[ARCHIVED] Harbor Garage Redevelopment | 70 East India Row | Waterfront | Downtown

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Guys -- as one who is often [fairly] accused of running well away from the topic-- let's move the discussion of hyper inflation and deflation to its own thread under design a Better Boston

That said --the problem with the Weimar solution was that eventually it let to Adolf -- once you sufficiently debase the currency -- you are asking for total societal disfunction as someone will eventually be in possession of something real and the other fellow will be stuck with a wagon load of useless paper.

Deflation is also a bad process since it typically leads to a protracted depression in the economy as there is nothing valuable for collateral for a loan -- why should I loan you money when what you offer will be worth--less in five years -- But it does cure bubbles and other distortions of the economy

if Weimar Germany was the text book of Hyperinflation in a developed country then the "Japan that can say No" -- buyer of Rockefeller Center which led to the decade of stagnation is a modern textbook example of deflation. Before the collapse the real estate under the Imperial Palace in Tokyo was valued in excess of the State of California -- something was clearly out of whack -- but nothing could stop it -- until it did stop -- then the entire economy contracted or slid sideways for more than a decade
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Don is a one trick pony who performed his trick about 25 years ago.

Here is the link to the Chiofaro property list:
http://www.chiofaro.com/index-3.html

International Place, the one trick.
New England Biolabs, a property he never owned
Westborough Technology Park, a property he never owned
The Harbor Garage
Nashoba Corporate Center (Westford MA). A property he bought in 1996 and sold in 2005. The Chiofaro website still has the property being leased by Lucent. Lucent hasn't existed as a corporate entity since 2006, and has been long gone from Westford. NCC is a multi building complex, and apparently mostly vacant. There is one employer currently occupying a small portion of the space, employer is AMEC Engineering with under 50 employees.

http://lmi2.detma.org/lmi/Top_emplo...&areatype=05&codeType=10&Command=Goto&Param=1

As for IP, Chiofaro still lists Wachovia Securities as a major tenant. Wachovia Securities ceased to exist on July 6, 2009 -- about three years ago -- when it became Wells Fargo Securities. Wells Fargo Advisers (more retail banking) leases space in IP. Wells Fargo Securities is the investment banking group; no longer seems to be in IP.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

stellarfun said:
Don is a one trick pony who performed his trick about 25 years ago.

Here is the link to the Chiofaro property list:
http://www.chiofaro.com/index-3.html

International Place, the one trick.
New England Biolabs, a property he never owned
Westborough Technology Park, a property he never owned
The Harbor Garage
Nashoba Corporate Center (Westford MA). A property he bought in 1996 and sold in 2005. The Chiofaro website still has the property being leased by Lucent. Lucent hasn't existed as a corporate entity since 2006, and has been long gone from Westford. NCC is a multi building complex, and apparently mostly vacant. There is one employer currently occupying a small portion of the space, employer is AMEC Engineering with under 50 employees.

http://lmi2.detma.org/lmi/Top_emplo...&areatype=05&codeType=10&Command=Goto&Param=1

As for IP, Chiofaro still lists Wachovia Securities as a major tenant. Wachovia Securities ceased to exist on July 6, 2009 -- about three years ago -- when it became Wells Fargo Securities. Wells Fargo Advisers (more retail banking) leases space in IP. Wells Fargo Securities is the investment banking group; no longer seems to be in IP.
Click to expand...

Relax..... Stellarfun you must have a personal vendetta against Chiofaro.

My opinion is I blame the BRA & the Mayor for not working with Chiofaro.
The developer proposed a good vision for Aquarium place.
On a personal note to shoot down the developers career after building Bostons Landmark and continue to have sometype of ownership in this very high quaility building that will probably last a very long-time.....I guess that is your opinion.
At least Chiofaro is not asking the taxpayers to build his private projects like Fallon, Ted Kelly.


Sorry pal when you have the Mayor supporting Fan Pier, Liberty Mutual, W-Hotel, Casino and enriching his friends with the taxpayers money. I'm on Chiofaro side at this point.

The Mayor & his BRA cronies are Hypocrites. The Casino Deal creates jobs well so does Harbor Garage Development which won't cost the taxpayers a dime.

