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

[stellarfun]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

czsz, IIRC, the encumbrances on the garage property are two: one is that the garage serves as some sort of utility hub for Harbor Towers, and the residents of Harbor Towers have a legal easement onto that part of the garage property through some date, which may be the 2069 date referred to by the BRA. Harbor Towers was completed in 1971, so 2069 sounds like a 99 year easement/lease.

The other encumbrance is the parking spaces for Harbor Towers residents, which go to the value of the condo; i.e., when you buy a condo, you are buying a parking space. I can't recall the exact number of spaces in the Harbor Garage that are set aside for Harbor Towers residents, but something like 500-600 spaces comes to mind. IIRC, the property 'right' to these spaces expires some time in the 2030s, --maybe this was a 65 year easement?

I think it was the 'problem' of what to do with these spaces that led Don to recently propose a floating garage in the harbor during the construction period.

So, my perception is that the residents of Harbor Towers pretty much have Mr. Chiofaro by the gonads, and he can't do anything without their acquiescence. As there is currently no love lost between the two sides, Don's only recourse, as he lacks eminent domain powers, is to try and buy the Harbor Tower residents out of their easement and property rights. How much do you think they would hold him up for: $200,000, $300,000 per condo unit?

Don, of course, having done due diligence as a smart businessman, knew beforehand how much the Harbor Garage was so encumbered before he bought it.

I will add that Don proceeding with schemes before doing the necessary spadework with those who have a vested interest in the property he owns or proposes to develop was replicated by the most recent iteration.

He unveiled a re-design featuring a town square with a glass pavilion on the north side of his property, yet three quarters of the property in his rendering is not his, and supposedly he had not discussed or briefed his scheme with the nearby property owners beforehand.

 

[greenwayguy1982]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

^^czsz:

You say "The "facts" are irrelevant." - you're starting to sound a lot like Chiofaro. If you've never reviewed the contracts between Chiofaro and the various third parties, I don't think you should be making such wild assertions; as I said in an earlier post, if it were so simple, you should call up Chiofaro's office and offer to help. One would have to conclude that Chiofaro's and Prudential's lawyers did indeed make their respective clients aware of their contractual obligations at the time the Garage was purchased (by Prudential, btw); one can only speculate why he would still forge ahead with a proposal he has no right to construct.

You also say: "Menino and the BRA are constantly allowing variances to these" - If the zoning is so fungible, why hasn't Chiofaro even applied for a variance or a PDA? And provide an example of a "favored" developer seeking and winning a major height variance in recent years.

Lastly, you say "There's no clearly incontestable legal issue holding this project back, only discretionary permitting decisions that depend on the personal whims of Menino and his BRA sidekicks" - 100% false. For openers, the biggest discretionary permitting decision rests with the Commonwealth, not the city. The state's Chapter 91 law sets the height limit at 155' on the Harbor Garage site. Unless the state agrees to raise it, nothing will exceed that height (even if the BRA supported it!). Secondly, irrespective of your rather liberal application of contract law, the contracts exist, and as long as they do exist Chiofaro will not be able to build his project there. For some reason he is blaming the city for this, but at the end of the day, it has nothing to do with the city or personalities. Director Palmieri - irrespective of what people on this board think of him and his staff - is not misrepresenting anything. Chiofaro's legal obligations are the elephant in the room, like it or not.

 

[Sicilian]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

^greenwayguy

Without disputing your argument to czsz regarding Chiofaro...

If the zoning is so fungible, why hasn't Chiofaro even applied for a variance or a PDA?

Zoning is entirely fungible. No major project under way in Boston is proceeding as of right, without a variance from zoning or spot-zoned with the filing of a PDA. Variances and the drafting of a Planned Development Area require BRA support / collaboration, and that may be why Chiofaro has not filed for a variance or PDA. If I'm not mistaken, the BRA itself drafts a PDA, not a developer or property owner.

And provide an example of a "favored" developer seeking and winning a major height variance in recent years.

