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

[HalcyonEra]

Disney has a once-a-year/lifetime-of-memories business model and $100/person-day admission price. Even Six Flags (which imposes either a long walk or a shuttle ride) is still a "stay all day" thing.

The Aquarium has an annual membership/half-day-with-IMAX "school-day-or-less" model. The tolerance for walking (from transit or car)--and burning 30 minutes doing so-- is just not there. Not from the kids, not versus the length of visit.

I'm probably in the minority here, but having been to aquarium's over the past few years in other cities - Seattle, Baltimore, San Diego, the NE Aquarium to me is underwhelming to say the least. It's really past its prime and it would have behooved them to have attempted to move to Seaport via a public private partnership scheme when they had the chance.

Psychologically,between the Aquarium, the Harbor Towers and the garage, all that concrete makes for an extremely uninviting space. I would think they would welcome a modern, 21st century approach to their facility with open arms.

 

[JeffDowntown]

I'm probably in the minority here, but having been to aquarium's over the past few years in other cities - Seattle, Baltimore, San Diego, the NE Aquarium to me is underwhelming to say the least. It's really past its prime and it would have behooved them to have attempted to move to Seaport via a public private partnership scheme when they had the chance.

Psychologically,between the Aquarium, the Harbor Towers and the garage, all that concrete makes for an extremely uninviting space. I would think they would welcome a modern, 21st century approach to their facility with open arms.

I don't think many would disagree with your assessment of the New England Aquarium and environs.

They tried to make a move to the Charlestown Navy Yard to build a totally new facility about a decade ago (maybe longer?), but I think they failed in the fundraising attempt. (Others, perhaps, can provide details)

 

[FK4]

That's a fine position for you to take (and I agree) but it is not a position the Aquarium (or any "family" venue) can afford to take, particularly because competing "family" destinations make no such demand.

That kids won't walk for more than from the farthest spot at "the mall" is life-with-kids as lived in America. It is why families with walking-age kids move out of the city and don't visit walk-intensive things again until [ALL] their kids are 13. The Aquarium is sunk if it's market position is "you'll walk 30 minutes and like it" It makes the Aquarium's addressable market half the size of any easily-accessible competitors to rule out the 3-to-13 demographic as soundly as a "must walk 15 minutes to arrive and leave" position would (and really, that's just from South Station, access from north of the Charles is worse still)

The reality is that adding 30 minutes (to/from) of pre-teen kid-dragging is a deal-breaker (vs, say, letting the kids fall asleep in the car to or from) and the Aquarium knows it and every parent whose ever attempted it by transit knows it.

When weather conditions are absolutely perfect the walk can be "a feature"--but the Aquarium can't sell annual memberships on that basis. "Accessibility" for kids stops at about 0.4 mile and 10 minutes, ideally line-of-sight (aka the walk from South Station to the Children's Museum).

The other reality is that these "family" venues (Children's Museum, MOS, Lego) sell lucrative annual memberships as "rainy day" and "snow day" and "school break" venues (at which times, they're packed), at which times they need to offer car access or transit access that offers an absolute minimum of climate-exposed walking as possible.


The aquarium is pretty in-your-face about climate change hurting the seas first, and wants to challenge visitors about every aspect of their eco-lifestyle--except for how you got to the aquarium today.

I like your posts because I think people on here tend to be somewhat idealist and academic, which is good as far as pushing meaningful change in future development but often loses sight of simple realities. One of those simple realities is that of having a family and getting them around town. Most people on here, I would guess, by the content of the posts, do not have kids... And are young. There is often a fairly jaded, querulous "people OUGHT to do x" which ignores what people will in fact do - and what people, right now, are willing to do is what makes or breaks whether a company or development is profitable. I am a young man (or young enough) with no family, and have no problem at all traipsing all around Boston on foot, and walking great distances simply to visit the aquarium or some other institution. I have no idea what it would be like to have children to contend with, although I am sure that most of the things I do, particularly walking all over the place and utilizing public transportation, would be far more difficult. And observing other people with children, and seeing what it is like to deal with frustrated kids, why would I want to impose upon myself the burden of getting them all upset when I could easily hop in the car and go somewhere else where everything goes much more smoothly? You can't fault people for doing what's easy. And they will do what's easier, so if your plan is to make money off it, better make things as easy as you can. Thanks for the perspective.

