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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Are you saying the travellers building was better than IP. HAHAHAHA. If the light fixtures comment is true then should no tower ever have been built with blue glass after the hancock was built?
 
You could be right but the way I see it is the Greenway is more desirable than Seaport.

Your acting like the Greenway is another town away from the Seaport. Seaport is right around the corner from the Greenway.
If Harbor Garage gets developed this might transform the entire Greenway into a more San Fran Silcon Valley type area than a Insurance/Banking area.

Riff -- there you go again -- Comparing the sprawling corporate campuses of Silicon Valley to urban SF is akin to comparing Rt-128 in Waltham to the Back Bay

Though as far as distance is concerned -- Silicon Valley [San Jose] to SF distance is closer to the distance from Worcester to Boston
 
Are you saying the travellers building was better than IP. HAHAHAHA. If the light fixtures comment is true then should no tower ever have been built with blue glass after the hancock was built?

Stick -- No Travelers was a boring bit of the early international style that was replaced by just a bigger version with less color

IP is unique in Boston and it does present a nice view from the Harbor -- in the same way that the Pru is a major part of the iconic view from Cambridge on the River in front of MIT

However, neither IP nor the Pru are good buildings from the pedestrian scale up close -- both get better the further you are from them

The light fixtures were an absolute ripoff -- he [Johnson] also used them for 500 Boylston -- so perhaps his next affair was with the rep of some foundry casting light brackets
031615boystonjb04.jpg
 
Any chance we get that new single 600ft tower proposal we've been waiting for?
 
I'm planning on attending - it's exciting that there's finally movement!

This would be a game-changer, we could actually enjoy our city's waterfront on days that aren't sunny and beautiful. It would be nice to celebrate the waterfront on snowy or rainy days instead of avoiding it.

I feel like anybody who is against this project needs to travel to other cities and see how they make their downtown waterfront's an attraction for the public, not just for the select few who can afford to live there.
 
Steve Adams (‏@SteveAdamsTweet) from the B&T is livetweeting:

Environmental secretary Matthew Beaton informed @bostonredevelop in phone call. Height, density on waterfront controlled by Chap. 91

Chiofaro had sought to build 1.3M sf in two towers at @HarborGarage property

Consultant will study what community benefits to ask from developer Chiofaro and report in March says Rich McGuinness @bostonredevelop

State regulators side with @bostonredevelop over Chiofaro on Harbor Towers proposal: maximum 600 feet, 900K sf
 
Steve Adams (‏@SteveAdamsTweet) from the B&T is livetweeting:

Environmental secretary Matthew Beaton informed @bostonredevelop in phone call. Height, density on waterfront controlled by Chap. 91

Chiofaro had sought to build 1.3M sf in two towers at @HarborGarage property

Consultant will study what community benefits to ask from developer Chiofaro and report in March says Rich McGuinness @bostonredevelop

State regulators side with @bostonredevelop over Chiofaro on Harbor Towers proposal: maximum 600 feet, 900K sf


400k sf less is significant but I hope Don makes it work. The key is getting a great tower and seamless access to the waterfront for all. Garage needs to go.
 
To make it work hes going to have to drastically cut costs, I think we all know where that road leads. I really hope not.
 
from today's globe..

Chiofaro thinks big as Greenway project would rival the Pru
By Steve Bailey and Chris Reidy, Globe Staff | May 26, 2006

Don Chiofaro, the man who built giant International Place, does not think small. And he is not thinking small as he eyes an ambitious new development on the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway


According to Chiofaro and City Hall officials briefed on his plans, the huge mixed-use project would total about 1.2 million square feet -- the equivalent of the Prudential Tower itself. It would include a 175-room hotel, 125 condos, 800,000 square feet of office space, and significant retail space. The early concept is for two buildings, including a 475-foot tower -- about 75 feet higher than the neighboring Harbor Towers. Ted Oatis, Chiofaro's partner, said the project would open a pedestrian corridor, creating a view to the harbor.

Projected cost: $600 million to $800 million.

City Hall officials, who met with Chiofaro for the first time yesterday, called the project ``very preliminary." But they and Chiofaro confirmed that the developer has secured an option to buy the parking garage just in front of the New England Aquarium, and plans to demolish the garage and replace it with 1,400 underground spaces. One official estimated it would take two to three years to get the project through the permitting process. The site is about 1.3 acres in all, bounded by Milk Street, East India Row, and Atlantic Avenue.

``This is the most exciting piece of real estate in the city of Boston," Chiofaro said yesterday after meeting with the Boston Redevelopment Authority.

The project, reported in The Boston Globe yesterday, would mark a remarkable comeback for Chiofaro. Two years ago, Chiofaro was in danger of losing control of International Place to New York-based Tishman Speyer Properties. In response, Chiofaro took International Place into bankruptcy, and brought in Prudential Real Estate Investors to refinance the project. Tishman Speyer walked away with about $40 million in profit, Chiofaro's ownership was reduced, but he retained his position in International Place.

