Pinnacle at Central Wharf (Harbor Garage) | 70 East India Row | Waterfront | Downtown

Status
Not open for further replies.
Patrick Winn said:
isn't it absurd? something tells me these folks arent actually interested in social justice. if they are, they'll be happy to know there is a huge mixed development for affordable housing being planned for charlestown. Folks interested in social justice should pay closer attention to projects like bunker hill .
Click to expand...

Isn't that project reducing the number of affordable units in the area? Not to mention, the "affordable" units will likely still be $1500/mo at least.
 
Blackbird said:
Isn't that project reducing the number of affordable units in the area? Not to mention, the "affordable" units will likely still be $1500/mo at least.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that the Bunker Hill project is neutral in the number of affordable units (replacing all existing with new construction). It is targeting the same AMI for affordable units as the current units. And it is adding market rate units as well (to pay for the rebuilding of the complex).

So more housing overall. Replacing decrepit old affordable units with new construction. Same affordability targets. That all makes a net win for housing.
 
itchy said:
What does that mean? It's nonsense. Don Chiofaro is white. So are 80% of people in Massachusetts, the vast majority of whom are normal middle-class people.
Click to expand...
Chiofaro doesn't own the garage. The owners of the garage, the investors in a Prudential REIT, are almost certainly 95% White (not Black, not LatinX), and most are pearl clutching wealthy. Most are probably not even residents of MA.

Regardless, social justice is not on the table with respect to Article 80 review (as I understand Article 80) so cries for social justice are so much baying at the moon. For that matter, attacks on the Aquarium fall within the same irrelevant and immaterial bailiwick.
 
itchy said:
What does that mean? It's nonsense. Don Chiofaro is white. So are 80% of people in Massachusetts, the vast majority of whom are normal middle-class people.
Click to expand...
That may be true, but in this instance, Chiofaro is battling entrenched interests, whereas the old white folks in the Harbor Towers are trying to cling to an advantaged position (ie privilege). The concept of systemic racism or entrenched white power has never meant that every single white person is powerful and part of a monolithic controlling structure, just that the levers of power are almost always controlled by such people.
 
"Dear Director Golden & Secretary Theoharides:
You may never review a single building project that more consequentially threatens the realization of an accessible, inclusive, and resilient waterfront public realm than Chiofaro’s proposed redevelopment of Boston’s Central Wharf, our home for fifty years.
...
The PNF and the ENF propose a poorly conceived public realm design and program, as the developer seeks to isolate its site on a raised platform, a style not favored since Jane Jacobs battled Robert Moses, not seen in Boston since the razing of the West End, and not favored for robust climate resiliency. Put another way, this developer needs to be informed by good planning, which the Design and Use Standards alone can provide, lest each of us be left to fend for ourselves.
...

1602257959271.png

[Aquarium submitted comment from Oct 1]
 
... Is "isolate its site on a raised platform" a metaphor or supposed to be taken literally? Doesn't look terribly isolated to me.. Regardless of what gets built here, nothing will be built at the existing grade due to coastal flooding resilience.
1602260846794.png


Ironic they're arguing against the urban planning impacts this have with the gated in Harbor Towers next door built under the same planning ideology they're railing against. This is much more "open" to the public.
1602260762736.png
 
Lmao the raised platform looks to be about 2-3 feet of grade change... And it appears there's plenty of accessible access points around it from this view:
pinnacle-current.jpg


And also, how can someone write this garbage?? - "not favored for robust climate resiliency." In what world is a raised ground not beneficial to rising sea levels....
These people, I swear... I don't care for the look of the tower itself, but as an urban move, the rounded plan and setbacks really open up great views to the Aquarium and waterfront. They've got plenty of worked landscaping/seating/etc. around the base.

The only reason they're objecting is because they feel entitled to review every step of the design and put their approval on it. It's not your property, you're building is ugly enough as is, shut up and let professionals design legitimate solutions rather than pander to winey NIMBYs. "No meaningful public benefits have been identified; the detriments are self-evident." Shove it up your *** Aquarium. Absolutely infuriating to read through that.
 
The garage is presently 17.0 feet about BCB (the datum for high water). The Pinnacle will be 21' and 21.5' feet above BCB. (The Aquarium may be below BCB.)
_______
For all the posturing in this letter, the Aquarium is primarily complaining that the BPDA has failed, to date, to follow through on its commitment to establish design and use standards for the downtown waterfront generally.

