armpitsOFmight
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2009
- Messages
- 870
- Reaction score
- 12
Well I'll be damned!! However, I'll believe it when I see it!!
Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)
- Thread starter briv
- Start date
Well I'll be damned!! However, I'll believe it when I see it!!
The biggest failure of the seaport is in the lot sizes. The universal truth is that the best and most desirable neighborhoods in Boston have the smallest parcels. The Back Bay is too residential and low to look to as an example, and the lots too small for "innovation" uses (I'm not counting the Pru complex in this). However Fort Point, especially since it's part of the seaport, would have been an ideal model. It has moderately sized parcels, a diverse and dense street grid, was built after the industrial revolution was in full swing for commercial uses, is on filled land, and is an extremely desirable and adaptable neighborhood today. Its uses are also (sans lab space) identical to what is being built new in the rest of the area.
Small lots pretty much ensure diversity. Since everyone is competing against each other on the same street, it raises the bar for quality a bit. Blank walls, when they exist, are inherently smaller. The practice of putting a park next to your building because you got your ROI and don't need the rest of the space would be impossible by design. Smaller parcels would also attract more developers, since your pockets don't have to be as deep or the risk so high when you're not redeveloping 20 acres. Instead of massive national firms looking to build a lab or office and make a quick buck, you would have more developers like Sameuls or Mt Vernon, who have a vested interest in the neighborhood and the city. So even if there were a few duds, the next door neighbor would make up for it. Small lot sizes would also have netted more money for the city, as multiple smaller things always cost more then one big thing.
The second failure is, as already mentioned, the roads. It's not just that they are massive arterials. There are also all too few of them. A large part of Boston being Boston is the density of narrower then typical streets. This makes walking easier and more interesting. It also allows for one street to be the main commercial area, the next one over to be residential, and a few to be nothing but loading docks and parking garages. And that's okay, every neighborhood needs a trash street. Instead you have only a total of six major street walls, so everything is competing with everything else, and that parking entrance is just oh so much more glaringly obvious when its next door to Legal.
In addition, I strongly suspect that when built out the Seaport is going to be a traffic disaster. Capacity is nothing without redundancy, and only having three (sometimes only two with the way the bridges interact with each other) ways to get around is going to become a major bottleneck. Even without any traffic issues, it sucks driving down there because if you take/miss a turn you can't just "go around the block". Instead it can sometimes take a lengthy detour just to turn around. Or you can be like me and constantly wind up on an onramp for the Pike. A simple solution would have been to divide up the east-west routes into six one way instead of three two way avenues. There would have been a net loss of very little developable land, but from an urban perspective it would have been superior. North-South should have been an exact extension of the grid in Southie. It would have made wayfinding much easier, and cohesively integrated the two neighborhoods.
The randomness of the parkland is another, abit lesser, failure. The city should have set aside a logical progression of lots, BOUNDED BY STREETS, and charged the abutting properties a fee to fund their completion. This would be better for the public as well. Right now there is no way a developer is going to put a baseball diamond or soccer field in front of their billion dollar tower. They even installed those stone dividers on the lawn at Fan Pier to discourage people actively using it. Since the parks are used as a marketing tool by developers they are all competing with each other for looks, but not really creating a usable public space. Under city control you would could have a smattering of aesthetically pleasing pocket parks, plus one or two large plots that allow active recreation.
As more of a nitpick, the convention center should have been placed at the back of its lot (where the parking lot is now), with a massive baseball/soccer/fields type park in front of it. The park would provide recreation space to the new residences in the area (which despite the proliferation of parks does not exist in the seaport), but could also be used as an extension of the convention center.
Small lots pretty much ensure diversity. Since everyone is competing against each other on the same street, it raises the bar for quality a bit. Blank walls, when they exist, are inherently smaller. The practice of putting a park next to your building because you got your ROI and don't need the rest of the space would be impossible by design. Smaller parcels would also attract more developers, since your pockets don't have to be as deep or the risk so high when you're not redeveloping 20 acres. Instead of massive national firms looking to build a lab or office and make a quick buck, you would have more developers like Sameuls or Mt Vernon, who have a vested interest in the neighborhood and the city. So even if there were a few duds, the next door neighbor would make up for it. Small lot sizes would also have netted more money for the city, as multiple smaller things always cost more then one big thing.
