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

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

statler said:
I've yet to have anyone explain why having a 'impressive' skyline in any way relates to having an impressive city.
Paris does not have an impressive skyline (La Defense is outside the city) The really nice parts of London do not have an impressive skyline. Prague does not have an impressive skyline.

I have no problems with tall buildings but they are not an essential element of all great cities.
Click to expand...

Having an impressive skyline doesn't necessarily make a city any more impressive other than the fact that there is a pretty building to stare at. It's true that La Defense is technically not in Paris, but lets not kid ourselves and act like it's a far-away area...a few of my friends just got back from Europe and they never realized that La Defense wasn't apart of Paris (but this really doesn't have anything to do what we're talking about).

New York City and Chicago are two examples of how an impressive skyline relates to being an impressive city. The sheer size of their skylines is awe-inspiring. New York City is obviously more than just skyscrapers, and so is Chicago. While there are many factors that make those cities impressive, their skylines certainly make them even cooler.

Boston doesn't need tall buildings in order to make it impressive. We have some of the most beautiful streetscapes and architecture in the entire country. However, it seems like the attitude of our citizens is that having tall buildings will be detrimental to the city, which in my opinion is ridiculous. I agree with you that London does not need tall buildings to be impressive, but would you argue that the addition of the Swiss Re tower was a bad thing for the city of London? What about the London Bridge Tower?

Skyscrapers aren't necessary to make the city better, but they can be a great symbol of progression. A well-done building here could become a beacon for the Greenway. The one thing I don't understand is that some people on this board (not necessarily aiming this at you Statler) feel that the addition of a skyscraper like Trans National Place would be a bad thing for us. How? Philadelphia and Boston are both very similar cities, and they just added a new tallest building and it looks stunning. They also have a much larger building (over 1,300 ft. I believe) in the works. Does this make Philadelphia any less impressive than it was before? There are two sides to this argument, the people who are asking "Why?" and the ones who are asking "Why not?". I suppose I'm apart of the latter.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

^Well played. I was trying to do something clever about a lot of people "being inside" it. But you're comment is certainly funnier and a bit more appropriate.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

There are other reasons for tall towers besides being aesthetically pleasing. The creation of a tower with a large amount of floorspace can lower the cost to rent out space. Larger companies will find Boston a lot more attractive to do business. The time is ripe before but Boston failed to take advantage of the recent low office vacancy rate.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

statler said:
I've yet to have anyone explain why having a 'impressive' skyline in any way relates to having an impressive city.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And I'd like to hear that explanation. That Boston would appear "ambitious" and "progressive" with some bold new towers, as some have posited here, means exactly what?

The reasons people come to work, live and learn in this city are already well established, and though those reasons continue to evolve as the city changes and grows I don't see many people deciding one way or the other because the city appears to be "progressive" and "ambitious." Because of a skyline?

L'Defense was mentioned. That's as progressive and ambitious as a city might get. Go see it. It's cold and soulless. And Parisians don't care for it much, to say nothing of the tourists.

I am not against height. I am for it when it's Pelli's SST, and I am against it when it's Piano's TNT.

Like others, I've become fond of the Pru, though I admit I'm happy for the additions.

But that's taste. And mine can be as faulty as the next guy.

We can all agree on one thing: this is a great city. And what makes it great has little to do with a skyline...or, if we're really honest, little to do with modern architecture.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

^^ I tried to respond to Statler's post a little while ago. Tall buildings don't really make a city more impressive, but how could a tall building in this location be detrimental to the city?
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

I can tell you a couple cool things tall buildings do to a city. First one is that a good sky line is impressive sight from a distance. When driving north to New York you get a good view of NY's skyline, and you first start seeing it from a good distance out. To say that isn't impressive would be a false statement. Also it gives communities and neighborhoods that are close to a city center even more of an association to that downtown. By that I mean if you are in North Jersey and can still see a lot of Manhattans buildings it gives the area an even stronger connection to a city's center by giving you visual proof. In Boston it is cool to be able to be 5 miles north of downtown and backbay and see the same buildings that neighbor hoods 5 miles south of downtown can see. Or to be in Stoneham (10 miles north) and to be in the attic of my parents house and clearly see Boston is cool. Also when inside city parks and you can see tall towers on it parameter it gives that park more of an urban park feel. Also think of the Charles river view from the Cambridge side.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

Let me chime in. They also help to define the parameters of a downtown, and therefore offer a sense of the downtown's totality. As a result, in Boston from Government Center and Charles River Park all the way to the new buildings at BU, there is a perception that this is our downtown.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

That's lame, the last thing we need is a bunch of tall buildings for the sole purpose of creating an illusion that downtown is larger than it is. If you've ever been in Charles River Park(I almost lived there, puke, puke) you would know that aside from the two towers it has more in common with suburban Charlotte than it does with the downtown of a nearly 400 year old city. This all goes back to the skyline thing and creating an image for outsiders. The first concern should be quality of life for Bostonians, not the perceptions of hayseeds from Arkansas. Once again, I'm not opposed to height, but height for perception's sake is height for height's sake; not a good urban design plan.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

"That's lame, the last thing we need is a bunch of tall buildings for the sole purpose of creating an illusion that downtown is larger than it is."