Such an accusation would be libelous. That said, examples are prevalent in Downtown and Seaport.

Lastly, you say "There's no clearly incontestable legal issue holding this project back, only discretionary permitting decisions that depend on the personal whims of Menino and his BRA sidekicks" - 100% false. For openers, the biggest discretionary permitting decision rests with the Commonwealth, not the city. The state's Chapter 91 law sets the height limit at 155' on the Harbor Garage site.

Incorrect. Under State law, the City of Boston has the legal right to file and amend Municipal Harbor Plans for each area it would like to override Chapter 91 height/density limitations. And it has done so in recent years, both for the Seaport and for Downtown. One Marina Park Drive is an early example of a tower approaching 300' under the City of Boston's Municipal Harbor Plan.

I'll add that politics play a huge part in overriding Chapter 91. The tower proposed to be built over South Station was exempted from Chapter 91 by a City-supported petition for an exemption that was eventually tucked into a State Transportation Bond Bill.

 

[czsz]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

stellarfun, thanks for laying out the specifics. I still think there are a bunch of options here on the contract issue, particularly if Chiofaro is willing to find creative replacements for the spaces (preferably ones that are not as ridiculous as a floating garage), and is willing to pay whatever damages are ordered as a result of sidestepping negotiations with the most extortionist parking space owners. It would still be a hefty sum, but not one that would eclipse potential profits from the building.

In any case the difficulty (it's NOT a matter of impossibility) of the problem highlights the legal perversities governing development in Boston. Encumberances for parking are better protected against developer action than historic landmarks like the Gaiety or Shreve. And as Sicilian adroitly points out, pretty much every zoning law or regulation is meaningless, until an agency (or the political strongman behind it) decides it doesn't like a project, in which case it suddenly becomes an unquestionable legal barrier.

 

[greenwayguy1982]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

All great dialogue, just one minor point - while the BRA can *propose* amendments to Chapter 91 dimensional and other regulations, the ultimate discretion still rests with the Commonwealth; ergo the assertion that Chiofaro's project is held up purely by discretionary permits at the city level is incorrect. The buck ultimately stops with the state. There have certainly been cases in which the city has asked CZM for a Municipal Harbor Plan amendment of one sort or another and CZM has said no.

Also remember with respect to "variances" in the seaport that much of the land is owned by Massport and thus is statutorily exempt from municipal zoning to begin with.

 

[Sicilian]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

^greenwayguy

In practice, the City of Boston is responsible for making "discretionary" decisions. Once it files an MHP or an amendment to the MHP, which broadly defines height/density zones and other elements of a master plan, the BRA pretty much can do what it wants within those new guidelines.

The State weighs in carefully during the approval of the Downtown MHP (or amendments) but rarely if ever weighs in on particular projects within the jurisdiction of the MHP unless the project poses some highly unusual environmental impact or egregiously violates the terms of the MHP. And the State does nothing subsequent to the filing of an MHP to monitor the phasing of land uses under the MHP, so the BRA is able to allow a district to evolve as 100% office/hotel space without a peep from the State -- even if it filed a residential plan under the MHP.

Federal agencies only require changes if a project poses unusual impacts, such as the FAA weighing in because of interference with Logan operations.

So, although the State may approve or disapprove of the general directions, the City both chooses the destination and drives the bus.

 

[KentXie]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

All great dialogue, just one minor point - while the BRA can *propose* amendments to Chapter 91 dimensional and other regulations, the ultimate discretion still rests with the Commonwealth; ergo the assertion that Chiofaro's project is held up purely by discretionary permits at the city level is incorrect. The buck ultimately stops with the state. There have certainly been cases in which the city has asked CZM for a Municipal Harbor Plan amendment of one sort or another and CZM has said no.

Also remember with respect to "variances" in the seaport that much of the land is owned by Massport and thus is statutorily exempt from municipal zoning to begin with.

