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

[lapradetom]

Lapradetom -- HUH?? -- you apparently somehow shoehorned your two visits into the time window between the original Aquarium and the rebuild of the center tank as a Caribbean Reef plus the addition of the Imax theatre and other major work outside of the original structure

Just to jog your memory highlights from the wiki article on the Aquarium:

• 1970 The Giant Ocean Tank opened -- at the time was the largest circular ocean tank in the world
• 1998 The new West Wing by Schwartz/Silver Architects -- The glass and steel addition includes the harbor seal exhibit on the public plaza, ticketing booth, changing exhibit galleries, gift shop, cafe, and new entry lobby.
• 2001 -- The 428 seat Matthew and Marcia Simons IMAX Theatre -- separate building designed by E. Verner Johnson and Associates
• 2009, the New Balance Foundation Marine Mammal Center opened with Five Northern fur seals and two California sea lions are on exhibit behind the Aquarium on the harborside terrace, with views of Boston Harbor
• 2013, the Aquarium reopened the Giant Ocean Tank after a ten-month renovation. The new Giant Ocean Tank features a new reef designed to represent a pre-Columbian Caribbean reef, new lighting with the reflective dome, and better views with the new viewing windows along the tank. Additionally, the number of fish in the tank has increased from 800 to 2,000 and number of species has increased from 90 to 140.

Sounds like quite a bit of change and innovation-- of course you might say that the MFA looks the same as well -- visiting it once in 1975 and once today, and somehow missing the Art of the Americas Wing and the other work by Norman Foster & Partners

^A few tweaks do not a great Aquarium make....Why did adding an IMAX theater make the Aquarium better? Answer: Because the Aquarium sux, so we may as well go watch a movie instead.

 

[TheRifleman]

I dunno, some visitors seem to like it.

Perfect example of perception. This specific picture makes the Aquarium have a warm & Cozy feeling about it.

Too bad TED or this perception does not actually exist.

I have never felt like that being at the Aquarium.
The actual feel is more like being stuck in a crowded leaking German submarine with windows like the movie U-571.

Great pic thou

 

[statler]

Hey guys, I copied a few of the NEAQ posts into a new thread. Use that one if you want to just talk about the NEAQ itself.

You can still use this one to discuss the NEAQ in relation to the garage redevelopment. Thanks!

 

[found5dollar]

The Capital of New York State is Albany, not NYC.

*takes foot, places in mouth*

 

[tangent]

Hey guys, I copied a few of the NEAQ posts into a new thread. Use that one if you want to just talk about the NEAQ itself.

You can still use this one to discuss the NEAQ in relation to the garage redevelopment. Thanks!

Just posting here also. I was suggesting that instead of the tower going at the location of the garage, that it be built directly in front of the aquarium on central wharf with the atrium at ground level becoming the entrance to the aquarium.

If and when the garage becomes unnecessary, then it could be redeveloped as an adjacent high-rise block.

That way the garage owners get a 600 foot tower on the waterfront, the aquarium could get a nice new entrance and the garage stays until it is no longer necessary.

 

[stellarfun]

Just posting here also. I was suggesting that instead of the tower going at the location of the garage, that it be built directly in front of the aquarium on central wharf with the atrium at ground level becoming the entrance to the aquarium.

If and when the garage becomes unnecessary, then it could be redeveloped as an adjacent high-rise block.

That way the garage owners get a 600 foot tower on the waterfront, the aquarium could get a nice new entrance and the garage stays until it is no longer necessary.

The Commonwealth, who calls the shots, has said 'no new* shadows on Long Wharf'.

* Before Nov 1. So new shadows could be allowed between Nov 1 and second week of February.

 

[tangent]

The Commonwealth, who calls the shots, has said 'no new* shadows on Long Wharf'.

* Before Nov 1. So new shadows could be allowed between Nov 1 and second week of February.

Didn't they also say no tall tower at the Garage? But whatever. BRA clearly calls the shots politically.

 

[stellarfun]

Didn't they also say no tall tower at the Garage? But whatever. BRA clearly calls the shots politically.

The Harbor Garage and the Aquarium land are subject to Chapter 91. Chapter 91 brings development of either site under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth.

The BRA did shadow studies as part of the current waterfront planning study. (The owner of the garage has always declined to do such studies.)

After the shadow studies, the BRA said that a thin tower to 600' could be built, if sited on the southwest corner of the garage parcel. IIRC, it would be so thin, that the shadow on Long Wharf would not be longer than 15 minutes at any point on the wharf.

The Commonwealth was okay with that, and with the 900,000 gsf cap.

