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

This seems to be a topic worthy of its own thread, and though I've nothing to add but questions, I'd love to read along with an in depth discussion of CFL's history in Boston, specifically concerning development.
 
bigpicture7 said:
By law in Massachusetts, no one can own coastal land. Waterfront must be accessible to the public. So those original structures @ 150 seaport weren't supposed to have been built the way they were; hence the harborwalk buffer you are seeing between all new structures and the water. (and hence the harborwalk that will be added around the new 150 seaport structure).

I think s/he's also referring to a chunk of sidewalk the city was going to sell them at an undervalued price before it was caught and more appropriately valuated.
Click to expand...

That's not exactly how the law works in Massachusetts. Here's a little more on public rights along the shoreline. Essentially in MA waterfront property owners do own the land down to the low tide mark (but not the water itself - even if it's over their land). However, the public has the right to access "tideland" or area between the high tide mark and low tide mark for certain uses (listed on that link), but those uses are limited (and things like strolling, sunbathing, non-fishing/hunting/navigational activities, etc. are still prohibited without the property owner's permission).

But you're right in that Chapter 91 does require access to the waterfront to be maintained even when privately held waterfront land is being developed. That's part of what you see with the Aquarium development. Between the height restrictions and the amount of property that needs to be publicly accessible, it's hard to make the numbers work for the developer.
 
Justin7 said:
This seems to be a topic worthy of its own thread, and though I've nothing to add but questions, I'd love to read along with an in depth discussion of CFL's history in Boston, specifically concerning development.
Click to expand...

Ordurd was helpful with the Amos Hostetter name- I googled that and found some interesting articles about him and his motivations and ties to CLF. It explains quite a bit
 
With respect to bigpicture's question on CLF governance, the four top members of the Board of Trustees for CLF,

https://www.clf.org/about/governance/

President and vice presidents
Sara Molyneaux Wesleyan '77 (chair) mortgage broker
David W Ellis, (vice chair) past president of the Museum of Science
Gordon Hall III, (vice chair) retired Senior Vice President and Director, R.M. Bradley & Co.
Peter Nessen, (vice chair) an accountant and member of the Board of Directors of the Boston Foundation

On the board of CLF trustees
Douglas Foy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_I._Foy

For the Barr Foundation, which some see as the tool of a billionaire bogeyman, the link below is a list of grants made by Barr Foundation. Pages 1-6 is the list for grants in 2018.

https://www.barrfoundation.org/grantmaking/grants/page/6?program_areas[]=climate&query=

From that list, heaven forbid that someone might learn that Barr gave lots of money to study means and develop plans for non-automobile transit solutions for Greater Boston.

There is a tendency in this forum by some/many to look at CLF and Barr in a one-dimensional way, i.e., how these two organizations are, or may be, screwing with my favorite waterfront project.

For an example of CLF's broader interests, their nine pages of comments on the hybrid proposal for I-90 at Allston.

https://www.clf.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/CLF_Final_Comments_IRTReport.pdf
 
Thanks Stellar and LrFox for filling in the details.

My gripes are about perception and representation. I am arguing that these groups seem, to most, like elites battling other elites. They absolutely do tackle good/important/progressive issues (but I already knew they did that).

Here's what else I know:
When my wife and I visit the Seaport to take a stroll on sunny Saturdays (as we've done many times) there are lots of families and kids playing in the new park spaces in/around fan pier. Playing frisbee on the green. Enjoying the view. This is obviously a guess, but most do not seem to be rich people. They seem like everyday greater Boston people.

These people have no idea about any of this. They don't know the Cronins from the Fallons from the Skanskas. All they know is that they can play frisbee on the green. And that they can get a nice harbor view all around these developments.

And so this is a big part of why I take exception to some of the CLF's "acting on behalf of" work. Acting on behalf of whom?

To the general public, if they are even aware of any of this at all, it's all just a bunch of Rich Person A battling Rich Person B. Now let me get back to my Frisbee...