What am I missing?
You keep claiming Chiofaro doesn't have the money to build the skyscraper at Harbor Garage well how the fuck did he build IP. With Toliet Paper credit?
IP is the largest development in the city
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

The key to this development is the New England Aquarium.

That would be the destination spot for much more vibrancy for the Greenway. And if the BRA & Mayor actually cared what was best for the city they would understand that Chiofaro's idea and development proposal might actually build momentum into building a new Aquarium for our future generations.
So why not work with the developer instead of telling him you paid too much for the garage?

but instead we have short-minded hypocrital political POS that only promote developments that favor their agenda.
Yeah..... Casinos developments will promote jobs as Mayor Menino claims. Chiofaro Development is stupid . This is the typical Leadership thought process running the city of Boston.

seriously Stellarfun keep shooting down Chiofaro the developer, its all his fault he only built one building and proposed another one.

When you think of the Casino development as if this is s good idea to put development in a very blue-collared part of the city. You know the mayor is corrupt to the bone, instead of knocking down a garage in front of the Greenway & waterfront to better the area.

Instead we get a casino in E.Boston/Revere and a 200Ft Garage/Condo Reskin in front the Greenway. This makes alot of sense to better Boston.

Like I said before if it wasnt for the colleges and hospitals Boston would resemble Detriot society.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

TheRifleman said:
Relax..... Stellarfun you must have a personal vendetta against Chiofaro.

My opinion is I blame the BRA & the Mayor for not working with Chiofaro.
The developer proposed a good vision for Aquarium place.

On a personal note to shoot down the developers career after building Bostons Landmark and continue to have sometype of ownership in this very high quaility building that will probably last a very long-time.....I guess that is your opinion.
.............
What am I missing?

You keep claiming Chiofaro doesn't have the money to build the skyscraper at Harbor Garage well how .... did he build IP. With Toliet Paper credit?
IP is the largest development in the city
Click to expand...

Chiofaro built IP with other people's money. When he filed for bankruptcy on IP eight years ago, the mortgage was $650 million. Seventeen and twelve years after IP's two towers were built, Don's mortgage was greater than the construction cost, which was about $600 million.

Given that you have taken courses in economics, finance, and accounting, you should have little problem understanding how he came to erase whatever equity he had accrued in the IP buildings over those years.

So when he filed for bankruptcy, he figuratively didn't have two nickels to rub together. And still doesn't, --which is why all his iterative plans for the Arch are more show than substance. Brings out $500 massing models, because he can't afford a rendering for the latest iteration. Hires P.R. firms to talk up the project, instead of comparatively expensive lawyers to negotiate with stakeholders, or expensive consulting firms to do detailed environmental analyses.

I give him big credit for building IP, and I give him credit for being the biggest b.s. artist in Boston.

Oh here's a piece from the Globe of yesteryear (26 years ago). Different mayor.

[FLYNN] also said he would not allow his linkage program to be held hostage by [Donald Chiofaro], who has threatened not to pay the city the money he owes in linkage and land acquisition costs.


"Chiofaro made commitments and a deal is a deal. The linkage money is for important neighborhood housing needs. The linkage funds will not be held hostage or jeopardized," said Flynn.

[FONT=&quot]Two weeks ago, Chiofaro sent Flynn a letter saying he was unable to reaffirm his $8.7 million linkage obligation...
Click to expand...
[/FONT]
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

stellarfun said:
Chiofaro built IP with other people's money. When he filed for bankruptcy on IP eight years ago, the mortgage was $650 million. Seventeen and twelve years after IP's two towers were built, Don's mortgage was greater than the construction cost, which was about $600 million.

Given that you have taken courses in economics, finance, and accounting, you should have little problem understanding how he came to erase whatever equity he had accrued in the IP buildings over those years.

So when he filed for bankruptcy, he figuratively didn't have two nickels to rub together. And still doesn't, --which is why all his iterative plans for the Arch are more show than substance. Brings out $500 massing models, because he can't afford a rendering for the latest iteration. Hires P.R. firms to talk up the project, instead of comparatively expensive lawyers to negotiate with stakeholders, or expensive consulting firms to do detailed environmental analyses.

I give him big credit for building IP, and I give him credit for being the biggest b.s. artist in Boston.

Oh here's a piece from the Globe of yesteryear (26 years ago). Different mayor.