The only official submission that Chiofaro has ever made with respect to the Harbor Garage was an ENF submitted to the Commonwealth.

http://web1.env.state.ma.us/EEA/emepa/pdffiles/enfs/050609em/14411.pdf

The ENF acknowledged that development was subject to a Chapter 91 license, and said this:

Alternatives Analysis: Prior to submitting this ENF, the Proponent considered alternatives that included a No-Build alternative and a Chapter 91-compliant building. These alternatives were determined to be infeasible and undesirable since they would distort the vision of a vibrant mixed-use development that would unite the historic harbor, financial district, Aquarium, and new Greenway.

Should the Proponent decide not to pursue the proposed redevelopment (i.e., the No-Build alternative), underutilization of the existing site would continue and preclude the site activation that would otherwise accompany the development of 24-hour residential and hotel uses, office space, retail activity, and enhanced connectivity with and public use of the Greenway and
Boston Harbor. In addition, the No Build alternative would prevent the realization of other important Project benefits such as approximately $16 million in net new annual tax revenue, creation of 3,000-4,000 construction jobs and approximately 4,720 permanent jobs, and improved stormwater treatment at the site. A Chapter 91-compliant alternative would result in a significantly smaller project that would not only trim public benefits but would also be financially infeasible.

^^^ That was the totality of the description of alternatives.

The Commonwealth, in its 20 page reply, basically tore Chiofaro a new anal orifice.

 

[tangent]

The Harbor Garage and the Aquarium land are subject to Chapter 91. Chapter 91 brings development of either site under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth.

The BRA did shadow studies as part of the current waterfront planning study. (The owner of the garage has always declined to do such studies.)

After the shadow studies, the BRA said that a thin tower to 600' could be built, if sited on the southwest corner of the garage parcel. IIRC, it would be so thin, that the shadow on Long Wharf would not be longer than 15 minutes at any point on the wharf.

The Commonwealth was okay with that, and with the 900,000 gsf cap.

The only official submission that Chiofaro has ever made with respect to the Harbor Garage was an ENF submitted to the Commonwealth.

http://web1.env.state.ma.us/EEA/emepa/pdffiles/enfs/050609em/14411.pdf

The ENF acknowledged that development was subject to a Chapter 91 license, and said this:

^^^ That was the totality of the description of alternatives.

The Commonwealth, in its 20 page reply, basically tore Chiofaro a new anal orifice.

Sure, what I am saying is that the Chiofaro proposed project is clearly infeasible and it is a complete waste of time to discuss, so move it over a couple hundred feet to Central Wharf and solve some of the problems.

If the state was okay with 15 minute shadows on the wharf, then how about 22 minute shadows or whatever it would be? And a central wharf location would reduce or completely eliminate shadows on the Greenway if they move the tower further out onto the pier.

 

[odurandina]

The introduction of a shade on 1/700th of the waterfront.

What in the world will we do?

Sad it isn't going to 780'.

 

[FK4]

^A few tweaks do not a great Aquarium make....Why did adding an IMAX theater make the Aquarium better? Answer: Because the Aquarium sux, so we may as well go watch a movie instead.

Could they expand over the water by 50 feet or so and also why not demolish the imax and expand on that site...?

 

[stellarfun]

Shadows on the Greenway are the city of Boston's 'issue'. Shadows on Long Wharf, or the Aquarium, are the Commonwealth's 'issue'. Chapter 91 'jurisdiction' does not extend to the Greenway.

see p. 5, fourth bullet.

http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/getattachment/23158cef-db38-4edd-8fa1-b8ae4baaa6e8

Even if the Commonwealth agreed to your 600 foot tower on the doorstep of the Aquarium, there are more than a few prospective litigants that would take such a determination to court, and almost certainly prevail.

While the Commonwealth does have some discretion in bending the Chapter 91 'rules', but clearly not to the extent that Chiofaro sought with respect to several of his earlier designs.

Chiofaro has a 57,000 sq ft lot to work with. He builds 20 floors with a 57,000 sq ft footprint, that's 1.1 million gsf of building, and at 13 feet per floor, that's a 260 foot tall building. But Chiofaro declared in 2009 that such a building, which would probably be compliant with Chapter 91, was economically infeasible.

Chiofaro made a strategic -- and IMO, fatal --mistake back in 2009. He submitted such a piss-poor ENF that the Commonwealth unloaded on him. His future problem is that current, and future, Secretaries of Energy and Environmental Affairs will take cognizance of then Secretary Bowle's rejection of the ENF, as will any court. He screwed the pooch.