EDIT:
Also, please do not conflate my views with other aBrs' broadbrush rants against these groups (incl. in other threads). I am asking how they can operate with more community involvement, more diverse representation, so that their prioritization of initiatives is actually in-line with what the community wants/needs. I am not advocating they they disappear.
 
Last edited:
bigpicture7 said:
Thanks Stellar and LrFox for filling in the details.

My gripes are about perception and representation. I am arguing that these groups seem, to most, like elites battling other elites. They absolutely do tackle good/important/progressive issues (but I already knew they did that).

Here's what else I know:
When my wife and I visit the Seaport to take a stroll on sunny Saturdays (as we've done many times) there are lots of families and kids playing in the new park spaces in/around fan pier. Playing frisbee on the green. Enjoying the view. This is obviously a guess, but most do not seem to be rich people. They seem like everyday greater Boston people.

These people have no idea about any of this. They don't know the Cronins from the Fallons from the Skanskas. All they know is that they can play frisbee on the green. And that they can get a nice harbor view all around these developments.

And so this is a big part of why I take exception to some of the CLF's "acting on behalf of" work. Acting on behalf of whom?

To the general public, if they are even aware of any of this at all, it's all just a bunch of Rich Person A battling Rich Person B. Now let me get back to my Frisbee...

EDIT:
Also, please do not conflate my views with other aBrs' broadbrush rants against these groups (incl. in other threads). I am asking how they can operate with more community involvement, more diverse representation, so that their prioritization of initiatives is actually in-line with what the community wants/needs. I am not advocating they they disappear.
Click to expand...

As master developer for equity stakeholder MassMutual, Fallon Co acquired Fan Pier from the Pritzker family. Development rights and open space were already permitted in the form of a master plan (PDA) and a Chapter 91 license already approved in a Municipal Harbor Plan. ICA had already broken ground.

Elements of the Pritzker approvals were amended by Fallon in later years, including the shifting of the mix of uses toward office space, and the jettisoning of a fully permitted tidal park concept by renown landscape architect Michael Van Valkenburgh. That widely acclaimed concept by Valkenburgh was replaced by a manicured lawn along Fan Pier's north edge.

To understand how CLF pushed back on Pritzker, BRA and Menino admin during Pritzker's approval process, let's just say this. Aggregated recreational public space, (not countless hardscape plazas and hardscape corridors as we're seeing away from Chapter 91 territory), land for a future ICA and "facilities of public accommodation" such as the one soon to be occupied by Grub Street exist, as they do, in large part because of CLF's tough stand. I dare say ICA would not exist at all if not for CLF digging in.

The level of disdain for CLF then was comparable to today. They were characterized as anti-development.
 
stellarfun said:
There is a tendency in this forum by some/many to look at CLF and Barr in a one-dimensional way, i.e., how these two organizations are, or may be, screwing with my favorite waterfront project.

[/url]
Click to expand...

CLF has lost all creditability in my eyes trying to delay and possibly stop the Harbor Garage Development which is not OPEN space. The Garage is 6-story concrete block sitting for decades which adds no value to the Greenway-----but did nothing when the Seaport started to evolve with all those tax percs to corporations and unlimited amounts of open space. That's when I know this agency is tainted from the lack of logic.

CLF only started making noise about the Waterfront when Harbor Garage was proposed they just used the Whiskey Priest site to have some history on being somewhat consistent for the Boston's waterfront.

Amos Hostetter office just happens to located on near the Greenway. So why not divert my non-taxable billions to fight a development which I would have to deal with the everyday construction hassles in this location.

That's how I see it.
 
TheRifleman said:
CLF has lost all creditability in my eyes trying to delay and possibly stop the Harbor Garage Development which is not OPEN space. The Garage is 6-story concrete block sitting for decades which adds no value to the Greenway-----but did nothing when the Seaport started to evolve with all those tax percs to corporations and unlimited amounts of open space. That's when I know this agency is tainted from the lack of logic.