Here's a good variance. Millennium Partners, the ones who developed Millennium Place down a the combat zone. They also won Hayward Place, intending to build a commercial building when residential was more important. Another developer was bidding with a residential complex and lost even though his was much more appealing. In the end, MP left that area as a surface parking lot. /argument.

 

[Hutchison]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Sicilian, despite the fact that the BRA has input in the final approval of the PDA, the developer is the party responsible for drafting/creating the PDA. PDA review is subject to separate review from large project review being a zoning issue (height/use) rather than a development impact issue (shadows). PDA review requires approval from both the BRA and the Zoning Commission. I would reference you to "A Citizens Guide to Article 80" at http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/PDF/Documents/A Citizens Guide to Article 80.pdf

 

[greenwayguy1982]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Sicilian, an MHP (new or amendment) has to be approved by the Commonwealth. The last couple MHP amendments in Boston have been for specific projects, and the state weighs in very heavily, and has discretionary approval rights over MHP amendments. KentXie, the Millennium Place development was zoned back in the 1980s before Tony Pangaro or MP was involved in any way, shape, or manner.

 

[Sicilian]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

PDA #69 is the 100 Acre Plan. It was drafted by the BRA.

PDA #53 is the Channel Center. It was drafted by Beacon, in close collaboration with the BRA over 2 years or so. The PDA for Fan Pier was developed in alignment with the Seaport Public Realm Plan, a process wholly spearheaded by the BRA.

I am not arguing whether the developer drafts the PDA or not, I'm just saying the BRA is the party most closely determining what gets built -- on tidelands or otherwise.

Russia Wharf (Atlantic Wharf) was built in conjunction with an entire downtown MHP. Yes, the State had say over Russia Wharf, but did little to change the 11th hour changes made to the project by the BRA in scaling back public accommodations, height, density, etc. Again, the BRA drove the bus. I'm not arguing whether or not the State had final approval. Russia Wharf got built on Chapter 91 tidelands -- that is indisputable and the process could just as easily be applied to the Chiofaro parcel.

 

[TheRifleman]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

^^^

Greenwayguy1982....How do you like them apples?

 

[statler]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

No need to be antagonistic.

 

[greenwayguy1982]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Well, we have yet to see Chiofaro submit a PDA for the BRA's consideration, that being the first step in the process, as several of you have pointed out.

Also, with respect to Chapter 91, it was Secretary Bowles who personally wrote that the Chiofaro proposal was at "such wide variance" from applicable laws that it would have to be "dramatically different" in order to be permitted. Not my words. Again, whether or not the city does more of the work on an MHP amendment, it's still up to the Commonwealth, and the Commonwealth has spoken. Will be interesting to see how this process plays itself out.

 

[Sicilian]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

^greenwayguy

A PDA is a substantial document, and probably a quite expensive waste of time without BRA support.

Chiofaro will get nowhere with the State without support from the BRA. The BRA's support comes before worrying about State support. Secretary Bowles is probably well aware of the BRA's perspective, and certainly wouldn't side with Chiofaro over the wishes of the BRA regarding a specific project. I'm no expert, but I've been watching this area play itself out for 20 years now. To be honest, I think the EOEA has unfortunately allowed Chapter 91 to be a paper tiger, allowing the BRA to fall far short of expectations stated in MHP's and Master Plans and (at least in one notable case) allowing violators of Chapter 91 to write off penalties as the cost of doing business.

I won't even get into the legal issues regarding Chiofaro. It sounds like Harbor Tower residents would not be inclined to take cash buyouts for the spaces because the building would obstruct views. End of story, maybe.

As a separate issue, there are many who feel the dependency on PDA's for spot-zoning large projects is a sure sign of piss-poor planning... for stability and growth many suggest that once zoning is in place after an MHP is filed the developers should be expected to fill out the envelope according to the height/density/use in the new zoning context provided by the MHP (or Master Plan). Developers (and Boston Residents) should not have to be subjected to outcomes based on the whims of the BRA in exacting nebulous benefits that go on in exchange for variances.

