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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Justin7 said:
Not sure if this one has been posted here.

Slide9.jpg
Click to expand...

This is the one waterfront amenity that downtown has been truly lacking: water access! Right now there is nowhere you can get down close to the water and actually dip your toes in. I'd be thrilled to get something like this downtown, small pocket beaches in urban areas can be really nice places to sit. I'm thinking here of the ones built a few years back as part of Seattle's Olympic Sculpture Park.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

^^^^^ This is the one renders that has confused me the most.

I like the steps down to the water thing. Does is rise and fall with the tide?

But, what is the vegetation shown on either side? Make me think of reeds in the shallows on pond or lake edges. Are we going fresh water in the harbor now. Copy Marina Bay in Singapore?
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

SeamusMcFly said:
^^^^^ This is the one renders that has confused me the most.

I like the steps down to the water thing. Does is rise and fall with the tide?

But, what is the vegetation shown on either side? Make me think of reeds in the shallows on pond or lake edges. Are we going fresh water in the harbor now. Copy Marina Bay in Singapore?
Click to expand...

I wonder if the tide is simply allowed to cover up some of the tiers? I'm thinking of similar areas on the Esplanade that feature steps down to the water.

The vegetation looks like it would be an engineered salt marsh, maybe even able to treat runoff like the engineered new park up by Alewife. There are no natural salt marshes left on the Shawmut Peninsula but a few survivors in Eastie, Quincy and the like.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Shepard said:
Chiofaro and critics alike seem to be fetishizing this view of waterfront access and views from the Greenway. I think we'd all be better served by acknowledging this is a fairly silly fetish. The Greenway is NOT a waterfront stroll (that's what the haborwalk is for). In essence the footprint of the existing garage is fine. The key issues are that it's ugly and an awful utilization of prime waterfront space. To me the footprint and matter of height matters a lot less than whether the Greenway side helps the Greenway and the waterfront side helps the waterfront. Do we really need this Dubaiesque cheesiness in some corporate atrium? To me this is all just one big distraction.
Click to expand...



I agree 100% that this notion that the greenway is supposed to have waterfront views is ridiculous. The harbor walk was built for this purpose and this would add greatly to that with the amazing new waterfront steps. The greenway is a green space that cuts through downtown in place of an elevated highway, its not a waterfront public garden. I think this development with its cut away edges and glass atrium are the perfect windows to the waterfront and then when you want to actually be on the waterfront it gets even better with the added steps.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

equilibria, the requirement is a requirement of the Commonwealth. I didn't write the law, the amendments to the law, or the regulations. It is what it is. It is Chiofaro's responsibility to satisfy the requirements of the law, not the Commonwealth's to adjust the law to fit his design schemes, particularly when there are alternatives.

(c) No gates, fences, or other structures may be placed on any areas open to public access in a manner that would impede or discourage the free flow of pedestrian movement thereon; and all pedestrian exterior open spaces shall be open to the public 24 hours a day, unless otherwise authorized in writing by the Department.

(d) The Department may include conditions in a license which restrict public pedestrian
access in order to protect public health, safety, or the environment, and shall specify such additional access-related requirements as are deemed appropriate to offset any significant loss of benefits to the public which may be associated with such restrictions.
Click to expand...
____________________

As for the steps and tidal pool on the harbor side of the site, that appears to be a new structure created by filling in part of the harbor. As such, any such filling is regulated by the Corps of Engineers, and cannot be undertaken without a permit. There is a strong likelihood that an application for a permit for such a structure would be rejected. However, if he proposed to create the steps and tidal pool from existing land on the garage parcel, that would likely be allowed.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

stellarfun said:
And if Chiofaro was really far along in this development, he would name the hotel brand for his hotel component. As hotels aren't built on spec either.
Click to expand...

