The St Regis Residences (former Whiskey Priest site) | 150 Seaport Blvd | Seaport

Re: Whiskey Priest/Atlantic Beer Garden Redevelopment | 150 Seaport Blvd | Seaport

We have to remember that we are people weirdly interested enough in architecture that we are participants in a forum about it. We are at one extreme and they are at the other. We are able to "easily" justify things the same that they can. In my opinion thats a necessily evil that leads to people meeting in the middle, negotiating. Yea weve learned from the west end....but you never really know if your moving too fast until you look back in hind sight. What if we built a seaport full of 1 marina park drives? Hell even now on this forum people say everyday that the seaport sucks. So on one hand the architecture sucks, but on the other hand they need to hurry up.... so hurry up and build a bunch of crap is the answer? This building to me seems great, but I also like the seaport. That doesnt mean I dont understand when people inevitably complain and say there are no more hole in the wall spots left. Slow and steady tbh gets the best mixtures of architecture 99% of the time.
 
Re: Whiskey Priest/Atlantic Beer Garden Redevelopment | 150 Seaport Blvd | Seaport

:confused:

Am I the only one who doesn't get their argument...the Harborwalk is enhanced by this project. Plus, if the WTC development goes as extensively as I've been told, it gets even crazier (in a good way).
 
Re: Whiskey Priest/Atlantic Beer Garden Redevelopment | 150 Seaport Blvd | Seaport

SouthEnder88 said:
:confused:

Am I the only one who doesn't get their argument...the Harborwalk is enhanced by this project. Plus, if the WTC development goes as extensively as I've been told, it gets even crazier (in a good way).
Click to expand...

No, you're not. Because their argument is nonsensical. Essentially, they're arguing that because a Harborwalk built OVER the water isn't on the actual current shoreline, the shoreline itself is not accessible. I can think of some arguments that support that (e.g., that extending the "shoreline" into the water is tantamount to encouraging developers to fill the harbor), but the one they're using here - that the harbor writ large is "inaccessible" to the public under the approved plan - is ludicrous.
 
Re: Whiskey Priest/Atlantic Beer Garden Redevelopment | 150 Seaport Blvd | Seaport

SouthEnder88 said:
:confused:

Am I the only one who doesn't get their argument...the Harborwalk is enhanced by this project. Plus, if the WTC development goes as extensively as I've been told, it gets even crazier (in a good way).
Click to expand...

No, it makes no sense at all. Were this to get built, these people would be the first ones out there enjoying the expanded Harborwalk & its amenities at this site. What they are doing is straight up BANANA obstructionism. They are raising the Harborwalk issue solely to kill the project/prevent something from being built.

I added numerous meetings for this project and it was abundantly clear to me what the strategy for the Harborwalk was and how this project greatly improved the conditions for all.
 
Re: Whiskey Priest/Atlantic Beer Garden Redevelopment | 150 Seaport Blvd | Seaport

^^ absolutely. at the unveiling, we were shown life coming to another dead corner stump. The CLF is going to get their asses handed to them. It might have a secondary effect though, in angering the Mayor and Building Dept to ram the Harbor Garage permitting through.
 
Re: Whiskey Priest/Atlantic Beer Garden Redevelopment | 150 Seaport Blvd | Seaport

I really hope Cronin's lawyer just holds up two pictures in court of the current dark dank alley access to the waterfront vs unrestricted open boardwalk and then asks the judge which is better or worse for the public good.
 
Re: Whiskey Priest/Atlantic Beer Garden Redevelopment | 150 Seaport Blvd | Seaport

stick n move said:
Click to expand...

This is a public walk right? So no problem.

Edit: As noted by West and others, there is more to this than I knew when making this post. Apparently there is a problem.
 
Last edited:
Re: Whiskey Priest/Atlantic Beer Garden Redevelopment | 150 Seaport Blvd | Seaport

meddlepal said:
I really hope Cronin's lawyer just holds up two pictures in court of the current dark dank alley access to the waterfront vs unrestricted open boardwalk and then asks the judge which is better or worse for the public good.
Click to expand...

Exactly. CLF is really out of line on this lawsuit.
 
Re: Whiskey Priest/Atlantic Beer Garden Redevelopment | 150 Seaport Blvd | Seaport

I’ve made a first pass through the CLF’s filing, and there is more to this story than I had realized.

First, the prior owner of the property converted it from a “water-dependent use” – a seafood processing facility – to a non-water-dependent use – the restaurants. The prior owners were authorized to make that change in use subject to securing new Chapter 91 licenses for the changed uses.

The prior owner did obtain one of those new licenses but not the other. I’m guessing it was one license per restaurant but the filing does not specify that. The current owner did not obtain that second license.

