Hook Wharf | 400 Atlantic Ave | Downtown

dshoost88 said:
I disagree: with the approved reconstruction of the Northern Avenue Bridge into a principally pedestrian way, it's better that the designers prioritized that pedestrian connection... especially because the east bank of the Fort Point Channel has more significant cultural assets existing (and in the works).
Click to expand...

I mean if you can only have one, sure, but seems like a false choice. People will continue to walk on Seaport Boulevard, and if they are headed north it would be great to be placed directly on the harbor walk without having to double back.

I guess I’ve always thought the same about the southern side of the bridge too, connecting it to the harbor walk headed south, so Im a bit of a broken record. A place that truly prioritized pedestrians would minimize all the back and forth.
 
Last edited:
DZH22 said:
What are the laws or other challenges that keep this from exceeding 305'? Clearly, I am too lazy to scroll through the rest of this thread right now. Solid enough tower design. I'm not sure how much use that boardwalk will get as the location feels a bit awkward.
Click to expand...
This was the height set in the DWMHP (Downtown Waterfront Municipal Harbor Plan), the same plan that set the height of the Pinnacle at 600 feet. The DWMHP was finalized after years of community input. The 'allowable height' train for the Pinnacle and this project has left the station.

The site is complicated, and much of the developed site will be a platform sitting on deep pilings. There is no garage, nor much in the way of sub-grade building infrastructure.

By continuing with water-related uses, e.g., lobster pounds, and creating a boat dock, this project does not need to meet the 50 percent open space requirement under Chapter 91. (Pinnacle is required to meet the 50 percent open space requirement.),

The CLF lawsuit asserts that the signatory for the Commonwealth who approved the DWMHP did not have the specific authority to approve the plan, that this authority was vested in another state official.
 
DZH22 said:
What are the laws or other challenges that keep this from exceeding 305'?
Click to expand...

In almost any other context this would seem like a major league captain obvious remark but it could also be that that’s as much risk as the developer is willing to take on.
 
kmp1284 said:
In almost any other context this would seem like a major league captain obvious remark but it could also be that that’s as much risk as the developer is willing to take on.
Click to expand...
The majority of the less than 1/2 acre site is tidal; i.e., Boston Harbor flows under the wood decking. The harbor cannot be filled in. Bedrock is 100-110 feet down. A question is how much mass would one want to load on pilings?

Figure 1-2 of this PNF is an excellent outline of the area of No New Shadow on Long Wharf, which is very relevant to the Pinnacle, and its proposed positioning of max height on the south and southwest sides of that building.
 
dshoost88 said:
I disagree: with the approved reconstruction of the Northern Avenue Bridge into a principally pedestrian way, it's better that the designers prioritized that pedestrian connection... especially because the east bank of the Fort Point Channel has more significant cultural assets existing (and in the works).
Click to expand...

Why can't they do both? The long sliver of water between this building and the Moakley is a terrible and inefficient waste of space. There should at least be a wide stairway down and over to the boardwalk. It wouldn't take much money to do and would alleve the only option for walkers/bicyclists to go the the street at the end.

I agree about the Northern Avenue bridge, but why should that have a monopoly? It's in the city's best interests to have many pedestrian options. And this one would cost much at all.

We should be supporting the Harborwalk, not obstructing it.
 
Last edited:
I like the height and the facade. Great mix, glad it isn't too tall and out of proportion.

It's very nice too
 
kmp1284 said:
In almost any other context this would seem like a major league captain obvious remark but it could also be that that’s as much risk as the developer is willing to take on.
Click to expand...

I'm most confused by the 5'. Why not 300'?
 
kmp1284 said:
Are you serious? That’s what the floor-to-floor heights based on these preliminary designs produced.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. So they designed the building, then put the height cap on? Seems kinda topsy turvy?
 
dshoost88 said:
I disagree: with the approved reconstruction of the Northern Avenue Bridge into a principally pedestrian way, it's better that the designers prioritized that pedestrian connection... especially because the east bank of the Fort Point Channel has more significant cultural assets existing (and in the works).
Click to expand...

