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

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

^
Kent, you wrote:

"the BRA does not have the power to dictate how the building is designed besides height."

Look, you and everyone else here might not like what I have to say, but at least I don't wreak of naivete and utter lack of familiarity with the reality of the development process in the city of Boston. I strongly beg to differ with your above-referenced statement, and I strongly disagree with your assertion that Chiofaro has any power whatsoever in this situation - certainly nothing that amounts to the ability to engage in meaningful "brinksmanship." What's the threat, that he picks up his ball and goes elsewhere? I and the city would shed a tear. Not.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

^
Kent, you wrote:

"the BRA does not have the power to dictate how the building is designed besides height."

Look, you and everyone else here might not like what I have to say, but at least I don't wreak of naivete and utter lack of familiarity with the reality of the development process in the city of Boston. I strongly beg to differ with your above-referenced statement, and I strongly disagree with your assertion that Chiofaro has any power whatsoever in this situation - certainly nothing that amounts to the ability to engage in meaningful "brinksmanship." What's the threat, that he picks up his ball and goes elsewhere? I and the city would shed a tear. Not.

You're telling me the BRA is the one the designs all development proposal? You're telling me that the BRA was the one that designed the original 780ft proposal? You make as much sense as screen door on a submarine. In the end, it is Chiofaro that provides the design. The only power that BRA has is to approve or reject. Also, if you read my post you would know the threat. A larger concrete wall or keeping the eyesore. Sure you wouldn't shed a tear because you can care less about whether an eyesore stays or not as long as your Harbor Tower view isn't blocked. And now the mayor got what he wanted, a 200ft proposal. Let's see if he starts talking now or if he will continue to play the grim strategy like fool. The ball is official in their court. It's their move and I for one is hoping that you get a nice concrete commie block. A fitting symbolism of the tyrannical BRA and the Mayor.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

What's the threat, that he picks up his ball and goes elsewhere? I and the city would shed a tear. Not.

Ironically, I think you just summed up how this entire board feels about you.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Why doesn't anyone write letters to the BRA and J. Palmieri? His email address is on the BRA website. It would do him some good to hear us vent. I am sad to hear that we are getting nothing more than a "Berlin Wall". This is exactly why I moved to New York. Shit can't get done in Boston!
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Greenwayguy, you don't "wreak of naivite", you REEK of it.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Why doesn't anyone write letters to the BRA and J. Palmieri? His email address is on the BRA website. It would do him some good to hear us vent. I am sad to hear that we are getting nothing more than a "Berlin Wall". This is exactly why I moved to New York. Shit can't get done in Boston!

Writing emails is probably a good way to get out our frustration .
I really don't know how the BRA doesn't lose creditability after this performance and the many others. I really can't believe the Unions are just sitting not saying a word. The BRA, Mayor are gutting this city dry from development.

The city is becoming very old and dark. Nothing new and exciting going on here.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Once again, posters on this thread don't do their homework, don't bother to read stuff that Chiofaro posts on his website re: the garage, don't bother to read the BRA scoping document, etc.

In June 2009, the BRA specifically required Chiofaro to develop three alternatives to his proposed towering project, including a project height-constrained to 155 feet. (He was allowed to defer analyzing a no build alternative because the garage already exists.)

....
The Proponent [Chiofaro] must examine a development scenario that is consistent with the applicable provisions of the [Urban Renewal] Plan, specifically (but not limited to):
a. Maximum Height: 125 feet
b. Maximum FAR: 8.0
c. Allowed use: General Business and General Office
....

Because the existing Harbor Garage was constructed pursuant to the LDA, the LDA-compliant Project Alternative can be considered to be the existing condition or ?No-Build? Project Alternative.
...
The Proponent shall complete an alternative build-out analysis consistent with the [Chapter 91] Waterways Regulations 310 CMR 9.00. The Chapter 91 alternative shall include building footprint and height for a non water-dependant use on the project site.

.....
The Proponent must perform all environmental and other studies specified in this Scoping Determination on a development scenario that is consistent with the applicable provisions of the [Harborpark] Zoning, specifically (but not limited to):
a. Maximum Height: 155 feet
b. Maximum FAR: 4.0
c. Required Open Space: 50% of total lot area
http://www.northendwaterfront.com/storage/post-documents/20090721HarborGarageBRAScoping.pdf

There are rules and procedures in place that govern development in Boston, many of which long antedate Menino and the current leaders of the BRA and other city agencies. In Boston, and in most other cities, you, as a property owner, don't have an absolute right to do anything you want with the property you own. If you want zoning relief, you have to make a case for it, and the case is not made simply by unveiling some rendering of a nifty-looking tower. The ultimate purpose of zoning is to constrain, and the burden is on the property owner to demonstrate why the constraint(s) should be modified.