[/FONT]
Click to expand...

So your telling me that Chiofaro never had any money and he convinced investors to back him in one of the greatest skyscrapers built in the city in the past 30 years.

And now he is saying he wants to do it again. Dreamers they are the only reason why this is such a great country.

I remember hearing of the bankruptcy case. Didn't Tishman Speyer purchase the mortgage from a Pension fund which Tishman Speyer forced him into bankruptcy because they wanted to take over the building instead of restructuring the loan payment?

Thats fine if you think Chiofaro is fraud. I believe our Politicans are much worse than a developer who built a skyscraper without using taxpayers money.

This is about what is best for Harbor Garage and I believe that Chiofaro has the right dream. And the city planners are nothing more than FRAUDS including the BRA. The Mayor is a fucking joke
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

TheRifleman said:
So your telling me that Chiofaro never had any money and he convinced investors to back him in one of the greatest skyscrapers built in the city in the past 30 years.

And now he is saying he wants to do it again. Dreamers they are the only reason why this is such a great country.

I remember hearing of the bankruptcy case. Didn't Tishman Speyer purchase the mortgage from a Pension fund which Tishman Speyer forced him into bankruptcy because they wanted to take over the building instead of restructuring the loan payment?

Thats fine if you think Chiofaro is fraud. I believe our Politicans are much worse than a developer who built a skyscraper without using taxpayers money.

This is about what is best for Harbor Garage and I believe that Chiofaro has the right dream. And the city planners are nothing more than FRAUDS including the BRA. The Mayor is a fucking joke
Click to expand...

Since IP, name one project in Boston that Chiofaro has been involved with, or sought to be involved in, and where he has succeeded.

He got kicked off the State Street development team because he couldn't secure any tenants, and didn't buy some land.

You keep complaining about the current mayor and the BRA, yet his arguments with the city and state precede Menino and go back to Dukakis.

Here is a profile of Chiofaro that seems to fit him to a T.
http://www.alumni.hbs.edu/bulletin/1997/october/chiofaro.html

Let me put it this way, I would not put my money on a 67 year old who was a very undersized yet ferocious linebacker at Harvard. For my money, too much risk of too many hits when he played, and thus an increased risk of CTE. Plus, he played ice hockey. All he needed to do was box, and he would have hit the CTE trifecta.

Of course, feel free to invest your millions.
Thirty-seven football letter winners yesterday elected Donald J. Chiofaro, of Kirkland House and Belmont, captain of the 1967 Harvard football team.

The five-foot-nine, 225-junior, who will be the 94th captain in Harvard football history, started every game at line backer. He also called defensive signals for the Crimson this year, and was a major factor in making the defensive corps the Ivy League's best.

Chiofaro won All-America high school recognition in Belmont High his senior season, when the team posted eight shutouts in nine games. He had another big year at Exeter.

He was captain of the freshman team at Harvard and also played freshman hockey and baseball. The last captain to head both his freshman and varsity teams was Dick Diehl.

Chiofaro developed into one of the Ivy League's top linebackers after an outstanding sophomore season as the Crimson's "swing man."
.....
Click to expand...
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1966/11/22/footballers-elect-chiofaro-as-captain-choquette/


Don Chiofaro signed last week as a free agent with the Hamilton Tiger Cats in the Canadian Football League. The Tiger Cats are winners of the Grey Cup, signifying dominance in the Canadian League.

Last year's football captain, Chiofaro was an All-Ivy selection in both his junior and senior years. He has led the Harvard defense for three straight years in his center linebacker spot.

Most American pro scouts felt that the 5-10, 230 lb. senior was too small for American football, especially at the middle linebacker position which has turned into a "big man's spot" in the last few years.

But if Chiofaro can prove himself in Canadian play, there is a good chance that an American team will try to sign him later.
Click to expand...
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1968/3/25/chiofaro-signed-as-free-agent-with/
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

stellarfun said:
Since IP, name one project in Boston that Chiofaro has been involved with, or sought to be involved in, and where he has succeeded.
Click to expand...


Not sure if you ever built anything in your life. But planning for something of this magnitude would be around 15-20 years. Especially in Boston. Nevermind being next to the Big Dig. Im actually amazed he even got IP built in the city of Boston. And that is why the city of Boston never really builds anything of substance to add into their skyline. The political corruption, Naysayers, NIMBYS is a brutal process.

