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

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

Is there any realistic chance that the Harbor Towers could be torn down and replaced any time soon? Seems highly unlikley...

Personally, I dont hate them but I dont really care for them either. What I dislike is the "twins" trend that seems way too prevalent in the city, that these towers are a part of....
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking lot.

In today's credit market, Chiofaro has a lower chance of doing something big here than Belkin has of building Tommy's Tower. Chiofaro filed for bankruptcy in 2004, perhaps a strategic move at the time, but nonetheless.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking lot.

JSic said:
Is there any realistic chance that the Harbor Towers could be torn down and replaced any time soon? Seems highly unlikley...
Click to expand...
Structurally, they're a disaster. The Condo Association's been wrangling over how to pay for repairs for years. They might fall into the ocean before an agreement's reached.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking lot.

JSic said:
Is there any realistic chance that the Harbor Towers could be torn down and replaced any time soon? Seems highly unlikley...

Personally, I dont hate them but I dont really care for them either. What I dislike is the "twins" trend that seems way too prevalent in the city, that these towers are a part of....
Click to expand...

Twins trend? What do you mean? Do you mean two buildings that are alike? If so, then I think there are only 3 real twin towers in Boston which isn't exactly too prevalent.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking lot.

What are the other two pairs?

There would have been another if Philip Johnson's original plan for a second copy of 500 Boylston had been approved.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking lot.

"Twins trend? What do you mean? Do you mean two buildings that are alike? If so, then I think there are only 3 real twin towers in Boston which isn't exactly too prevalent."

There are:
- Harbor Towers
- Charles river park twin residential towers
- twin residential towers at Northpoint Cambridge (not Boston, but still)
- Millennium Place (not identical, but close enough)
- Back Bay Marriot and Westin (OK, this one's a reach, but they are similar and nearby to each other)
- 28 and 60 State Street (see above - similar tops)
- 260 and 265 Franklin (again, similar and nearby)
- 1 and 2 International Place (different heights and tops but ortherwise pretty much alike)

I'll leave 1 Beacon and 1 Federal out of this.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking lot.

Of the list you provided, I would classify three as twins - Harbor Towers, Charles River Park, and the Millenium Towers (that are in Boston - I am not including the NorthPoint towers). Hardly a trend. Other than the similar skin, I wouldn't consider the two International Place towers twins.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking lot.

what that spot needs is color...not height

between the stained aquarium...it's imax twin, the harbor towers and the nice but neutral sal de terre building, it's really suffocating at times

all that concrete and gray

that would be a good spot for a new and actually modern imax and a general movie complex (it's amazing how bad the 'modernization' of the aquarium actually is)


....sigh pipe dream
 
Last edited:
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking lot.

What makes color and height mutually exclusive?
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking lot.

Tim Jackson said:
Of the list you provided, I would classify three as twins - Harbor Towers, Charles River Park, and the Millenium Towers (that are in Boston - I am not including the NorthPoint towers). Hardly a trend. Other than the similar skin, I wouldn't consider the two International Place towers twins.
Click to expand...

The two "real" twins, as in towers with completely identical designs are the Harbor Towers and the two Charles River Park Towers. I was wrong about the third, I thought two of the three apartment towers at the Pru was the same but they are all different. The Millennium Towers does not fall under the category since the design for each is actually different. Boston only has two "real" twins.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking lot.

ShawnA said:
You people are you crazy any time someone wants to invest in your city its a good thing. I tried of hearinIt's the wrong location; that is the same thing they said about the John Hancock Tower and it is now its the most famous building in Boston. Am I right or wrong. And you guys wonder why whe have a boring skyline. I'm moving to New York.
Click to expand...

Actually, i'd have to say the Prudential Center, Fanuil Hall, the State House, Fenway, Quincy Market, and many others are better known throughout the world. That little point aside, i catch your drift. But, you gotta think, that pickyness is why Boston [imo] is such a good lookin city. all the peices fit.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking lot.

Can one of the people who think a 40-story tower here will ruin this area explain the correlation between building heights and the quality of an area? I really don't see it, especially in this case.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking lot.

A sleek glass tower would be perfect for this spot in my opinion. I kind of agree with "Bubbybu" in that the whole area seems kind of "bleh" from ground level. It'd be a nice change-up to the other architecture in the area.

I think the most important thing however will be how it incorporates street level. I think that a lot of people look strictly at the design and height and fail to look at how it will incorporate to the street level when they judge a project.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking lot.

I think ruin might be a bit strong, but I am definitely not a fan of tall towers coming right up to the edge of the waterfront. I acknowledge that the appearance of the city from the water is not the main concern (nor should it be), but I have always liked the smaller buildings right along the waterfront (I am not a fan of the Harbor Towers). They belong on the other side of Atlantic Ave.

I guess my argument is more from an aesthetic standpoint than anything else. I understand that this is not the top priority in any development (as I said in my earlier post), but I would rather see a series of mid-rise buildings rather than new towers on those plots of land. Let me put it this way, if a 40-story tower was put there and it really added significant life to the area, I would be reasonably happy, but I still wouldn't be thrilled having another 400+ foot tower right on the water.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking lot.

I think the thing that should be most emphasized here is the design. If the design is good, build as tall or as short as the developers want. It just have to look good.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking lot.

^That's where I agree. I don't have a problem with 40 stories if they don't build a huge box to get most sq. footage out of the height. something sleek would work very well and certainly not "ruin" the area. With the Aquarium Complex, the Wharves, and Columbus park all right in the area, this isn't going to "destroy" the connection with the RKG and the waterfront.

That being said, the most exciting prospect of this project to me anyway (aside from losing an ugly garage), Is having a project designed specifically for this plot, POST central artery. I think there's a lot of potential there. So if it were to exclude a tower, that would be fine if it interacted well with the street and worked to include itself along the RKG.

The only way that scar is going to heal is new projects and renovations that incorporate the Greenway into their design and this is one of the first of those and I'd hate to lose it over the negative attitude of the mayor over a tower which won't have too much effect one way or another (the BASE is the key component here).

The priority is certainly at the street level here, and not for a tower, but 40 elegant stories won't be so bad at all.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking lot.

I would be a proponent of a good development here, and I would be an opponent of bad development here.

Height?

What does that question have to do with the above statement? It's just a detail.

Show me the proposal!!! This has to be leaked sooner or later.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking lot.

Exactly! There's no reason to get up in arms over something no one has seen. Six stories or sixty, let's see what the developer has to offer before we start offering preferences and criticism.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking lot.

DarkFenX said:
I think the thing that should be most emphasized here is the design. If the design is good, build as tall or as short as the developers want. It just have to look good.
Click to expand...

You sound like a NIMBY: they don't seem to be wetting their beds over the Copley Tower... and it seems to be because they will LIKE looking out their window at it. Shadows seem to be something they can work with vs the usual "shadows kills plants and all life" excuse. Maybe you can pacify NIMBY's by building something beautiful and elegant no matter how tall. Who knew? What would happen if all developers of proposed projects retained excellent designs that are appropriate? Would NIMBY's shut up?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top