 

[dirtywater]

They tried to make a move to the Charlestown Navy Yard to build a totally new facility about a decade ago (maybe longer?), but I think they failed in the fundraising attempt. (Others, perhaps, can provide details)

The Aquarium was going to sell its land to a developer to raise most of the funds for the new facility in Charlestown. The Charlestown proposal was controversial in some quarters and before the process moved far enough along, the market died and the value of their land plummeted. After that, they developed a master plan to stay in place. The first phase of the master plan was the addition to the front of the Aquarium. Although other additions and improvements were subsequently made to the facility, these were not consistent with the vision of that master plan.

 

[TheRifleman]

The problem we have is Parking has become so valuable in Boston that the Garage is become priceless.

I read an article in Boston Magazine the other day that somebody at Beacon Hill put their parking spot for Sale for $650,000.

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/property/blog/2015/11/03/beacon-hill-parking/

At this point the Aquarium should make a lucrative offer to Chiofaro to help them rebuild the entire area. Give Chiofaro more height and massing including building rights to the Aquarium and just rebuild the entire area.

The Aquarium is just so outdated and Boston could use a first rate Aquarium in this location.

 

[statler]

That is a great idea but as others have pointed out in this thread, major first class aquariums are very expensive to build and maintain and could never provide any kind of return on investment for Chiofaro and the cost would go well above and beyond any kind normal PR/community relations investment.

 

[TheRifleman]

That is a great idea but as others have pointed out in this thread, major first class aquariums are very expensive to build and maintain and could never provide any kind of return on investment for Chiofaro and the cost would go well above and beyond any kind normal PR/community relations investment.

The Aquarium would have to raise some sort of development basis cost. But overall give the Developer massive incentive to help incorporate the Aquarium in his development:

At this point let him build out the entire site from the Aquarium to the Greenway.
It's not like the Greenway Committee ever built anything on any of their parcels.

This is a good site to think REAL BIG. Develop that entire area would be priceless.

 

[HalcyonEra]

That is a great idea but as others have pointed out in this thread, major first class aquariums are very expensive to build and maintain and could never provide any kind of return on investment for Chiofaro and the cost would go well above and beyond any kind normal PR/community relations investment.

Where / How did the ICA get their funds to take up prime waterfront space? Granted it cost less than than an aquarium would, but that was certainly coveted land and I would expect attendance to dwarf that of the aquarium, but then again the aquarium is so shoddy maybe that's not the case.

 

[Arlington]

Where / How did the ICA get their funds to take up prime waterfront space? Granted it cost less than than an aquarium would, but that was certainly coveted land

(1) it wasn't prime in 1998-2000 when they acquired the site
- The Seaport was a mix of daily parking and construction tailings; an inaccessible dump.
- the TWT would not be connected to the Pike until Jan of '02
- The Central Artery tunnels opened in phases '03 to '05
- The Silver Line (tunnel) started in phases Dec '04 to June '05
(2) The ICA's timing was perfect: Menino basically gave them the site (see below)
(3) They took their time between their pre-'00 acquisition and 2006 opening raising money, building, and waiting the for access to get there and timed the opening for after the worst construction was over and the basic road/transit access was in place.

When Jill Medvedow took over as director of the Institute of Contemporary Art in 1998, she immediately began looking for alternatives to the museum’s cramped Boylston Street space. Her timing was perfect. Just one year later, Menino set up the Boston 2000 Commission to award a waterfront site to a cultural institution. The ICA’s proposed 65,000-square-foot building — designed by Diller Scofidio + Renfro — would go on to win the competition, and became the first arts museum to be built in the city in a century. Since its 2006 opening, the ICA (pictured below) has drawn an average of 200,000 visitors a year — more than seven times the traffic it generated at its Back Bay location.

(from http://www.bostonmagazine.com/2012/07/rise-seaport-district-boston/)

 

[JumboBuc]

It's not going to happen, but the open Massport land out at the tip of the Seaport seems like a great spot for a new Aquarium.

