Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)

FWIW, the comment period for the proposed changes ends 3/27. I'm probably not alone on this board in liking the increased density and decreased parking, so say so!
 
bigpicture7 said:
Yes - this is enlightenment. In the first 10 years of my career, I drove like crazy. Hundreds of thousands of miles on multiple vehicles (may they rest in peace).

4 years ago a move and a job change transformed everything. There is an entire element of stress that is now gone from my life. I still own a car, but success is when it sits idle.

For peoples' own sake, I wish they could feel it too.
Click to expand...

I must definitely be in the minority here who really enjoys cars and finds great joy in driving (even in traffic though admittedly less so in gridlock situations). Perhaps if taking public transport was remotely enjoyable, I would feel differently.

A poster above compared Boston to NYC and London. In addition to the differences between the cities that others have already mentioned, both the NYC Metro and London Tube offer far and away better service than the T. They're both more reliable, generally cleaner, have multiple routes/options to get to various locations, and have more frequent trains. Getting from point A to point B in NYC or London using public transit is generally simply easier, more enjoyable, and more efficient relative to Boston. Seemingly every year, the T's fare prices increase but with no tangible improvements to the actual service. Both NYC and London fares are more expensive, no doubt, but at least they back it up.

I'm not holding my breath that significant improvements to the T will come in ways that really matter (i.e., the entire infrastructure). We have a hard enough time getting a relatively straightforward Green Line extension done.

So until that happens, I'm going to happily putter about in the comfort of my car and rowing my gears through traffic, knowing that at least I'm not on the T instead.

/end spiel and sorry that this doesn't directly relate to Seaport Sq. :rolleyes:
 
jl326 said:
A poster above compared Boston to NYC and London. In addition to the differences between the cities that others have already mentioned, both the NYC Metro and London Tube offer far and away better service than the T. They're both more reliable, generally cleaner, have multiple routes/options to get to various locations, and have more frequent trains. Getting from point A to point B in NYC or London using public transit is generally simply easier, more enjoyable, and more efficient relative to Boston. Seemingly every year, the T's fare prices increase but with no tangible improvements to the actual service. Both NYC and London fares are more expensive, no doubt, but at least they back it up.
Click to expand...

All these posts saying NYC/London have better transportation systems than Boston further prove my point. Despite great public transit, they still have traffic issues. Seaport traffic is inevitable. That doesn't mean the city shouldn't try to mitigate it, but there's never going to be clear, easy driving once the Seaport reaches a certain level of density (it probably already has).

The fact that there's traffic jams isn't a failure of the city's planning; it's a symptom of density.
 
jl326 said:
A poster above compared Boston to NYC and London. In addition to the differences between the cities that others have already mentioned, both the NYC Metro and London Tube offer far and away better service than the T. They're both more reliable, generally cleaner, have multiple routes/options to get to various locations, and have more frequent trains.
Click to expand...

I take that since you called it the "Metro" you've never actually ridden NYC's Subway, but it is definitely NOT, in any way, cleaner than the T. (Boston, in general, is vastly more clean than most cities, especially NYC.) Their accessibility is also abysmal (both elevators and automated stop announcements), and have nothing like our countdown clocks. Oh, and they still use paper MetroCards, which are barely a step above tokens. Their expansion projects have also been poorly executed for the past 50 or so years, leaving gaping holes in the system.

There are a LOT of reasons to hate the T, but you can't just categorically dismiss some of the things it really does well.
 
davem said:
I take that since you called it the "Metro" you've never actually ridden NYC's Subway, but it is definitely NOT, in any way, cleaner than the T. (Boston, in general, is vastly more clean than most cities, especially NYC.) Their accessibility is also abysmal (both elevators and automated stop announcements), and have nothing like our countdown clocks. Oh, and they still use paper MetroCards, which are barely a step above tokens. Their expansion projects have also been poorly executed for the past 50 or so years, leaving gaping holes in the system.

There are a LOT of reasons to hate the T, but you can't just categorically dismiss some of the things it really does well.
Click to expand...

Who cares! You know what the NYC system does have over the T? Reliability. I used to travel there regularly for 2 years and the trains don't break down regularly, stop 6 times between stations, or sit for 10 minutes because of "traffic up ahead". And their coverage of the city including connections between lines is far, far superior to the T. I don't care if they're using a dried oak tree leaf for a subway pass. Its a much better system.
 
