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

[KentXie]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

I'm glad to see architecture professionals working with the community to develop alternate proposals.

I'm hesitant to believe in whatever Thrush does with his study of this proposal mainly because, and I may be wrong, I read somewhere that he was requested by the HT trustee to do research on it. That's like having oil companies hiring scientists to say that climate changes are fake and even his massing should be taken with a grain of salt. Nearly every tower in the world has an angle or two that puts them in a bad light, just like there are good angles. The Boston Arch, I would say, despite it's girth, have fewer bad angles compared to what we normally see going up in Boston, yet it's receiving the heaviest criticism at the proposal stage since...actually I can't think of one Boston tower that has undergone more scrutiny on it's design before construction than this one. I feel like the hatred for this tower for many, but not all, has more to do with the person developing, i.e. Don and his bluster, than anything else.

But seriously, if you're complaining about the massing of this tower and how it looks because of it, I better see you make the same complaint in the Congress St. Garage thread because they both have similar massing.

 

[Scalziand]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

I've been thinking the exact same thing, minus the pool. Maybe a tennis court

It would be absolutely hilarious seeing them try to complain about that.

 

[datadyne007]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

But seriously, if you're complaining about the massing of this tower and how it looks because of it, I better see you make the same complaint in the Congress St. Garage thread because they both have similar massing.

What? That's a totally different location. I completely support the massing proposed for the Congress St Garage. I'm not against aggressive massing everywhere. I just don't believe the current form of Harbor Square is appropriate for the site. Like I've said before, build bulky on the city side of the Greenway (ie. Congress Garage), not the Harbor side.

 

[stellarfun]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Don should propose identical copies of the Harbor Towers - pool/fence and all.
It would be interesting to see the BRA and community respond. What arguments against them could anyone have that wouldn't also apply to the current towers?

Chapter 91, enacted after the HT were built, precludes their cloning on the Harbor Garage site.

Because of Chapter 91, the Commonwealth, not the city, calls the shots on the Harbor Garage site.

Indeed the proposed Project is at such wide variance from the applicable state and local permitting requirements currently in force that it simply cannot be constructed. In order to progress... the Proponent will have to submit a dramatically different proposal.

July 17, 2009
Ian Bowles,
Secretary
Executive Office of Energy and environmental Affairs

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Looks familiar...

Waterside Plaza

 

[FK4]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

I've been thinking the exact same thing, minus the pool. Maybe a tennis court

That is awesome.




.....But seriously, the massing is pretty blocky for what's proposed. Maybe just the angle. We should definitely make sure we get some good height here, but also ensure we get the max architectural benefit too.

 

[datadyne007]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Has the height even been worked out with the FAA? The FAA sets guidelines for a very good reason. It's foolish to continue to push a development that violates such important guidelines.

 

[Scalziand]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Seriously though, the FAA map says 600ft.

 

[stellarfun]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Has the height even been worked out with the FAA? The FAA sets guidelines for a very good reason. It's foolish to continue to push a development that violates such important guidelines.

The FAA said 407 feet.

http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2009/10/26/daily55.html?page=all

The map Scalziand refers to is the clearance map for a one engine out departure. The FAA's 407 feet is what the FAA needs for radar tracking purposes for helicopters flying down the Charles River and for planes approaching from the west. The FAA is willing to go higher if Chiofaro builds them another approach radar at a slightly different location so the radar can 'see' these aircraft.

I've seen no indication that Chiofaro has offered to build another approach radar so that he can build higher at the Harbor Towers site, nor have I seen any indication from Chiofaro or the FAA or the Commonwealth that the capability of the existing radar is now enhanced, or that Logan is closing a runway and discontinuing approaches from the west.

 

[Suffolk 83]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

I'm not sure those FAA guidelines aren't somewhat politically charged. When those came out a few years ago the timing seemed very, interesting.

 

[coleslaw]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

I'm not sure those FAA guidelines aren't somewhat politically charged. When those came out a few years ago the timing seemed very, interesting.

I agree. It seems absurd that they would expect to have such low radar lines in Downtown.

 

[Equilibria]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

The FAA said 407 feet.

http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2009/10/26/daily55.html?page=all

The map Scalziand refers to is the clearance map for a one engine out departure. The FAA's 407 feet is what the FAA needs for radar tracking purposes for helicopters flying down the Charles River and for planes approaching from the west. The FAA is willing to go higher if Chiofaro builds them another approach radar at a slightly different location so the radar can 'see' these aircraft.

I'd never heard that before, but I've never found it geometrically likely that there's an approach radar at Logan Airport that would be prevented from seeing the Charles River or really anything by an additional 200' of building against a 200' plateau across the Greenway. With that said, from Logan the Aquarium Garage does sit on a perfect vector down the Charles, with nothing particularly tall in between. It's plausible.

Regardless, it's crazy that the FAA expects to have a permanently uninterrupted view with its approach radar from across the Downtown core, if that's really what the issue is. I understand the desire to get private money to pay for public amenities, but if you're going to have an airport situated where Logan is, Massport, the FAA, or someone else needs to pay to put radar somewhere else - on the roof of one of the taller MIT buildings, say - to guarantee radar coverage without stunting the city. They are public agencies, and they have a civic responsibility not only to keep the aviation system running, but also to make it a public good. In places like Boston and Miami, the FAA seems uninterested in that part.