Prudential has had very preliminary talks with Chiofaro about participating in the new project, but is far from a deal, the firm said. ``Don Chiofaro has been a great partner in the International Place deal," said spokeswoman Theresa Miller. ``As with all our partners, we are eager to explore an opportunity that has potential for benefiting our investors. This project could be one of them."

Since he completed the second tower of International Place in 1993, Chiofaro has tried to do other large projects in the city and failed. Chiofaro won and then lost the development rights to build what later became the 36-story headquarters for State Street Corp. on the edge of Chinatown. He later sued the minority investors who were his partner. He also had and lost the rights to develop the South Boston Waterfront site that became Manulife Financial's US headquarters.

Chiofaro is known to have a cool relationship with Mayor Thomas M. Menino, whose support is critical for any developer. Yesterday Menino said housing affordability and parking are of particular concern to him.

``Whatever goes there has to be sensitive to the people of Harbor Towers and the aquarium. Both have gone through a lot in the last 12 years," Menino said, referring to the Big Dig reconstruction. The BRA declined to comment.

Early reaction to the Chiofaro proposal was cautious. Until more details are public, the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway Conservancy plans to withhold comment, said Nancy Brennan , the conservancy's executive director. The conservancy is a private nonprofit gradually assuming responsibility for maintaining the new parks.

In general, the conservancy is inclined to look favorably upon development that would bring new life to neighborhoods along the Greenway, she said. ``Residences and offices that bring more families and people who will use the Greenway's parks and amenities would be a great thing for the city and would strengthen the neighborhood," Brennan said.
Joseph T. Baerlein , co chairman of the Harbor Towers Condominium Trust , noted that Harbor Towers residents take up about 400 parking spaces in the garage that Chiofaro wants to redevelop under leases that won't expire until 2018 and 2019. The heating and cooling systems for Harbor Towers also are located in the garage, he said.

Baerlein expects that Chiofaro's project would include underground parking that would replace what would be lost from the garage. Concerns about Harbor Towers parking and its heating and cooling systems are not ``obstacles that can't be overcome," he said. ``It's prudent and wise to have an open mind about this" proposal, said Baerlein. Of the garage, he said, ``We wouldn't exactly be losing a crown jewel here."

Steve Bailey can be reached at bailey@globe.com; Chris Reidy at reidy@globe.com.

This is not news by any means, but, if accurate, the second to last paragraph shows from this 2006 article, that the parking leases for Harbor Towers at the Aquarium Garage expire in 2018/2019. (It doesn't give specifics on what the heating/cooling systems agreement says) But it would seem that Chiofaro holds the upper hand in negotiations with HT residents. How much does "guaranteed parking" factor into the resale value of the units? If I were a HT unit owner, and my parking lease was about to end, I would be doing exactly opposite of what most are currently doing. I would be working WITH Chiofaro, and the city to ensure everybody wins in the end.
 
^^^^
The problem now you are facing is TIME--- Parking is becoming more expensive which it will make it harder and harder to knock down this garage without sometype of massive tax incentive or just give the developer the height and work with the massing.

Time is running out for the city, the developer and the Harbor Tower residents.
Everybody will lose but the developer/owner of the garage.
 
^^^^
The problem now you are facing is TIME--- Parking is becoming more expensive which it will make it harder and harder to knock down this garage without sometype of massive tax incentive or just give the developer the height and work with the massing.

Time is running out for the city, the developer and the Harbor Tower residents.
Everybody will lose but the developer/owner of the garage.

Not to mention that the Gov Ctr Garage will be losing about 1,000 parking spaces.
 
This is not news by any means, but, if accurate, the second to last paragraph shows from this 2006 article, that the parking leases for Harbor Towers at the Aquarium Garage expire in 2018/2019. (It doesn't give specifics on what the heating/cooling systems agreement says) But it would seem that Chiofaro holds the upper hand in negotiations with HT residents. How much does "guaranteed parking" factor into the resale value of the units? If I were a HT unit owner, and my parking lease was about to end, I would be doing exactly opposite of what most are currently doing. I would be working WITH Chiofaro, and the city to ensure everybody wins in the end.

The matter of the HT parking spaces in the garage has been periodically discussed on this thread almost from the beginning, i.e., from last decade into this, and, IMO, there is little point in re-hashing it at this juncture.

The garage itself was constructed on BRA land, and sized far larger than what was needed for the HT residents. I could be wrong, but I suspect that in allowing development of the garage, the BRA insisted that a garage of this capacity be on this site in perpetuity, or something like that. I say that because Chiofaro was willing to move heaven and earth to build a replacement garage with equivalent capacity, even when it made no economic sense to do so.