Rover said:
Who cares! You know what the NYC system does have over the T? Reliability. I used to travel there regularly for 2 years and the trains don't break down regularly, stop 6 times between stations, or sit for 10 minutes because of "traffic up ahead". And their coverage of the city including connections between lines is far, far superior to the T. I don't care if they're using a dried oak tree leaf for a subway pass. Its a much better system.
Click to expand...

Amen. Also, all of the numbered lines in NYC have countdown clocks and some of the lettered ones do as well. I believe the plan is to have countdown clocks in every station by early 2018.
 
Rover said:
Who cares! You know what the NYC system does have over the T? Reliability. I used to travel there regularly for 2 years and the trains don't break down regularly, stop 6 times between stations, or sit for 10 minutes because of "traffic up ahead". And their coverage of the city including connections between lines is far, far superior to the T. I don't care if they're using a dried oak tree leaf for a subway pass. Its a much better system.
Click to expand...

Also, 24 hours!
 
The Seaport should be amazing. It was a blank slate on the waterfront steps from downtown in a city with tons of money, brainpower, and a big demand for offices and residential. But it is far from amazing.

The fact that there is no pedestrian bridge is a joke. How can something be on the Harborwalk and not have such a thing?!? Getting there by public transit sucks too and they have done absolutely nothing to improve it. Not putting in protected bike lanes is a terrible idea. The buildings are bland and full of chain steak houses(the most bland type of restaurant imaginable). And now they are using tax payer money to put in not one but two parking garages. Meanwhile the responsible people who walk, use public transit and bike continue to get screwed. I can't believe they designed a city neighborhood in the 21st century almost solely around the automobile. What a failure.
 
Kinopio said:
The Seaport should be amazing. It was a blank slate on the waterfront steps from downtown in a city with tons of money, brainpower, and a big demand for offices and residential. But it is far from amazing.

The fact that there is no pedestrian bridge is a joke. How can something be on the Harborwalk and not have such a thing?!? Getting there by public transit sucks too and they have done absolutely nothing to improve it. Not putting in protected bike lanes is a terrible idea. The buildings are bland and full of chain steak houses(the most bland type of restaurant imaginable). And now they are using tax payer money to put in not one but two parking garages. Meanwhile the responsible people who walk, use public transit and bike continue to get screwed. I can't believe they designed a city neighborhood in the 21st century almost solely around the automobile. What a failure.
Click to expand...

The place was just built in the last like 6 years. A ped bridge is in the master plan. South station is a 10 minute walk to seaport square, it looks farther than it is because of the channel. My walk from my apartment to the red line in the morning is a longer walk. Its literally 1 huge construction site right now, its not going to be amazing in that state. Give it 5 years (were buildings an entire neighborhood here) and then reassess.
 
Kinopio said:
The Seaport should be amazing. It was a blank slate on the waterfront steps from downtown in a city with tons of money, brainpower, and a big demand for offices and residential. But it is far from amazing.

The fact that there is no pedestrian bridge is a joke. How can something be on the Harborwalk and not have such a thing?!? Getting there by public transit sucks too and they have done absolutely nothing to improve it. Not putting in protected bike lanes is a terrible idea. The buildings are bland and full of chain steak houses(the most bland type of restaurant imaginable). And now they are using tax payer money to put in not one but two parking garages. Meanwhile the responsible people who walk, use public transit and bike continue to get screwed. I can't believe they designed a city neighborhood in the 21st century almost solely around the automobile. What a failure.
Click to expand...

Then don't go there if it offends you so much. :rolleyes: Moakley bridge sidewalks are plenty wide enough for people to walk over. Also nobody made you the final decision maker on the quality of the restaurants. Too much whining. Why is it so hard to understand why a neighborhood with two convention buildings in it would have to cater somewhat to cars?

I also take issue with the "responsible people who walk or bike" crap. Bikers need not be considered a deity or demigod. Good for people who can get to their jobs via bike. For the vast, vast majority of us that's not an option.
 
fattony said:
People like to drive and have a certain tolerance for traffic, so traffic always expands to fill the roadways available. If you make more/bigger/more efficient roads, then more people will drive and you'll have the same congestion. The only way to build roads without traffic is to build them from a place no one lives to a place no one wants to go (i.e. a rural or suburban setting). Let that sink in. Once you have any appreciable density of homes or jobs then you have congestion.