While anything is possible, its hard to believe Chiofaro, at the time of purchase, was unaware of the limitations that Chapter 91 would impose on any development of the garage. It seems evident that, seven years after the ENF, that ha had no plan B (try to comply with Chapter 91) then, and has none today.

 

[stellarfun]

Could they expand over the water by 50 feet or so and also why not demolish the imax and expand on that site...?

That would require a Federal permit, and it is unlikely a Federal permit would be granted, -- unless there was an offset; i.e., convert x square feet of existing land into navigable waters (including wetlands).

San Francisco airport filled in some land for its runways, as offset,

As mitigation for the Airport’s Master Plan construction projects, SFO has improved 558*acres of wetlands and tidal marshes (including the creation of 84 acres of new wetland) throughout the Bay Area.

The navigable waters of the United States are regulated by the Federal government.

 

[Money]

That would require a Federal permit, and it is unlikely a Federal permit would be granted, -- unless there was an offset; i.e., convert x square feet of existing land into navigable waters (including wetlands).

San Francisco airport filled in some land for its runways, as offset,


The navigable waters of the United States are regulated by the Federal government.

In the case of the airport, there was an overriding public benefit (Logan has done similar). In addition, California is under the Nationwide permit program, which has a tendency, in my experience, to be less restrictive than the Massachusetts General Permit. Even with mitigation, I don't think the army corps of engineers would authorize expansion of the aquarium, though one could argue there is a public benefit. Overriding? Probably not.

 

[tangent]

Shadows on the Greenway are the city of Boston's 'issue'. Shadows on Long Wharf, or the Aquarium, are the Commonwealth's 'issue'. Chapter 91 'jurisdiction' does not extend to the Greenway.

see p. 5, fourth bullet.

http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/getattachment/23158cef-db38-4edd-8fa1-b8ae4baaa6e8

Even if the Commonwealth agreed to your 600 foot tower on the doorstep of the Aquarium, there are more than a few prospective litigants that would take such a determination to court, and almost certainly prevail.

While the Commonwealth does have some discretion in bending the Chapter 91 'rules', but clearly not to the extent that Chiofaro sought with respect to several of his earlier designs.

Chiofaro has a 57,000 sq ft lot to work with. He builds 20 floors with a 57,000 sq ft footprint, that's 1.1 million gsf of building, and at 13 feet per floor, that's a 260 foot tall building. But Chiofaro declared in 2009 that such a building, which would probably be compliant with Chapter 91, was economically infeasible.

Chiofaro made a strategic -- and IMO, fatal --mistake back in 2009. He submitted such a piss-poor ENF that the Commonwealth unloaded on him. His future problem is that current, and future, Secretaries of Energy and Environmental Affairs will take cognizance of then Secretary Bowle's rejection of the ENF, as will any court. He screwed the pooch.

While anything is possible, its hard to believe Chiofaro, at the time of purchase, was unaware of the limitations that Chapter 91 would impose on any development of the garage. It seems evident that, seven years after the ENF, that ha had no plan B (try to comply with Chapter 91) then, and has none today.

Just read through Chapter 91... whale removal provisions and all... I don't see too much specificity except to give the Commonwealth powers to license and regulate with language that gives it pretty broad discretion to regulate in the public interest.

I think what you are talking about are regulations issued under Chapter 91 which specify a lot more detail. But it comes down to discretion and whatever the state feels it can defend as being in the public interest. Defend politically and in court.

The Aquarium has a strong data(reality) driven argument that the garage/parking is still an important part of getting people to the waterfront. Keeping the parking available is a public interest. And if the development was coupled with further improvements, additions or expansion to the aquarium and wharf then that would be of further public interest.

I think some sort of tower down there could be made to work and add to the skyline appeal of the city and waterfront.

 

[DZH22]

BUT IT'S ALREADY SUCH A BEAUTIFUL AREA

 

[TheRifleman]

Great PICS:

The area has so much potential: Too bad the current developments look like they are post communist era. Depressing followed by oppression of society.

 

[odurandina]

good luck solving....

1. The mayor got a bit too cozy with the Aquarium assdouches. Now he's kinda screwed.

2. HYM Group at 1 Congress doesn't want this tower.



the unsolvable....

3. waterfront preservationists.

4. Harbor Towers ass douches (a very distant 4th).

 

[gravedigger4444]

The garage site would be quite convenient to build a new aquarium there.

 

[TheRifleman]

What does the HYM group have to do with this project? --- Who hasn't built a real development in the city as for what I seen on their website besides being involved with that garbage in the Seaport Waters tower?

Seriously that Garage looks stellar on that piece of property.