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

[datadyne007]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Are they arguing the garage IS historically appropriate? If the only way to pay for the removal of the garage, which is particularly bad given its location on the greenway, is to bury it and build over it, then isn't that a better option than leaving the garage as is?

No they're not. I actually read through their document and they raise legitimate concerns. From the get go, they clearly state that they recognize the garage is not the best use of urban land and are open to redevelopment, but at a smaller scale than this insanely massive tower. They actually do a good study of FARs in the surrounding area and Boston itself. The Chiaforo Tower would have a FAR of ~24. That is higher than the freaking John Hancock Tower, at FAR of 23. The Harbor Towers themselves apparently only have an FAR of ~7*. All developments on the waterfront currently have a FAR below 12.

They also rightly cite the extreme lack of plans and diagrams beyond shiny renders. Finally, they rightly believe that the proposal should not be all-or-nothing. They believe alternates should be proposed.

The more I look at this, the worse of an idea the Chiaforo Tower in its current incarnation appears to be. Just because the Harbor Towers are next door doesn't necessarily make it right to build another massive tower next to it. (Note: I DO NOT apply this reasoning for construction in the Back Bay/high spine next to the Pru/Hancock where this reason is cited by NIMBYs) We constantly note on this board that the Harbor Towers are a blight to the waterfront, yet are now for some reason wanting to extend the blight? It doesn't make sense.

Why not stick the Boston Museum there and maybe a hotel above, maxing out at 15 or so stories?

--
*True by the numbers, but doesn't quite feel that way because the open space isn't really public.

 

[stellarfun]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Which reminds me, how has the Harbor Towers not been sued for violating Chapter 91. That area around the pool is particularly bad. It's not like they're grandfathered in since Ch 91 has been around forever.

Harbor Towers antecedes the legislature's amending Chapter 91 in 1983, and the implementing regulations of seven years later. Supposedly Rowe's Wharf could not have been built under current law/regulations.

 

[TheRifleman]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

The reality is Harbor Towers Residents want NO CHANGE. That is the reality.

They would rather the garage stay as it is than have anything built at all. What shame for the GREENWAY--the majority of the Taxpayers of Massachusetts give CHIOFARO the GREENLIGHT.

 

[Deetroyt]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Why not stick the Boston Museum there and maybe a hotel above, maxing out at 15 or so stories?

I guess the point I was going for was, maybe 15 stories isn't enough for Chiofaro to recoup the cost of putting the garage underground. Maybe in order to get the financing to do anything with this site, he has to build high enough to get x% profit. So for them to say it should only be so high, without knowing whether or not thats financially feasible sounds silly to me.


As a side note, I personally don't have a problem with height along the waterfront. This picture is from an architectural boat cruise in Chicago, and I think it looks really cool, would love to see something similar in Boston.

 

[DZH22]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Why not stick the Boston Museum there and maybe a hotel above, maxing out at 15 or so stories?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[davem]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

This site and the James Hook Co site are arguably the only two places in the city where a harbor-side tower is contextual. That's a really important factor here.

 

[datadyne007]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

I guess the point I was going for was, maybe 15 stories isn't enough for Chiofaro to recoup the cost of putting the garage underground. Maybe in order to get the financing to do anything with this site, he has to build high enough to get x% profit. So for them to say it should only be so high, without knowing whether or not thats financially feasible sounds silly to me.


As a side note, I personally don't have a problem with height along the waterfront. This picture is from an architectural boat cruise in Chicago, and I think it looks really cool, would love to see something similar in Boston.

Boston's waterfront is different & I'm ok with towers being set back like International Place. I think towers in the back form a good backdrop, but up front, for those enjoying the Greenway, Harborwalk and such, a giant tower right on the edge is not the ideal situation. No matter how much glass you use, it ends up being a giant wall. I also think it's important to not obsess about the way the waterfront looks from a boat cruise rather than the way it looks and feels from the land.

 

[paperless paul]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Fortunately AB has lost my overly long rant on this subject. Like everyone else I find their letter completely ridiculous and outrageous. I am not as happy bashing NIMBY's as many are here and I don't fetishize the skyline view as some others might.

But when Harbor Towers, a publicly supported waterfront revitalization project that seeks to bring residents, density and affordable housing to an area is developed and then 50 years later the residents complain when another similar project comes to their neighborhood is asinine.

Their complaints claim to speak for Greenway users, public views of downtown, and nonsensical arguments about the scale and density of the project.

A few choice quotes:
"overwhelming for ... adjacent to the [Greenway]"
"too big for this sensitive waterfront site"
"alter the scale of Boston’s waterfront forever"
"we do not build huge skyscrapers and excessive density on our waterfront"
"An enormous amount of additional detail is required, and must be publicly presented, before any proposal can be allowed to go through the City’s Article 80 approval process".

