They got the Seaport right after all.

[czsz]

I think the point is something like - why cut through that parcel with tiny streets interspersed with stores when large floorplates above would be more profitable? Or - why worry about lining up small retailers which are likely to have high turnover when one is likely to get a commitment from a national retailer for the entire space for guaranteed high rents .

Pelhamhall makes a really good overarching point - most cities, at least the cities most of us enjoy, are economically, and not aesthetically, determined. Amsterdam's built environment looks the way it made sense for many merchants to build in the 17th century (the canals were no happy accident, true, but even if Boston had the foresight to build them in the Seaport, they'd be blighted with precast superblock developments). Urban economies have even superseded planning - famously, after the Great Fire in London, when no owners would surrender their property for schemes of rational, radiating boulevards.

 

[ablarc]

Pelhamhall makes a really good overarching point - most cities, at least the cities most of us enjoy, are economically, and not aesthetically, determined.

The parenthetical phrase boldfaced above is yours, not pelhamhall's, and I think it nearly exactly reverses the point he actually made --which is that economics is the cause of much that's bad in the environment.

(You have a tendency to put words in people's mouths. Sometimes --as here-- you agree with the words you've fabricated for them; at other times those attributions function as straw men: a cinch to push over. In the interest of good dialogue, both habits are best left at the door.)

 

[czsz]

Honest mistake. Let me edit that: "most cities, including the cities we enjoy, are economically, not aesthetically, determined".

Can we discuss the merits of the comment now?

 

[pelhamhall]

I am reviving this thread because I love ablarc's original posts here and also because I have been working on a project (research not construction) in the Seaport District lately and have found out a few things worth pointing out.

First and foremost, to my shock, the World Trade Center towers/complex thing is not so bad... the post-modern buildings are not my cup of tea at all, but the buildings are on podiums that offer full-block frontage for retail, and there's a real mini-city feel when you're right there (just don't turn your head and look at the sea of parking lots)

I have never explored this area at all, and was surprised that it wasn't total shit. It's not great, but it's not shit. The park up on the green roof is great, and Fidelity has peppered the complex with artwork and sculptures.

Liberty Wharf will be a great in-fill project (site of Jimmy's) that will cap off a really nice little area of the city with a lot of restaurants.

The problem with the Seaport at the moment is that there are two hubs, one in the Fort Point Channel area and the other around the WTC/Park Lane area. Seaport Square will span the two hubs, but seems unlikely to happen in the next 10-20 years.

Also, you heard it hear first, the "World Trade Center East, West, Seaport Hotel, and meeting hall complex/campus" is finally going to get one singular name like the Prudential Center has - nothing exciting, probably Seaport City, or Seaport Place or something bland and innocuous like that (and something that starts with Seaport). It's hard to believe that complex, downtown Boston's third biggest mixed-use complex next to the Pru and Copley Place, was launched without a name.

The other surprising thing is that there are little storefronts and small footprint buildings sprinkled in among the mega-blocks. I am surprised to see how successful the Atlantic Beer Garden is doing - take that Vivien Li, you hateful elitist snob, whom voiced displeasure at something as vulgar as a pub going on YOUR precious, elitist waterfront! It's doing great, the people are happy to have it, and your angry, arms-crossed, scowl-faced mug can't stop it!

Yes, there are still seas of parking lots to kill the area, but after wandering around, taking in the sites and recording demographics and foot traffic, my horrible perceptions of the area do not align with the reality of the area. I will be receiving a ton of photos from various property owners in the area soon, and will post them when I get them.

Prior to this assignment I gave the area an "F" - now I give it an "Incomplete"... if mega-blocks are all that makes money in the 21st Century, the "Seaport City" (former WTC complex) template isn't the worst thing to happen - there are six restaurants on-site, and another 10 within just one city block - that's practically Back Bay numbers. Quite surprising.

 

[czsz]

But why can't architects and planner build a "city" better than the Pru after 40 years of critique?

 

[Ron Newman]

Let's make that "40 years of improvement". I hope what we're getting at the Seaport is comparable to today's Pru, not the dreadful original version from the 1960s.

 

[Beton Brut]

Interesting thoughts. I look forward to the photos, and your future observations.

I am surprised to see how successful the Atlantic Beer Garden is doing...

I really wanna like this place. I've been there a few times, before or after a visit to the ICA. By pub (as opposed to fine dining) standards, the food is suspect and the service a disaster. They need to step it up to be worthy of the location.

Prior to this assignment I gave the area an "F" - now I give it an "Incomplete"...

In 20 years, it'll likely be a C-minus. Think about how forlorn all of that precast will look after 2 decades of salt air and Boston winters. Grim.

... if mega-blocks are all that makes money in the 21st Century, the "Seaport City" (former WTC complex) template isn't the worst thing to happen

The economy killed the worst project, that absurd mega-mall over the Pike.

For me, this area will always loom as a perfect storm of lost opportunities.

 

[czsz]

I really wanna like this place. I've been there a few times, before or after a visit to the ICA. By pub (as opposed to fine dining) standards, the food is suspect and the service a disaster. They need to step it up to be worthy of the location.

Most restaurants with great locations have crappy food and service. Why bother with the niceties when customers will still come for the view?