The second failure is, as already mentioned, the roads. It's not just that they are massive arterials. There are also all too few of them. A large part of Boston being Boston is the density of narrower then typical streets. This makes walking easier and more interesting. It also allows for one street to be the main commercial area, the next one over to be residential, and a few to be nothing but loading docks and parking garages. And that's okay, every neighborhood needs a trash street. Instead you have only a total of six major street walls, so everything is competing with everything else, and that parking entrance is just oh so much more glaringly obvious when its next door to Legal.
In addition, I strongly suspect that when built out the Seaport is going to be a traffic disaster. Capacity is nothing without redundancy, and only having three (sometimes only two with the way the bridges interact with each other) ways to get around is going to become a major bottleneck. Even without any traffic issues, it sucks driving down there because if you take/miss a turn you can't just "go around the block". Instead it can sometimes take a lengthy detour just to turn around. Or you can be like me and constantly wind up on an onramp for the Pike. A simple solution would have been to divide up the east-west routes into six one way instead of three two way avenues. There would have been a net loss of very little developable land, but from an urban perspective it would have been superior. North-South should have been an exact extension of the grid in Southie. It would have made wayfinding much easier, and cohesively integrated the two neighborhoods.
The randomness of the parkland is another, abit lesser, failure. The city should have set aside a logical progression of lots, BOUNDED BY STREETS, and charged the abutting properties a fee to fund their completion. This would be better for the public as well. Right now there is no way a developer is going to put a baseball diamond or soccer field in front of their billion dollar tower. They even installed those stone dividers on the lawn at Fan Pier to discourage people actively using it. Since the parks are used as a marketing tool by developers they are all competing with each other for looks, but not really creating a usable public space. Under city control you would could have a smattering of aesthetically pleasing pocket parks, plus one or two large plots that allow active recreation.
As more of a nitpick, the convention center should have been placed at the back of its lot (where the parking lot is now), with a massive baseball/soccer/fields type park in front of it. The park would provide recreation space to the new residences in the area (which despite the proliferation of parks does not exist in the seaport), but could also be used as an extension of the convention center.
timsox6
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2013
- Messages
- 683
- Reaction score
- 0
Is there a possibility that a developer (or the city) will put some trees along Seaport Blvd. Not the usual never-gro trees but some trees that can grow to be sizable? There's just a long gray median and unshaded sidewalks. Any chance that'll change?
First off, what DaveM said above is RIGHT ON TARGET.
Regarding civic space -- just for starters, what neighborhood (no less one that is 5x larger than any other Boston district) has no long-term plan for schools, library, police, fire, community center? Look at any other Boston neighborhood.
Regarding ground floors, what waterfront (no less the USA's highest potential waterfront) has no plans for subsidized ground floor spaces IN EVERY TOWER to provide space for black box theaters, dance/music venues, galleries and other cultural spaces? Boston has ZERO engagement with the civic/cultural leaders citywide in the planning of this waterfront. ZERO.
Regarding land use, I'm sorry but I don't buy the 20-year hardship argument made by the developers. At some point, if residential isn't being built, the office/hotel approvals should've stopped flowing. Some of those office/hotel approvals have been flipped unbuilt for profit. Not a single condo or apartment will have been completed on any Seaport lot under BRA zoning control (Fan Pier, Pier 4, Seaport Square, etc.) during the Mayor's entire term. NOT ONE.
Lastly, the architecture speaks for itself.
Yikes. Easy there Mr. Eastman.
FortPointGuy
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2013
- Messages
- 217
- Reaction score
- 0
Yes, the Seaport Square plan calls for the developer to install trees and upgrade the median and side walks on Seaport Boulevard and the other streets that boundary the project. The developer will also be footing the bill to reattach Farnsworth and Thompson Place to Seaport Blvd., and build a road from the Summer Street bridge down to the center swathe of parking lots (where PwC is moving).
fattony
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 2,099
- Reaction score
- 481
I don't get your street grid gripe. The distance between Seaport Blvd and Congress is the same as a Back Bay big block or Manhattan big block. As the parking lots get built on the area is going to continue to "shrink" and become more comfortably urban. Sure, if I had infinite amounts of other people's money I might make some tweaks to the plan, but overall it is a solid plan that is financially feasible in this lifetime.