 

[TheRifleman]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

^greenwayguy


I won't even get into the legal issues regarding Chiofaro. It sounds like Harbor Tower residents would not be inclined to take cash buyouts for the spaces because the building would obstruct views. End of story, maybe.

Let's flip the coin. Say Chiofaro has support from the BRA/Mayor. Some of the legal issues regarding Harbor Towers residents. I actually thought the floating barges was a good idea for the 400 parking spots that the tower occupies untill construction is finished. Why can't Chiofaro move the heating and cooling systems to another area? Those two issues really shouldn't pose a big threat to the development.

As long as Chiofaro/Prudential are held responsible to make sure that those two issues are address.

The window views are another story.

 

[KentXie]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Sicilian, an MHP (new or amendment) has to be approved by the Commonwealth. The last couple MHP amendments in Boston have been for specific projects, and the state weighs in very heavily, and has discretionary approval rights over MHP amendments. KentXie, the Millennium Place development was zoned back in the 1980s before Tony Pangaro or MP was involved in any way, shape, or manner.

Wrong. I'm not talking about Millennium Place. I'm talking about Hayward place which Millennium Partners control. They won in 2003 even though people preferred a residential complex over a commercial complex. Though not a variance in height, it proves that the Mayah favors developers and those he favors gets what they want.

 

[greenwayguy1982]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Right. I asked you to name a recent "favored developer" who had secured a zoning variance because he/she was "favored." And btw guess what MP ended up proposing on Hayward Place - a residential compex. That's what's permitted.

 

[stellarfun]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Let's flip the coin. Say Chiofaro has support from the BRA/Mayor. Some of the legal issues regarding Harbor Towers residents. I actually thought the floating barges was a good idea for the 400 parking spots that the tower occupies untill construction is finished. Why can't Chiofaro move the heating and cooling systems to another area? Those two issues really shouldn't pose a big threat to the development.

As long as Chiofaro/Prudential are held responsible to make sure that those two issues are address.

The window views are another story.

The number of units in Harbor Towers is 624, and I think the number of parking spaces in the garage is closer to the number of units than it is to 400.

Here is a picture of a floating car park in Amsterdam.

However, I can't find and web descriptions of this, so unless the image is photoshopped, the Amsterdam garage on a barge may no longer exist.

The problems with a floating garage in Boston Harbor are the tidal range; being able to secure it so there is little lateral movement; the narrowness of the channel (think LNG tankers); and mandatory safety features; e.g., sprinklers, emergency egress.

The existing garage probably has about 250 spaces on each of its levels and the BRA in its scoping document of July 2009, stated that any temporary parking facility must meet the Harbor Towers parking space needs, plus provide an unspecified amount of spaces for New England Aquarium visitors.

60 page BRA scoping document here:
http://www.northendwaterfront.com/storage/post-documents/20090721HarborGarageBRAScoping.pdf

Yes, there are solutions for the garage spaces and the utilities infrastructure, but they can only be realized through accommodation and compromise. In this instance, Chiofaro seems to have chosen a course that antagonizes and creates opposition, rather than acceptance and agreement. Its getting harder and harder to take his grand visions seriously when he makes little or no effort to work on the nitty-gritty details that must first be in place for his grand vision to succeed.

Most recent case in point is his town square concept. My guess is that revised concept does away with his 'open to the sea' glass lobby/concourse/atrium mall, and the footprint for that has been shifted to the glass pavilion on the north side of his building (and the south side of the 'square'). But did Chiofaro talk to the city, whomever owns Fidelity Park, the owners of the building across the square, or the Aquarium before unveiling his latest conceptual idea? Apparently not.

He is his own worst enemy.

 

[TheRifleman]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Yes, there are solutions for the garage spaces and the utilities infrastructure, but they can only be realized through accommodation and compromise. In this instance, Chiofaro seems to have chosen a course that antagonizes and creates opposition, rather than acceptance and agreement. Its getting harder and harder to take his grand visions seriously when he makes little or no effort to work on the nitty-gritty details that must first be in place for his grand vision to succeed.

