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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

The ENF for this project has just been submitted to MEPA.
-Demolision to start in 4th quarter 2011.
-Two buildings built on one base, 130 new condos.
-Project consists of two phases, with work being completed in the 4th quarter of 2017.
-Building A will be a 40 story (560) office tower with 860,000 sf for 21500 sf floorplates.
-Building B will be a 59 story (690) residential and hotel tower consisting of 220,000 sf of luxury condos and 350,000 sf of hotel space and amenities.
-Both towers will share a 70,000 sf retail podium as a base and will be connected by a 770 ft high "skyframe".
-The project is set to cost 1 billion dollars.

This ENF states that the design process for this project is only 10% complete and refrences how unattractive the current garage is. From my personal experience in reviewing ENFs, this is the first time I have seen an reference to the unattractiveness of a building that one wishes to replace.

http://www.mass.gov/envir/mepa/pdffiles/enfs/050609em/14411.pdf
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

omfg, we can't build a tall build here and everyone cries the end of the city.

Shut up. Boston was never a city of towers and large towers really don't add that much to the city other than ego. How many of you hang out at the Hancock Tower? It's pretty boring up close.

Are towers cool? Yeah, but I'd take a neighborhood of great low rise buildings over these two monuments to ego any day.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

vanshnookenraggen said:
omfg, we can't build a tall build here and everyone cries the end of the city.

Shut up. Boston was never a city of towers and large towers really don't add that much to the city other than ego. How many of you hang out at the Hancock Tower? It's pretty boring up close.

Are towers cool? Yeah, but I'd take a neighborhood of great low rise buildings over these two monuments to ego any day.
Click to expand...

I don't think people are crying the end of the city but rather venting in frustration. I think people are just getting tired of the false hope each proposal brings. This is a good location for a tower. Building tall in Boston is a pipe dream, it really is.

Our two tallest buildings are old as dirt and in an area that would forbid a 100' tower let a lone a 6-1000'. They say build in Gov't Center and now what- don't build in Gov't Center?

I like this tower; I wish they had/would incorporate more retail at the ground level but I still like it. At the same time I wouldn't be heartbroken if it were not built. I can understand the opposition here- I'm more disappointed with the how stagnant the building process is in Boston. We have developers looking to invest in the city in a very difficult time.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

Let's get back to the topic at hand...

With One Financial Center, Federal Reserve Tower and International Place all within yards of this site, is it a reasonable argument that a similar-sized tower here poses a threat to airplanes? Or is it an unreasonable argument?

Has some political coat-holder over at MassPort just decided a binding new regulatory restriction on all construction throughout all of downtown Boston?

This is why we let the professionals at the FAA decide these things and not the political appointees at MassPort.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

Is this a 'similar-sized' tower? My impression is that it is considerably taller than the three developments you named.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

The top of the "arch" would be around 150ft taller than the Federal Reserve Tower, but it would also be considerably further from the runways than buildings like the Fed Tower & International Place.

This reeks of Mumbles interference.

As was mentioned before, I'd much rather like to see what the FAA has to say about the project rather than MassPort.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

It would be absolutely hilarious if the FAA shot down Massport's assessment, but the FAA has never been a friend of tall development in Boston, and it doesn't really have anything to gain from contradicting Massport.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

Ron Newman said:
Is this a 'similar-sized' tower? My impression is that it is considerably taller than the three developments you named.
Click to expand...

HOWEVER, the arch itself is a small piece, easy enough for any planes to maneuver around it. I do think, however, that the arch itself should be around the low 700ft and not the upper.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

690 is almost exactly what the Pru is, no? I don't think that's too unreasonable.