TheRifleman
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Messages
- 4,431
- Reaction score
- 0
What Waterside? Thats looks good if we lived in the Communist Era.
FortPointGuy
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2013
- Messages
- 217
- Reaction score
- 0
Is there any need for a police station when there is already one on West Broadway and half of the Seaport is under the jurisdiction of the State Police?
Is there any need for a fire station when one exists at 125 High Street?
Frankly I hope not one of those things cited get built in the Seaport save for a school which there is currently no need for. The city has too much high school capacity, there are schools in South Boston and a K-8 is being installed at the old Romney HQ about a mile or so from Fan Pier.
It's simply not accurate to say there is zero public space. There is a contemporary arts museum, parks, a marina, a free gallery dedicated to architecture and urban planning, a children's museum, a revolutionary war museum complete with boats built in gloucester, a firefighters museum, a free public wharf at gillete, an outdoor concert area, semi-annual art walks that the private sector pays for, an art shop dedicated to local artists, 5 (?) hubway stations...I could go on.
And I disagree that open public space in every building is a viable or even important idea. It obviously a great thing and was done to great effect in Atlantic Wharf, but every building? Where has that been done elsewhere in the U.S.? It certainly has not been done anywhere else in Boston.
Buying lots, improving them, permitting them and selling them to another developer happens all of the time in every metropolis on earth. It's a routine way of developing land.
They built FP3 and Channel Center during Menino's term. But I think you are conveniently carving out all of the SBID except Seaport Square, Fan Pier, Pier 4, etc. Is this really even Menino's fault? Twice during his tenure the development du jour for the area was a sports arena and three times there were significant recessions, the first one (S&L) with a particularly acute effect on local banks. And how is zoning authority even relevant? If the BRA has no authority over the Massport land then why does the BRA list those development projects on its website and assign someone from its staff to oversee the permitting process? Why did the BRA permit Waterside Place? Why did Menino bother to even comment about the proposed apartment complex east of Parklane Seaport? In any event there are now 1000s of residential units being developed in the specifc are you do cite.
FortPointGuy
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2013
- Messages
- 217
- Reaction score
- 0
Agree, they are normal sized in NYC as much as they are in Houston. And they have bike lanes.
Comparing the Seaport to the older sections of the city, particularly their lot size and street size is pointless. It makes no sense economically or in any other sense to build-out a huge area along the lines of Mission Hill, Beacon Hill or the North End. Cash is king in the Seaport as much as it is on the rest of earth.
Has anyone here ever tried to drive from Oliver and Purchase Streets to State Street at rush hour? Impossible. Traffic caused by downtown Boston's inefficient roads are, I'd guess, a major reason why firms like PwC and Goodwin are happy to move from the Fin. District to new digs in the Seaport where roads are wider, street parking is permitted and highways are easily accessible. But I guess acknowledging that means the Seaport will be Houston. I'll admit that when BP buys a Seaport Square lot and installs a gas station, but not before then.
At full build, when the Seaport is 30 million square feet of density? Please.
No plans in advance for a school, library or community center in a district that may have 10,000-15,000 residents, or even 5-8,000 residents by the current BRA's projections? Seriously?
I was describing ZERO interior spaces subsidized for civic/cultural uses including black-box theaters, dance/music venues, etc. common to great waterfronts worldwide.
You cited parks, open space, docks and 3 museums.
I have long-cited the profit being siphoned from the Seaport by speculators spending years securing approvals from the BRA without improving anyting onsite, simply flipping pre-approved lots for profit. That drives up contruction costs and (to the end-user) the cost of housing in Boston.
You are citing "improved" lots. I'm not aware of the flipping of improved lots.
FP3 and Channel Center are, respectively, a rooftop addition, infill and existing buildings. Even if we include these, the total density of residential relative to office is a pittance.