If you're trying to track helicopters so low over the river that a 600' building in Downtown will impede your view, then build another radar at your own damn expense. It's your job.

 

[stellarfun]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

I'm not sure those FAA guidelines aren't somewhat politically charged. When those came out a few years ago the timing seemed very, interesting.

Political conspiracies aside, here's another case of proposed building height interfering with radar, from July 2009.

http://hamptonroads.com/2009/07/faa-tells-oceanfront-developers-stay-out-way

The FAA has also told Arlington VA no more towers in Rosslyn because of radar interference with Reagan National Airport.

Chiofaro sees things one way, the real world sees them differently. If he were the paradigm of due diligence, that would be one thing, but I've seen little more than five years of superficial, simplistic, parsimonious proposals for this site. If one looks at the current rendering of the NW corner, where most of the tower seems to float and rise ethereally, I am no structural engineer, but to cantilever a tall tower that way would seem to require one huge steel framework at ground level.

 

[TheRifleman]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Chiofaro sees things one way, the real world sees them differently. If he were the paradigm of due diligence, that would be one thing, but I've seen little more than five years of superficial, simplistic, parsimonious proposals for this site. If one looks at the current rendering of the NW corner, where most of the tower seems to float and rise ethereally, I am no structural engineer, but to cantilever a tall tower that way would seem to require one huge steel framework at ground level.

If people like Chiofaro listened to people like you there would be no Progress in life. For example: the developer built IP. I'm sure everybody said building a 1.8 Million square foot building in the 80's is impossible.

There is no reason why the FAA would not allow 600ft on this location everything around the area is 400 to 600ft. (Common Sense)

 

[pel_north]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

I work next to IP and in the lobby next to Starbucks there is a model of the financial district with the towers in it. I will try to get a photo at lunch.

 

[stellarfun]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Regardless, it's crazy that the FAA expects to have a permanently uninterrupted view with its approach radar from across the Downtown core, if that's really what the issue is. I understand the desire to get private money to pay for public amenities, but if you're going to have an airport situated where Logan is, Massport, the FAA, or someone else needs to pay to put radar somewhere else - on the roof of one of the taller MIT buildings, say - to guarantee radar coverage without stunting the city. They are public agencies, and they have a civic responsibility not only to keep the aviation system running, but also to make it a public good. In places like Boston and Miami, the FAA seems uninterested in that part.

Since when has it become public policy that if a developer wants to build something, a city, or state, or the Federal government should then pay for the cost of changes to or extensions of their infrastructure to accommodate the new development? If I build a house on a rural road, should I then demand that the town construct, at town expense, the water and sewer lines to my house because I don't like wells and I don't like septic?

Chiofaro paid $155 million in December 2007 for the garage, with all the encumbrances that came with it. He was not strong-armed into paying that price. While I personally think he greatly overpaid, he saw value.

The site is 1.32 acres; notionally under Chapter 91, 50 percent of the land should be open space, so his 'buildable' footprint is about 29,000 sq ft. My understanding is that under Chapter 91, if he used the existing garage as a podium, then Chapter 91 open space requirements would not apply. By my very crude calculations, if he retained the garage as podium and built 30 stories on top he gets 1.7 million gross square feet of new building, and flies under the FAA radar. Voila.

The Winsor School athletic fields are valued at about $25 million an acre, in a highly desired area. The state of Connecticut is buying a parking garage in downtown Hartford (with no encumbrances) with 1,000 more spaces than the Harbor Garage, for $23 million. I readily concede that downtown Hartford is not waterfront Boston, Chiofaro paid roughly $114 million an acre for the land, and an existing structure sitting on the land, which he proposes to demolish. He saw value.

 

[stellarfun]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

If people like Chiofaro listened to people like you there would be no Progress in life. For example: the developer built IP. I'm sure everybody said building a 1.8 Million square foot building in the 80's is impossible.

There is no reason why the FAA would not allow 600ft on this location everything around the area is 400 to 600ft. (Common Sense)

I expect in your E.E. studies, you've seen a similar diagram. If something blocks the radar beam in elevation, the radar isn't going to see it. There is a notch in the Boston skyline by the State House and Beacon Hill that allows the terminal approach radar at Logan to see beyond Beacon Hill, and aircraft are flying high enough to be seen.

The FAA could change the approach plate for Logan and make aircraft fly even higher so the radar could 'see' them, but that would result in planes doing a much steeper descent, and one would need also to change the ILS so the approach is flown higher.

Then flying into Boston some days could be a bit like flying into Kai Tak.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lx3Ccs5tKfw

 

[HenryAlan]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

I see that but they have different colored cladding so I don't think they will look like one mass. I like overlapping buildings.

Precisely this, and it is the heart of my objection to the third party model. The cladding makes a tremendous difference in how the width is perceived. I can appreciate that it's just a massing study, but to be accurate,each building should show a different color.

 

[pel_north]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Here is what I found at lunch.

 

[Jescobar86]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

That's model looks awesome, I would so put that in my apartment