Please save us from excess scale and density. /sarcasm

Their use of FAR and claims about open space are beyond silly. While an acknowledged planning tool and Chapter 91 req respectively. The proposed project (assuming execution sim to intent) is a far better outcome from a chapter 91 perspective than the reduced FAR from the existing towers in a garden modernism with the swimming pool and the inert sculpture space beyond of the existing Harbour Towers.

The bottom line is, as expressed by resident at the last meeting, the tenants of the existing buildings do not want their views blocked. They could give a fig for the public's views or access to the waterfront or the Greenway or Columbus Park. I'll believe this argument when they open the swimming pool area for public access and views through to the water.

The trustees have not come out with their view-blocking objections because they know that they are completely indefensible. I'm sure some sort of legal argument could be made about the increased height allowance. But the bottom line is the existing residents views are not protected. If they's like to preserve their view they should finance the buyout of Chiofaro's air rights over the garage.

I hope the real public stakeholders of this project, the rest of us, support the city in recouping the benefit from its billions of investment in the CA/T, Greenway, Harbour cleanup, seaport and transit investments and get the project we deserve. Interestingly many at the last meeting spoke in guarded but very positive terms about this proposal. Maybe it was only the tenants facing south and east.

 

[fattony]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

No they're not. I actually read through their document and they raise legitimate concerns. From the get go, they clearly state that they recognize the garage is not the best use of urban land and are open to redevelopment, but at a smaller scale than this insanely massive tower. They actually do a good study of FARs in the surrounding area and Boston itself. The Chiaforo Tower would have a FAR of ~24. That is higher than the freaking John Hancock Tower, at FAR of 23. The Harbor Towers themselves apparently only have an FAR of ~7*. All developments on the waterfront currently have a FAR below 12.

They also rightly cite the extreme lack of plans and diagrams beyond shiny renders. Finally, they rightly believe that the proposal should not be all-or-nothing. They believe alternates should be proposed.

The more I look at this, the worse of an idea the Chiaforo Tower in its current incarnation appears to be. Just because the Harbor Towers are next door doesn't necessarily make it right to build another massive tower next to it. (Note: I DO NOT apply this reasoning for construction in the Back Bay/high spine next to the Pru/Hancock where this reason is cited by NIMBYs) We constantly note on this board that the Harbor Towers are blight to the waterfront, yet are now for some reason wanting to extend the blight? It doesn't make sense.

Why not stick the Boston Museum there and maybe a hotel above, maxing out at 15 or so stories?

--
*True by the numbers, but not quite in practice because the open space isn't quite public.

FAR is a measure of density, not a measure of urbanism or "waterfront appropriateness" or public access or anything else. JHT at 23 has poor urban engagement. Harbor Towers at 7 are abysmal. The number doesn't mean much on its own. Chiofaro's design, as much of it as we have seen, looks good and is packed full of public amenities and access to the water.

I still don't understand anyone's argument that the height of the tower affects access to the water. If something is too tall for me to step over, it doesn't matter if it is a jersey barrier, the Pentagon, or the Empire State Building - it is a barrier. Tall glass towers with the corners cut away and a public thoroughfare between them give better access than a 200 foot box without those features.

Aesthetically, higher FAR than is common throughout Boston should be applauded not feared. We have a bunch of fat squat stinkers in this city. A few skinny(-er) towers would be welcome. I have a hard time looking at the Harbor Towers and only getting a FAR of 7, so I'm really not sure how the HTTs are coming up with all of these numbers, including 24 for Chiofaro's proposal.

As for the density itself - Aquarium is hardly a burdened station and the Blue is not a burdened line. There are a lot of great places for density in the city and this is one of them. Does it mean the block needs a half dozen FAR 24 towers? No, but 2 are fine and no one else is clamoring to build here.

 

[paperless paul]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

No they're not. I actually read through their document and they raise legitimate concerns. From the get go, they clearly state that they recognize the garage is not the best use of urban land and are open to redevelopment, but at a smaller scale than this insanely massive tower. They actually do a good study of FARs in the surrounding area and Boston itself. The Chiaforo Tower would have a FAR of ~24. That is higher than the freaking John Hancock Tower, at FAR of 23. The Harbor Towers themselves apparently only have an FAR of ~7*. All developments on the waterfront currently have a FAR below 12.

They also rightly cite the extreme lack of plans and diagrams beyond shiny renders. Finally, they rightly believe that the proposal should not be all-or-nothing. They believe alternates should be proposed.

The more I look at this, the worse of an idea the Chiaforo Tower in its current incarnation appears to be. Just because the Harbor Towers are next door doesn't necessarily make it right to build another massive tower next to it. (Note: I DO NOT apply this reasoning for construction in the Back Bay/high spine next to the Pru/Hancock where this reason is cited by NIMBYs) We constantly note on this board that the Harbor Towers are a blight to the waterfront, yet are now for some reason wanting to extend the blight? It doesn't make sense.