Similarly with any relief being sought from the requirements or limitations of otherwise controlling plans and regulations.

Eighteen months after the June 2009 scoping document requiring the project development alternatives was sent by the BRA to Chiofaro, his response is to call in a columnist for the Globe and have his partner show off a stump of a project, and say that's what I may build. Chiofaro is going through project iterations faster than sh*t through a goose.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

^Stellar

You wrote:

There are rules and procedures in place that govern development in Boston, many of which long antedate Menino and the current leaders of the BRA and other city agencies. In Boston, and in most other cities, you, as a property owner, don't have an absolute right to do anything you want with the property you own. If you want zoning relief, you have to make a case for it, and the case is not made simply by unveiling some rendering of a nifty-looking tower. The ultimate purpose of zoning is to constrain, and the burden is on the property owner to demonstrate why the constraint(s) should be modified.

Yes, the zoning and regulations may have existed prior to the current Administration's tenure, and they exist for good reason.

That said, another option exists, as I had written.

If we are fortunate to have more progressive leadership down the road, the area could be rezoned and Chapter 91 amended to reflect a substantial step up in density, with the goal of creating an active commercial/residential/civic environment. This is exactly what the Greenway is calling for. The Greenway is not the front yard of Harbor Towers.

Although I agree completely with your assessment regarding Chiofaro's interactions with the BRA, isn't the larger issue here whether Harborpark zoning is reasonable or if it merits revisiting, perhaps by a new set of players?
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Once again, posters on this thread don't do their homework, don't bother to read stuff that Chiofaro posts on his website re: the garage, don't bother to read the BRA scoping document, etc.

In June 2009, the BRA specifically required Chiofaro to develop three alternatives to his proposed towering project, including a project height-constrained to 155 feet. (He was allowed to defer analyzing a no build alternative because the garage already exists.)


http://www.northendwaterfront.com/storage/post-documents/20090721HarborGarageBRAScoping.pdf

There are rules and procedures in place that govern development in Boston, many of which long antedate Menino and the current leaders of the BRA and other city agencies. In Boston, and in most other cities, you, as a property owner, don't have an absolute right to do anything you want with the property you own. If you want zoning relief, you have to make a case for it, and the case is not made simply by unveiling some rendering of a nifty-looking tower. The ultimate purpose of zoning is to constrain, and the burden is on the property owner to demonstrate why the constraint(s) should be modified.

Similarly with any relief being sought from the requirements or limitations of otherwise controlling plans and regulations.

Eighteen months after the June 2009 scoping document requiring the project development alternatives was sent by the BRA to Chiofaro, his response is to call in a columnist for the Globe and have his partner show off a stump of a project, and say that's what I may build. Chiofaro is going through project iterations faster than sh*t through a goose.

Yes, we can agree that Chiofaro is not following proper protocal. We agree with you on this. Now can you agree with us that the MAYOR and the BRA also do not follow proper protocal for each development. Do we really need to give examples? No consistency from the BRA and the Mayor so why in the hell would a developer who is going to invest a billion dollars into the city follow proper process.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Once again, posters on this thread don't do their homework, don't bother to read stuff that Chiofaro posts on his website re: the garage, don't bother to read the BRA scoping document, etc.

In June 2009, the BRA specifically required Chiofaro to develop three alternatives to his proposed towering project, including a project height-constrained to 155 feet. (He was allowed to defer analyzing a no build alternative because the garage already exists.)

Your point? We already know that Chiofaro is required to have alternative plans. But Chiofaro determines what type of building gets proposed on this plot. No Chiofaro can't control the height of the building, but he can control the design of the building, expecially when it is within the requirement. The city may want another Rowes Wharf but if Chiofaro does not deem that profitable or feasible, he will create a design that is, in this case a bigger wall. That will be the design the BRA will get, take it or leave it. Needless to say it will probably get rejected even if its within regulation because it only worsens the area. Regardless of the result, it will be a loss of opportunity because now the garage remains standing whether the proposal gets rejected or not.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

^^
Rifleman, you wrote:

"Yes, we can agree that Chiofaro is not following proper protocal."

So why is anyone on this board surprised that his project is not advancing? Why doesn't he at least try to follow the Article 80 protocol (pursuant to which the ball is 100% in his court to file a DPIR) and throw the ball back in the BRA's court and put the pressure back on the city to act? Every single other developer in the city works that way and look how much has gotten built in the last 5-10 years. Why doesn't Chiofaro just do what every other developer does and advance the ball down the field?
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Ok it sounds like Chiofaro should advance with proper proceedings, but even if he does that, at 200 ft the outcome will still be bad. That is on the BRA. Yes there are silly laws stating only 200 ft or 150 ft, but those can and should be amended.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

^^
Rifleman, you wrote:

"Yes, we can agree that Chiofaro is not following proper protocal."

