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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

The FAA is pulling stuff out of their ass again. Corrupted bastards, these are the same people who said that the CC provide an obstacles for cargo planes. What do they have against developers?
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

It would be nice to read the full text of the FAA letter, but the reference to "air navigation" may refer to interfering with radar coverage of aircraft on approach and helicopters flying along the Charles.

That's bull shit. How can helicopters fly in and out of NYC then?
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

That's bull shit. How can helicopters fly in and out of NYC then?

Because they are a) much more maneuverable than giant planes and b) are in a different vehicle class that is allowed closer to tall buildings.

What do they have against developers?

They don't like people getting in their [air] space.

Do any of you people really know anything about air flight? About how much space a plane needs? About how maneuverable a plane taking off and landing is? If you don't then you shouldn't be complaining about the FAA doing their job (I will take their word over yours any day). They aren't corrupt, at least not in this way. You're all acting like a bully took away your lolly pop.


Although moving the airport would allow create some spankin new waterfront homes its not practical.

We can barely fill up the space we have in South Boston, what makes you think East Boston would fill up any faster (no offense to Easties here).
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

The closeness of the airport to downtown Boston is a great asset, not a liability. (See also Washington National, and compare to DFW, LAX, ORD, PIT, etc)
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Do any of you people really know anything about air flight? About how much space a plane needs? About how maneuverable a plane taking off and landing is? If you don't then you shouldn't be complaining about the FAA doing their job (I will take their word over yours any day).

I know a little bit about the FAA, and a fair amount about Massport as well. I grew up and currently live in the shadow of Runway 22R. I've seen a lifetime of ill-conceived public policy, well-meaning but inept activism, and disgraceful politics-for-profit. And for the record, I never worry about a jumbo jet crashing in my neighborhood. But the "school bus with wings" commuter planes -- they scare the shit out of me.

So my thoughts on this FAA ruling are somewhat informed. It's a fact that three buildings (The Fed, One Financial, and One Int'l Place) approximately 600' tall are essentially in the path of Runway 9/27. Another building of about the same scale (SST) has been proposed directly in the path of 9/27 for 15 years. Economic forces, not the FAA, have prevented its construction.

Chiofaro's proposed site is over a quarter mile north of the Fed, a couple of degrees difference on a compass. If you consider an aborted take-off scenario for a medium-sized jet (9/27 is a short runway, not used for heavy aircraft take-offs), the natural choice would be to bank south, away from downtown, over the South End, Roxbury, Franklin Park, and Mattapan. Indeed, flights departing to the west, bank slightly south and follow Washington Street over Jamaica Plain and begin their climbing turn over the Arboretum.

They aren't corrupt, at least not in this way.

Corrupt may not be the right word. They are a federal agency, and are subject to influence. Mike Capuano is on the Aviation Subcommittee. I smell a rat here. Capuano didn't lift a finger for his constituents in East Boston when the Blast Fence was removed in 2002; the public process around this issue was nothing short of a kangaroo court.

If I'm wrong about this, Van, I'll buy you a glass of your favorite whisky next time I'm in NYC.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Because they are a) much more maneuverable than giant planes and b) are in a different vehicle class that is allowed closer to tall buildings.
Read what I'm quoting first. I said that it is bull shit if they are saying it's because of radar interference for helicopters since like you said, NYC has no problem handling helicopter within the city.

They don't like people getting in their [air] space.

Do any of you people really know anything about air flight? About how much space a plane needs? About how maneuverable a plane taking off and landing is? If you don't then you shouldn't be complaining about the FAA doing their job (I will take their word over yours any day). They aren't corrupt, at least not in this way. You're all acting like a bully took away your lolly pop.

I'm sorry but if you read the article, the FAA themselves said that the area where the Aquarium Towers are located are zoned for 625 ft at max. Now they are telling they have to lower the height to 407' or they won't approve it. Yes the FAA is in fact, acting like a bully.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

they gotta move that runway a few degrees it would be so easy
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

The FAA has blocked proposed wind turbines that were of a lesser height than 400' in the vicinity of Logan airport.

http://www.masstech.org/rebates/Community_Wind/faaairspace.html

Here is one that was blocked:
The City of Boston, with support from MTC?s Community Wind Collaborative, proposed a series of up to four 394-foot turbines on Long Island in Boston Harbor, a bit more than three nautical miles from Logan airport. Notices of proposed construction were filed on October 15, 2005. On February 10, 2006 the FAA issued initial NPH designations for all four locations based on its finding that ?the structure as described exceed obstruction standards and/or would have an adverse physical or electromagnetic interference effect upon navigable airspace or air navigation facilities.? (The FAA identified reduced heights at which the turbines may have been acceptable as 190, 233, 256, and 247 feet.) At that point, MTC hired an airspace specialist to determine whether there were options for overcoming the FAA?s concerns. That specialist proposed a ?step-down fix? by which minimum aircraft heights over Long Island would be increased. The FAA conducted an extended study of this proposal including a public comment process. In September of 2006, the FAA issued a DOH for the Long Island sites, saying that the ?cumulative impact of the proposed structure . . . is considered to be significant.? It cited, among its reasons: the turbines would be in the only remaining quadrant around Logan that is not currently impacted by obstructions; building a step down fix would increase cockpit workload during final approach; and that, without complex geosensor mapping for each turbine, interference with air traffic control radar was likely. MTC and the City of Boston elected not to appeal those FAA determinations.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

That's bull shit. How can helicopters fly in and out of NYC then?
Do you see tall buildings around LGA or JFK?