Why not stick the Boston Museum there and maybe a hotel above, maxing out at 15 or so stories?

--
*True by the numbers, but doesn't quite feel that way because the open space isn't really public.

I for one would be perfectly happy with a building no taller than the existing garage. But as Deetroyt says a low rent paying museum and a short hotel are never going to pay for a 70' 1400 space underwater garage (maybe this part should go). If there was a proposal that would deliver an all-year public space

Of course there is a lack of detail, the whole point is that Chiofaro is coming to the residents early for discussion rather than appear to steam-roll over them like last time. He may also sense that with the surging interest in the Greenway / Harborfront that everyone else in the city will back the mayor pushing this project through.

The FAR issue is abusrd. Unfortunately it is a commonly used planning tool. But FARs give you an overall scale in a neighborhood and hopefully mostly influence the as-of-right development. The whole point in having individual project review is to judge the merits. And with the silly FAR design you end up superblock Seaports or Harbor Towers in the garden. Neither of which make very good urban projects. Now perhaps the FAR issue can be used legally to stop this, I am neither a land-use lawyer nor a planning expert. But as an appeal to common sense, or public interest it is completely contemptuous.

They are complaining that the public's view will be blocked. This is completely disingenuous, they only care about their own view.

 

[datadyne007]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Aesthetically, higher FAR than is common throughout Boston should be applauded not feared. We have a bunch of fat squat stinkers in this city. A few skinny(-er) towers would be welcome. I have a hard time looking at the Harbor Towers and only getting a FAR of 7, so I'm really not sure how the HTTs are coming up with all of these numbers, including 24 for Chiofaro's proposal.

I agree with pushing for higher FARs and thus taller buildings, but literally everywhere except the waterfront. I just don't think it's appropriate there to go insanely high regardless of the civic functions at the base.

 

[underground]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

I just don't think it's appropriate there to go insanely high regardless of the civic functions at the base.

For what quantifiable reason? Is the argument, I don't like the way it looks, or that "research has shown..."? We don't want to plan by gut again, do we?

 

[fattony]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

I agree with pushing for higher FARs and thus taller buildings, but literally everywhere except the waterfront. I just don't think it's appropriate there to go insanely high regardless of the civic functions at the base.

Yikes, this is an awfully out of character post for you.

Careful because you are starting to parrot the nutters' hyperbole. 600 feet is not "insanely high" across the street from International Place. Is it tall for Boston - yes it is among the tallest in the downtown area - but there is nothing insane about it.

What about HT's FAR being 7? Is that because they are towers in the park and the area of the whole freaking parcel is the denominator for their FAR? If so, then I want to use the Greenway in front of the garage site in calculating its FAR and see if it still seems "out of scale."

The absolutism of "regardless of the civic functions" is also eerily reminiscent of the worst of sneering NIMBY arguments. It is not your land or my land or the city's land. It is Chiofaro's. If we piss him off then we won't get any civic functions at all. It is a balancing act. The "damage" (which I still don't understand) caused by the building's height CAN be offset with public amenities. The sunlight shining through a solid angle of space is valuable, but it is not invaluable. There is some amount of concession that makes the tower worth it. If you don't think so, then I'll introduce you to a guy named Ned who can use a backup singer.

 

[stellarfun]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

My interest in a site plan is not only to see how the present iteration comports with Chapter 91, but I am curious about the 1400 car underground garage that he promises.

At 325 sq ft per car, that is a 450,000 sq ft garage, which equates to about ten levels of parking, at least nine of which would be below sea level. Because new regulations require armoring against storm surge and sea level rise, is he going to have his mechanicals at grade, or a floor above.

Can anyone identify anywhere else in the world where an underground parking garage was built 100 or so feet deep fronting the ocean? (The Intercontinental garage is pretty deep but the cost of that excavation was undertaken by taxpayers.)

 

[choo]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Does he have to replace all the spaces 1 for 1, or just the portion leased by harbor towers. The area is highly accessible by other means, he may not intend on full replacement, and I think that is good for a host of urban and environmental reasons.

I am not fully endorsing this plan, but I am endorsing a plan. On the height front, to be honest, I think many people don't care if its 250' 350' of 550', as long as its not the garage.

Views from the harbor towers and even the harbor be damned. How much practical difference does a 250' or 350' tower make to someone on the ground compared to a 600' tower? The shadows are still an issue and ground floor access and view of the harbor are still paramount and the difference of what happens over 50' gets increasingly marginal with every foot.