Van, I see where you coming from but I disagree on one point. A neighborhood can still be helped by a tower. All that really matters from the neighborhood aspect is the streetscape. The base of the tower is what will matter, and it doesn't sound too bad. I agree that a bunch of small buildings a la Blackstone would be better for a neighborhood, but that's simply not economically realistic. And this lot isn't that big, to try and create a larger neighborhood.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

Hmm, is the Hancock 790? That '90 part is making me think of something. Maybe it's the Arch, that could be 590...
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

If this tower doesn't get built a 700 foot statue of Rajon Rondo wouldn't be bad on this spot...
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

The FAA has shut down any further building of towers in Rosslyn VA, just across the Potomac from Georgetown (Washington DC). The height was capped at about 500' above sea level, and Rosslyn is further (about twice as far) from Reagan National Airport than Chiofaro's wetdream is from Logan.

Chiofaro (and Prudential) way overpaid for the garage given today's market when they paid $155 million. (See the foreclosure sale of the John Hancock tower for $660.6 million). I susperct they are under water (figuratively) with the current value of the garage being less the amount of financing. And the garage is truly ugly given the price they paid for it.

When developers likes Hines and Vornado and Millennium who have far deeper pockets than Chiofaro, are sitting tight on their Boston projects, why would anyone think that Chiofaro can get the financing to build an iconic tower? By using the TARP money that Prudential is seeking?
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

I don't think the issue here is so much proximity, but rather the alignment of the flight paths. Rosslyn is in a direct line with flight paths in D.C.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

riffgo said:
I don't think the issue here is so much proximity, but rather the alignment of the flight paths. Rosslyn is in a direct line with flight paths in D.C.
Click to expand...
True. Rosslyn abuts the flight path, but there is also a radar issue.

Phoenix can't build above 500 feet in its central business district, per the FAA.

The point is that this is not Mumbles Menino making a phone call to Massport and Massport putting the kibosh on height, but rather the FAA which is calling the shots. It was the FAA that capped the height of buildings that Massport wanted to develop on Massport land in South Boston.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

pelhamhall said:
Let's get back to the topic at hand...

With One Financial Center, Federal Reserve Tower and International Place all within yards of this site, is it a reasonable argument that a similar-sized tower here poses a threat to airplanes? Or is it an unreasonable argument?

Has some political coat-holder over at MassPort just decided a binding new regulatory restriction on all construction throughout all of downtown Boston?

This is why we let the professionals at the FAA decide these things and not the political appointees at MassPort.
Click to expand...


It actually does not make sense at all why Massport would waste their time even drawing this conclusion. Let the FAA determine how high this building can go. If the city doesn't want to build in this area they should just think of a real reason why? I'm sure if Menino friends had this parcel we would have Tommy's Tower in this location. The reality is politicians are really POS and this process is clearly showing you how much BULL is going on in this city. It's time to CLEAN HOUSE from these corrupt beauracrats.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

stellarfun said:
True. Rosslyn abuts the flight path, but there is also a radar issue.

Phoenix can't build above 500 feet in its central business district, per the FAA.
Click to expand...
I just googled-mapped the downtown Phoenix area. I had no idea how close the airport is. And on top of that, the runways (which run parallel to each other) pretty much fly right over downtown.

stellarfun said:
The point is that this is not Mumbles Menino making a phone call to Massport and Massport putting the kibosh on height, but rather the FAA which is calling the shots. It was the FAA that capped the height of buildings that Massport wanted to develop on Massport land in South Boston.
Click to expand...

I am not so sure about that. I won't be convinced until we hear the FAA (or Massport) announce that SST is too tall for its location. It's proposed at around 700ft, and the runway flies right into it. The Aquariam location seems like a better location for the height.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

johnpaul5 said:
who controls Massport? Yup, mumbles menino.
Click to expand...
Massport is a semi-private state agency, so no, Mayor Menino does not control it. As for it being a failed agency, Massport is actually a model of how a public/private agency can be successful. I know we're upset about the tower, but lets do a little research before we start throwing people under the bus.

Personally I'm with Van on this one.
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

The SST is to reach a height of about 621 feet. It was reduced from the original height of over 700 feet, I believe, due to concerns about flight paths and for other reasons. My point is that if 625 feet is safe for this area, why should anyone be concerned about going a little taller a considerable distance from South Station?
 
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.

My point is, why should anyone be concerned about the arch that is probably barely 50 feet wide? Yes maybe lower it but you don't have to lower it substantially.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top