Most developers in their lifetime would be lucky to have a development like IP and continue to own it.

As for a personal blog on the developer whatever....I actually hate most developers too.

This is about what is best for the Aquarium Garage.
200FT Garage Reskin Box

or

400 to 600Ft Thin Towers with Glass opening up the frontage of the Greenway & Waterfront


A) Does Chiofaro/Pru have the Best interests of the city?
B) Does the BRA & the mayor Have the best interest of the city?

I choose A on this one.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

^
Rifleman, hopw could you ever suggest that it takes 15-20 years to get something of that magnitude built in the city? Liberty Mutual is a huge new office building in the Back Bay and it took less than a year from initial proposal to groundbreaking....how do you explain that?
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

greenwayguy1982 said:
^
Rifleman, hopw could you ever suggest that it takes 15-20 years to get something of that magnitude built in the city? Liberty Mutual is a huge new office building in the Back Bay and it took less than a year from initial proposal to groundbreaking....how do you explain that?
Click to expand...

Liberty Mutual is using taxpayers money so their is really no risk for them to build since they are slashing their costs in an area that already had under 5% vacancy. 5% Vacancy should have been a red-flag to give them anytype of money.

Also their are only 3-4 buildings in the city that can only be compared to IP .

People that don't like Chiofaro as person I can accept that. But what I have seen or read. Chiofaro has never used Taxpayers money for IP which is pretty fucking impressive since their really wasn't 600 or 800Million lying around in the 80's or 90's. Yes......As Stellarfun claimed he used other peoples money........Well those other people would be called investors who I'm sure were rewarded overtime with Chiofaro Dreams.

And if Chiofaro dream turned into a nightmare and the other people wanted their money back with a taxpayers bailout I spewed the same bullshit I do to and about the other developers.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

TheRifleman said:
Not sure if you ever built anything in your life. But planning for something of this magnitude would be around 15-20 years. Especially in Boston. Nevermind being next to the Big Dig. Im actually amazed he even got IP built in the city of Boston. And that is why the city of Boston never really builds anything of substance to add into their skyline. The political corruption, Naysayers, NIMBYS is a brutal process.

Most developers in their lifetime would be lucky to have a development like IP and continue to own it.

As for a personal blog on the developer whatever....I actually hate most developers too.

This is about what is best for the Aquarium Garage.
200FT Garage Reskin Box

or

400 to 600Ft Thin Towers with Glass opening up the frontage of the Greenway & Waterfront


A) Does Chiofaro/Pru have the Best interests of the city?
B) Does the BRA & the mayor Have the best interest of the city?

I choose A on this one.
Click to expand...

NO developer places the city's interest above his or her own interest.

What you seem unable to accept is that Chiofaro does not have and will not get financing for the commercial tower. Explanation below:

http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/p...er-travails-boston-market-lacks.html?page=all

I realize the dream that Chiofaro has tenants eager to rent his space feeds your fantasy of the Arch actually getting built by him, but its not happening, and won't happen. Maybe you ought write Brian Moynihan and suggest he move BA's HQ to Boston. Such a move would even fill Tommy's Tower. Certainly would shorten Moynihan's commute.

As for the prospects for him building a residential tower, that's been discussed already. If he had stuck with his plan from six years ago, he might have actually built something.

http://www.boston.com/realestate/ne...chiofaro_plans_high_rise_housing_on_greenway/
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Stellarfun, you have every right to say whatever you want.

However, for those of us who read through your attacks on Chiofaro and this project, there seems to be a very personal element to your persistent insistence and hope that nothing ever gets built by the man.

For those of us who see a hideous garage on prime real estate, a dead Greenway that needs residences around it, and an ambitious plan from Chiofaro that we'd like to see get built, it's a bit hard to understand why you are so adamant in disparaging this project but not, say, the 129 Kingston / Dainty Dot project.

