Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)
- Thread starter briv
- Start date
With a Saab turbo.
TheRifleman
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Messages
- 4,431
- Reaction score
- 0
Thats the problem everything is subsidized we won't get private money to help the system run it a more cost efficient manner. It's called mismangement This was Detroit problems. BUILD BUILD BUILD (its called job creation) Boston is very different than Detroit and I don't see us following the same dire financial situation as them (Thanks to MIT)
For Example BIG DIG MONEY PIT. It looks great but the monthly maintaince is out of control for the tunnels.
When you build something make sure its cost efficient along with Safety for the taxpayers and the people of Mass.
SeamusMcFly
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2008
- Messages
- 2,050
- Reaction score
- 110
I have less issue with the wide roads as it's really just Summer and Seaport Blvd. Two major thoroughfares. Everything else is pretty small and appears to want to stay that way.
Wide roads crisscrossing an entire area like is seen in downtown LA, Long Beach, and any number of mid-western cities do indeed suck.
The how will people get around thing always kills me. Developments should be pushing more people to use public transport, and it finally seems to be catching on. Live close enough to walk or ride your bike, or take the train or bus, that's how you get there. If you decide you just have to drive, then sit in traffic. Boo-hoo!! 93 or 90 will get ya right there.
Wide roads crisscrossing an entire area like is seen in downtown LA, Long Beach, and any number of mid-western cities do indeed suck.
The how will people get around thing always kills me. Developments should be pushing more people to use public transport, and it finally seems to be catching on. Live close enough to walk or ride your bike, or take the train or bus, that's how you get there. If you decide you just have to drive, then sit in traffic. Boo-hoo!! 93 or 90 will get ya right there.
armpitsOFmight
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2009
- Messages
- 870
- Reaction score
- 12
This is just me, but it's not that it will look like Huston. It's that it will look like not Boston.
But really, permeability is my main issue with the width: it constrains the neighborhood and creates superblocks. As I said, instead of having three (and only three) major E-W arteries, six one ways would have been preferable. There would be very little net loss in developable square footage (the width of three sidewalks), however it would double the amount of street walls. In addition, it would narrow the average lot size, reducing the glut of fat, stocky buildings such as what's on fan pier.
The other issue regarding the width of the E-W boulevards is that due to the FRA restrictions, the buildings will never be tall enough to create a proper streetwall. The reason wide avenues work so well in NY, Chicago, Huston (I guess...) is they are bordered by a canyon of very tall buildings.
And again repeating myself, I'm not convinced that at full build having only three roads is going to be adequate for the traffic. I could see them becoming a bottleneck very quickly. For whoever said that traffic in (insert neighborhood here) is bad downtown, yes. But that has nothing to do with the street width. It has everything to do with the fact that Boston streets double back, spiral in, change direction, and end randomly in a complete nonsensical fashion. Then on top of that you have insane one ways laid out not to improve traffic flow but to block cars from driving through certain (prosperous) areas, and the absurd detours resulting from Washington Street being made a pedestrian only zone when its like fucking Rome, all paths lead to it.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Messages
- 5,078
- Reaction score
- 1,657
What do you think of the redevelopment in the Fenway?
I'm not sure if the size of the block itself is as important as the size of the lot that's sold to developers. Back Bay has fairly large blocks, even in its residential northern half, but the lots are small.
I agree about the canyon effect. My question is, where are these other E/W streets going to connect to downtown/routes out of the Seaport? You either have to slice through Fort Point and build more bridge across the Channel, or you have to merge the E/W streets at/before the existing bridges creating a bottleneck anyway. Or am I missing something.
Out of curiosity, do you disagree that Washington should be pedestrian only, or just that the direction of the maze of downtown roads need to be rethought to not funnel into an essential dead end?
Copenhagen. I was there recently and was blown away by the new construction. There are significant new neighborhoods along the rivers/harbors surrounding the city that have been developed with some of the best contemporary architecture I've seen. The neighborhoods have been built from scratch on former industrial/shipping territory, so it's a pretty close analogy to the Seaport - only the neighborhoods are even farther from the city center and therefore less prime.