CLF only started making noise about the Waterfront when Harbor Garage was proposed they just used the Whiskey Priest site to have some history on being somewhat consistent for the Boston's waterfront.

Amos Hostetter office just happens to located on near the Greenway. So why not divert my non-taxable billions to fight a development which I would have to deal with the everyday construction hassles in this location.

That's how I see it.
Click to expand...

The Municipal Harbor Plan that CLF challenged is 42 acres. The Harbor Garage project occupies roughly 2 acres. To be clear, CLF didn't challenge the Harbor Garage project.
 
bigpicture,

I think it fair to say that all non-profits claim to be acting on behalf of some class, and the class can be small and limited, or large and all-encompassing.

That can be important if and when they litigate, in that typically a non-profit does not have standing to sue by itself, but joins individuals who are members of a class who sue, and thus the non-profit gains standing.

I wrote a Federal law that created standing for a certain class of individuals, but denied it to all others. I did so to limit litigation.

My experience in public participation is that the only members of the general public who are interested are those who might benefit or might be adversely affected. The great, great majority of the public are fundamentally dis-interested, though they do appreciate being informed. The exception to my last statement is water rights in the West.
 
Sicilian said:
The Municipal Harbor Plan that CLF challenged is 42 acres. The Harbor Garage project occupies roughly 2 acres. To be clear, CLF didn't challenge the Harbor Garage project.
Click to expand...

Let's not be naive here, CLF is absolutely only against the Harbor Garage project, and maybe Hook Lobster, not the other 40 acres of open space. And it is all just cover for a billionaires opposition to a development at Lewis Wharf which would block the water view from his office.
 
JANAM said:
Let's not be naive here, CLF is absolutely only against the Harbor Garage project, and maybe Hook Lobster, not the other 40 acres of open space. And it is all just cover for a billionaires opposition to a development at Lewis Wharf which would block the water view from his office.
Click to expand...

Following along that narrative, CLF must not have minded Atlantic Wharf because it didn't block that billionaire's view? And all those attorneys at CLF, with impressive resumes thrown out the window to shill in exchange for their modest salaries, didn't get the message during Equity Office's MHP process at Russia Wharf?

For the record, Atlantic Wharf was not challenged by CLF. And thanks in large part to enlightened leadership at Boston Properties, AW can be considered a leader on Chapter 91 public access, interior space, exterior space, and programming.
 
Sicilian said:
Following along that narrative, CLF must not have minded Atlantic Wharf because it didn't block that billionaire's view
Click to expand...

YES! Now you're getting it. The CLF seems to be haphazard in picking where it chooses to make a stand. Almost as if its following the whims of one person's personal choices.

Forget about Harbor Towers. If Hostetter and the CLF are so hell bent on being our saviors and guardians of the waterfront....WHY DOES THE IMAX THEATRE EXIST???? Nothing is uglier and blocking more pristine waterfront views for private use (you have to pay to get in there) than the IMAX theatre, yet miraculously we didn't hear a peep out of the usual suspects??? What gives?
 
oh, and by the way

Fuck the CLF...........

CLF; Thanks for 1988. That was a long time ago.....

These assholes/parasites need to stop doing ANYTHING in Boston PERIOD.
 
Can you dial it down a little, please? Large, bold font declaring people "parasites" is simply not something we need. If that's the best you can do, then anyone on this forum who still takes you seriously should stop immediately.
 
Sicilian said:
The Municipal Harbor Plan that CLF challenged is 42 acres. The Harbor Garage project occupies roughly 2 acres. To be clear, CLF didn't challenge the Harbor Garage project.
Click to expand...

How many major developments were proposed in those 42 Acres?
Harbor Garage proposal was the reason CLF challenged the so called Harbor Plan along with so called Whiskey Priest development to give them sometype of history for not just challenging the Harbor Garage proposal.