At a high enough density public transit becomes viable, but it doesn't resolve traffic. Once you cross a threshold into a high enough density to support transit, you should prioritize adding more transit over adding roadway capacity. Once you are over the threshold there is no reducing traffic. This is the key point that Seaport planning has failed on. Improving the Silver Line and surface buses is the only path to improvement for Seaport transportation.

Furthermore, mixed-use districts have jobs and homes in walking distance, relieving the need for any transportation at all (on a day-to-day basis). That is the secret sauce that makes downtown living so desirable and it is the other ingredient the Seaport has largely missed, though not entirely. The significant amount of housing that Southie is absorbing is mostly walk-to-work-in-the-Seaport housing.

Personally, I find few things more peaceful than realizing I haven't driven my car in weeks.
Click to expand...
Its crazy to read actual rational traffic thoughts (this post and others on this thread the last few days) that have (what should be) a basic understanding of transportation that is missing from most people. As the posts have shown, some people like to drive. Those people are not wrong, but they should expect traffic during the peak hours. The same way people on the T should expect crowded trains during this time. For many reasons, there is no way for either system (in any urban area) to not operate over capacity during peak hours.

2 points though:
1, Completely agree with you on mixed use--and its coming. The first buildings constructed have been office (with small ground floor retail) for sure, but that is changing. L2 is the only office building under construction, 1 hotel, and 5 residential buildings with 2000 units are also under construction right now. And 2 of those sites have massive destination retail (not just retail supporting the buildings above). There are thousands more residential units coming (and now even more with the NPC). mixed use will be much different in 6 months (due to B/C and to a lesser extent 50 Liberty) and even more when M Block is finished in a couple of years.

2, it isnt failed planning that the silver line is failing. The MBTA is running half as many buses as was planned. The shuttles in the area are the response to the lack of mass transit from the T. Should the City ban all development until the T/State gets its act together? Or should the City forge ahead and attempt to force the states hand?
 
No doubt letters-to-the editor were sent to newspapers during the Back Bay buildout complaining about the average architecture, lack of green space, not enough stables, etc., etc. and what a failed swamp the whole thing would be. The Seaport will be mostly ok. Of course, given the politics involved, this has it's fair share of warts and imbecility but people will adapt and maybe someday those warts might be seen as period "charm".
 
Question about the Silver Line to the Seaport, and perhaps this belongs in another thread. What realistically could be done to improve it at this point? It doesn't seem to me that converting it to light rail is feasible, especially since you can't run electric trains in the tunnels to the airport. I can see three things that would help on the margins:

1) More busses (duh)
2) Get rid of that stupid crossing at D street, presumably by having T go under and pop up at Manulife/John Hancock building.
3) Allow busses to access tunnel through staties access ramp instead of driving around to reach public tunnel on ramp

So, while all this would help a little, is there anything else to be done to relieve the congestion people are complaining about?
 
Rover said:
Question about the Silver Line to the Seaport, and perhaps this belongs in another thread. What realistically could be done to improve it at this point? It doesn't seem to me that converting it to light rail is feasible, especially since you can't run electric trains in the tunnels to the airport. I can see three things that would help on the margins:

1) More busses (duh)
2) Get rid of that stupid crossing at D street, presumably by having T go under and pop up at Manulife/John Hancock building.
3) Allow busses to access tunnel through staties access ramp instead of driving around to reach public tunnel on ramp

So, while all this would help a little, is there anything else to be done to relieve the congestion people are complaining about?
Click to expand...

There is Seaport Transportation Thread in the Transit and Infrastructure Section of Archboston. Lots of options have been discussed there.

http://www.archboston.org/community/showthread.php?t=4647&page=32
 
Seaport Transit Failure:
I find it troubling on how much problems the city & state are making it to develop existing structures that demoralize the city with concrete barrier structures. (City parking garages located near Efficient transit grids)
Instead Menino and Deval Patrick administrations issued massive tax incentives to the developers and the corporations that actually owned the land---- Then closed all the open space to the public. Where were the CHAP 91 laws then and all these non-profit agencies?