The new construction there is a mix of residential, retail and offices. Highly dense, good materials and architecture with new infrastructure accompanying.
This is happening in a city smaller than Boston, with lower per capita GDP, less international importance, and similar/lower population growth. In other words, there is no reason why that should be happening in Copenhagen while we get ... Wastedside Place. We can actually set the bar higher. Smaller lots, better zoning for mixed uses, and even minimal architecture standards would all go a long way to improving the Seaport. While those impediments may slow development of the area ... well, for Christ's sake, the area's been "developing" for 25 years, and even Copenhagen builds faster.
Last edited:
fattony
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 2,099
- Reaction score
- 481
Can you drop some pins a google map to show us what you are referring to? I'm curious to see how these new areas look. When I was there I didn't make it to any newly developed areas.
tocoto
Active Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 385
- Reaction score
- 82
A big problem with small blocks is lots of intersection that clog up when traffic is heavy. Boston really needs a rule: no entering the intersection if you cannot get out.
Copenhagen has some fairly wide streets with ~5 story buildings and it looks great. If we really had continuous street walls in the seaport, street width would not matter that much. If seaport blvd is 100 feet wide, not sure that's true, the golden ratio says a good looking street would be around 160 feet, so shortish buildings could work. The big problem is the bland architecture IMO.
Copenhagen has some fairly wide streets with ~5 story buildings and it looks great. If we really had continuous street walls in the seaport, street width would not matter that much. If seaport blvd is 100 feet wide, not sure that's true, the golden ratio says a good looking street would be around 160 feet, so shortish buildings could work. The big problem is the bland architecture IMO.
One sample Copenhagen Streetview shot.
There is a lot of contemporary development of this caliber at the edge of the city. On the Google Maps page that I've linked to, you'll see there is a river where the development in question is. You can get a good view of the scale and quality of the development by dropping the Streetview finder on pretty much any location going up and down the river right down to the airport.
Hope this helps.
There is a lot of contemporary development of this caliber at the edge of the city. On the Google Maps page that I've linked to, you'll see there is a river where the development in question is. You can get a good view of the scale and quality of the development by dropping the Streetview finder on pretty much any location going up and down the river right down to the airport.
Hope this helps.
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2010
- Messages
- 8,894
- Reaction score
- 271
I rotated that view 360 degrees and didn't see a single active ground floor.
(There are better examples of actual urbanism in Copenhagen that we were shown slides of in some seminars in school, but I can't remember them exactly)
stellarfun
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,686
- Reaction score
- 1,502
Planning in Denmark starts at the national level of government. Sort of like having Washington tell Southie what's best for Southie.
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/...9119399516/7247361-1279119430793/urbandev.pdf
Some of the growth is related to the relatively new land bridge between Denmark and Sweden.
Here is a New York Times article from last year.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/b...s-sustainable-living.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
The difference in scale -- available land - between the South Boston waterfront and what's planned in Copenhagen makes for unrealistic comparisons.
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/...9119399516/7247361-1279119430793/urbandev.pdf
Some of the growth is related to the relatively new land bridge between Denmark and Sweden.
Here is a New York Times article from last year.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/b...s-sustainable-living.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
The difference in scale -- available land - between the South Boston waterfront and what's planned in Copenhagen makes for unrealistic comparisons.
You'll have to explain that one. Why does having more vacant land around parts of Copenhagen mean that there is therefore no ability to compare the Seaport's level of architecture to Copenhagen's new construction?
stellarfun
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,686
- Reaction score
- 1,502
865 acres housing 10,000 inhabitants.
Nice renderings.
http://effekt.squarespace.com/vinge-page/
Inner harbor, about 85 acres and 3,000 inhabitants.
http://www.nordhavnen.dk/en/EnglishFrontpage.aspx
I don't think you find private developers constructing and selling multi-unit housing in Denmark; the construction is undertaken by cooperatives or non-profits. The government assists in the financing.