That's the devil in the details. Why didn't CLF make such an uproar about the entire Fan Pier development when it was all parking lots and plenty of open space?

The problem with Harbor Garage is their is no Open Space for the public. The developer will actually create better options for the overall public than leave it completely barricading the ocean. CLF is being very Hypocritical towards this specific situation.

If CLF challenged the original proposals in the Seaport with all the open space from the beginning of the developments then you can have an argument but they didn't. They waited to the Seaport to be completely built-up along with blocking the waterfront then decided to go after Harbor Garage and Whiskey Priest proposals which both sites are existing structures that add no value to the overall public.

For a non-profit company to say we think this garage is a better option then more open space for the overall public in this location along with more tax revenue for the city.

Maybe the IRS should be looking into these types of Non-profit companies which seemed to have a specific agenda.
 
Last edited:
Coyote137 said:
Can you dial it down....
Click to expand...

Not sure if i should bother with this; but i'll try to put this in less of a snide way than the previous post;.

So, do you object to me calling them parasites (which they are) ....or my (chose poorly) use of big bold font to pound the table while i call them parasites.

By the way, are you aware of the obstruction (bordering on criminal) they're planning to [stop] the Harbor Garage from being permitted during the Article 80 review process?

Have you also noticed i've joined up w/ several champions pushing an opposing narrative about the CLF in the Globe puff pieces? i don't think i'm being that hard on them considering the damage they inflict on Boston's forward progress, and transformative projects that are an overall tremendous benefit to the public good.

i go to the meetings, take notes and sometimes talk a little. Boston is a tough town. You should see some of these urban-paranoid loons. They often carry on like thugs in their nimby safe spaces. i try to maintain a mild, reasonably polite & approachable way about it all. But i stand my ground.

i seek out positive talking points from developers, and join others in support of development in the Globe the comments section. i try to counter nimby noise by [owning space]. i usually treat things as if i'm alone to shake the nimby tree. Obnoxious? i can only assume.....

Win a few, lose a few. Always make sure someone gets bruised.

__________________________________________________________
In Boston it's considered an extremist idea to build an urban street wall.
 
Don't worry, I see your rants over at the Globe. I'm not sure how many people you convince with this approach. I make my share of complaints about NIMBYs too. But the both of you are unhinged right now about CLF. I certainly disagree with their take over at the Harbor Garage, but seriously, you two are apparently unable to see how ridiculous you sound in this conversation.

As for my specific complaint, I object to both the stupid font and the word parasite. But you do you, my man.
 
^^There are plenty of thugs in this town who can dish it out. You are one. :)

i'm a sally. But let me ask you this. Where exactly do you believe Boston is getting too tall, too dense, and too overbuilt? And is "getting a bit too overbuilt" really unusual or about to spiral out of control anywhere in Boston? It's a City for Christ's sake. And not very big, thick or tall.

/
 
Last edited:
Rover said:
YES! Now you're getting it. The CLF seems to be haphazard in picking where it chooses to make a stand. Almost as if its following the whims of one person's personal choices.
Click to expand...

Could not going after Atlantic Wharf had anything to with the fact that nothing was done to modify the footprint of the existing building on the site whereas these other projects are all creating new buildings and new footprints? I feel like that's a pretty significant difference.
 
Coyote137 said:
Don't worry, I see your rants over at the Globe. I'm not sure how many people you convince with this approach. I make my share of complaints about NIMBYs too. But the both of you are unhinged right now about CLF. I certainly disagree with their take over at the Harbor Garage, but seriously, you two are apparently unable to see how ridiculous you sound in this conversation.

As for my specific complaint, I object to both the stupid font and the word parasite. But you do you, my man.
Click to expand...

Where was CLF when Fan Pier proposal started to evolve?
The entire Seaport was OPEN SPACE to the SEA

Whatelse at this point can actually be developed on the waterfront besides?
Harbor Garage and Hook? Nothing-- Massaport owns the majority of the space.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top