TBH thought you were both wrong, and that they should prioritize an "under-bridge connection," but didn't realize that there is nothing to match up with on the far side. The Intercontinental Harborwalk will always force you down that windswept alley and force you to the light to cross. [EDIT: I stand corrected.]

Not actually sure there is headroom under the bridge even if they wanted to - the Barking crab side is really low and always floods.
1607990126071.png


And even the partial renders of the new North Ave bridge are terrible.This should be a grand entrance to a pedestrian bridge with a great view, not a bus ramp!
1607990568205.png
 
Last edited:
Vagabond said:
TBH thought you were both wrong, and that they should prioritize an "under-bridge connection," but didn't realize that there is nothing to match up with on the far side. The Intercontinental Harborwalk will always force you down that windswept alley and force you to the light to cross. Not actually sure there is headroom under the bridge even if they wanted to - the Barking crab side is really low and always floods.
View attachment 8840

And oh lord even the partial renders of the new North Ave bridge are terrible.This should be a grand entrance to a pedestrian bridge with a great view, not a bus ramp!
Click to expand...

Harborwalk continues under/through that building. The entry points really blend in with the facade, and I can imagine if you didn't know what you were doing, you wouldn't really be positive you're going the right way, but it does in fact stretch under that building.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.354...4!1sT9ScsYrJZFafhBNhrQmcyw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

At first, I thought it was simply a jurisdictional problem, but looking at this now, I'm not confident they can slip anything under the bridge. It's pretty low at that point. Perhaps you could theoretically connect both sides up to the bridge, then have a crosswalk there, but from a traffic engineering, pedestrian safety, and ADA/accessibility standpoint, probably not wise, and from a cost perspective, too high for a 'shortcut.' I think this minor divergence, along with adequate signage, should be enough. When the time comes for the Moakley to be replaced, it may/should worth consideration for creating a more direct connection.
 
I feel like this is average to slightly below average. Square proportions, avg facade and weird top leave it as definitely not great and definitely not terrible either. I would like to see some more vantage points but the greenway one is very very avg. Complete baseline is a blue glass box with rectangle proportions, this is slightly below with square proportions. Which is perfectly fine its a background building they have strength in anonymity. What Id really rather see is some terra cotta for a waterfront tower here imo, but hey good enough. Next.
 
The Globe states that the Hook family hired a different architect than the one who prepared the initial design six years ago, and sources a link to a Globe article in 2014. The architectural firm in 2014 was Elkus Manfredi, same as today. Perhaps, the principal responsible for the design in 2014 was Howard Elkus, who died in 2017.

Hook-Waterfront-14_1022-3988.jpg


^^^ Ground level, 2014 design.
 
Looks like they decided to take the top of the South Station Tower and plant in on the site.
 
“high-profile, landmark hotel”- I wonder what that means? Does that mean a JW Marriott or Park Hyatt brand?
 
navigator4 said:
“high-profile, landmark hotel”- I wonder what that means? Does that mean a JW Marriott or Park Hyatt brand?
Click to expand...

The filing describes it as ‘select service’ so think Marriott Courtyard or Hilton Garden Inn which would be disappointing for such a location but the luxury market is probably saturated with the Langham and Newbury coming back online in 21 and the Raffles in 22 or 23.
 
navigator4 said:
“high-profile, landmark hotel”- I wonder what that means? Does that mean a JW Marriott or Park Hyatt brand?
Click to expand...
kmp1284 said:
The filing describes it as ‘select service’ so think Marriott Courtyard or Hilton Garden Inn which would be disappointing for such a location but the luxury market is probably saturated with the Langham and Newbury coming back online in 21 and the Raffles in 22 or 23.
Click to expand...

If it's a Courtyard Marriott or Hilton Garden Inn I know this wouldn't come into play, but if this were more along the lines of Park Hyatt I wonder if they'd insist on a residential component? It seems like all of the most luxurious hospitality brands in Boston (Mandarin Oriental, Raffles, Four Seasons, Ritz Carlton, Intercontinental, W, and St Regis--which has no hotel) have significant residential pieces.

Based on the design it seems like they'd be going for the higher-end of the spectrum in terms of brands and, as KMP said, it'd be a little disappointing for this location to not be top-of-the-line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top