Still not clear why this means "they can have nice things and we can't."
If we have less available land vs. Copenhagen, if anything it should be more prime and therefore deserving of better architecture/planning. We don't think Framingham gets better architecture because of its greater amounts of available space.
If we have less available land vs. Copenhagen, if anything it should be more prime and therefore deserving of better architecture/planning. We don't think Framingham gets better architecture because of its greater amounts of available space.
stellarfun
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,686
- Reaction score
- 1,502
Itchy, because the market dynamics of multi-unit housing in Denmark seem to differ from those in Boston, or elsewhere in the United States. Here, developers build and sell/rent housing to make money. Their objective is to secure a good return on the money they spend, if not to maximize their profit. In Denmark, the developers are non-profits, or cooperatives, who presumably have no interest in making a profit, but great interest in building homes that place a premium on quality of materials and workmanship, and on durability.
That, and the amount of new housing that is built is apparently controlled by the government.
The new developments around Kobenhavn appear to be all multi-unit housing. Single family homes are privately owned, and I believe builders of those can strive to make a profit from building/selling.
stellarfun
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,686
- Reaction score
- 1,502
Charlesview might be an analog. It would depend on democratic the non-profit is with respect to decisions.
For an overview of social housing in Denmark
http://www.housingeurope.eu/publication/social-housing-country-profiles/social-housing-in/dk
Orestad,
http://www.globalsiteplans.com/environmental-design/ørestad-denmark-cutting-edge-urban-fiber/
Stellarfun, you previously said the question was amount of available land. It seems you are now saying that housing construction is only done by the government or non-profits in Copenhagen, which accounts for the quality of architecture. Is that correct?
The notion that only the government can "build nice things" is, of course, far-fetched. Look at what the government or, more recently, non-profits that build housing projects / low-income housing here produce. Our home-grown example of the Back Bay, which is a perpetual foil for the Seaport's folly, was a private development. I am not the first to say that, had the city zoned for/sold smaller lots in the Seaport the people purchasing those lots would be building very different - and probably better -structures today.
As for why Copenhagen's large-scale architecture is better than what we're getting in the Seaport, there are clearly other, societal/cultural and political, factors at work. Primarily, I would assume that Danish consumers are simply more picky about architectural quality, and that there are potentially more demanding standards for building designs.
On the former, we're a bit screwed until people take architecture more seriously as a factor impacting decision to buy/rent in a given building. That can change gradually or quickly, but it's hard to force it. On the latter, I think having quality architectural design be a criterion for permitting in the Seaport would have helped. Again, smaller plots would have been more of a silver bullet, but if we take as given the massive, block-length plots, a design approvals board with strict standards would have been a good thing. The fact is that this land is going to get developed sooner or later - it's too lucrative not to be - and having high architectural standards would not have changed that.
The notion that only the government can "build nice things" is, of course, far-fetched. Look at what the government or, more recently, non-profits that build housing projects / low-income housing here produce. Our home-grown example of the Back Bay, which is a perpetual foil for the Seaport's folly, was a private development. I am not the first to say that, had the city zoned for/sold smaller lots in the Seaport the people purchasing those lots would be building very different - and probably better -structures today.
As for why Copenhagen's large-scale architecture is better than what we're getting in the Seaport, there are clearly other, societal/cultural and political, factors at work. Primarily, I would assume that Danish consumers are simply more picky about architectural quality, and that there are potentially more demanding standards for building designs.
On the former, we're a bit screwed until people take architecture more seriously as a factor impacting decision to buy/rent in a given building. That can change gradually or quickly, but it's hard to force it. On the latter, I think having quality architectural design be a criterion for permitting in the Seaport would have helped. Again, smaller plots would have been more of a silver bullet, but if we take as given the massive, block-length plots, a design approvals board with strict standards would have been a good thing. The fact is that this land is going to get developed sooner or later - it's too lucrative not to be - and having high architectural standards would not have changed that.