So here’s the key that I’ve been missing so far: that revised Chapter 91 license (which is NOT available at the link stellarfun provided) obliged the prior owner to provide a continuous 12 foot public walkway between the buildings and the water’s edge, which was to be available 24 hours a day and they never provided a boat docking facility. There is no explanation given for specifics of the history of why not.

So while we here have been arguing that they’re stepping up from what is effectively no public access to an improved 10 foot wide public access, the CLF is asserting that they’ve always had ("always" since being restaurants that is) an obligation to be providing 12 feet of free access plus a docking facility, and have been violating that.

I do not have the wherewithal to check on the CLF’s assertions. And I’ve looked at enough legal filings in my life to know that every lawyer picks and chooses the facts that help his/her case. So there may be a whole other side to the story as to that allegedly promised walkway, and why it wasn’t built.
Also, I’ve made no attempt here to get into CLF’s arguments on site coverage, height limits, inter-agency procedures that were allegedly violated, etc. There’s more to this filing than the point I’ve gone into a bit above.

But, having noted all these caveats, if there is any truth to the assertion that these two restaurants have for all these years been blowing off a previously promised obligation for a fully accessible 12 foot wide walkway, then the property owners have a problem on their hands.

On this one point, you can see the outlines of a compromise – just widen the danged proposed walkway to get what was supposed to be there all along. There’s a bunch of other issues in the CLF filing, though, so while I can see the outlines of a compromise on this one point, it’s much more complicated than this one point.

I’ve always liked this proposal on the renders, but I’ve never seen much reason to have confidence in this property owner, and this filing by CLF lowers my confidence further. They can’t paint themselves as the great improvers of waterfront access if they’ve been blowing off that exact obligation for years. (I said “if” – I’m not taking the CLF filing as gospel)
 
Re: Whiskey Priest/Atlantic Beer Garden Redevelopment | 150 Seaport Blvd | Seaport

West said:
On this one point, you can see the outlines of a compromise – just widen the danged proposed walkway to get what was supposed to be there all along. There’s a bunch of other issues in the CLF filing, though, so while I can see the outlines of a compromise on this one point, it’s much more complicated than this one point.

I’ve always liked this proposal on the renders, but I’ve never seen much reason to have confidence in this property owner, and this filing by CLF lowers my confidence further. They can’t paint themselves as the great improvers of waterfront access if they’ve been blowing off that exact obligation for years. (I said “if” – I’m not taking the CLF filing as gospel)
Click to expand...

But if the current property owner purchased buildings that went right up to the edge, is it reasonable to demand that they tear the buildings down or alter them to provide 12 feet of waterfront access? If they extend the width of their walkway to 12 feet from 10, can they not claim that they're obeying the terms of their license at their first opportunity?

I feel like the failure point was when the buildings were initially constructed, at which point (I suspect) this part of town was such a backwater that no one cared if a couple of dive bars cut off public access from a sea of parking lots to a polluted harbor.

In any case, I feel like my criticism of the CLF still stands in terms of their public statements. None of what you found in the filing is in the Globe - the CLF is presenting a case that public access to the water on this parcel would be impinged by the development when the exact opposite is demonstrably the case. In colloquial terms, the CLF is presenting some "alternative facts."
 
Re: Whiskey Priest/Atlantic Beer Garden Redevelopment | 150 Seaport Blvd | Seaport

The solution has always been to just extend the dock a little. Of course that course of action failed already. It wouldn't have started a trend. Of course a few people will be screaming that it will.
 
Re: Whiskey Priest/Atlantic Beer Garden Redevelopment | 150 Seaport Blvd | Seaport

Equilibria said:
But if the current property owner purchased buildings that went right up to the edge, is it reasonable to demand that they tear the buildings down or alter them to provide 12 feet of waterfront access? If they extend the width of their walkway to 12 feet from 10, can they not claim that they're obeying the terms of their license at their first opportunity?

I feel like the failure point was when the buildings were initially constructed, at which point (I suspect) this part of town was such a backwater that no one cared if a couple of dive bars cut off public access from a sea of parking lots to a polluted harbor.

In any case, I feel like my criticism of the CLF still stands in terms of their public statements. None of what you found in the filing is in the Globe - the CLF is presenting a case that public access to the water on this parcel would be impinged by the development when the exact opposite is demonstrably the case. In colloquial terms, the CLF is presenting some "alternative facts."
Click to expand...

I don’t think your description is what happened. I have gotten the exhibits, and the special license gave the owners three years to build the 12 foot walkway out beyond the restaurant. I have no idea of knowing whether the prior owners appropriately notified Mr. Cronin of this obligation. But I don’t think it was at all a case where the restaurants were built wrongly and then ought to have been torn down. I believe they were built as allowed, and then some owner - or sequence of owners – did not build the walkway that had been promised.