True, but I don't thing that was the point of the last 2 posts. Downtown is already rather large. Skyscrapers would just define the boundaries more. Is that a good to reason to build skyscrapers? Not necessarily, but I am not opposed to it.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

riffgo said:
in Boston from Government Center and Charles River Park all the way to the new buildings at BU, there is a perception that this is our downtown.
Click to expand...

But that is not our downtown, at least not as I would be inclined to define it and I don't think many other people would consider that downtown either.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

I don't think asthetically there's any real reason to build skyscrapers bigger and more grand. This should never be a reason to build bigger, nor should creating the feel of a "bigger" downtown that encompasses more area, etc.

I've said this before but I think one of the reasons to build bigger in places where it's viable is because space will soon be at a premium (more so than now). Look at New York, and I know, I know--I hate comparing Boston to New York because it's apples and oranges, but humor me. In New York, buildable land is at a premium and so in a lot of places they are forced to build higher because of that and because of economic reasons. The land costs so much, the only way to make any money is to build bigger.

I'm not saying in 10, 20 or even 50 years that Boston will be void of buildable land. However at some point down the road, there's going to be a lack of spaces to build big. Especially when you take into account the new FAA restrictions that have been laid out in an actual plan with reserved heights for certain areas. If you don't build big when and where you can now, there's going to be a lot of low and mid-rise buildings that occupy the city in a time (down the road) where the demand for space exceeds what's available.

I don't bring this up specifically with this site in mind. I don't think building something 40-stories and 450-feet (pending the design) here would be terrible, infact if it incorporates street level nicely, I think it'd be a great idea. I'm just mainly wondering out loud about the possibility of not having the option to build bigger when we need it most.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

kmp1284 said:
But that is not our downtown, at least not as I would be inclined to define it and I don't think many other people would consider that downtown either.
Click to expand...

We are fortunate enough to have a "downtown" that encompasses downtown neighborhoods, and in that context at least the whole of the Shawmut Peninsula can be considered to make this point.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

"In New York, buildable land is at a premium and so in a lot of places they are forced to build higher because of that and because of economic reasons."

^New York actually has a lot more buildable land than Boston does. For one example, the western underutilized part of Manhattan is presently being reconceived as a highrise zone. Also, highrises are sprouting up in Brooklyn's downtown as well. Where in Boston will these opportunities be once the general downtown area is built out (I would say move Logan Airport, but that's a discussion for another thread)? We need to maximize the opportunities we have.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

I got a handed out guide to the Greenway this past Saturday at the opening. On the back cover is an ad from the Chiofaro Co and Prudential with a pic of the previous buildings at International Place and the new towers with the caption "The Chiofaro company once transformed a neglected garage into a Boston icon - International Place". Beside these pics is a picture of the Aquarium Garage and an arrow with the caption "Just imagine how this garage can be transformed".
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

Ha! That's funny...the owner of the property has to advertise his desire to build something to overcome city hall....

hopefully whatever Chiofaro has in mind it is not as tall as Int. Place!
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

That Greenway guide was also an advertising insert in last Wednesday's Globe.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

$900M, Twin-Tower Project Proposed For Harbor Garage

By Paul McMorrow
Banker & Tradesman Staff Writer

Don Chiofaro notified City Hall today that his company would like to build two towers, with a combined 1.5 million square feet of mixed-use space, on the site of the Harbor Garage in downtown Boston.

The Chiofaro Co. proposes to replace the seven-story, 1,380-car garage with 860,000 square feet of office space, 220,000 square feet of residential space, 70,000 square feet of retail space and a 350,000-square-foot hotel. The project would be spread over a combined hotel/residential tower and an office tower, and include restaurants, retail, and a market on the ground floors, with parking and service docks below grade, according to a letter of intent filed with the Boston Redevelopment Authority.

Chiofaro estimated the cost of the project at $900 million.

The letter does not specify how tall the two planned towers would be, but it allows that the project will need variances for height and floor area ratio. Previous descriptions of the project put its height between 40-85 stories, making it higher than the neighboring Harbor Towers. Harbor Towers was originally envisioned as a three-tower complex, though only two were built.

The letter predicts the generation of $30 million in new tax revenue, promising to bring ?new vibrancy and much needed retail? to the waterfront. Chiofaro said the project may also create up to 4,000 construction jobs and will include an outdoor courtyard and indoor public space.

Parking for residents of Harbor Towers will be ?provided at all times,? Chiofaro said. He also said the company has a ?moral obligation? to provide public parking for the nearby New England Aquarium.

Administration officials had no immediate comment. In September, BRA Director John Palmieri called the 1.3 acre parcel ?not a place to accommodate great height,? telling Banker & Tradesman, ?At this stage, Don is interested in doing a fairly substantial development at the garage. Our concern has to do with height, massing and density because of its location.?

The Chiofaro Co. purchased the garage at 70 East India Row, across from the Rose Kennedy Greenway, last year for more than $150 million.

Last fall, Chiofaro also bid on a Massachusetts Turnpike air rights parcel, proposing to build a 30-story tower over the roadway in Boston?s Back Bay.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top