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

[whighlander]

When I'm older I'm going to lobby the FAA to raise the height limits in the city. Toronto's airport is close to downtown Toronto and they have structures upwards of 2000 ft.

Natickx -- It doesn't really matter how close you are to the airport -- its all about does your building present a hazard to an airplane on a flight path to/from a particular runway or a single engine go-round or does the structure block the radar used for terminal approach control

so you could actually be very close but have the directions of the runways such that your tower was in between the runways. Logan just happens to be aligned in such a manner that both South Boston Seaport and the Core of downtown are in the line of sight of several of the runways

 

[HarvardP]

Pearson is the major airport for Toronto and it's isolated from the urban cores of Toronto and Mississauga. Toronto City Airport just south of Old Toronto flies smaller craft and they land/take off in an east/west orientation, avoiding the increasingly-crowded skyline.

 

[type001]

What do you suggest? Given the constraints?

Even without the constraints, what do you suggest? Seriously, I'm having a hard time imaging what people think would make it better.

 

[Equilibria]

btw - I didn't see anyone post a link to the PNF. I don't think it's on the BPDA website yet, but here it is:

2020-01-22_Project Notification Form (PNF)_Harbor Garage Redevelopment.pdf | Powered by Box

bpda.app.box.com

 

[DZH22]

Natickx -- It doesn't really matter how close you are to the airport.......or does the structure block the radar used for terminal approach control.......

This is something I have always wondered about. What are the costs associated with updating the radar system that could, in turn, allow taller buildings downtown? (outside the flight paths of course) If it's not SUPER expensive, wouldn't it behoove some developer to include that as part of, say, a 1000' proposal near North Station? Perhaps a couple developers could split the costs. I don't know, I am clearly not an expert on radar. Is this even possible? It just seems like, if this is a way that we could lift some of the height limits downtown, it's an avenue that should be explored.

 

[stellarfun]

When I'm older I'm going to lobby the FAA to raise the height limits in the city. Toronto's airport is close to downtown Toronto and they have structures upwards of 2000 ft.

When you're older you will learn that the FAA can designate a building as a hazard to navigation. Such a designation means you can go ahead and build it, but you can't get insurance on it. An uninsurable building is an unbuilt building.

 

[stellarfun]

This is something I have always wondered about. What are the costs associated with updating the radar system that could, in turn, allow taller buildings downtown? (outside the flight paths of course) If it's not SUPER expensive, wouldn't it behoove some developer to include that as part of, say, a 1000' proposal near North Station? Perhaps a couple developers could split the costs. I don't know, I am clearly not an expert on radar. Is this even possible? It just seems like, if this is a way that we could lift some of the height limits downtown, it's an avenue that should be explored.

Early on, like ten years ago, an option for Chiofaro, with respect to the first iteration, was to build a second radome that would give coverage for the area blocked by the height and mass of the first tower iteration. The FAA will not build a second radome, but if Chiofaro wanted to pay for it, he could. The second radome option was mooted by the Commonwealth's decree of no new shadows on Long Wharf on October 31.

 

[DZH22]

Early on, like ten years ago, an option for Chiofaro, with respect to the first iteration, was to build a second radome that would give coverage for the area blocked by the height and mass of the first tower iteration. The FAA will not build a second radome, but if Chiofaro wanted to pay for it, he could. The second radome option was mooted by the Commonwealth's decree of no new shadows on Long Wharf on October 31.

But then, wouldn't it behoove a developer on a different site, without the shadows on the parks/water encumbrances, to go this route? What kind of costs are we looking at for something that could yield hundreds of extra feet?

 

[CSTH]

Stellar -- once again we have a "Houston we have a problem" -- a lot of ABforum folk have very minimal understanding of the water ebb and flood in Boston Harbor -- I suggest a day spent at Pier 4 Steps when the weather is more pleasant.

It's not the Bay of Fundy or Mont St. Michael in France -- but Boston tides daily swing about 3m or 10ft.
Every month with proper lunar & solar alignment we get almost another meter
Less Frequently we can get even more when the earth is closest to the sun and the above alignments happen
Anything else requires a major Storm Surge, heavy precipitation or both -- very very low probability -- with the storm blocking the drainage of the inner harbor and the precipitation leading to more inflow from the Charles and lesser extent the Mystic

Note: -- Despite what various computer projections predict for the next 100 years -- the tidal range experienced today has not significantly changed over the past 150 plus years -- What has changed is the drainage of the high tide from the inner harbor as many wharfs, and mud flats became Atlantic Ave, Logan Airport, etc.