I suspect the lax enforcement came from the backwater nature of this part of town. That however does not forgive either the lax enforcers or the owners who did not meet the commitment.

I haven’t followed all the CFLF’s public statements, so you may have a point that they’ve been inconsistent, I wouldn’t know. In this particular filing, however, they’re saying the walkway was always supposed to be there, and that the owners cannot therefore now claim credit for providing a new amenity when they’ve been failing to provide it all along. That’s a different argument and one that has a better chance of winning in court (maybe). Also, if there was always supposed to be a walkway there, it raises the trust issue, both trust that the owner will in fact keep it open to the public, and trust that the enforcers – whichever agency that is – will in fact pay attention. They clearly didn’t enforce it before.

I’m not claiming this is the end-all game-changer, nor am I claiming that the CLF’s argument is now airtight. But, having now seen the special permit from back when, I think Cronin has a bigger problem than he had before. But also, as I was hinting at, this could all be maneuvering…

I gotta remind myself how to post attachments….. I thought there was a simple button on the screen, but I'm, not seeing it. Do I have to upload the pdf to imgur first?
 
Re: Whiskey Priest/Atlantic Beer Garden Redevelopment | 150 Seaport Blvd | Seaport

West said:
I gotta remind myself how to post attachments….. I thought there was a simple button on the screen, but I'm, not seeing it. Do I have to upload the pdf to imgur first?
Click to expand...

Imgur will work, but it will convert the file to (an) image(s) and text will not be selectable.

Scribd is the way to go for PDF sharing.
https://www.scribd.com/upload-document
 
Re: Whiskey Priest/Atlantic Beer Garden Redevelopment | 150 Seaport Blvd | Seaport

Thanks, datadyne.

HTML: 
https://www.scribd.com/document/340027783/Exh-A-H-150-Seaport-CLF-v-Beaton

Could someone please confirm I did this right and that you can get the exhibit?
 
Re: Whiskey Priest/Atlantic Beer Garden Redevelopment | 150 Seaport Blvd | Seaport

West said:
I suspect the lax enforcement came from the backwater nature of this part of town. That however does not forgive either the lax enforcers or the owners who did not meet the commitment.
Click to expand...

West, thanks very much for doing the homework. A good reminder that when a decision or process seems completely crazy, there is usually more to the story...

And on that note, can I propose that we take this opportunity to name the walkway that was promised but never built after Joe Moakley? (kind of a trend in this part of town if you hadn't noticed?) Like the "Joe Moakley Vaporware Screw You Harborwalk @B Street?"
 
Re: Whiskey Priest/Atlantic Beer Garden Redevelopment | 150 Seaport Blvd | Seaport

I glanced quickly at the CLF filing before posting the link.

Several comments.

On West's point about the failure to meet the requirements set out in the Chapter 91 permit that was issued (CLF also alleges a second permit was required, but either never applied for, or never issued). It seems to me the first permit would be provided to Cronin when title to the properties was conveyed. The Chapter 91 permit represents an encumbrance on the title. If Cronin now claims he is/was unaware of such, he ought to sue his friggin lawyer.

A good part of the CLF filing relates to what could be characterized as the state being sloppy by failing to adhere to its own procedures and requirements. CLF has been litigating Chapter 91 long enough to have memorized the process by chapter and verse. Its entirely possible that neophyte lawyers / departmental officials who came on board with the change of administration were not fully familiar with the process they tried to follow, and are now ensnared.
 
Re: Whiskey Priest/Atlantic Beer Garden Redevelopment | 150 Seaport Blvd | Seaport

West said:
I haven’t followed all the CFLF’s public statements, so you may have a point that they’ve been inconsistent, I wouldn’t know. In this particular filing, however, they’re saying the walkway was always supposed to be there, and that the owners cannot therefore now claim credit for providing a new amenity when they’ve been failing to provide it all along.....

I’m not claiming this is the end-all game-changer, nor am I claiming that the CLF’s argument is now airtight....
Click to expand...

Damn. Where has the CLF been during all the public's feeble attempts to wage war against the Hollister Ranch after they closed off 8.5miles/14,580 acres of pristine coastline from the public in Santa Barbara??....

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-hollister-ranch-20160726-snap-story.html

Rockefeller-Republican in da Globe said:
The right actually pre-dates the state Constitution, first memorialized in the Colonial Ordinances of 1641-47. It has long been deemed to have constitutional level import. The detailed regulations setting forth particular numerical standards date only from 1990 (last days of Dukakis Administration) as a response to a state Supreme Judicial Court decision.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top