Menino and Patrick administrations, city, state agencies, MBTA get an F---for basic logic for billion dollar developments in the seaport.
9 Billion dollars was invested into infrastructure in the Seaport.
The silverline bus theory only fucking morons and short-sited individuals think this way.

I would have rather the city & state focus on the core of the city in building then invest into a MBTA expansion underground for the hard-rails if possible in the Seaport with better planning and Architecture. (Maybe a monorail in the Seaport in a certain location could have worked connected to DTX-SST) If properly planned

Seaport District walking is not that enjoyable---It just seems you are walking forever.
(its a complete disconnect from the rest of Boston) That is the problem

Boston's biggest advantages is you can walk through every area from the Fenway, Backbay, NorthEnd, Greenway----and its enjoyable. Seaport does not connect in my opinion
 
Last edited:
A lot of empty lots and construction sites will undoubtably make walking through the seaport less enjoyable than the back bay.
 
TheRifleman said:
Seaport District walking is not that enjoyable---It just seems you are walking forever.
(its a complete disconnect from the rest of Boston) That is the problem

Boston's biggest advantages is you can walk through every area from the Fenway, Backbay, NorthEnd, Greenway----and its enjoyable. Seaport does not connect in my opinion
Click to expand...

I think it's the long blocks (half built & u/c at current state) that are the issues with your walking experience. It will feel more complete when the lots are developed, continuous retail opens and Northern Ave bridge (with walking/biking improvements) is reopened.
 
Reznor said:
I think it's the long blocks (half built & u/c at current state) that are the issues with your walking experience. It will feel more complete when the lots are developed, continuous retail opens and Northern Ave bridge (with walking/biking improvements) is reopened.
Click to expand...

You are right --It is the long--Blocks--But if city, state and the develpers were going to build out like Kendall square you need to understand why Kendall Square works. THE RED-LINE running through the heart of the area. That is the lifeline that Cambridge has that is why it's become of the most desirable areas and the highest price real estate these days. (Even certain parts of Cambridge connects to Boston better than the Seaport)

Seaport will never feel connected to Boston in my opinion. It will be its own little RICH area with no real family community type feel.

Not only that the city & state gave unlimited amounts of tax breaks and incentives for PRIME REAL ESTATE to these corporations and specific developers. That's FUCKED UP.
Not only that they WALLED off all the OPEN space and blocked of the oceanfront from the Public. What happened to the Crying concerning CHAP 91 then and planning & developing an area for the PUBLIC good?

The public was better off with the Parking lots full of open space.
 
Last edited:
davem said:
I take that since you called it the "Metro" you've never actually ridden NYC's Subway, but it is definitely NOT, in any way, cleaner than the T. (Boston, in general, is vastly more clean than most cities, especially NYC.) Their accessibility is also abysmal (both elevators and automated stop announcements), and have nothing like our countdown clocks. Oh, and they still use paper MetroCards, which are barely a step above tokens. Their expansion projects have also been poorly executed for the past 50 or so years, leaving gaping holes in the system.

There are a LOT of reasons to hate the T, but you can't just categorically dismiss some of the things it really does well.
Click to expand...

I have definitely ridden the NYC subway many times, so the assumption is wrong. I'll admit my gaffe in calling it the "Metro" - I had the MetroCard pictured on my mind - but I stand by my remarks, particularly on the reliability and service of the NYC subway over the T.
 
Rover said:
Then don't go there if it offends you so much. :rolleyes: Moakley bridge sidewalks are plenty wide enough for people to walk over. Also nobody made you the final decision maker on the quality of the restaurants. Too much whining. Why is it so hard to understand why a neighborhood with two convention buildings in it would have to cater somewhat to cars?

I also take issue with the "responsible people who walk or bike" crap. Bikers need not be considered a deity or demigod. Good for people who can get to their jobs via bike. For the vast, vast majority of us that's not an option.
Click to expand...

+1.

Kinopio - I'm genuinely curious about why you specify the need for a pedestrian-only bridge. The Moakley bridge is very safe for pedestrians unless you plan to be criss crossing over from side to side as you walk over it (I don't know why anyone would..).

In fact, the Moakley bridge is infinitely more useful vs. a pedestrian-only bridge because it has space for both cars and pedestrians to use safely. Of all things, I don't ever see pedestrian foot traffic backed up on the bridge because there isn't enough room to walk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top