Indeed -- it was that very 10 ft range which led to the Dams on the banks of the Charles circa 200 years ago which in turn led to bad sanitation. The Back Bay stink led to filling the Back Bay -- etc.

If you feel compelled to raise the sea walls by a foot or two -- well OK -- it will hardly make any perceptible difference

Believe whatever you want. But it's not like Boston harbor is the only place where high tide is higher than it used to be.

And a 2 foot higher seawall would be the difference between a foot or more of water on seaport boulevard or long wharf and no water on seaport boulevard or long wharf, which I expect would be perceivable.

Also - the factors you cite in your post - storm surge, river flow etc are in fact the essential parts of the problem that need to be addressed. But you frame that as exceptions to your tidy model that can be ignored because they are somehow exogenous to the system.

If there's water in the city, and we don't want water in the city, then we have to do something to prevent water in the city. Even if it's a 'rare' event like a noreaster. Unless you're going to remove Logan and the wharves, and abolish storm surge and heavy precipitation?

 

[stellarfun]

whigh,

We show that sea‐level in Boston (MA) rose by nearly a foot (0.28m) over the past 200 years, with most occurring since 1920. The underlying tide measurements we analyzed were made, in part, by local civil engineers in the 1800s and early 1900s who measured daily high and low tides to help solve design problems and protect infrastructure from flooding. One of those structures, dry‐dock number 1 from 1833 at the Charlestown Navy Yard, currently houses the USS Constitution and‐if you know where to look‐contains a benchmark from 1867 that allows historic measurements to be compared to modern data. The fact that this dry‐dock was flooded twice in early 2018 is visceral evidence that sea‐level is higher now than it used to be. The old data also shows the interesting‐and unexpected–result that some historical extremes were larger in Boston than they would be today because tides were larger. Looking forward, we show that the 18.6 year astronomic cycle in tides also impacts flood risk. During the 2020s, tides will be lower than average, partially mitigating against sea‐level rise effects; In the early 2030s, tides will be larger (as in 2018), exacerbating projected sea‐level rise effects.

Error - Cookies Turned Off

agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com

^^^American Geophysical Union.
Abstract link below.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2017JC013645
________________________________________________
I somewhat erred in stating that Pinnacle would be protected by a berm. More correctly, Pinnacle, is being built on top of the berm. The ground floor of the building will be about ten feet above the Boston City Base, or 21 feet. (New Spaulding was built at 19 feet, or about 8 feet above BCB.) As I understand the calculation, one adds 6.46 feet to the NAVD88 datum of 5.507 feet to obtain the BCB datum.

The highest observed tide at Boston was in 2018 at 15.168 feet. Mean high tide at Boston is 9.73 feet.

To access the building from Atlantic Ave, there is a set of stairs, and an ADA ramp with an 8 degree slope. On reaching the top of the stairs, one is at 21 feet. I believe that the 600 foot height includes the height of the berm above the BCB.

 

[stellarfun]

But then, wouldn't it behoove a developer on a different site, without the shadows on the parks/water encumbrances, to go this route? What kind of costs are we looking at for something that could yield hundreds of extra feet?

My guess is that the cost of purchasing a terminal approach control radar, synchronization with the primary radar, and land acquisition (which for Boston might be very expensive) would typically be in the several tens of millions. IIRC, someone wanted / chose to do this in AZ, or CA, but the land was cheap and available. For Boston, land availability for a possible site might be non-existent, unless one was willing to pay an exorbitant premium, a price approaching extortion.