Do you have any horse in this race, or a personal bone to pick with Chiofaro? Do you live in the Harbor Towers or represent the residents? Just curious.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Riff, sorry - I didn't realize you were talking about the capital markets and office market conditions when you said it would take 15-20 years to develop something. I thought you were talking about the approvals process on another one of your misguided rants against the BRA/Mayor. But I suppose you're probably right - given how much vacancy there is in IP (you might think it's the best building in the city but Ropes & Gray sure didnt, and there isn't exactly a line around the block to backfill their space...) - it probably would take 15-20 years to build another office building across the Greenway. So why would anyone want to invest in it when the vacancy rate if 5% in the Back Bay and dropping like a stone acruss the Channel in the Innovation District?
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

itchy said:
Stellarfun, you have every right to say whatever you want.

However, for those of us who read through your attacks on Chiofaro and this project, there seems to be a very personal element to your persistent insistence and hope that nothing ever gets built by the man.

For those of us who see a hideous garage on prime real estate, a dead Greenway that needs residences around it, and an ambitious plan from Chiofaro that we'd like to see get built, it's a bit hard to understand why you are so adamant in disparaging this project but not, say, the 129 Kingston / Dainty Dot project.

Do you have any horse in this race, or a personal bone to pick with Chiofaro? Do you live in the Harbor Towers or represent the residents? Just curious.
Click to expand...

[FONT=&quot]It[/FONT][FONT=&quot]chy, to your last questions, no, no, no, and no.

As for Dainty Dot, I'm sad to see it go, but its fate was probably ultimately sealed when its butt end got sawed off a long time ago. I'm guessing its probably difficult to get landmark designation for a building that's half? its original size. Do you know of facades only, like a Potemkin building, that were landmarked?

Something will eventually get built on the Harbor Garage site. I don't know when, but I'll place good money that it won't be built by the Chiofaro Co.

My main issue with Chiofaro and his Harbor Garage project is that it sure seems he's making it up as he goes along. You may recall his proposed solution to providing parking for Harbor Towers and others when the Arch is being built: a massive floating garage, but with no idea where he would berth it.

From the scoping document that the city sent to Chiofaro three years ago.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]M. AIRSPACE REQUIRMENTS[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The FAA must determine if the Proposed Project will pose a hazard to air[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]navigation. In the DPIR, the Proponent must demonstrate that the Proposed Project does not encroach into any critical airspace surfaces, as defined by the FAA, and will not affect aircraft operations. In the DPIR, the Proponent must document the Proposed Project’s compliance with the FAA’s Obstruction Standards of Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 relating to the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft utilizing Logan International Airport and to the operation of air navigation facilities.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]N. PROPERTY CONSIDERATIONS[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Consistent with the BRA’s approach to other projects currently proposed to[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]occupy adjacent land owned by parties other than the Proponent, the Proponent must identify and delineate any and all property currently owned by others, including the BRA, that it proposes to occupy temporarily or permanently as part of the Proposed Project’s development.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The Proponent must also identify any and all private third party rights and/or interests in the Proposed Project site that would be affected by the Proposed Project’s development. These rights may include (but not be limited to): leases, easements, existing agreements, covenants, restrictions, and other encumbrances that may affect the Proponent’s ability to construct the Proposed Project. The Proponent must specify exactly how these rights and/or interests will be maintained, modified, or extinguished in connection with the Proposed Project’s development, and the Proponent must provide definitive evidence of authority to modify any third-party rights and/or interests in the Proposed Project site in the DPIR. [/FONT]
Click to expand...
With respect to M., Chiofaro subsequently modified the project by shaving the top off the original Arch, but he should have known these restrictions, and factored them in his designs beforehand, instead of afterward.

With respect to N., no one has yet produced a scintilla of evidence that Chiofaro has done anything about N. during the past three years. And N. is fundamental, no matter whether he builds 200 feet, 400 feet, or 600 feet. As a Harbor Towers representative told the city during one of the public forums on the original Arch, and I'm paraphrasing, 'the road to this project ever being built goes through us' (the residents of Harbor Towers). (The resident's phrasing was actually more threatening, but the paraphrasing reflects his intent.)

Care to try and answer why nothing has yet been done with respect to N.?
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

greenwayguy1982 said:
^
Rifleman, hopw could you ever suggest that it takes 15-20 years to get something of that magnitude built in the city? Liberty Mutual is a huge new office building in the Back Bay and it took less than a year from initial proposal to groundbreaking....how do you explain that?
Click to expand...