The runway most affected, from the standpoint of interference with radar tracking, is 15R 33L.

Supposedly a frequent route for helicopters landing at Logan is to fly down the Charles River.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

How pathetic is City Hall to be cowed so easily by the FAA and Massport?

What is the worst that could happen if they ever had the balls to say screw you?
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

How pathetic is City Hall to be cowed so easily by the FAA and Massport?

What is the worst that could happen if they ever had the balls to say screw you?

Shut the airport.
___________________________________


It seems to me that either Chiofaro (and Prudential) bought a property without doing due diligence as to what the potential realistic height and mass could be built on such a property, or they did do due diligence and are merely gaming the process.

FAA dictating height limits of buildings in other areas.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/27/AR2007122702154.html

http://archives.californiaaviation.org/airport/msg37164.html

A height zoning map for Tampa
http://www.tampaairport.com/airport_business/height_zoning/height_zoning_map.pdf
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

When was the last time a plane accidentally hit a skyscraper? 1942?
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

There was another one in NYC recently. It involved a baseball player.

Edit: Here it is.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

they gotta move that runway a few degrees it would be so easy

I worked on Runway 14/32. Logan's newest runway and the only one built in the last 30 years. There will be nothing easy about shifting a runway.
Final construction budget for 14/32 was around $85M. But it took over 30 years of permitting, lawsuits, horse trading, etc. to get it done so I'm guessing the preconstruction cost was more than the actual hard costs. And this was a unidirectional runway; that only allows takeoffs and landings over the harbor; that can only handle small jets; that was designed to reduce fumes and noise in Eastie . . . and still it got mired in 30 years of bickering. Sorry to post this full article below but I couldn't find a link.

WORK BEGINS ON LOGAN RUNWAY, AFTER 30 YEARS
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
The USA Today
By The Associated Press
BOSTON (AP) ? Work on a new $85 million runway at Logan Airport has quietly
begun, more than 30 years after the Massachusetts Port Authority first proposed
it.
Electrical utility work on the 5,000-foot strip began earlier this month, and the
general contractor, McCourt Construction of Boston, was expected to begin
construction of the runway later this year, said Massport spokesman Phil
Orlandella.
"We don't want to get into another confrontation," Orlandella said. "It looks like
clear sailing right now, but I don't have a crystal ball."
Massport officials said the runway is scheduled for completion by November
2006 and that it will not increase overall air traffic and could actually reduce noise
by allowing more planes to approach over Boston Harbor, rather than over
densely populated neighborhoods nearby.
Plans for a sixth runway at Logan were put on hold in 1976, when opponents got
a court injunction to block it from going forward. The proposal was resurrected in
the 1990s, and a state judge lifted the injunction in November 2003, allowing
construction to go forward.
The last legal barrier was removed last spring when the state's Supreme Judicial
Court rejected the town of Hull's objection to the runway.
The Superior Court judge who gave Massport the green light to go ahead with
the project attached several conditions, including an ongoing noise study and
higher fees for airlines that don't reduce departures during high-traffic times.
Massport officials planned to meet Tuesday with a community advisory
committee studying ways to reduce noise, as well as federal regulators and
technical consultants, to consider a variety of noise-reduction proposals.
Democratic state Rep. Robert A. DeLeo, who represents neighboring Winthrop,
said he plans to make sure Massport lives up to its obligations.
"I still disagree with the decision, but we have to make sure ... that we keep their
feet to the fire," he said.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

There was another one in NYC recently. It involved a baseball player.

Edit: Here it is.

...and yet that was nowhere near an airport. I guess we should just put a restriction on any structure that sticks out of the ground, and live in sod houses like the pioneers in "Little House on the Prairie"
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

When was the last time a plane accidentally hit a skyscraper? 1942?
Build tall buildings at the end of runways and see what the count is.

See if Chiofaro can get financing or insurance for a buildings that's declared to be a hazard. Or perhaps he does have such deep, post-bankruptcy pockets that he can self-finance and self-insure his pair of towers.

From Tampa in 2002

tb-plane.jpg


From Milan in 2002 (bad year for buildings)

_1938461_pirelli5_300inf.gif
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Build tall buildings at the end of runways and see what the count is.

From Tampa in 2002

tb-plane.jpg

I believe this was an Accutane-induced suicide attempt. Not near an airport.

From Milan in 2002 (bad year for buildings)

_1938461_pirelli5_300inf.gif

Also not near an airport.

Tall buildings don't like planes! Can't have them anywhere!
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

stellarfun, are you against this project or are you just playing devil's advocate on the FAA issue?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top