 

[Life Coach Mike]

I enjoy reading the back and forth arguments about this project. It's a healthy debate. But for me it boils down to:
1. It's this height or shorter. It's this design or a modified one on the same footprint and similar height.
2. The "magical" view of the skyline from the harbor is from....a boat; it is a postcard view that is great for PR. Yet 99% of us will never see this view in person.
3. The best views are from water taxis IMO. They shift the passenger toward the North End, Charlestown, Eastie, and the beloved Seaport district, which from distance looks like a huge, monolithic turd.
3. Cherished views of skyscraper-ridden cities almost all look the similar: Panama City, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Dubai etc....nothing special about them except for their fancy lighting. Even New York is wrecking it's distance distinctive skyline with ridiculous super-talls and other projects that are crowding in the Empire State and Chrysler towers.
4. The Greenway should not be the deciding factor regarding tall buildings on one side or the other. It's a geographically artificial boundary that never existed before 1950s.
5. "Views of the harbor" from the street are already blocked by the piers and multiple buildings. This project will simply replace the offending garage, yet be more pedestrian permeable.
6. Do we really care about the views from other towers? Those working ought to be working. Those who can afford to live in towers don't get much of my sympathy in their view is compromised.

 

[BKNA]

the ground floor elevation is not a choice by the developer. this is from the city to the meet the BPDA 2070 resilliency design guidelines.
this isnt the only project coming in at 21' BCB.

http://www.bostonplans.org/getattachment/d1114318-1b95-487c-bc36-682f8594e8b2

 

[stick n move]

I enjoy reading the back and forth arguments about this project. It's a healthy debate. But for me it boils down to:
1. It's this height or shorter. It's this design or a modified one on the same footprint and similar height.
2. The "magical" view of the skyline from the harbor is from....a boat; it is a postcard view that is great for PR. Yet 99% of us will never see this view in person.
3. The best views are from water taxis IMO. They shift the passenger toward the North End, Charlestown, Eastie, and the beloved Seaport district, which from distance looks like a huge, monolithic turd.
3. Cherished views of skyscraper-ridden cities almost all look the similar: Panama City, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Dubai etc....nothing special about them except for their fancy lighting. Even New York is wrecking it's distance distinctive skyline with ridiculous super-talls and other projects that are crowding in the Empire State and Chrysler towers.
4. The Greenway should not be the deciding factor regarding tall buildings on one side or the other. It's a geographically artificial boundary that never existed before 1950s.
5. "Views of the harbor" from the street are already blocked by the piers and multiple buildings. This project will simply replace the offending garage, yet be more pedestrian permeable.
6. Do we really care about the views from other towers? Those working ought to be working. Those who can afford to live in towers don't get much of my sympathy in their view is compromised.

Definitely not true at all that you only see the waterfront skyline from a boat, I see it from East Boston all the time. Also millions of passengers see it every year from Logan and rt1s/i90W.

I do agree about the ridiculous “views of the harbor” argument with a massive garage right there already thats not going anywhere UNLESS this is built. Really any argument about shortening literally anything thats over 1 floor tall due to “views” is insane and makes no sense. After 1 floor your view is blocked whether a building is 10ft or 10,000ft.

 

[Life Coach Mike]

Definitely not true at all that you only see the waterfront skyline from a boat, I see it from East Boston all the time. Also millions of passengers see it every year from Logan and rt1s/i90W.

I do agree about the ridiculous “views of the harbor” argument with a massive garage right there already thats not going anywhere UNLESS this is built. Really any argument about shortening literally anything thats over 1 floor tall due to “views” is insane and makes no sense. After 1 floor your view is blocked whether a building is 10ft or 10,000ft.

Apologies to Eastie residents. I keep forgetting that there are now views from many residences that weren't there a couple of decades ago. Still, from there viewers will have a much wider scope when looking across the harbor. The new building will not really dominate. As for the airport...quick glimpses seem to be the order of the day given the speed of jets and cars rushing about.

 

[JeffDowntown]

Apologies to Eastie residents. I keep forgetting that there are now views from many residences that weren't there a couple of decades ago. Still, from there viewers will have a much wider scope when looking across the harbor. The new building will not really dominate. As for the airport...quick glimpses seem to be the order of the day given the speed of jets and cars rushing about.

You can actually have a pretty extended view of the skyline while taxiing at Logan.

 

[whighlander]

This is something I have always wondered about. What are the costs associated with updating the radar system that could, in turn, allow taller buildings downtown? (outside the flight paths of course) If it's not SUPER expensive, wouldn't it behoove some developer to include that as part of, say, a 1000' proposal near North Station? Perhaps a couple developers could split the costs. I don't know, I am clearly not an expert on radar. Is this even possible? It just seems like, if this is a way that we could lift some of the height limits downtown, it's an avenue that should be explored.

