![]() |
|
Development Projects New urban and/or architectural developments in Boston metro. |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#1981 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Brockton
Posts: 1,966
|
Re: Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)
Sounds like him. Good points as usual for him, and I usually agree with 80-90% of his posts and opinions. The other people commenting of course are the real highlight. I could read people like parkslover for hours. My neck would be JACKED from all the head shaking.
The hope I'm holding out for right now are the L parcels around seaport hill. They are all shown with small footprints and varying heights right now. Hopefully something along those lines happens. The current trend includes more residential, so hopefully that influences some of the choices in the area. The other thing that will happen is the development Of adjacent parcels that are not part of the mondo developments in the area currently. When the seams start to blend, things should hopefully continue to improve. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#1982 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: atlanta
Posts: 1,870
|
Re: Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)
The poster, Geolovely, takes the cake for me and I have always thought he/she is a poster here. And yes, Steve 2222, I would agree, is Sicilian.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#1983 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Davis/Ball Sq.
Posts: 1,734
|
Re: Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)
Quote:
While I almost always disagree with him, he's actually not a complete idiot. I believe he is retired from some design/building profession. I think he has some cause/effect relationships backwards and that is why we always disagree on how to achieve the same goal. In any case, his smug condescending attitude makes him impossible to have a civil argument with. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#1984 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,290
|
Re: Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)
Not to nitpick his comments (which weren't made here, after all), but 100 units/acre is not the minimum for urban density. As shown at this link, the Back Bay has an overall density of 30 units/acre and up depending on which area you look at:
http://www.lincolninst.edu/subcenter...y/tour/t4.aspx 100 units/acre is Brooklyn density, and you're not going to achieve it in a mixed-use neighborhood. Also, units/acre is different from residents/acre. Many of his other points are very good, especially the one about the lack of civic structures. Honestly, though, since most of the development has been the cash cow commercial portions of these master-planned projects, it's tough to judge what the neighborhood will be like when the residential development has occurred. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#1985 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Rozzie Square
Posts: 1,841
|
Re: Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#1986 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Brockton
Posts: 1,966
|
Re: Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)
Acres always seem so abstract to me....
But, Boston is one of like 6 major cities in America that has a density of greater than 10,000 people/square mile. That seems like a good goal to shoot for as far as maintaining that. If the Seaport area as a whole is about 1 sq. mile. I think that takes us basically all the way to Broadway however as mentioned in the comments section, so some of these residents do exist currently. 5,000-10,000 residents would make a fairly urban neighborhood. And would require somewhere between 2,000- 3,800 units for 5,000 residents, or 4,300 - 6,700 units for 10,000 residents. The low end of units is based on the average Boston household size of 2.31 persons per unit, which I think we all agree is not what the Seaport will see. So for the high end of units I made up a factor of 1.3/unit for the 5,000 number and upped it to 1.5/unit for the 10,000 (you would probably see a few more family sized units if they build it on the denser side. Right now, based on Steve(Siclian's?) current number of units of between 2,000-2,500 Seaport units, we're looking at closer to the 5,000 resident number, and not super dense for residential. Then again, the Boston density numbers are based on the whole city, and many of those neighborhoods skew the number one way or another. Some heavily populated areas wouldn't be called mixed use, and some areas still have very low residential units. Ultimately, if 5,000 residents were added to the area (or totaled that when including everything to the water side of Broadway from A to D), it would start to have a "neighborhood" feel to it. I guess what it won't have is clusters of 3-5 storey residential units along a row of three or four cross streets that we see in our more classical neighborhoods, and that will be what holds it back from having that feeling. The only area I see that as possible, would be in the existing Fort Point buildings, especially between Congress and Seaport Boulevard. That could be a super sweet, tight little neighborhood, but it's currently almost devoid of any residential uses. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#1987 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,384
|
Re: Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)
Quote:
So either the 30 units/acre measure is incorrect for the Back Bay (which I think it may be...), or 100 units/acre is absurd since that would mean you'd have to be topping 100,000 people per square mile in order to have an "urban" neighborhood. As far as I know, there are only 3 cities in the nation that have tracts that go that high: NYC, San Francisco, and Boston. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#1988 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 148
|
Re: Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)
aren't a lot of residential units under construction?