" The MHP pledged, in lieu of specifying the customary “requirements for public outdoor recreation facilities … that will establish the project site as a year-round locus of public activity,” that the “BPDA shall develop the Design and Use Standards for the entire downtown planning area to coincide with and inform the MEPA and Article 80 processes for the proposed projects at the Harbor Garage site and the Hook Wharf site, whichever process is initiated first.”

The Aquarium felt comfortable delaying this requirement at the MHP stage, as it relied on the BPDA’s pledge to produce timely Design and Use Standards that would establish “exterior design standards that relate to buildings within … [the planning] area, especially any existing or proposed Special Public Destination Facility [i.e., the Aquarium]

The Design and Use Standards are a long way from being developed: the BPDA has just recently (August 31st) released a request for proposals for consulting services; it expects responsive submissions soon (October 2nd); and, after evaluation and selection, it anticipates six months or so for community engagement and consultant work. The Design and Use Standards can “inform” the Article 80 and MEPA reviews of the Central Wharf proposal only if they are substantially complete before the developer files its Draft PIR and EIR and subject to the same review and decision-making as the MHP of which they (or their functional equivalent) would customarily have been an integral part.
Click to expand...
 
stellarfun said:
The garage is presently 17.0 feet about BCB (the datum for high water). The Pinnacle will be 21' and 21.5' feet above BCB. (The Aquarium may be below BCB.)
_______
For all the posturing in this letter, the Aquarium is primarily complaining that the BPDA has failed, to date, to follow through on its commitment to establish design and use standards for the downtown waterfront generally.
Click to expand...

Dunno, it's kind of hard to see that primary complaint behind the argument that the replacement of a parking garage with a mixed-use tower with an activated ground floor and smaller footprint somehow evokes Robert Moses. Can someone do a welfare check on Vikki? Is she okay? Is she high on something?

Also, not that this is new territory for this thread, but the Director of an institution housed in a brutalist product of the urban renewal era is complaining about the "destruction of the West End"?
 
I just read the letter from the CEO of the Aquarium.

Dear Director Golden & Secretary Theoharides:
"You may never review a single building project that more consequentially threatens the realization of an accessible, inclusive, and resilient waterfront public realm than Chiofaro’s proposed redevelopment of Boston’s Central Wharf, our home for fifty years. "

If anything threatens accessibility wouldn't it be the garage if the developer is opening up 50% more space? I understand that the CEO has been living in the area for 50 years and is worried about change but I think the garage is eyesore.
 
50 years? She's been CEO for 2 years and still has her southern drawl.
I wonder what organization propped her up to become CEO...
 
BKNA said:
50 years? She's been CEO for 2 years and still has her southern drawl.
I wonder what organization propped her up to become CEO...
Click to expand...
You don't have to look too far to come up with that answer, Amos is right down the street!
 
Someone needs to explain the concept of leverage to these people. The garage is making money. It's about to make more money once HT residents lose their parking spaces. Either you let the owner build what they want, or the garage stays where it is until the end of time. Why is this so hard for people to understand?
 
Rover said:
Someone needs to explain the concept of leverage to these people. The garage is making money. It's about to make more money once HT residents lose their parking spaces. Either you let the owner build what they want, or the garage stays where it is until the end of time. Why is this so hard for people to understand?
Click to expand...

Something tells me that those people don't care if the garage ever gets developed.

The real problem is the Aquarium executive branch they have fiduciary duty to the public taxpayers to do what is best for the city of Boston. The developer has come up with a valid solution for the site. The Aquarium executives are being dishonest with their conclusions and using stalling tactics like climate change and other insane issues to continue to stall the project.
That is truly disingenuous and shows that the executives are using powers that have been entrusted in them from the public without offering other solutions to work with the developer.

Anything that is presented for this site the Aquarium executive branch will not comply it doesn't matter if its a 100ft or 700ft.

I'm not sure how deep the rabbit hole goes through this process but the Aquarium executive team is boxing themselves in to be sued. There is no way anybody can justify that the garage is a better option than the developer proposal without offering other alternatives or ideas for the site..
 
Johnnyrocket891 said:
Something tells me that those people don't care if the garage ever gets developed.

