Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)

617 said:
Walking by this today made me realize how lop-sided the retail on this street will be...all new retail and lights, bars etc directly across the street from a parking lot and chain link fence...are there any plans to develop the other side of seaport blvd?
Click to expand...

Yes both sides will be developed.

From page 68 of this thread.

Rick said:
A couple of new renderings from Gale Int'l:

ge8x.jpg


rmmb.jpg
Click to expand...
 
The second pic is the first time I really can say: that isn't Boston.
 
Amen FK4, amen....the price of uniform, massive development. It's the new West End.
 
The first lot on the right on seaport blvd as you cross the bridge (adjacent to 51 sleeper) closes 11/15 for construction. It's shown as an office in the second image, but supposedly that will be the relocated Our Lady of Good Voyage.
 
And the building on the left after you cross the bridge is the Envoy hotel, which looks nothing like the rendering. So the rendering is not even a representative massing model.
 
Nope. It's being a dick. To everyone who responded. Your justifications can F themselves as well. :)

I have no budge in me on discrimination, and generalizations about any group of people. The gist is, kids are not and can not be sophisticated, and therefore cannot mingle with the clientele we want.

If it had anything to do with liquor, the cut off wouldn't be 17. That's hogwash.

So elitist theater can suck it. So much for being part of a growing "neighborhood" that was supposed to have thousands of residences including families. The original plan had a school in the neighborhood, so why can't those kids go see a movie. If it's mostly hollywood fare, there's no reasons a group of friends can't go see "Transformers 17 - Attack of the giant metal fire attack of fire from the sky."
 
SeamusMcFly said:
Nope. It's being a dick. To everyone who responded. Your justifications can F themselves as well. :)

I have no budge in me on discrimination, and generalizations about any group of people. The gist is, kids are not and can not be sophisticated, and therefore cannot mingle with the clientele we want.

If it had anything to do with liquor, the cut off wouldn't be 17. That's hogwash.

So elitist theater can suck it. So much for being part of a growing "neighborhood" that was supposed to have thousands of residences including families. The original plan had a school in the neighborhood, so why can't those kids go see a movie. If it's mostly hollywood fare, there's no reasons a group of friends can't go see "Transformers 17 - Attack of the giant metal fire attack of fire from the sky."
Click to expand...

In fairness, it's 17 with your parents...so I think it does have something to do with alcohol. If I remember correctly, you're able to enter a "lounge" with your parents if you're 17--though you can't sit at the bar itself--but it's only if you're with your parents. However I agree that there should at least be some place for the younger ones to go catch a flick in the area.

Come on though, let's get a little less P.C. This isn't discrimination. It's just a place with a target audience. If they were hanging a "No Jews" sign out front, I'd be with you on the discrimination thing...but not when it comes to wanting an adult crowd.
 
I won't come on, and that's fine. I'm not being PC in the least. I'm quite the un-PC person, but there are certain things I don't tolerate. There are ways to keep people out, and the pricing already will do some of that. If your 16, have the means, and want to impress some girl by going to a semi-fancy pants theater, no reason you shouldn't be able to.

Target audience is fine, but when you specifically exclude people, that is discrimination. Doesn't have to be along racial or religious lines to fit the mold. If you want a target audience, you market to them, but typically you can't turn someone away who doesn't fit that mold. Same thing.

It's pretty clear in the article that there will be a 21+ section. And, if it wants to be 18+ after a certain hour, I'm less likely to bitch. Kids shouldn't be out too late by themselves anyways (that's parental not societal but I'll say it anyways.)
 
FK4 said:
The second pic is the first time I really can say: that isn't Boston.
Click to expand...

While a fair comment at the time, what makes this "Boston" will be our feelings about each of the actual buildings as we see them get proposed, built, and occupied. Every argument about "adults only" theaters and such adds the next bit of local color to the sanitized anywhere in those renderings.
 
And, the with a parent only stipulation makes it even more ridiculous. Are they doing blood work at the door? Maybe the bouncers all work for Ancestry.com? If your older brother is 27 and wants to take you out... nope sorry. Or, your favorite uncle? Can your step mom bring you?

I suppose legal guardians would be acceptable, although not mentioned.

Maybe it was just poorly worded, but the spirit was there. And that spirit sucks.
 
SeamusMcFly said:
And, the with a parent only stipulation makes it even more ridiculous. Are they doing blood work at the door? Maybe the bouncers all work for Ancestry.com? If your older brother is 27 and wants to take you out... nope sorry. Or, your favorite uncle? Can your step mom bring you?

I suppose legal guardians would be acceptable, although not mentioned.

Maybe it was just poorly worded, but the spirit was there. And that spirit sucks.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you about the spirit sucking, but dude, he was in front of the LIQUOR BOARD. There are ordinances and laws that he needs to show he respects. Those specify "parents" with the understanding that that sounds good from a liability standpoint and will be functionally impossible to enforce. It really means "anyone who isn't just over 21 and who looks like they could be a responsible adult." Favorite uncles and step parents should be perfectly fine.