Pier 4 - 369 units One Seaport Square - 832 units Watermark Seaport Square - 346 Units 22 Liberty- 109 Units Recently Completed Waterside Place - 236 Units 315A -202 Units 411D -197 Units Am I missing any? Edit Did some Digging, Curbed Boston is saying that there are currently 2,103 units completed in the seaport, about a 1,000 under construction, and over 800 on deck. http://boston.curbed.com/archives/20...ent-so-far.php They calculate it at 4,099 units total. Last edited by quinninin; 12-17-2014 at 02:01 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#1989 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Dorchester, MA
Posts: 284
|
Re: Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)
![]() Look at what I got today. ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#1990 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,194
|
Re: Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)
I am also dropping pictures here because they all look the same to me.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#1991 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Boston
Posts: 331
|
Re: Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)
There are 640 acres/sqmi
Assuming 1.5 people per unit in the back bay and 30 units per acre that translatrs to about 29,000 per sqmi. 5000 units in the 1000 acre or 1.56sqmi seaport translates to about 4800 per sq mi about the same as Newton Eventually there will almost certainly be a lot more units in the seaport |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#1992 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: White River Jct.
Posts: 1,085
|
Re: Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)
Part of the challenge is because the convention center and roads take up so much space it makes it even harder to reach the number of units needed. That and the bias towards commercial development.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#1993 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 112
|
Re: Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)
Based on some articles I have read on downtown revitalization, I hear the 20,000 people figure thrown around as the target to shoot for to feel like a living, residential area. Obviously this isn't an exact science, but having 20,000 people is enough to sustain a critical mass of residential oriented business (it maybe higher in a high rent area like Boston). Assuming Seaport is 20,000 and 1 mile, that would still give Seaport a lower density than central Boston (Fenway, South End, Back Bay, DT Boston) and most of the other "living downtowns" in the county (SF, Philly, Chi, maybe Sea). But, it seems a good minimal base to shoot for.
Given that DT Boston and South Boston already have their own retail, it's unlikely seaport can count on spill over patrons from adjoining neighborhoods. But on the flip side, non-residential uses also play a role in making a neighborhood feel urban. The area has a couple museums, hotels, and offices which will make the area feel busier, more "big city" than a higher density all residential neighborhood in Brooklyn. Plus, the water will draw tourists in the nicer months. Nonetheless, 20,000 people (@1.7/unit) = 12,000 units needed in the seaport. At current build out rates, that probably means we are 10-20 years from seeing Seaport as a seamless extension of Boston's central neighborhoods. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#1994 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,066
|
Re: Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)
I found this pdf while trying to find out when Harbor Street would be built. It's only a partial document but has loads of info on the intentions for the various corridors.
Re: the fate of the MBTA headhouse, Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
also has lots of info and some images I hadnt before seen, including some images (Fig 1-13 and 1-14) of "Courthouse Sq" IE a very different and I must say improved Northern Ave... Lastly, re: Parcels N and P (on both sides of the elevated junction of Summer & Harbor Sts - someone had asked about retail here in another thread), Quote:
|
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#1995 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 683
|
Re: Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)
And now I finally know why they're calling that park/square "Seaport Hill." I always assumed it was just some dumb marketing campaign as the whole area is obviously flat, but no! there will be an actual change in elevation.