In 20 years, it'll likely be a C-minus. Think about how forlorn all of that precast will look after 2 decades of salt air and Boston winters. Grim.

Maybe in 100 years these buildings will be grim enough to be fetishized by artists in the same way their warehouse ancestors began to be in the 1970s and 80s. That's probably the best thing this area can hope for.

 

[commuter guy]

First and foremost, to my shock, the World Trade Center towers/complex thing is not so bad... the post-modern buildings are not my cup of tea at all, but the buildings are on podiums that offer full-block frontage for retail, and there's a real mini-city feel when you're right there (just don't turn your head and look at the sea of parking lots)

The worst part of the complex is corporate lawn next to World Trade Center East building. It feels like a private yard for the office workers. Tough to see what's in the park from the street. Kind of like the green space next to Harbor Towers sans the fence. There is a much better designed city park directly across the street (between the Renassiance Hotel and World Trade Center East. The ill situated park directly adjacent to World Trade Center East results in too much open space for the area, a feeling of a lack of enclosure, and ends up diluting the desirability of the better green space.

 

[Ron Newman]

Is the park permanent or is it a placeholder for future building (as some of the green space at the Pru eventually turned out to be)?

 

[czsz]

Every park in Boston (private or otherwise) is de facto permanent. I mean, you can't even cover them in shadows, let alone buildings.

 

[Shepard]

after wandering around, taking in the sites and recording demographics and foot traffic...

Out of curiosity, just how many employees in the Seaport actually take the Silver Line to work?

 

[Lurker]

SL buses are usually packed around rush hour, although part of that is a result of their infrequency. The huge swaths of cheap parking available in the district make driving more than competitive with the plodding bungie-buses.

 

[Justin7]

Perhaps if we work during the dead of night we can dig a series of winding canals throughout the district. I have a shovel. I'm not sure anyone would notice.

 

[Lurker]

Canals and a moderating island in the middle of the channel would work wonders for the district from a planning and urban standpoint, but the BRA isn't that imaginative.

Given that, in all seriousness, I would consider picking up a shovel. However, considering how the area was/is below the asphalt covered in rail, cobble stone, industrial products,and warehouses, I'm sure the soil is full of surprises that would put a dent into any manual labor.

I honestly keep wondering how healthy it's going to be for all those using the boat slips at the marina given that foundries used to directly discharge into the Fort Point Channel. The landfill used to fill in the tidal marshland there wasn't really the cleanest muck to begin with either.

 

[Shepard]

Let me edit that: "most cities, including the cities we enjoy, are economically, not aesthetically, determined".

Regarding the Seaport, it's clearly both - and no surprise there. Boston has followed the trend and times along with many other US urban areas in both economic imperatives of development and the associated aesthetic trends.

• When Olmsted got to work building parks, Boston got its fair share.
• When brownstone neighborhoods were the norm, we got our Back Bay, South End.
• When steel skyscrapers started going up, our financial district got Lower Manhattanized.
• When Robert Moses spaghetti-swirled expressways through vibrant neighborhoods we got ours too. And when the tide turned to rebel against new expressways we rebelled too.
• When trolleys bustituted, we did too - with few (though poignant) exceptions.
• When metropolitain areas consolidated through annexations, Boston did too (arguably to a more limited extent than it could or should have).
• When auto suburbs began sprawling we got our Route 9s, Route 1s and associated Levittowns.
• When urban renewal became the norm we lost our West End and gained a City Hall Plaza. We pedestrianized downtown shopping centers along with the general trend.

Here are some of the general trends now acting on our seaport district. I'm sure there are others...

• Municipalities "rediscovering" their waterfronts
• The economic imperative of large-scale development
• The collusion of nimbyism and an aesthetic climate deitizing "open space"

We can scratch our heads all day and ask why they won't replicate a brownstone Back Bay in the Seaport, or at Northpoint... well, this just isn't going to happen. We're doomed to build in our time.

With some of the trends I mentioned above, Boston made out much better than other cities - and in some trends we made out far worse. The challenge with projects like the seaport is to recognize what the limitations are, and then what the best result we could hope for today will be.

If that "best result" isn't worth hoping for today, we can always wait until tomorrow. Of course, we're often left waiting anyway.

 

[statler]

* Municipalities "rediscovering" their waterfronts

This is a good thing.

* The economic imperative of large-scale development

Imperative or benefit?

* The collusion of nimbyism and an aesthetic climate deitizing "open space"

This is a fairly recent phenomenon and can hopefully be reversed, or at least altered.

 

[Shepard]

Imperative or benefit?

"Imperative" in that it's seems to be a necessity based on the cost of capital, consolidated contracting costs, design and approval processes, etc...

Benefit? I can see some benefits, but I imagine that when most people decry Fan Pier, Northpoint, and various other large scale developments across the Boston area that lack imagination, create unwalkable superblocks, and so on and so forth, that the large-scaledness of these projects is the rather explicit subtext.

 

[statler]

No, I meant benefit to the developer. In no way is it a benefit to us.

I was asking if small scale development was really impossible or just not as lucrative as large scale.

 

[czsz]

Is it completely infeasible to grid a network of streets and sell off lots for townhouses today in the same way that Back Bay was developed in the 19th century? Why is this model still sustained in suburban greenfield developments but never in urban brownfield ones?