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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

who controls Massport? Yup, mumbles menino.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

I have never seen planes fly directly over Harbor Towers close to 1000ft...........When a plane is in trouble it could divert anywhere no matter what the height of a building is. It could hit anything.
Boston needs to start building something more outstanding than the Pru or the Hancock. When I see the Boston skyline I see 2 old dinosaurs in the backbay that look like relics. It's time to look towards a greater FUTURE. The GREENWAY has major potential but private money will be the only difference for this area. This development would open and connect the greenway with a much vibrant vibe.

The only problem I see with this development is TRAFFIC which this city always has had a problem with. Instead of city officials focusing on complaining about the developers trying to make a better city they should focus their energy on vision to streamline a better MBTA system, maybe build another major road or highways to make Boston an easier commute. (the only problem with that, we probably would have another big dig fiasco)

Height restrictions do need to be looked at CASE by CASE for developements. But when a developments are not getting any support from City Hall you have to wonder what is really going on.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

I'm kind of a believer in the high spine concept of distributing towers in cities. This parcel should be tall enough to match Rowes Wharf. However, certain tower designs are thin and ethereal enough to not really ruin the effect, so it does break down to a case by case basis.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

The only problem with case-by-case is that developers have no idea what they walking into when they buy a parcel. At least the current system gives them some sort of guidelines (albeit subject to change, natch).
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

Lurker said:
I'm kind of a believer in the high spine concept of distributing towers in cities. This parcel should be tall enough to match Rowes Wharf. However, certain tower designs are thin and ethereal enough to not really ruin the effect, so it does break down to a case by case basis.
Click to expand...


Rowes Wharf and IP go perfectly together espescially seeing them on the news every night. When somebody describes Boston I actually envision those developments in my head over Hancock & Pru.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

^^Ditto.

And I am sure that Menino phoned in a favor to someone at Massport to say this. I was always 100% certain that Don did the necessary research before unveiling these towers.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

^ I agree when I think of Boston I picture the waterfront not Back Bay
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

Chiofaro speaking to a former pilot who said the height was okay is a horsefeathers explanation coming from a supposedly reputable developer.

From over seven months ago, before Don unveiled his renderings.

Reaching lower heights?
Effort to protect Logan airspace could shorten new buildings
By Casey Ross, Globe Staff | September 26, 2008

The Massachusetts Port Authority, moving to protect Logan International Airport from encroaching development, is adopting new height guidelines that could restrict the size of a future casino in East Boston as well as buildings in the financial district and along the Fort Point Channel in South Boston.

The guidelines establish a circle of protected airspace around Logan that is critical to maintaining flight paths and airport operations. Massport officials said any proposed development that exceeds the guidelines could be forced to cut its height.

"Our intent is to protect our airspace," said Flavio Leo, director of aviation planning for Massport, which runs Logan. "We're in a position where we need to maintain the airport's efficiency and safety over the long run."

The Federal Aviation Administration makes the final determination on the allowable height of buildings, but officials there said Massport's guidelines would inform their reviews and ensure the accuracy of decision-making.

The guidelines, unveiled this week, could have a significant impact on future development. A map of the height restrictions shows that buildings on the site of Suffolk Downs racetrack in East Boston must be kept between 125 to 250 feet - about 12 to 25 stories - potentially limiting attempts to build a high-rise casino or another large development.

An executive at Suffolk Downs said the track is reviewing the guidelines. "We are confident that we can continue to work cooperatively on potential future development of our property, especially development that will create much-needed jobs," said Chip Tuttle, chief operating officer at Suffolk Downs.

The restrictions could also limit the scale of development on a 16-acre parcel known as the postal annex along the Fort Point Channel, where the real estate firm Jones Lang LaSalle is weighing the possible dimensions of a mixed-use project.

Massport officials said the maximum height on the property would be between 290 and 325 feet, significantly less than the 400 feet allowed for development of a new glass office tower over nearby South Station. A spokesman for Jones Lang LaSalle said the restrictions will not affect the firm's plans.

"The postal project is 100 percent on firm ground," said the spokesman, Steve Steinberg.

Also affected would be future proposals for towers along the Massachusetts Turnpike between South Boston and the Back Bay, although existing proposals such as the $800 million Columbus Center project would not be affected, because it has already been permitted.

"We know this may affect a few sites, but overall it's consistent with our thinking about where height ought to be accommodated," said John Palmieri, executive director of the Boston Redevelopment Authority, the city's planning arm. "Obviously, the issues surrounding safety are compelling and we think we can work within this framework."