The real problem is the Aquarium executive branch they have fiduciary duty to the public taxpayers to do what is best for the city of Boston. The developer has come up with a valid solution for the site. The Aquarium executives are being dishonest with their conclusions and using stalling tactics like climate change and other insane issues to continue to stall the project.
That is truly disingenuous and shows that the executives are using powers that have been entrusted in them from the public without offering other solutions to work with the developer.

Anything that is presented for this site the Aquarium executive branch will not comply it doesn't matter if its a 100ft or 700ft.

I'm not sure how deep the rabbit hole goes through this process but the Aquarium executive team is boxing themselves in to be sued. There is no way anybody can justify that the garage is a better option than the developer proposal without offering other alternatives or ideas for the site..
Click to expand...

Yes, there are a limited group of people that benefit from the current status quo. If Golden looks at addresses of naysayers outside of Harbor Towers, Aquarium and the typical NIMBY response, I'd assume it would be minimal and there would be far more support for anything other than a harbor blocking piece of cement.
 
Does anybody here have a sense (based on knowledge of the legal world) when the current lawsuits will be ruled upon in court (or settled outside of court as part of a shakedown).

It strikes me that IF the lawsuits fail, then the hurdles to get approval will be virtually non-existent (even with resistance from the usual suspects).
 
rjacobs said:
Does anybody here have a sense (based on knowledge of the legal world) when the current lawsuits will be ruled upon in court (or settled outside of court as part of a shakedown).

It strikes me that IF the lawsuits fail, then the hurdles to get approval will be virtually non-existent (even with resistance from the usual suspects).
Click to expand...
Again with the caveat that I am not a Massachusetts lawyer, ---there were two lawsuits filed against the developer and the Commonwealth with respect to development of the Harbor Garage. One was filed by the HT residents and the second by the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF). A Massachusetts Superior Court judge ruled on these two lawsuits in October 2019.

1. The HT residents claimed that property conveyances of 50 years ago gave them a right to parking spaces in the garage in perpetuity. The owner of the garage, Rams Head Development Corp, (RHDC) argued that the residents' 'right' to these parking paces expires in February 2022. The judge ruled in favor of RHDC.

N. B. (a) The court's decision recites the history of the HT development. It appears that the BRA always intended that a garage be part of the development of this city-owned land, and thus RHDC is probably bound by that intent in its development.
(b) Chiofaro has never owned the Harbor Garage. The court's decision states that RHDC, i.e., Prudential, has owned the garage since 2007.
(c) The Aquarium was not a party in these lawsuits, nor was the city.

2.) The judge dismissed other claims by the HT residents and CLF, other than a claim by CLF that the Commonwealth failed to follow procedures in approving the Boston Downtown Waterfront Municipal Harbor Plan. There was sufficient merit to CLF's claim to allow such claim to be adjudicated in a trial. The CLF's claim does not directly challenge the substance of the Boston Downtown Waterfront Municipal Harbor Plan, only that the state failed to follow procedures when approving it. If at trial, the state is found to not have followed procedures, this could affect the approval if, for example, the review scope was too narrow. I have found no further information of whether this CLF claim was settled, or is still being litigated.
______________________________________

The crux of the Aquarium's letter is that BPDA has failed to develop and publish timely design guidelines with respect to advancing beneficial public use of the Downtown Waterfront. BPDA committed to preparing the guidelines in the course of securing approval of the Downtown Waterfront Municipal Harbor Plan. However, now two years after approval of the Municipal Harbor Plan, BPDA is only beginning the process of writing the guidelines, and this will take months to complete

In the absence of such guidelines, the Pinnacle PNF consequently is largely a void with respect to descriptions of how the development of the HT garage will advance beneficial public use. The Aquarium notes that BPDA may have such guidelines in six months or more, but that is far too late for any meaningful comment on this critical area of the PNF. Sidebar comment: The Aquarium is being pilloried for complaining about a BPDA failure.
 
"I have found no further information of whether this CLF claim was settled, or is still being litigated."

The claim hasn't been settled yet but I'm sure it will be when the developers (Hook Lobster is also included in the MHP amendment) pay CLF's ransom. Even if they lose at Superior court CLF can appeal and if they lose the appeal they can go to the Supreme Court, lose, and appeal there too. So Don could just wait them out, 4-5 years including appeal periods, or he can pay their blood money, the system sucks!
 
They can appeal out of the SJC? To where? SCOTUS? What justification could they use to turn this into a federal case?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top