[ARCHIVED] Harbor Garage Redevelopment | 70 East India Row | Waterfront | Downtown
- Status
fattony
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 2,099
- Reaction score
- 481
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)
Only applies to spaces available to the general public.
Only applies to spaces available to the general public.
TheRifleman
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Messages
- 4,431
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)
Looking at this site about the other proposals for Chiofaro Development:
http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2014/...ofaros-boston-harbor-garage-project-proposal/
The 650" -Looks Amazing in the skyline- This location definitely needs the height. It fills in perfect.
I still like the 2-Tower concept thou. Give him more height and thin them out.
I think the city should work with the FAA and get as much height as possible for this location. 715Ft and 610Ft
Looking at this site about the other proposals for Chiofaro Development:
http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2014/...ofaros-boston-harbor-garage-project-proposal/
The 650" -Looks Amazing in the skyline- This location definitely needs the height. It fills in perfect.
I still like the 2-Tower concept thou. Give him more height and thin them out.
I think the city should work with the FAA and get as much height as possible for this location. 715Ft and 610Ft
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2010
- Messages
- 8,894
- Reaction score
- 271
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)
Ah, so there's the presentation that "visual consequences" render was from. What's most notable is at the bottom of the article, there is a letter from a HT resident that actually supports the project overwhelmingly:
Ah, so there's the presentation that "visual consequences" render was from. What's most notable is at the bottom of the article, there is a letter from a HT resident that actually supports the project overwhelmingly:
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 6,959
- Reaction score
- 8,038
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)
I appreciate that the presentation doesn't oppose height, but girth. I wonder how cynical that is, though, given that it's pretty common knowledge that the FAA has banned the height that would make a single slender tower a break-even proposition for any developer. Square footage is, to some extent, a zero-sum game. A 350' tower, or even a 650' one, won't have the massing the presentation gives it.
Also, a lot of those slides are pretty silly. Where exactly is he measuring the Miami waterfront? There's Bayfront Park and the Arena that have public waterfront space, but most of that coastline is privatized right up to the waterline. San Francisco's waterfont consists mostly of piers, many of which are either low-rise buildings or ugly parking lots. Again, a couple of waterfront parks, but mostly private. Chicago is the one example of a fully-public waterfront, but they locked that up in the 19th Century (like Boston did on the Charles) and actually filled in portions of the lake to create parkland. They also get that "public space with no buildings" by running a bunch of underground train tracks along the old lakefront - portions of the park are decked over them.
Thrush is picking a single private development site and comparing it to the most inviting of public waterfront open spaces in other cities, and even then he's being disingenuous, since there's 250' or more between Chiofaro's towers and the harbor on either side of the basin, counting the IMAX theater. Also the Harbor Towers are closer to the harbor than the nearest approach of Chiofaro's buildings.
Also, anyone else LOL when they saw that he presented the "600-FOOT TOWERS F-ING EVERYWHERE" slide with what was presumably a straight face?
I appreciate that the presentation doesn't oppose height, but girth. I wonder how cynical that is, though, given that it's pretty common knowledge that the FAA has banned the height that would make a single slender tower a break-even proposition for any developer. Square footage is, to some extent, a zero-sum game. A 350' tower, or even a 650' one, won't have the massing the presentation gives it.
Also, a lot of those slides are pretty silly. Where exactly is he measuring the Miami waterfront? There's Bayfront Park and the Arena that have public waterfront space, but most of that coastline is privatized right up to the waterline. San Francisco's waterfont consists mostly of piers, many of which are either low-rise buildings or ugly parking lots. Again, a couple of waterfront parks, but mostly private. Chicago is the one example of a fully-public waterfront, but they locked that up in the 19th Century (like Boston did on the Charles) and actually filled in portions of the lake to create parkland. They also get that "public space with no buildings" by running a bunch of underground train tracks along the old lakefront - portions of the park are decked over them.
Thrush is picking a single private development site and comparing it to the most inviting of public waterfront open spaces in other cities, and even then he's being disingenuous, since there's 250' or more between Chiofaro's towers and the harbor on either side of the basin, counting the IMAX theater. Also the Harbor Towers are closer to the harbor than the nearest approach of Chiofaro's buildings.
Also, anyone else LOL when they saw that he presented the "600-FOOT TOWERS F-ING EVERYWHERE" slide with what was presumably a straight face?
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)
I think that getting those heights on the Greenway/waterfront are never going to happen, at least in my lifetime. It is however nice to dream, but the reality is that A) this is Boston B) they will probably be knocked down to a 400'/500' height. Also, the FAA would have a field day if they (Chiofaro's towers) were proposed at 715 and 610, respectively.
I think that getting those heights on the Greenway/waterfront are never going to happen, at least in my lifetime. It is however nice to dream, but the reality is that A) this is Boston B) they will probably be knocked down to a 400'/500' height. Also, the FAA would have a field day if they (Chiofaro's towers) were proposed at 715 and 610, respectively.
citylover94
Senior Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2012
- Messages
- 1,140
- Reaction score
- 58
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)
The ridiculous thing is if this is to be a 350' or even 500' tower it would have to be a giant box to make up for the square footage lost. I would rather see the towers currently proposed just become taller and thinner to be honest.