The HT has an easement, in perpetuity, on the garage property for the HVAC equipment. If they don't allow that equipment to be moved, no new garage, no development. They have the upper hand.

Of note in the B&T tweets from the Municipal Harbor Plan meeting yesterday was that the Commonwealth reminded everyone that the state will be the final decider on what gets built, and that the Commonwealth supports the size limits set by the BRA for the site. Chiofaro has yet to respond to those limits with any proposal / project.
 
They are going to let 200,000SqFt difference stop this project.
The Garage is awful (And this a key development site to only maximize the potential of the Greenway.)

The city & state officials are out of their minds.
But then they support a traffic future nightmare scenario development in the casino in Everett.

It is mind-blowing how these people think.
Just like the Greenway Conservancy was supposed to build all these exhibits on the Greenway.
 
I don't suppose that a significant portion of the "amenity" threshold requirement(s) couldn't be transferred to an actual parcel of/a separate parcel along the Greenway to reduce space requirements and complexity for satisfying the Commonwealth?

Instead of wasting the first three - four floors on this silly garden under glass nonsense, perhaps look to consider a monolithic tower positioned with heavy favor on the SW corner of the site and tapering to maximize floor space in the lower levels with the removal of the amenity/shopping arcade. The rest of the site would be a (relatively) inexpensive mix of grass/hardscape to complement the small park across Milk Street.

A building with 25,000 sq ft floor plates at its base with a tapering effect would gain back what? almost 80,000k of leasable space on those lower floors that was previously designated as "amenity?"

Prudential/Chifaro wouldn't get to 1.1/1.3M square feet, but he would get closer to the ROI Prudential/Chifaro was looking for by more efficiently using the space they do have on that particular block if they can satisfy commitments in other ways.
 
The matter of the HT parking spaces in the garage has been periodically discussed on this thread almost from the beginning, i.e., from last decade into this, and, IMO, there is little point in re-hashing it at this juncture.

It certainly has been discussed at length. Primarily b/c it seems to be such a critical piece of the conversation. You and West did a great job informing us back on 12/4. For those wanting the info:
http://www.archboston.org/community/showthread.php?t=936&page=159

Per this conversation, the idea of a perpetual easement was at least challenged. Per West from 12/4 : "The parking right is a lease, not an easement, and expires in 2022. The HVAC right is an easement, expiring in 2069."

It would be helpful in complex, held-up developments like this, if we had a basic info sheet to point to. A document of truth for certain vital issues pertaining to the development so that we don't have to re-inquire and start the speculation process anew.
 
cburns, a few years back, Chiofaro sought to include vacant land elsewhere on the waterfront (Long Wharf?) that he didn't own to help meet the open space requirements of Chapter 91.
___________________

the state “made it clear to us they would not consider any recommendations beyond what we’d outlined in June,” McGuinness said. “Not above 900,000 square feet, and certainly not above 600 feet tall.”

IMO, Chiofaro made a strategic mistake years back. The only official application he has ever made on his project was an ENF filing with the Commonwealth. (He has never submitted anything official to the city.) The ENF was so defective that in reply, the Secretary of Environmental Affairs effectively tore him a new butthole.

In doing so, the Secretary, in his reply, set down a marker that could and would be cited by anyone in the Commonwealth who thinks that the Commonwealth is bending Chapter 91 requirements to benefit Chiofaro's project. As Chapter 91 applies throughout the Commonwealth, someone in Mashpee, or Newburyport could and would litigate about any perceived favoritism, and pointing as Exhibit #1, the rejection of the ENF.

As Shirley Leung noted in her column some months back. the typically voluble and loquacious Chiofaro became quiet once the 900,000 sq ft limit was announced. As today's Globe article notes, Chiofaro released a statement, but did not talk to reporters. Shirley was also correct in reporting that Prudential and the city were engaging in direct talks, bypassing Chiofaro.

IMO, its looking ever more likely that Chiofaro will not be the site developer. For someone who sought the spotlight, he is receding into the shadows. Not a positive sign that he is going to pull off this development.
 
I don't suppose that a significant portion of the "amenity" threshold requirement(s) couldn't be transferred to an actual parcel of/a separate parcel along the Greenway to reduce space requirements and complexity for satisfying the Commonwealth?

Instead of wasting the first three - four floors on this silly garden under glass nonsense, perhaps look to consider a monolithic tower positioned with heavy favor on the SW corner of the site and tapering to maximize floor space in the lower levels with the removal of the amenity/shopping arcade. The rest of the site would be a (relatively) inexpensive mix of grass/hardscape to complement the small park across Milk Street.

But once you cross the bridge, it only makes sense to keep part of the garage and build on top a la gov center
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top