Also: photos. ![]()
__________________
1 All syllogisms have three parts. 2 Therefore, this is not a syllogism. Last edited by timsox6; 12-19-2014 at 11:20 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#1996 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,150
|
Re: Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)
Quote:
What's discouraging is that I and others have been repeating the same mantra, calling attention to Seaport housing numbers, architecture, street layout, civic space, cultural planning for over 15 years, and marginalized every step of the way. We're at a point now where Boston's multi-generational housing shortfall is impacting the City's economy and (admittedly conjecture here since Seaport traffic planners dismiss this theory) the Seaport housing shortfall is proving detrimental to the Silver Line and traffic. I would ask anyone to explain why the large financial corporations that own much of the Seaport have been allowed to spend the past decade flipping vacant lots, profiting from portfolios pumped with pre-approved development rights. Wasn't the stated purpose of awarding development rights to large landowners (21 acres, 23 acres, etc.) via Planned Development Areas (PDAs) to ensure that the public would see an urban neighborhood evolve with a balanced mix of uses, including non-commercial/civic uses, and architecture that valued its waterfront location? I'd guess $1B in profit from the sale of lots with pre-approved development rights has been siphoned from Boston before a shovel hit the ground. For what? EDIT: Removed a snarky comment. Last edited by Sicilian; 12-20-2014 at 08:44 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#1997 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: White River Jct.
Posts: 1,085
|
Re: Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)
Jane Jacobs stated that the number she listed was slightly scaleable. She specifically mentioned the North End as a good example.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#1998 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: man hat tan
Posts: 7,533
|
Re: Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)
Fallen Heroes Memorial:
![]() Envoy Hotel: ![]()
__________________
Politicians, ugly buildings and whores all get respectable if they last long enough. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#1999 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 2,824
|
Re: Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)
That Envoy is a very handsome building. As depressing as a lot of the Seaport buildings have been, good to see there's some decent (and even excellent) contemporary design happening.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2000 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 3,585
|
Re: Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)
Regarding Jane Jacobs' cited density numbers, I've done some thinking and writing about this in the past that might be enlightening.
I think the main point to keep in mind is that she always referred to "dwelling units per net acre", which is a relatively unusual metric. You need to be careful when expanding it out to larger areas, so I think it is most helpful if you stick to comparing it using small units such as census blocks. Net acres is a metric that does not include unusable or undevelopable land. So attempting to extrapolate out "64,000 units per square mile" from 100 units per net acre isn't right, because a square mile anywhere is likely to have a great deal of unusable land. In fact it will probably translate to significantly fewer units per square mile. Additionally, how do you translate units to # of people? Culture has changed since 1960 and it's not entirely clear that the average ratio of people to units was the same in 1960 as it is today. That's probably something you can work out from census data but it might still vary on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis. I do think that measuring dwelling units per land area is a better metric for density than measuring population per land area, though, because the latter can be fooled by overcrowding. Having a large number of dwelling units normally indicates economic strength in the neighborhood because people are probably not crowding into too few units, and can afford to have separate units instead. Regarding the 100 du/net acre: she was careful to present her numbers with caution for the reader: Quote:
Jacobs cited numbers of 250 du/net acre for the North End in 1958, and recent census results seem to show it around 172 du/net acre on several census blocks. Does that mean there's been a change in the # of units, or a change in the way measurements were made? No way to know. But we do know that the North End remains a successful neighborhood. With this in mind, on my map, I accepted densities of 60-80 dwelling units/net acre as being borderline urban, because it seemed to fit the census data available for Boston as of 2012. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
BRA Meeting: Seaport Square | briv | Boston Architecture/Urbanism Related Events | 0 | 06-23-2008 04:28 PM |
Seaport Square Meeting | briv | Boston Architecture/Urbanism Related Events | 0 | 05-09-2008 10:10 PM |
Seaport Square Meeting | briv | Boston Architecture/Urbanism Related Events | 0 | 04-17-2008 09:33 PM |
Seaport Square Meeting | briv | Boston Architecture/Urbanism Related Events | 4 | 04-10-2008 02:08 PM |
Seaport Square Meeting | briv | Boston Architecture/Urbanism Related Events | 0 | 03-28-2008 09:23 PM |