Beyond the alcohol thing - this is no different from when the Legoland Discovery Center banned adults not accompanying a child. It's 100% discriminatory, but our society allows discrimination by age when it is done in the name of maintaining a welcoming environment to a particular demographic.
 
FK4 said:
The second pic is the first time I really can say: that isn't Boston.
Click to expand...

Padre Mike said:
Amen FK4, amen....the price of uniform, massive development. It's the new West End.
Click to expand...

The Seaport isn't perfect, but how in the heck do you see the West End in those renderings?

And to the broader point - how do you expect anything new to "look like Boston"? Whatever is in Boston is what Boston looks like. Do you think the 19th century buildings that we treasure so much looked "like Boston" when they were built? They looked like every other building going up in every other American city at the time.

I'm not saying we got the pinnacle of great architecture in the Seaport - far from it. But I also don't think it is as sterile as you seem to. The Seaport already draws a crowd and it is still 2/3 empty. There is no way, shape or form that spells failure or West End.
 
He added that nobody under 17 will be allowed in any of the theaters, and even then, only if accompanied by a parent - an older girlfriend, boyfriend or friend just will not do.
Click to expand...

This sentence doesn't even make sense. First it says that "nobody under 17 will be allowed", and then "even then, only if accompanied by a parent". Which is it? They are not allowed, or they are allowed if accompanied by a parent?

So I went to the website for one of their comparable theaters. Here is what it says there: "No one under 17 admitted without an adult of guardian after 7:00 pm". That makes a lot more sense to me. What we probably have here is a case of bad reporting or, perhaps, a spokesperson misspeaking.
 
Equilibria said:
I don't disagree with you about the spirit sucking, but dude, he was in front of the LIQUOR BOARD. There are ordinances and laws that he needs to show he respects. Those specify "parents" with the understanding that that sounds good from a liability standpoint and will be functionally impossible to enforce. It really means "anyone who isn't just over 21 and who looks like they could be a responsible adult." Favorite uncles and step parents should be perfectly fine.

Beyond the alcohol thing - this is no different from when the Legoland Discovery Center banned adults not accompanying a child. It's 100% discriminatory, but our society allows discrimination by age when it is done in the name of maintaining a welcoming environment to a particular demographic.
Click to expand...

Without saying "No Pedophiles", lego is saying..... no pedophiles. It's different yet the same. Also, doesn't mean I agree with it, but I am much more about protecting kids than I am protecting people at a theater who don't need protecting. If kids are loud and talking and whatnot, that is what ushers are for. You're a bouncer with a red vest and a flashlight.... go enforce.

Not really looking to take yet another thread down a political path. Just stating opinion about my own feelings about right and wrong.

I was the first person on here to mention the theater as part of the development 3 or 4 years ago. It has always been a big plus to this development, and the above soured me. Still super pumped out this project, and want it here sooner than later. That particular sentiment bummed me out however, and doesn't seem to be the best move in creating an inviting 18/7 neighborhood for all.
 
stick n move said:
Yes both sides will be developed.

From page 68 of this thread.
Click to expand...

That white building on the right is not there now and that's the space I was referring to in my earlier post. It has a very narrow lot and from the pic it looks like the second floor hangs over the sidewalk...

That does not look like a suitable space for a chapel. Great set up for more retail though.
 
I'm ecstatic that they are putting in a theater for adults in the city. They have them outside the metro area and it's a great way to watch a movie, go out on a date, whatever. My wife and I stopped going to Loews DTX because the kids there don't care if their cell phones are out or not, if they are making noise, whatever. And who can blame them, they are kids. So this will be a nice alternative to Fenway (quiet old Brookline couples and stoned college kids, both of which are very tolerable if not welcoming in a move-setting) or Somerville (great place, better behaved kids but would rather not have to drive outside city if we dont' have to).
 
I'm ecstatic that they are putting in a theater for adults in the city. They have them outside the metro area and it's a great way to watch a movie, go out on a date, whatever. My wife and I stopped going to Loews DTX because the kids there don't care if their cell phones are out or not, if they are making noise, whatever. And who can blame them, they are kids. So this will be a nice alternative to Fenway (quiet old Brookline couples and stoned college kids, both of which are very tolerable if not welcoming in a move-setting) or Somerville (great place, better behaved kids but would rather not have to drive outside city if we dont' have to).
Click to expand...

Bingo. The kids can go one place and the adults can go somewhere else.
 
http://www.mpaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/MPAA-Theatrical-Market-Statistics-2013_032514-v2.pdf

Relevant demographics (starting on page 12 or so) on who comprises movie going audiences. Overall the trend is downward over the last 10 years, but you can see 12-17 is an outsized demographic relative to other age groups. I think the location still works since its mixed in with office buildings and apartments designed for young professionals, not families. Plus alcohol & food revenues should trump the ticket revenue. Why try to cater to a demographic that doesn't exist in the neighborhood?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top