 

[statler]

Yeah, the NEA has invested too much into the current complex recently to even consider rebuilding at this point. I'd love to see it happen but it won't in my lifetime. (Barring a very large donation from a fish-loving billionaire)

 

[TheRifleman]

Yeah, the NEA has invested too much into the current complex recently to even consider rebuilding at this point. I'd love to see it happen but it won't in my lifetime. )

When I walk into the NEA it's like walking into a giant toilet bowl: they have a great location, blue line accessible along with being right off the path of the greenway.

They just need a 1st class development:

The aquarium officials should be begging Chiofaro to take over the entire area.

 

[statler]

I just can't see Chiofaro saying yes without a promise of major capital investment from the NEA and the NEA just isn't in position to promise that. It would be great if they could swing it but I really don't think the money is there.

 

[CSTH]

It's not going to happen, but the open Massport land out at the tip of the Seaport seems like a great spot for a new Aquarium.

Just can't see them moving. The giant tank in the middle of the building is actually a pretty distinctive asset. But they will need parking, and the lack of any natural light or view of the harbor is pretty bad.

Maybe the best bet is to build a new parking garage somewhere peripheral - like the massport subaru pier land - and run a continuous water shuttle. I can see that feeling more comfortable to the stroller crowd, in part because it could be passed off as part of a continuous aquarium experience, rather than as just another way to get there. Maybe get Don to pay for it, Wynn style. I'm a parent of two-under-two, and we can get to the NEA via blue with a <10 minute walk and a 1 stop ride - and we'll still choose to drive and park when the weather is bad or naptime is real close, every time. Also 4 roundtrips on the T gets competitive with a garage fee pretty fast.

Oh and also, expand either upwards to the roof, or outwards onto a floating barge (like the old trained seal ampitheater) - or both. But for the love of all that is good let some light in to that pillbox

 

[statler]

The idea is give the visitor the illusion they are under water. I'm not sure it really works they way they had envisioned, but I get the intention.

 

[TheRifleman]

"The New England Aquarium has stepped up its opposition to developer Don Chiofaro’s plan to put a massive development at the neighboring Boston Harbor Garage site, issuing a study Wednesday that said the project would choke traffic along Atlantic Avenue and gobble up parking spaces that are essential to the aquarium and other waterfront businesses."

The best part about the comment up above. Anytime a development happens there will be traffic. But this location its right on the Blue Line: This is where you want developments in the future right next to on & off Transit: These types of developments being built on the major hardrails would overall ease traffic in the future. Compared to the development being built in a random location in the city.

NEA should see this as an opportunity to make the NEA a much more desirable place to visit not worry about traffic & parking.


If a real study should have been done concerning Traffic was the CASINO because of its location that will effect everybody's timely commute.

I might take my family here 1 every 2 years. I find it very boring and depressing.

NEA should be teaming up with these life science corporations in Boston to help preserve Marine Life.

 

[dwash59]

I read an article in Boston Magazine the other day that somebody at Beacon Hill put their parking spot for Sale for $650,000.

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/property/blog/2015/11/03/beacon-hill-parking/

(a) Shockingly high list prices are meaningless. The only useful number is the $390,000 a space in the garage actually sold for

(b) The Brimmer Street Garage has almost nothing in common with the aquarium garage. 100% valet parking. Valets will fill your gas tank as well while you are parked and put that on your monthly statement. Renting out of units by owners is only allowed on an annual basis, specifically only for July 1-June 30 rental periods. It is not just a place to park your car; it is designed to attract a specific customer type looking for a particular parking experience.

 

[Semass]

It is not just a place to park your car; it is designed to attract a specific customer type looking for a particular parking experience.

This made me laugh.

 

[TheRifleman]

This made me laugh.

Parking is dwindling fast in the city especially after Seaport being developed. I feel like the time is running out for the city to get this parcel developed before the garage is priceless.

If I had money ad lived in the city -- I could careless what the garage offered besides guaranteeing me a space to park my vehicle: I would buy a parking space at any cost.

 

[CSTH]

The idea is give the visitor the illusion they are under water. I'm not sure it really works they way they had envisioned, but I get the intention.

Fair enough ... but then at least put a glass box on the roof and let me experience the pleasant relief of breaking through the surface, taking a deep breath of oxygen, and paying $12 for a coffee and a snack for the kid.