The guidelines would make Logan the third US airport to develop comprehensive height limits, along with Miami and Phoenix. Logan is just three miles from downtown Boston, putting it closer to a city center than almost any other major US airport.

The primary goal of the guidelines is to ensure pilots have clear flight paths that eliminate the need for excessive maneuvering. Such maneuvering becomes untenable in low visibility conditions and can force airlines or controllers to switch runways, thus creating travel delays and reducing the efficiency of airport operations.

The guidelines are based on the hypothetical flight paths of planes that encounter difficulties taking off and landing at Logan. To create the height limits, Massport officials mapped the flight paths of planes that either lost one engine while taking off or had to abort a landing amid difficult weather conditions. Those scenarios would cause the planes to fly lower, necessitating that Massport protect airspace where they can safely navigate among buildings.

Airport officials said they are most concerned about protecting airspace over the waterfront in South Boston, where guidelines were first developed several years ago due to concerns raised by the FAA. Planes flying through the corridor have less room to maneuver because of the Federal Reserve Bank and other towers in the financial district.

Construction of a new tower would force Massport to change flight procedures for the use of runway 27, a move that could restrict takeoffs and landings during difficult weather conditions. No current developments exceed the height limits, but officials said they will monitor new proposals.

"That's that area that has had the most diminution of airspace flexibility," said Lowell Richards, chief development officer for Massport. "If the airlines or the FAA choose to use different runways, it could affect on-time performance as well as noise impacts in the city."

While creation of the guidelines represents a more concerted effort to restrict development, real estate professionals welcomed Massport's efforts as a way to eliminate confusion in the review process.

Currently, federal regulators review the height of buildings on a case by case basis, meaning developers have no precise knowledge about the limits on construction until they seek a formal review. In the spring, businessman Steve Belkin and city officials were told by the FAA that a plan for a 1,000-foot tower at Winthrop Square in downtown would obstruct flight traffic, adding to myriad complications facing the ambitious proposal. An FAA official said Belkin, whose tower would be limited to about 700 feet under Massport's guidelines, has not since asked for a formal review.

"This enables developers to do proper planning, because they know the restrictions going into it," said David Begelfer, chief executive of the Massachusetts office of the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties.

"Before, you might already have money committed to acquisition or permitting, only to find out that you have a height problem."
Click to expand...
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/09/26/reaching_lower_heights/?page=2
 
Last edited:
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

And I am sure that Menino phoned in a favor to someone at Massport to say this. I was always 100% certain that Don did the necessary research before unveiling these towers.[/QUOTE]

If the economic situation in this country was fine then you can play these games. Their are families that can't pay rent or pay their bills and we have our Mayor playing games in a dire economic situation. This guy better be very careful. I think the PUBLIC is fed up with Political Bull now.

Keep taxing more and ignore private money. Makes sense.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

Boston is doomed, unless Logan moves further out into the ocean.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

Doomed?

Do you really believe Boston future success lies solely in its ability to build towers?
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

johnpaul5 said:
Boston is doomed, unless Logan moves further out into the ocean.
Click to expand...

That's probably not going to happen. There are two solutions to this. Landfill more of the airport and include 1-2 new runways facing away from the city. or build tall at Back Bay which won't likely happen because of the activists and NIMBYs.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

Massport is a disaster in general.........Logan has been under construction since the airport opened. Another corrupt political agency that hires morons to run this airport.

Remember logan was the starting point to 911. Thats all I have to say about Massport.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

And so it begins....as I noted earlier in this thread, the sheer height is the only thing that makes the "arch" palatable. This will now get cut down to a 600' box, and will be hideous. Oh freaking well...
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

And btw (I make it a point to say this whenever the opportunity arises) Logan sucks and has to go. Boston needs an new airport farther out from the city. I can do without the convenience, thanks...
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

TheRifleman said:
Remember logan was the starting point to 911. Thats all I have to say about Massport.
Click to expand...

I won't argue that Massport is a perfect entity, but PWM in Portland, ME was the starting point of 911, not Logan.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

Blaming any airport or airport authority for 9/11 is ridiculous, given that the hijackers carried objects that were perfectly legal to carry onto airplanes at that time.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

At that time Massport did not control security at the terminals, it was the individual airlines. Boston was the perfect place to start, a short distance for people who barely knew how to fly and the planes would still be almost fully loaded with fuel for maximum destruction.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

And if the airport discussion goes any further, it should be broken off into a new thread so we can return to a discussion of this property and proposal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top