In fairness, Four Seasons was just announced as the hotel/condo brand for the Christian Science Plaza and that project has long been approved and is ready to start in a matter of months at most. Similarly, the hotel at New Balance's Boston Landing has long been approved, construction appears close to starting and no hotel brand has been announced. I don't find it the least bit strange that Chiofaro hasn't announced a hotel brand at this stage. But if we are all throwing in our guesses, I'll put my money on a St. Regis.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

type001 said:
This looks perfect. Those are A+ designs that fit perfectly into the skyline. They are unobtrusive as well.
Click to expand...
Chiofaro has said he wants "unique in North America", so I find that his completely un-original public spaces fail his own test. Further, his uses, "Farmer's Market" and "Seasonal Market" are going to get out-competed by Haymarket Farmer's Market and Quincy Market, both of which will offer way-better experience: they are old, authentic, crowded, immersive, urban experiences (and would always be moreso than the Chiofaro site)

The rink might work--4 months per year (but is hardly unique).
type001 said:
I'm sorry, but if someone really thinks "they could better because this is a valuable waterfront location", please get your CAD and Photoshop and out show us how..
Click to expand...
Here's my entry (which I also sent to the Chiofaro company) It begins with the idea that the rink will work from November to February. For March to October, I propose another "active outdoors" use that *would* be unique:
an urban zipline/adventure park. Please mentally delete the Colorado mountains and insert harbor views:

Aerial-Park-1.jpg


(ziplines dont Photoshop well: too skinny)

he could even do corny "masts of the clipper ships" theming if he was so possessed.

All such attractions today are in suburban/rural forests or mountains. Such an aerial adventure on Boston's Urban waterfront would be way closer to "unique" than the renderings that Chiofaro is showing.
Details at:
Captain Zipline
In The Treetops / The Adventure Park
 
Last edited:
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

stellarfun said:
equilibria, the requirement is a requirement of the Commonwealth. I didn't write the law, the amendments to the law, or the regulations. It is what it is. It is Chiofaro's responsibility to satisfy the requirements of the law, not the Commonwealth's to adjust the law to fit his design schemes, particularly when there are alternatives.
Click to expand...

First off, you posted the loophole he'd use right there. If he wanted to restrict nighttime access, he could simply claim that it would compromise public safety to have it open. I suspect that would be a hard petition for the state to turn down, since they are responsive to political pressure and political constituents tend to see homeless people as a safety risk.

Also, while I have no doubt this exact argument could be occurring in a courtroom in ten years, the phrase "free flow of pedestrian movement thereon" doesn't necessarily apply to every square inch of the public area provided. One could easily argue that as long as free flow across the space (i.e. from the Greenway to the Harbor) is not impeded, the public need not be able to walk freely on absolutely any trajectory. The measure is meant to prevent, well, exactly what the Harbor Towers have done, not to prohibit public amenities that require special footgear.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

stellarfun said:
equilibria, the requirement is a requirement of the Commonwealth. I didn't write the law, the amendments to the law, or the regulations. It is what it is. It is Chiofaro's responsibility to satisfy the requirements of the law, not the Commonwealth's to adjust the law to fit his design schemes, particularly when there are alternatives.


____________________
Click to expand...

Was the Marriott Long Wharf Hotel built before the regulations? I ask this because part of the ground level of the hotel was built as a public access (the actual lobby is on the second floor) but not sure if it is open 24/7. I do know that late at night on the few occasions I was in that area we were able to walk through the public walkway.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

To further disappoint the enthusiasts for the tidal pool / steps, the garage property line ends at the tower footprints.

The frontage to the east of the towers is East India Row, owned by the city of Boston; to the east of East India Row is a strip of land, half of which is owned by the New England Aquarium, and half by the BRA. To the east of that strip is the proposed structure with the steps and tidal pool which seems to extend 50+ feet into the harbor.

So the proposed steps / tidal pool is to be built on land he doesn't own, and can be accessed only by crossing land owned by the public. The chance of a 404 permit being awarded for this structure are very slim.
_________________

Also Google maps suggests that the northbound lanes of the CA/T were tunneled under the southwest corner of the garage. If that is true, some percentage of the garage site cannot be excavated for an underground garage.

_______________

If anyone cares to check the property map, the address is 70 E India Row. The parcel ID is 0302995000.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

atlantaden said:
Was the Marriott Long Wharf Hotel built before the regulations? I ask this because part of the ground level of the hotel was built as a public access (the actual lobby is on the second floor) but not sure if it is open 24/7. I do know that late at night on the few occasions I was in that area we were able to walk through the public walkway.
Click to expand...
Yes.