Most recent case in point is his town square concept. My guess is that revised concept does away with his 'open to the sea' glass lobby/concourse/atrium mall, and the footprint for that has been shifted to the glass pavilion on the north side of his building (and the south side of the 'square'). But did Chiofaro talk to the city, whomever owns Fidelity Park, the owners of the building across the square, or the Aquarium before unveiling his latest conceptual idea? Apparently not.

I sort of disagree about your statement
"Chiofaro seems to have chosen a course that antagonizes and creates opposition, rather than acceptance and agreement"

As long as Chiofaro/Pru takes full responsibility for the parking spots and the utilities infrastructure for Harbor Towers and the Aquarium which will be properly addressed for the residents & customer needs, then this really is not a major problem at all. He already claimed that they would take full responsibility to address their needs.

Most of the people are Harbor Towers are against the Height. Plain and simple. They don't want their views ruined.

If the BRA actually supported this project I think Chiofaro would have no problem in luring an out of state company to be his anchor tenant in this development. Plenty of foot traffic in the area, sitting along the Greenway, next to the Aquarium right next downtown.

Chiofaro needs to team up with the city and build new Aquarium. This would add much needed value to the Greenway and the city future.

 

[stellarfun]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

I sort of disagree about your statement
"Chiofaro seems to have chosen a course that antagonizes and creates opposition, rather than acceptance and agreement"

As long as Chiofaro/Pru takes full responsibility for the parking spots and the utilities infrastructure for Harbor Towers and the Aquarium which will be properly addressed for the residents & customer needs, then this really is not a major problem at all. He already claimed that they would take full responsibility to address their needs.

Most of the people are Harbor Towers are against the Height. Plain and simple. They don't want their views ruined.

If the BRA actually supported this project I think Chiofaro would have no problem in luring an out of state company to be his anchor tenant in this development. Plenty of foot traffic in the area, sitting along the Greenway, next to the Aquarium right next downtown.

Chiofaro needs to team up with the city and build new Aquarium. This would add much needed value to the Greenway and the city future.

The proof is in the pudding. The floating parking garage idea only came up after he was told by the BRA he needed to address it. When he unveiled his arched towers concept, there was nary a mention of how he was going to address, during the construction period, the existing rights that the Harbor Towers condo owners have with regard to a large portion of the existing garage.

From all that I read, he has yet to have a discussion with the Harbor Towers condo association about how he would propose to address the utilities and the parking spaces, and, in turn, received a reaction/response from them. He just throws stuff out there, and sees if anything sticks.

As for the Harbor Towers residents, most of them wouldn't have obstructed views; plus, the two towers already obstruct some views. And I suspect that if Chiofaro pitched that his ultra-expensive residences would increase the market value of their condos, they'd be receptive.

But he has such a long-standing reputation as a B.S.er, confrontational to the core; not always able to deliver, e.g., getting kicked out a development role in the State Street building; and continually flirting at the edge of bankruptcy, that frankly his promises don't mean much these days.

Let's assume the cost of a five level parking garage, with spaces for 800-900 cars along with a mooring and docking infrastructure costs $40-50 million. For him, that's a sunk cost even before he starts construction.

Then there's the matter of where to put the barge -- I note he has yet to say where it might go -- and before he even starts constructing this floating garage, he will need state and Federal permits. That's square one. And from everything I read, he hasn't done jacksh*t about any of this, other than float (deliberate pun) the concept.

How long do you think it would take for him to get the necessary permits for this floating garage: 12 months, 24 months, 36 months? Assuming he gets permits, how long to design, construct, ship, and put it in place: another 12 months, 18 months, 24 months? So starting today, it might be five years before a floating garage is operational and he can begin construction of his iconic building.

As for the idea of Chiofaro and the city teaming up to build a new Aquarium, I think I'll be able to walk on water before that happens.