Well -- here's a bit of "Radar Science" for you to chew-on

Radar to be free and clear needs to be high above all the "terrain obstructions" otherwise you get what is called "Ground Clutter"
Now Logan sitting on a flat slab of fill just above Sea Level would seem to be an ideal location for a radar -- except that there are buildings [relatively low on the East Boston, Revere and Winthrop Side and more significant in the Southie Seaport and of course Downtown Boston

Choice number one -- try to keep the buildings low
Choice number two --raise the radar

Here a scenario which I suggested a number of years ago -- build a really tall tower [1500 ft] unaligned with the ends of any runway -- and stick a radar on top of it*1 -- mission accomplished -- a win win
radar sees everything and then some -- you get a really tall -- world scale tower to tell everyone -- here is Boston -- a kind of 21st C Pharos of Alexandria

By the way that same series of suggestions included the architectural use of balloons -- if you want a spike -- make a balloon -- equipped with a radar which can trigger emergency deflation of the balloon in case of an aircraft needing the low altitude space for a very rare one-engine go round and land emergency

*1 Note if someone says -- well it wont be in the same place and the scan will not be centered on the airport -- that dog will not hunt -- Project Charles*2,3 which was the forerunner of Project Lincoln which in turn begat Lincoln Laboratory to build the North American Air Defense System known as Semi Automated Ground Environment

*2 Test of a "Synthetic Plan Position Indicator [the traditional line sweeping around the circular display] apparently centered on Cambridge but actually using a radar located in Truro on the Cape connected via phone lines to the Whirlwind Computer [nearly taking up the entire Barto Building on Mass Ave in Cambridge next to Novartis] -- and done almost 70 years ago!!

*3
K.C. Redmond & T.M. Smith (2000-10-10). From Whirlwind to MITRE: The R&D Story of the SAGE Air Defense Computer. published by Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2009, ISBN 0262264269. ISBN 9780262264266. Retrieved 2015-08-09.

Strategic Computing: DARPA and the Quest for Machine Intelligence, 1983-1993
by Alex Roland, Philip Shiman, William Aspray

https://ondoc.logand.com/d/2721/pdf

 

[stick n move]

While waiting for your plane at logan there are a few terminals that have windows facing downtown where travelers can see the skyline.

 

[whighlander]

Believe whatever you want. But it's not like Boston harbor is the only place where high tide is higher than it used to be.

And a 2 foot higher seawall would be the difference between a foot or more of water on seaport boulevard or long wharf and no water on seaport boulevard or long wharf, which I expect would be perceivable.

Also - the factors you cite in your post - storm surge, river flow etc are in fact the essential parts of the problem that need to be addressed. But you frame that as exceptions to your tidy model that can be ignored because they are somehow exogenous to the system.

If there's water in the city, and we don't want water in the city, then we have to do something to prevent water in the city. Even if it's a 'rare' event like a noreaster. Unless you're going to remove Logan and the wharves, and abolish storm surge and heavy precipitation?

CSTH -- its not as if water in the city is a new phenomenon

There used to be a problem due to heavy precipitation in the Charles River watershed coupled with high tide in Boston Harbor --- with the old dam located where MOS is now -- the Harbor might be higher than the high level of the Charles River Basin -- causing significant flooding in the Back Bay, Fens area, etc.

The solution the Army Corps of Engineers built the new Charles River Dam downstream of the first and provided with Huge Pumps to lift the River over the top and dump it into Boston Harbor -- since that time no significant flooding has happened despite several; very heavy and wide coverage rain events

Once again one of Boston's big advantages -- Gravity -- when the tide goes out it drops 10 plus feet and the water left behind wants to do the same -- you just need the right kind of drainage

 

[whighlander]

You can actually have a pretty extended view of the skyline while taxiing at Logan.

Genuflect to Massport -- then walk down from the first Subway Stop in Eastie to the harbor's edge and then walk all the way out to the end of Piers Park -- that view will match a water view of any city skyline which I have the pleasure to see