The law was amended in 1983, and the regulations implementing the amended law were not published until 1990.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

atlantaden said:
Was the Marriott Long Wharf Hotel built before the regulations? I ask this because part of the ground level of the hotel was built as a public access (the actual lobby is on the second floor) but not sure if it is open 24/7. I do know that late at night on the few occasions I was in that area we were able to walk through the public walkway.
Click to expand...

It is my understanding that the Prudential Center Mall is also technically public open space (based on the commentary during the rebuild in 1993/94), and has to allow 24/7 access through, from Boylston to Huntington, for example.

Of course this "public open space" clearly has a roof and doors.

Also, the Boston Common, the quintessential public open space in the city closes at 11 PM.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Equilibria said:
First off, you posted the loophole he'd use right there. If he wanted to restrict nighttime access, he could simply claim that it would compromise public safety to have it open. I suspect that would be a hard petition for the state to turn down, since they are responsive to political pressure and political constituents tend to see homeless people as a safety risk.

Also, while I have no doubt this exact argument could be occurring in a courtroom in ten years, the phrase "free flow of pedestrian movement thereon" doesn't necessarily apply to every square inch of the public area provided. One could easily argue that as long as free flow across the space (i.e. from the Greenway to the Harbor) is not impeded, the public need not be able to walk freely on absolutely any trajectory. The measure is meant to prevent, well, exactly what the Harbor Towers have done, not to prohibit public amenities that require special footgear.
Click to expand...

Chiofaro is seeking to count his 'arcade' space as open space, so he can meet the requirements of Chapter 91. From what I can see from his renderings, it is just about the only open space he has within the garage parcel. As I posted above, he does not own the land to the east (harbor-side of the garage); is he counting that land in his 27,000 sq ft?

He has to count every square inch, because there is a percentage requirement that he must satisfy.

The HT (and Rowes Wharf) were built before the current regulations were promulgated. The HT could not be developed, as is, in the current day. And neither, apparently, could Rowe's Wharf. Chiofaro might get some equitable empathy if he had bought the garage property 40 or 50 years ago, but he didn't. One presumes he (and other bidders for the garage) were smart enough to understand how Chapter 91 imposes limits on the development of the property, and decreases its economic value.
________________

Anyone find the garage entrance/exit or the loading docks in the renderings?
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

JeffDowntown said:
It is my understanding that the Prudential Center Mall is also technically public open space (based on the commentary during the rebuild in 1993/94), and has to allow 24/7 access through, from Boylston to Huntington, for example.

Of course this "public open space" clearly has a roof and doors.

Also, the Boston Common, the quintessential public open space in the city closes at 11 PM.
Click to expand...

Neither the Prudential Mall nor the Common are controlled by Chapter 91, the Massachusetts Public Waterfront Act.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

KentXie said:
Isn't the Fed building technically against the waterfront? Oh right, they don't care because it's not adjacent.
Click to expand...

The Federal government, as the sovereign, derogates to itself if and how it will comply with the laws, regulations, and codes of inferior entities, e.g., cities, towns) with respect to property it owns.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

stellarfun said:
The HT (and Rowes Wharf) were built before the current regulations were promulgated. The HT could not be developed, as is, in the current day. And neither, apparently, could Rowe's Wharf.
Click to expand...

But this building in Charlestown was built since the current regulations were promulgated. And it seems to use the same strategy that Rowe's Wharf did to preserve access to the water. There's also a public bathroom and public conference room. Neither is advertised for the thousands of Freedom Trailers that walk past each day. And both get locked at night.
They could be skirting the regulations, but it happens all over the city.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

stellarfun said:
He has to count every square inch, because there is a percentage requirement that he must satisfy.
Click to expand...

Not my argument. My argument wasn't that he wouldn't count the whole area, but that he's meeting the requirement for pedestrian access (talking about the rink now, not the walls/doors) as long as free flow through that public area isn't impeded. He doesn't have to allow the public to explicitly be able to walk across every square inch, just provide a public area in that entire space which can be freely traversed. Because the public can access the rink and walk around it to traverse the space, it could (and would) be argued that he meets the requirement.

While I haven't a doubt that someone will try to argue for the most stringent interpretation (yours) in hearings or even in court, it's clearly against the spirit of the law to prevent public amenities on the waterfront because they prevent people from walking absolutely everywhere. By that metric, are we not counting the footprint of sculptures? Can he not do a market since the stalls would get in peoples' way?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top