1000's of housing units in the Seaport area? There are approx 1250 residential units under construction in the entire 1 x 1 mile Innovation District, including West 1st Street. The BRA extended the bounds of the Innovation District as far as West 1st Street because residential numbers in the Seaport were pathetic.
Please consider that number (1250) relative to the scale of the Innovation District. Also consider that number relative to what Massport has already built.
On 21-acre Fan Pier, the Boston Society of Architects recommended 1200 residential units at full build. Rather than follow advice of BSA (and a host of urban planning teams at the time) the BRA approved only 675 at full build. A few years later (around 2007) the BRA quietly reduced the total housing count on Fan Pier to around 600 units.
I realize these debates are old and repetitive. I just don't understand how anyone can look at the built environment, extrapolate out to full build, and defend the status quo.
jdrinboston
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2011
- Messages
- 670
- Reaction score
- 557
"I was describing ZERO interior spaces subsidized for civic/cultural uses including black-box theaters, dance/music venues, etc. common to great waterfronts worldwide."
Can you site examples of this? You've repeated this point numerous times on this forum as fact, but I've never seen any listing of "great waterfronts of the world" for reference. If we have the potential to attract thousands of people to the waterfront with restaurants, bars, and shopping venues, are you saying a substantial amount of that space should be eliminated in favor of "subsidized" art space that may or may not attract a handful of people on a given day or night?
Are you saying a portion of the restaurant space at Liberty Wharf should have been eliminated in favor of a black box theater? Is your position that this would result in greater foot traffic for this development?
Can you site examples of this? You've repeated this point numerous times on this forum as fact, but I've never seen any listing of "great waterfronts of the world" for reference. If we have the potential to attract thousands of people to the waterfront with restaurants, bars, and shopping venues, are you saying a substantial amount of that space should be eliminated in favor of "subsidized" art space that may or may not attract a handful of people on a given day or night?
Are you saying a portion of the restaurant space at Liberty Wharf should have been eliminated in favor of a black box theater? Is your position that this would result in greater foot traffic for this development?
KentXie
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,192
- Reaction score
- 756
Thank you. I'm always sick of this Boston elitist mentality that permeates on this forum. Oh the city is planning a lot of tall towers with minimum regulation. We'll end up like Atlanta or Houston. Oh the developers are thinking about making a gerbil tube. We'll end up like Minneapolis. And this one, oh the roads are wider, we'll end up like <insert city name other than Boston to bash>. It's all crap. I've been to many major cities with wide roads and big crossings. Guess what, they see more foot traffic than any place in Boston save for Newbury Street.
As I've learned from talking to waterfront planners who have and continue to plan and work with progressive cities to develop the world's greatest waterfronts (names withheld but some of these folks are Boston-based, not hard to track down), ground floors are regulated in waterfronts to require interior civic space as well as "facililities of public accommodation" limited to civic/cultural uses.
I don't think it would be hard to find an urban planning professor at Harvard GSD who wouldn't support the above assertion that ground floors of great waterfront cities are being planned, with obligations for activation by civic and cultural uses.
While the BRA has not imposed such uses across the waterfront, MA has historic tidelands regulations that do require a portion of ground floors to serve "facilities of public accommodation." The BRA has extended the definition of these spaces to include commercial uses that allow patrons to use the premises, for example a bank or restaurant. There is no dialog with Boston's civic/cultural community about space needs, despite the fact that the State of MA has repeatedly called upon the BRA to do exactly that.
The State of MA (MassDEP, EOEA) has enforced Chapter 91 regulations to require subsidized spaces on Boston's tidelands. In the past, the BRA approved spaces that served no one (top floor observation areas, glass pavilions, etc.). In recent years, nearly every square foot of these imposed, subsidized spaces has been claimed by the business community. These include: District Hall (a ten year lease at a cost of $650,000 per year); a large conference room at Atlantic Wharf; a glorified lobby renamed "Waterfront Square" at Atlantic Wharf; an innovation center at Pier 4; an innovation center at Waterside Place; IT rack space at Waterside Place. No one has any idea how these large subsidized spaces will attract visitors worldwide or attract Bostonians to water's edge.
The 2nd floor BSA Space is about as close as one can get to the spirit and intent of the types of subsidized uses I describe.
