each freeze works differently. I am most familiar with the Downtown freeze which only applies to commercial spaces open to the general public. Residential spaces and spaces reserved for the use of a building's employees, customers, and guests are exempt from the freeze, although you need to apply for and receive the exemption from the Air Pollution Control Commission. In South Boston, residential spaces are exempt with some limitations. The East Boston freeze limits park-and-fly parking spaces and rental motor vehicle parking spaces.
 
Wow. I almost agree with Westie entirely on his summation of the Silver Line. Of course it's been said a number of times over the last 5 years.

The SL is fine from SS to WTC. It just is underused at this point. Build out of Fan Pier, Seaport Square, Waterside, Anthony's etc. will bump that usage. Also, I believe another station will be added between Courthouse and WTC which will add service to the Seaport Square area. For those coming in on the commuter line from the south & west it'll be a fine means of getting to work let's say, and similarly for those on the Red Line. And, if the tunnel connecting it to the Orange line ever became a reality, it'd be pissah.
 
dirtywater said:
Actually each freeze works differently. I am most familiar with the Downtown freeze which only applies to commercial spaces open to the general public. Residential spaces and spaces reserved for the use of a building's employees, customers, and guests are exempt from the freeze, although you need to apply for and receive the exemption from the Air Pollution Control Commission. In South Boston, residential spaces are exempt with some limitations. The East Boston freeze limits park-and-fly parking spaces and rental motor vehicle parking spaces.
Click to expand...

To be precise, for downtown:
The final plan calls for a variety of measures to minimize air pollution in the Boston Region by reducing vehicle miles traveled, including the establishment of a “freeze” on new parking construction in a portion of Boston, and restrictions on on-street parking in downtown Boston. The parking freeze regulations established a “freeze” as of October 15, 1973 on
construction of new commercial parking facilities in the downtown area of Boston shown on the attached map and at Logan Airport.

....
The parking freeze does not mean that no more off-street commercial parking can be built in downtown Boston. Rather, the freeze means that new commercial parking must be accompanied by the elimination of spaces at least equal to the number of new spaces being created. The freeze applies only to commercial spaces where cars are temporarily parked for a
fee. Residential parking spaces are exempt.

....
C.3. “Commercial parking facility” shall be defined to include any lot, garage, building or structure, or combination or portion thereof, on or in which motor vehicles are temporarily parked for a fee, excluding:

>>· a parking facility, the use of which is limited exclusively to residents (and guests of residents) of a residential building or group of buildings under common control, or a facility operated solely and exclusively for the benefit of the residents of a specific group of residential buildings, and

>>· parking on public streets.

C.4. Parking spaces that are owned or operated by a commercial entity, the primary business of which is not the operation of parking facilities, and are used exclusively by the entity or its lessees, employees, patrons, customers, clients, patients, or guests, and not available for use by the general public at any time, are not subject to the requirements of the parking freeze.
Click to expand...
http://www.cityofboston.gov/Images_Documents/town_freeze_reg_tcm3-12843.pdf

South Boston parking freeze is different, and there is no exemption for buildings such as C.4., supra.
 
Onward Technologies moving to Seaport District
By Marie Szaniszlo
Tuesday, June 5, 2012 - Updated 33 seconds ago


A Mumbai-based IT company will be trading its Cambridge branch office for larger digs in Boston’s booming Seaport District, a company official said.

Onward Technologies expects to begin its move Monday to the ninth floor of the Seaport Center at 70 Fargo St., where it will be neighbors with the Herald, J.P. Morgan, Verizon and Monster.

“Our company is growing, so we were looking for a bigger and better space, and we found the Seaport area to be the most vibrant,” said Hitendra Kale, senior vice president of operations.

The 20 employees who will be moving are among more than 100 Onward has in the United States and among 1,500 it has globally, Kale said.

The $24 million company does IT consulting and also provides engineering design services. It has offices in India, as well as London, Frankfurt, Chicago and, now, Boston. It will also be opening one in Michigan.

The Seaport Center was scooped up last month by San Francisco-based Shorenstein Properties for $115 million, from the Beal Cos. and Rockpoint Group, both of Boston.

-— mszaniszlo@bostonherald.com
Click to expand...

http://www.bostonherald.com/busines...leid=1061136916&srvc=business&position=recent
 
I have a question for the many here who are much wiser than myself: when the city/landowners sell land to developers, why do they sell the whole piece of land to one developer? This results it seems in projects like Seaport Square the don't provide adequate density, or projects like The Avenir that take up an entire block. Why not sell smaller pieces of land to multiple developers?

For example, in the Seaport why not sell 25 small parcels of land along a street grid? Most of the buildings would be Fort Point sized, maybe 7 stories or so. Some developers could build taller, and there could be some system where a devloper could combine up to, say, 4 parcels in order to create an office building or condo tower. The advantages in my mind of such a process would be that:

1) Diversity in design, architecture - just like old neighboorhoods like FP, Noth End, etc.

2) It would let MANY more developers participate in the development process - a smaller developer may only have $15 to invest, so why not build a 7 story wharf like building?

3) Get rid of developer superblocks, pointless concession parks, etc.

4) Create actual NEIGHBORHOODS

Help me, where am I wrong/misinformed?
 
Hi Lennon, that's a great question, we've discussed this here before without ever reaching any good or satisfactory answer. Let me throw out some possibilities:

- When city/state/agency sells land, large developers are better connected and can shape the process

- When city/state/agency sells land, they have every incentive to make it as cheap/easy as possible - and contracting with one developer is 20x easier than contracting with 20 different ones

- Economics of certain areas seem (or are mythically held to) require large floor plates for businesses, loading docks, etc - or for residential this would be because of restricted FARs

All these rationales are of course bullroar.
 
^LennonMcCartney

Don't confuse land sales and project approvals with actual development.

I've mentioned before that profit is made in the upzoning and resale of unbuilt pre-approved projects.

From Fan Pier to Fort Point, property owners who have never developed a square foot spend years moving through BRA approvals while their buildings and lots sit neglected. Once approved, they flip the parcel(s) along with BRA approvals. Some speculators have arrived in the Seaport stating publicly that they have no interest in developing, only an interest in upzoning through the BRA and flipping each lot or existing building.

This type of transaction has developed into a brisk secondary market throughout the Waterfront and Fort Point -- while little gets developed or rehabilitated. It is common for the new owner (very often the one actually interested in moving forward with the project), having paid a premium for the parcel, to refile a Notice of Project Change to eliminate any so-called "benefits" of the original approval.

So, I think the short answer to your question is that there is a lot of speculation in the approval of projects on large land tracts, regardless of whether anything gets built. The driving determinant in how parcels are divided is not made in the context of the project's impact on an evolving district.
 
I'm going to take a different route since we are talking about Seaport Square. This entire area has been held and sold from one land owner to the next. Hynes didn't buy it from the city, he bought it from Murdoch, who traded for it with Frank, who owned it for many moons.

Other areas become owned by large developers over years. The party wants the whole area, but has to buy it bit by bit and block by block and then has enough contiguous land to make his dream of fat stumps and parks a reality.

In a big pick up like Seaport Square, they got a sh*t ton of land for fairly short money. This could just be an investment, and then they the landowner can portion it off to smaller developers and developments. We are starting to see this a bit.

Same thing at Fan Pier, this ownership has been well documented, but in this case Fallon wants to reap all the benefits, and develop them all himself. Maybe then sell them off at a large profit.

The city, aside from revieweing and approving what is to be built, is not really that involved in the real estate transactions.

This seems to be more in the vein of what the question was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top