The ridiculous thing is if this is to be a 350' or even 500' tower it would have to be a giant box to make up for the square footage lost. I would rather see the towers currently proposed just become taller and thinner to be honest.
TheRifleman
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Messages
- 4,431
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)
I agree with you on this. 400/500ft will do nothing but make the Boston Skyline as boring as ever for the Greenway. (Ground Floor definitely an upgrade)
600/700--Will overshadow the 400ft Harbor Towers development which Harbor Towers really does not look very appealing in the skyline or even the ground level for an upcoming area.
This site needs HEIGHT BADLY
I agree with you on this. 400/500ft will do nothing but make the Boston Skyline as boring as ever for the Greenway. (Ground Floor definitely an upgrade)
600/700--Will overshadow the 400ft Harbor Towers development which Harbor Towers really does not look very appealing in the skyline or even the ground level for an upcoming area.
This site needs HEIGHT BADLY
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Messages
- 5,078
- Reaction score
- 1,656
Downburst
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2012
- Messages
- 1,452
- Reaction score
- 345
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)
Lol. It's not even worth thinking about. The FAA is unwavering when it comes to these things.
Lol. It's not even worth thinking about. The FAA is unwavering when it comes to these things.
TheRifleman
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Messages
- 4,431
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)
So how was Tommy's Tower ever going to be built 1,000ft in Downtown. That would have broke every Boston Guideline in the city. Every development is an exception in this city.
That would have to be an exception I'm assuming. You have to start somewhere. 600 to 700ft could be reasonable?
So how was Tommy's Tower ever going to be built 1,000ft in Downtown. That would have broke every Boston Guideline in the city. Every development is an exception in this city.
That would have to be an exception I'm assuming. You have to start somewhere. 600 to 700ft could be reasonable?
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Messages
- 5,078
- Reaction score
- 1,656
coleslaw
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2013
- Messages
- 596
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)
Is this because of flight lines or radar lines? If radar, how much would it cost to build a new one?
We should make a kickstarter to build a new one so we can finally get tall in the city.
Is this because of flight lines or radar lines? If radar, how much would it cost to build a new one?
We should make a kickstarter to build a new one so we can finally get tall in the city.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Messages
- 5,078
- Reaction score
- 1,656
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)
Boston zoning is different from FAA regulations. And Tommy's Tower was in a different "zone" of height on the FAA's maps. These towers will be the tallest buildings in the zone closest to Logan. Political muscle can be flexed, but I doubt the FAA gives two shits about improved urbanism/skyline next to the Aquarium.
Boston zoning is different from FAA regulations. And Tommy's Tower was in a different "zone" of height on the FAA's maps. These towers will be the tallest buildings in the zone closest to Logan. Political muscle can be flexed, but I doubt the FAA gives two shits about improved urbanism/skyline next to the Aquarium.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Messages
- 5,078
- Reaction score
- 1,656
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)
Radar lines. Again, it's an inter-agency problem, which are not easy to motivate the players involved. There's ZERO urgency for MassPort or the FAA to spend $$ moving Logan's sensor array. There's SOME urgency from the City of Boston and private developers to be able to build up more than is currently possible. There's the MOST urgency from ArchBoston. Odds or Evens, nothing gets done about it.
Radar lines. Again, it's an inter-agency problem, which are not easy to motivate the players involved. There's ZERO urgency for MassPort or the FAA to spend $$ moving Logan's sensor array. There's SOME urgency from the City of Boston and private developers to be able to build up more than is currently possible. There's the MOST urgency from ArchBoston. Odds or Evens, nothing gets done about it.
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2010
- Messages
- 8,894
- Reaction score
- 271
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)
The FAA's only goal is to ensure passenger & crew safety and that is all they should care about. Logan being close to Boston is a blessing for ease of access, but a curse for height near the waterfront. We need to work within the restrictions of the site and accept that this is the challenge of building in Boston.
As stated previously (and even with a nice diagram of elevation, azimuth, etc), the issue at this site is radar lines.
The FAA's only goal is to ensure passenger & crew safety and that is all they should care about. Logan being close to Boston is a blessing for ease of access, but a curse for height near the waterfront. We need to work within the restrictions of the site and accept that this is the challenge of building in Boston.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Messages
- 5,078
- Reaction score
- 1,656
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)
Totally agree. There isn't going to be a "new Logan" built in Weymouth, Bedford, or Norwood just to allow buildings to get higher in Boston. Logan is close to Boston. That's good. As a result it affects building heights in parts of the city. Developers have to just deal with it. So do we.
Totally agree. There isn't going to be a "new Logan" built in Weymouth, Bedford, or Norwood just to allow buildings to get higher in Boston. Logan is close to Boston. That's good. As a result it affects building heights in parts of the city. Developers have to just deal with it. So do we.
- Status