Your saying it is elitist to criticize 4 and 6-lane boulevards that run from the Fort Point Channel (e.g. full stop) to Marine Industrial Park (e.g. full stop)? Entire lanes of those boulevards were developable land.
FortPointGuy
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2013
- Messages
- 217
- Reaction score
- 0
(1) There is zero need now or in the semi-near (10-15 years) future for police, fire or schools in the SBID. If the BPD relieves the State Police then perhaps a substation would make sense. There is a fire station practically at the foot of Seaport Boulevard and Congress Street. Why would we build a public school in a neighborhood that is constructing luxury apartments and condos for young workers, the rich and empty-nesters and when such schools already exist in South Boston and the busing issue remains unresolved? Who would even go there? It makes no sense. If anything a private school could get built.
(2) "I was describing ZERO interior spaces subsidized for civic/cultural uses including black-box theaters, dance/music venues, etc. common to great waterfronts worldwide.
You cited parks, open space, docks and 3 museums."
We fundamentally disagree on what civic/cultural uses are and whether they are being promoted (or apparently even exist) in the SBID. I think the city and the developers have done an outstanding job with the museums, a marina and other cultural/social spots and stops, particularly along Seaport Boulevard, Fan Pier and Fort Point. I've lived in FPC since 2009 and can't believe how much more lively the area is each new spring and summer.
Come check out the free red bull cliff diving later this month if only to see the absurd amount of people that come hang out on all the free and beautiful open space that Fallon and his investors have created on Fan Pier. Or walk by Q Park any day of the week at lunchtime and check out the pick-up knockout competition that was organized within days of the park being opened. Nevermind the baffling amount of people that hang out and around Liberty Wharf on the evenings and weekends.
(3) "There are approx 1250 residential units under construction in the entire 1 x 1 mile Innovation District, including West 1st Street."
That number feels arbitrary and I think only includes West Square, Waterside Place, Pier 4 Phase 1 and 319 A. The Sausage Parcel and Blocks B-C of Seaport Square double this number alone nevermind Fan Pier, Cresset D Street Development, Melcher Street, Watermark Seaport and the numerous other projects that I guess don't count. (There are probably 1000 units on tap alone up and down 1st Street - West Square and 2 H Street alone probably 2/3s of that.) Bottom line, it seems like you have a grievance with the BRA and the city when a lot of the delay in development of the SBID was out of their control (Pritzker and Athenas family lawsuit, McCourt, recessions, and so on.) Government can't compel private parties to build on their land. It sucks but it's simply not Menino or the BRA's fault.
(4) "I realize these debates are old and repetitive. I just don't understand how anyone can look at the built environment, extrapolate out to full build, and defend the status quo."
I don't understand why someone would let perfect get in the way of something that is shaping up to be pretty damn good.
(If there is anything to complain about it's the USPS and Gillette letting half of fort point remain comprised of useless parking lots and deactivating the Dot. Ave side of the channel. The USPS in particular can't get out of there fast enough. Unbelievable that they sit on such valuable space and lay claim to the ugliest waterfront building in the entire city. Now that's a shocking waste.)
(2) "I was describing ZERO interior spaces subsidized for civic/cultural uses including black-box theaters, dance/music venues, etc. common to great waterfronts worldwide.
You cited parks, open space, docks and 3 museums."
We fundamentally disagree on what civic/cultural uses are and whether they are being promoted (or apparently even exist) in the SBID. I think the city and the developers have done an outstanding job with the museums, a marina and other cultural/social spots and stops, particularly along Seaport Boulevard, Fan Pier and Fort Point. I've lived in FPC since 2009 and can't believe how much more lively the area is each new spring and summer.
Come check out the free red bull cliff diving later this month if only to see the absurd amount of people that come hang out on all the free and beautiful open space that Fallon and his investors have created on Fan Pier. Or walk by Q Park any day of the week at lunchtime and check out the pick-up knockout competition that was organized within days of the park being opened. Nevermind the baffling amount of people that hang out and around Liberty Wharf on the evenings and weekends.
(3) "There are approx 1250 residential units under construction in the entire 1 x 1 mile Innovation District, including West 1st Street."