One Lincoln was a huge new office building in Chinatown and it took around two decades from initial proposal to completion...how do you explain that?
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

stellarfun said:
With respect to M., Chiofaro subsequently modified the project by shaving the top off the original Arch, but he should have known these restrictions, and factored them in his designs beforehand, instead of afterward.
Click to expand...

With this statement, I must ask why you have not vehemently fought against TransNational Place nor the South Station Tower when it was proposed from the mid 800ft to lower 700ft when both these projects exceeded the FAA restriction.

Why may I ask did you not criticized that both these two development knew the restriction but only one, SST, factored them in their design afterward, while the other, fell dead?

Would you have, if given a chance, vehemently fought against and criticize heavily the former proposal over Fan Pier that called for a 50 story tower?

The fact that it seems like there hasn't been any criticizing of other Boston project that has done the same makes your argument suspect at best.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

KentXie said:
With this statement, I must ask why you have not vehemently fought against TransNational Place nor the South Station Tower when it was proposed from the mid 800ft to lower 700ft when both these projects exceeded the FAA restriction.

Why may I ask did you not criticized that both these two development knew the restriction but only one, SST, factored them in their design afterward, while the other, fell dead?

Would you have, if given a chance, vehemently fought against and criticize heavily the former proposal over Fan Pier that called for a 50 story tower?

The fact that it seems like there hasn't been any criticizing of other Boston project that has done the same makes your argument suspect at best.
Click to expand...

A. Why do you presume that I am opposed to height? The Arch can be 1,000 feet high for all that I care.

B. The FAA's problem with the height and massing of the Arch was, IIRC, because it interfered with ATC's ability to see, visually or by radar, planes and helicopters approaching Logan from the west. Where building height has been an ATC problem elsewhere, one solution has been for the developer to build a second radar site to provide coverage. That, of course, costs money.

C. I am not aware that Tommy's Tower exceeded any FAA height restriction. The FAA restriction on SST height, IIRC, was based on necessary clearance for an engine out departure from a particular runway at Logan. Good luck on getting casualty insurance on a building that the FAA declares to be a hazard. And why should I criticize the height of Tommy's Tower or SST?

D.) Whose proposal for Fan Pier called for a 50 story tower: the Ptitzker's? Regardless, 50 stories is not that much higher than Harbor Towers. Fallon bought the 21 acres of Fan Pier in 2004 for $115 million, free of easements, covenants, etc. Chiofaro, two years later, buys 1.3 acres of land (the 57,000 sq ft garage site) for $155 million, encumbered by easements, covenants.

When I say that Chiofaro seems to be making this up as he goes along, let's revisit the original scheme, which was that construction of the new garage would be phased. Half the current garage would be demolished, and the new underground garage built in its place. When the new half garage was completed and open, the remaining half would be demolished and its underground replacement built. That scheme addressed the rights of Harbor Towers residents to have parking in the garage that was built for them. This phased approach was withdrawn by Chiofaro, on his own accord, soon after it was proposed.

The phased approach is technically feasible but probably quite costly to do. As I speculated back then, a major factor in his decision to drop the phased approach was he couldn't buy reasonably-priced insurance to cover the public users of the halves of the garage during the two-stage construction. It was after that when he came up with the floating garage to hold 1,000+ cars.

And then there was the second iteration of the Arch, the big public square leading to the Aquarium, for which there is one or two renderings. He unveiled this without first having any discussions with the Aquarium, or with the building owners to the north that bounded his new square, or with whomever owns Fidelity Park, which would be sacrificed. IIRC, this is the iteration where the 'open to the sea' concept became a labyrinth passage.

Its not that Chiofaro doesn't hold any cards in this game. The easements or covenants that give Harbor Towers residents the right to park in the garage end in about 20 years, circa 2030, IIRC. So Chiofaro could wait them out. Though perhaps not the best solution for someone currently eligible for his monthly social security check without penalty.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

stellarfun said:
A. Why do you presume that I am opposed to height? The Arch can be 1,000 feet high for all that I care.

B. The FAA's problem with the height and massing of the Arch was, IIRC, because it interfered with ATC's ability to see, visually or by radar, planes and helicopters approaching Logan from the west. Where building height has been an ATC problem elsewhere, one solution has been for the developer to build a second radar site to provide coverage. That, of course, costs money.

C. I am not aware that Tommy's Tower exceeded any FAA height restriction. The FAA restriction on SST height, IIRC, was based on necessary clearance for an engine out departure from a particular runway at Logan. And why should I criticize the height of Tommy's Tower or SST?

D.) Whose proposal for Fan Pier called for a 50 story tower: the Ptitzker's? Regardless, 50 stories is not that much higher than Harbor Towers. Fallon bought the 21 acres of Fan Pier in 2004 for $115 million, free of easements, covenants, etc. Chiofaro, two years later, buys 1.3 acres of land (the 57,000 sq ft garage site) for $155 million, encumbered by easements, covenants.
Click to expand...

First I did not assume that you are opposed to height. My argument isn't about height, but about the fact that you seem to reserve the harshest criticism on Chiofaro. I get the rest of you argument but I was fixated on that one statement.

For TransNational, I remember seeing a jpg from the Globe outlining the FAA restriction in the Financial District where the maximum height for where TNP is located was only around 800 ft, yet the mayor and the developers proposed it to be over 1100 ft. You criticized Chiofaro that he should have factored the restriction in his design beforehand but I don't remember you saying the same for TNP, which was guilty of doing the same thing.

SST, under the same jpg would have violated the restriction by more than 200 ft as I remember South Station is restricted to around 600 ft. Yet Hines first proposed a 840 ft skyscraper prior to subsequently diminishing its height from 700 ft, then to the current 614 ft. Again I don't remember you making much fuss about that either.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Kent, you asked:

"One Lincoln was a huge new office building in Chinatown and it took around two decades from initial proposal to completion...how do you explain that?"

Sorry pal, you really set yourself up for this one....because guess who was the originally designated developer and couldn't make any progress on the site for years? Ultimately, he was de-designated after years of delay. Nothing happened until John Hynes picked up the ball and ran down the field with it for a touchdown with State Street. Big developments don't need to take two decades to happen. Again, look at Liberty Mutual - less than a year from proposal to groundbreaking.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

KentXie said:
First I did not assume that you are opposed to height. My argument isn't about height, but about the fact that you seem to reserve the harshest criticism on Chiofaro. I get the rest of you argument but I was fixated on that one statement.

For TransNational, I remember seeing a jpg from the Globe outlining the FAA restriction in the Financial District where the maximum height for where TNP is located was only around 800 ft, yet the mayor and the developers proposed it to be over 1100 ft. You criticized Chiofaro that he should have factored the restriction in his design beforehand but I don't remember you saying the same for TNP, which was guilty of doing the same thing.

SST, under the same jpg would have violated the restriction by more than 200 ft as I remember South Station is restricted to around 600 ft. Yet Hines first proposed a 840 ft skyscraper prior to subsequently diminishing its height from 700 ft, then to the current 614 ft. Again I don't remember you making much fuss about that either.
Click to expand...

Here's a link to a Globe article on the Tommy Tower height and the FAA.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...t_too_tall_for_hub_tower_faa_rules/?page=full

On FAA height limits for Seaport Square and thereabouts.

http://www.aviationpros.com/news/10388443/plane-and-simple-faa-firm-on-height-limits-for-seaport

If you can find a pdf version of this Word document, Appendix T has a map of building height restrictions imposed by the FAA. The document itself is
Massachusetts Department of Transportation
Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources

Request for Proposals

CA/T Parcel 25
Boston, MA

Addendum 3
April 13, 2012​
Click to expand...
www.massdot.state.ma.us/.../0/.../P25RFP_Addendum3_20120413.rtf
^^^ that link is incomplete and won't work.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...GTLGjbafEFF0bqG8g&sig2=dCTtgJOS9LcIbmXMumqsIg

My two cents is that Chiofaro now sitting down with the BRA stems from a need to demonstrate some progress on getting a project through the city's approval process so he can re-finance the $85 million balloon payment note that is due in a year's time.

In essence, he is back to where he was in the year before he bought the garage, when he and the BRA sat down and discussed his plans for the site, which in essence, was for a building(s) that was as high or a bit higher than Harbor Towers. Based on those conversations, he apparently felt confident enough to pay $155 million for the garage. Once the garage was his, and without further conversation with the city, he basically doubled-down on the height. So six years later, we're probably back to those pre-buy-the-garage conversations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top