In that instance, the question becomes, what's better for the city? a garage or tower? Realistically, for reasons that no one had control over 40 years ago the current situation was set up and our options to deal with it our limited. It is not an ideal, lets have a non-profit with open access and low slung views instead of a condo/office tower. It's garage or tower. I pick tower, and lets just nit pick the details and access of that option.

 

[paperless paul]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

My interest in a site plan is not only to see how the present iteration comports with Chapter 91, but I am curious about the 1400 car underground garage that he promises.

At 325 sq ft per car, that is a 450,000 sq ft garage, which equates to about ten levels of parking, at least nine of which would be below sea level. Because new regulations require armoring against storm surge and sea level rise, is he going to have his mechanicals at grade, or a floor above.

Can anyone identify anywhere else in the world where an underground parking garage was built 100 or so feet deep fronting the ocean? (The Intercontinental garage is pretty deep but the cost of that excavation was undertaken by taxpayers.)

In the last BRA meeting they said it would require 70' below grade They will probably use a post-tensioned two CIP slab, so figure 8" to 12" of structure and 7' clear typical. At 9 floors of 8' (not counting grade) that's 71'. Perhaps that's sufficient.

Not to minimize the problems with sea level and climate change in the harbor but there are plenty of structures this deep near the ocean. Starting with the majority of the big dig.

 

[palindrome]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2014/07/23/boston-harbor-garage-project-towers-design-proposal-unveiled-pictures/

 

[datadyne007]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Careful because you are starting to parrot the nutters' hyperbole. 600 feet is not "insanely high" across the street from International Place. Is it tall for Boston - yes it is among the tallest in the downtown area - but there is nothing insane about it.

I was using insane in a relative sense. I do not believe in general that 600' is insanely high and as I've said before, I'd support it or taller anywhere else in Boston. Relatively speaking, I was saying insanely high for the immediate area (East of the Greenway) and I can't emphasize the bolded point in your quote enough: Across the street. I'm fine with International Place. I'm fine with a tower next to IP. I'm fine with a 1000 footer next to IP. I just don't feel that tall towers have a place on the eastern side of the Greenway in this area. I feel that the waterfront/harbor edge should feel as open to the sky and water as possible, accomplished by the buildings along the edge being scaled to ~15 stories and then stepping up as you get into the FiDi on the other side of the Greenway.

We're probably just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. This is the one tower location in Boston where I'm very hesitant to champion it as I do with pretty much every other tower. I support development here, just not quite to this scale.

Edit: That render looks like junk. What the heck happened? Why would they even release that? It's as if they saved it as a low quality JPEG 7 times...

Sidenote: We should probably rename this thread to Harbor Square now.

 

[paperless paul]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Does he have to replace all the spaces 1 for 1, or just the portion leased by harbor towers. The area is highly accessible by other means, he may not intend on full replacement, and I think that is good for a host of urban and environmental reasons.

I am not fully endorsing this plan, but I am endorsing a plan. On the height front, to be honest, I think many people don't care if its 250' 350' of 550', as long as its not the garage.

Views from the harbor towers and even the harbor be damned. How much practical difference does a 250' or 350' tower make to someone on the ground compared to a 600' tower? The shadows are still an issue and ground floor access and view of the harbor are still paramount and the difference of what happens over 50' gets increasingly marginal with every foot.

In that instance, the question becomes, what's better for the city? a garage or tower? Realistically, for reasons that no one had control over 40 years ago the current situation was set up and our options to deal with it our limited. It is not an ideal, lets have a non-profit with open access and low slung views instead of a condo/office tower. It's garage or tower. I pick tower, and lets just nit pick the details and access of that option.

He made it clear in the BRA meeting that he will be replacing the parking spaces 1 for 1 (i.e. 1400). Although like every developer he would be much happier with less, as would I. I gather he thinks it's not a winnable battle, but this is the fault of the zoning and the existing deed with the Towers not the developer.

I also agree the absolute height makes little difference, and I am sure he is willing to trade down 50' to 200" to get a project done, that's just negotiation.

My biggest concern on this project similar to what you suggest is neither with views, the skyline, parking, nor height, but rather the details of the public space, and quality of the building that actually gets delivered. The complex is only in the conceptual design phase, the visuals are intriguing but are not really executable or likely to be final. Some of the glass and the canted corners will undoubtedly disappear. The big question is what actually gets built and does it deliver value for the public. I would be pretty concerned, as on Congress St garage, that anything remotely as useful and attractive gets built.

 

[Downburst]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2014/07/23/boston-harbor-garage-project-towers-design-proposal-unveiled-pictures/

YES. These are beautiful. I quite like the one on the left. The copper accents remind me of SHoP, who I'd love to see do a project here, incidentally.

Edit: According to the article, the towers will stand at 600' and 537', which are the same heights as the IP towers. I wonder if this is a typo/error or not.