That number feels arbitrary and I think only includes West Square, Waterside Place, Pier 4 Phase 1 and 319 A. The Sausage Parcel and Blocks B-C of Seaport Square double this number alone nevermind Fan Pier, Cresset D Street Development, Melcher Street, Watermark Seaport and the numerous other projects that I guess don't count. (There are probably 1000 units on tap alone up and down 1st Street - West Square and 2 H Street alone probably 2/3s of that.) Bottom line, it seems like you have a grievance with the BRA and the city when a lot of the delay in development of the SBID was out of their control (Pritzker and Athenas family lawsuit, McCourt, recessions, and so on.) Government can't compel private parties to build on their land. It sucks but it's simply not Menino or the BRA's fault.
(4) "I realize these debates are old and repetitive. I just don't understand how anyone can look at the built environment, extrapolate out to full build, and defend the status quo."
I don't understand why someone would let perfect get in the way of something that is shaping up to be pretty damn good.
(If there is anything to complain about it's the USPS and Gillette letting half of fort point remain comprised of useless parking lots and deactivating the Dot. Ave side of the channel. The USPS in particular can't get out of there fast enough. Unbelievable that they sit on such valuable space and lay claim to the ugliest waterfront building in the entire city. Now that's a shocking waste.)
FortPointGuy
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2013
- Messages
- 217
- Reaction score
- 0
"Your saying it is elitist to criticize 4 and 6-lane boulevards that run from the Fort Point Channel (e.g. full stop) to Marine Industrial Park (e.g. full stop)? Entire lanes of those boulevards were developable land."
What?! How would anyone get around? On the one hand you quote up to 10-15K people living there, never mind how many people will be working there during the day or visiting, and on the other hand you apparently advocate choking the road grid so it's as inconvenient as the North End or the Financial District? Seaport Boulevard and Congress Street are perfectly sized. They should be no smaller then they are - picture the place at full build with smaller roads. Nightmare. Current setup is no different than Boylston Street or Commonwealth Ave.
And there are no 6 or 5 lane roads in the SBID!
What?! How would anyone get around? On the one hand you quote up to 10-15K people living there, never mind how many people will be working there during the day or visiting, and on the other hand you apparently advocate choking the road grid so it's as inconvenient as the North End or the Financial District? Seaport Boulevard and Congress Street are perfectly sized. They should be no smaller then they are - picture the place at full build with smaller roads. Nightmare. Current setup is no different than Boylston Street or Commonwealth Ave.
And there are no 6 or 5 lane roads in the SBID!
You originally stated "there are now 1000s of residential units being developed in the specifc are you do cite" referring to Fan Pier, Pier 4 and Seaport Square.
You are now citing projects that have been approved, some for nearly 5 years, that have not broken ground.
I'll stick with my number: there are 1250 housing units under way in the entire 1 x 1 mile innovation district, a pittance relative to office and hotel density under way.
The BRA agrees with me, give or take 100 units. From August 6, 2013: Currently, over 1,100 housing units are under construction.
Frankly, I could care less how many housing units are under way today. I care how many housing units will be available at Seaport full build given pressures (political, market, BCEC) moving the waterfront away from becoming an urban mixed-used neighborhood.
KentXie
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,192
- Reaction score
- 756
No, I'm saying it's elitist when some members criticize it by saying it makes it look like Houston as the primary reason. I'm sorry but I'm pretty sure other major cities like NYC, Chicago, Toronto, Philly, SF have 4-6 lane boulevards and they work out fine. They exist in major cities just like shadows do, so deal with it. Does Boston have some kind of small city inferiority complex where the only way it can make itself feel better is by shitting on other cities?
And this is not exclusive to just wider roads.
With four subsidized innovation centers, subsidized conference rooms, subsidized accelerator space, publicly-financed hotels, $1 leases for office space on public property, a few hundred $mil in tax breaks, and an $8 billion trough of public investment in roads, ramps, MBTA, harbor improvements and BCEC, trust me...
The private enterprise system is running on all (Pugeot) cylinders.
EDIT: Changed three to four subsidized innovation centers. In July, the BRA approved Innovation Center #4 at 399 Congress Street.
Last edited: