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

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

Oh yeah, MARTA is such a world class subway. The conservative GA government won't help fund it because they think it's socialist and that GOD hates it.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

like the T is world class? Like the Big Dig is world Class 22 Billion we cant even afford. Maybe the GA government doesnt wanted to become another massachusetts. (I mean taxachusetts.)
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

1. The T is better than Marta
2. The big dig is better than any other sprawling development that GA is creating right now.
3. You're really lame for saying Taxachusetts.
4. Your grammer sucks.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

I wouldn't object if the moderator chopped off the last 10 or so posts here and put them somewhere else.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

armpitsOFmight said:
Don't act like retards; if you aren't white, protestant, heterosexual, or a male then the South will shit all over you. Have fun getting shit on boys!!!
Click to expand...

The only one acting like a retard here is you. I went to school at Clemson University in South Carolina. Many of my friends were from Charlotte and Atlanta. Atlanta is a haven for African American professionals and I don't know about Charlotte but it can't be bad. Your comments are 100% based on stereotypes and you couldn't be more wrong in your statements.

Does racism exist down there? Sure. But it exists a lot up here too. I was born and raised Catholic, and I was never tarred-and-feathered and run out of town while I was at school. Baptists are just as common as Protestants down there too...you're ridiculous dude. You need to do some traveling.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

armpitsofmight was just prejudice by calling people prejudice...
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

czsz said:
Classic
Click to expand...

In addition to spelling, his/her punctuation is also lacking.

But to get back on track - I don't mind so much the height was chopped, but it would have been nice to still have some sort of arch. I really liked the illusion effect that the former renderings had shown, and it would have been a fitting ornament for the harbor. I know we're far off from seeing any real proposals (and we know they're going to suck no matter what), but I would just say to keep the freakin' garage. At least I can park somewhere when I am visting the area.

Despite the stupid BRA and "F.ck you I got mine" NIMBYism, the thing that irks me most is this constant 'We have to wait until the Greenway study is completed first before anything gets considered along the Greenway'. That's awesome; we have a developer lined up to build, revitalize, and get the economy moving, and the biggest concern is that a "tower" might cast a shadow on a barren landscape for 10 minutes a day 2 months out of the year.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

armpitsOFmight said:
2. The big dig is better than any other sprawling development that GA is creating right now.
Click to expand...

Hate to get in on this one, but have you been following the Atlanta Beltline project at all? It is their version of the Big Dig, only this one will actually spur development because the point attempting to be made was that the BRA sucks. This project is making a lot more headway than anything in Boston right now... http://www.beltline.org/
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

couldn't hack it out in the private industry
Click to expand...

Some people prefer power to money. I think Robert Moses could have found a job at some highway engineering company, but he could control a lot more from his city desk.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

mikem978 said:
I thought one of the original complaints was that the towers would block views. It looks like scenario III would block the about same amount of view as the original design.
Click to expand...



Every Tower blocks views. That's why it's called a city.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

My big issue (as earlier expressed) is the legality/ability of the BRA to simply dictate to a private landowner what he can put up on an as-of-right plot of land. Does it not seem absurd to anyone else?

All preference about height, views being blocked, shadows being cast, etc., aside, does this not seem wrong/backward/extra-legal/non-transparent/unconstitutional to anyone else? I'm just really having a hard time getting my head around how this works.

I lived in Moscow for a while, and I understand that the mayor dictates every detail of a project there, but if something meets the zoning, environmental, safety, etc., regulations in the US, the city isn't supposed to be dictating massing, architectural decisions, etc. I mean, that's kind of why we have architects, rather than omniscient city planning commissions... How can the BRA claim the right to de facto seize control over any as-of-right private development in the city?
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Part of the BRA's role is urban planning (or it's supposed to be anyway). I'm sure they view these three "options" as a planning exercise and a way to get input from the community. In reality there sending a message to the developer, but there's nothing overt about what they've done that says, "Developer, choose option 1, 2, or 3."
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

itchy said:
My big issue (as earlier expressed) is the legality/ability of the BRA to simply dictate to a private landowner what he can put up on an as-of-right plot of land. Does it not seem absurd to anyone else?

All preference about height, views being blocked, shadows being cast, etc., aside, does this not seem wrong/backward/extra-legal/non-transparent/unconstitutional to anyone else? I'm just really having a hard time getting my head around how this works.

I lived in Moscow for a while, and I understand that the mayor dictates every detail of a project there, but if something meets the zoning, environmental, safety, etc., regulations in the US, the city isn't supposed to be dictating massing, architectural decisions, etc. I mean, that's kind of why we have architects, rather than omniscient city planning commissions... How can the BRA claim the right to de facto seize control over any as-of-right private development in the city?
Click to expand...

Besides scaling down projects has the BRA ever told a developer what to design? That does seem to me going over their power limit. Why didn't they buy the sight if they are going to dictate what is or isn't built on this site?

I see no reason why this site couldn't hold a 600ft building and close in the corridor of the Greenway. Remember the greenway is only used during spring, summer. 6 months out of the year tops. So the shadow law and height restrictions don't even make sense at this point.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

TheRifleman said:
Besides scaling down projects has the BRA ever told a developer what to design?
Click to expand...
The building I designed under them (actually for them, even though there was nominally a developer), they gave me the massing, the open space, the height and even the brick. This was in the age of Modernism, so I had to persuade them to let me use vertical windows. This worked because the younger ones spied Postmodernism on the horizon, so they thought it would be progressive.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

itchy said:
My big issue (as earlier expressed) is the legality/ability of the BRA to simply dictate to a private landowner what he can put up on an as-of-right plot of land. Does it not seem absurd to anyone else?

All preference about height, views being blocked, shadows being cast, etc., aside, does this not seem wrong/backward/extra-legal/non-transparent/unconstitutional to anyone else? I'm just really having a hard time getting my head around how this works.

I lived in Moscow for a while, and I understand that the mayor dictates every detail of a project there, but if something meets the zoning, environmental, safety, etc., regulations in the US, the city isn't supposed to be dictating massing, architectural decisions, etc. I mean, that's kind of why we have architects, rather than omniscient city planning commissions... How can the BRA claim the right to de facto seize control over any as-of-right private development in the city?
Click to expand...

I'm not an land use law expert, but my understanding is that the BRA can regulate projects that appear to be conforming as to use, massing, height etc. See Article 80 review on the BRA website. They have large project and small project review. These reviews are triggered whenever a project exceeds a certain physical size, even if complies to height limits, set backs etc. in the zoning code. I might be wrong, but this has always been my understanding and I'm too lazy to read the code.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

commuter guy said:
I'm not an land use law expert, but my understanding is that the BRA can regulate projects that appear to be conforming as to use, massing, height etc. See Article 80 review on the BRA website. They have large project and small project review. These reviews are triggered whenever a project exceeds a certain physical size, even if complies to height limits, set backs etc. in the zoning code. I might be wrong, but this has always been my understanding and I'm too lazy to read the code.
Click to expand...

Ugh. That's actually a real surprise. In most US cities (New York is the best illustration of this), the city planning commission can only micromanage if a developer requires special zoning permits. If he builds as-of-right, the city cannot dictate massing, materials, etc., provided they meet the environmental, health, safety, etc., regulations. There's a fair amount of transparency in that, and a few corrupt buildings inspectors aside, the system is based around an objective rule of law that can't exactly short-change businessmen/developers out of favor with the local political machine.

I can't really think of any place (private suburban gated communities aside) that has such a murky, arbitrary system as Boston, where law doesn't seem to count for anything but the bureaucrats are omnipotent. I really can't help but wonder about the constitutionality of that set-up ... I wonder if any developer whose architectural ambition and/or ability to turn a profit has been thwarted by the BRA has ever tried to challenge their methods in court (cough, cough, paging Ted Raymond, cough, cough).
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

I still don't understand the BRA alternatives? Why is it either (1) 250" tower, or (2) 400" towers?

How about a 500ft tower and a 350ft tower?
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

This seems to be more political than anything else. I don't understand the FAA announcement that their is height restrictions over this site that needs to remain under 400ft when clearly IP is across the street standing at 600ft plus. Then you have Harbor Towers next door at 400ft. I also don't understand our politicans trying to pass shadow laws. The Greenway is only open 6 months out of the year. The city of Boston could use the Tax Revenue to maintain the Greenway.

I have driven by this site and I don't see a better spot for a good 600 Ft skyscraper than this crappy garage spot. It's location for accesiblility right on the T is on the money. The design is flawless and would be a great addition to our skyline.

The 3 recommendations that the BRA made were a joke.
If Menino or the BRA have a problem with the developer that is fine. For the BRA to tell a private developer what to build and how to build this project on private property might be jumping over their boundaries. Why not just buy the project from the developer with the stimilus money and let the BRA build the project?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top