So why is anyone on this board surprised that his project is not advancing? Why doesn't he at least try to follow the Article 80 protocol (pursuant to which the ball is 100% in his court to file a DPIR) and throw the ball back in the BRA's court and put the pressure back on the city to act? Every single other developer in the city works that way and look how much has gotten built in the last 5-10 years. Why doesn't Chiofaro just do what every other developer does and advance the ball down the field?

Yes I agree 100%, But can we all agree that the MAYOR and the BRA also do not follow proper protocal?

We talk about proper developmental processing how about following the FUCKING LAW. Who gives the right to give these specific companies these types of taxpayer PERCS to help build their wealth? I never read in the Constitution to give corporations tax breaks, bailouts or stimilus packages? Especially private corporation agendas.
Giving Liberty Mutual 46 Million in tax breaks
Giving W-Hotel 10 Million dollar loan
 
Last edited:
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

^^
Rifleman, you wrote:

"Yes, we can agree that Chiofaro is not following proper protocal."

So why is anyone on this board surprised that his project is not advancing? Why doesn't he at least try to follow the Article 80 protocol (pursuant to which the ball is 100% in his court to file a DPIR) and throw the ball back in the BRA's court and put the pressure back on the city to act? Every single other developer in the city works that way and look how much has gotten built in the last 5-10 years. Why doesn't Chiofaro just do what every other developer does and advance the ball down the field?

Well he is doing it now. What is your stance on a 200 ft concrete wall? As long as its following regulation, you're all for it, because I really do hope you like it when it gets approved and you get a piece of Soviet Russia. If the Mayor and the BRA doesn't start talking soon then we know they are full of bull.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

It appears that the Chiofaro Company is throwing this out as a red herring. Nothing more, nothing less. He is trying to scare everyone by threatening to build something that would never be built anyway for so many reasons it's embarrassing. All of you seem to have fallen for his tactic and are now wringing your hands about what will happen to the city if this gets built. Don't worry, it won't, and you should stop debating an idea that is being thrown into the public domain purely as a scare tactic.
I think you seriously misunderstood what many of us are saying. The latest proposal, scare tactic or otherwise, is the only likely result (aside from no build) given the zoning and political climate. We are angry about the climate, not about the tactic. If the controlling authority must be completely rigid, then we should expect bad architecture, with no eye toward anything other than wringing the maximum profit from designs available within the constraining framework. The BRA says 200 feet, Chioforo is saying, "here's what that will look like." If the BRA (and backers of the in place process) are fine with it, then he should build it. So, again, I'll ask you to answer the question:

If this is what is possible to build given the existing zoning and legal framework, are you going to be happy with the result? It's a simple question, I'm not asking you to commit to changing your stance on the legal framework, just whether you think it would be a good addition to the Greenway.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

The reason why many of us are so skeptical of the BRA and the Mayor is because of their track record. Giving tax breaks to certain companies, going out on a limb to propose a 1000ft tower in the middle of the city but then criticizing others that propose towers at height much shorter than his. Tommy Tower was going to cast a shadow over the Common but the Mayor could have cared less about that. The project was fast tracked and had not the FAA stepped in or Renzo Piano stepped out, that project would have been approved and built. Lack of consistency and yet some people are still too blind to see. If you still don't believe me, here's a nice article for you to read:

?They approve everything, unless you?re someone they don?t like?
By Stephanie Ebbert
Globe Staff / August 23, 2009

From major downtown developments to home building projects on quiet side streets, many builders believe their plans rise and fall on their relationships with Mayor Thomas M. Menino. This is a tale of two small construction projects that neighbors tried to block. The house that rose was built by a family with ties to the mayor - and it still stands, despite court orders to tear it down. The house that fell, by city order, was opposed by a powerful Menino ally. The losers in each neighborhood took away the same message. ?They approve everything,?? said Dorchester resident Yvonne Ruggles, ?unless you?re someone they don?t like.??


Dorchester home rises before judge rules

On Dorchester?s Melville Avenue, a broad street of sprawling Victorian homes, lifelong resident Jacqueline O?Flaherty wanted to build a single-family home beside her duplex in 2001.

O?Flaherty, a friend of the mayor?s daughter, needed a variance. Her aunt, Susan Tracy, a former state representative and Menino fund-raiser, represented her before the Zoning Board of Appeals, arguing successfully that she shouldn?t be blocked from building because her lot was 4 feet too narrow.

Ruggles sued in Superior Court, saying the property, under zoning rules, was too small.

But the city issued building permits and the O?Flahertys quickly built the house. By the time a judge ordered the family to tear it down, they?d been living there for more than three months.

The O?Flahertys, who did not respond to interview requests, lost on appeal but are still fighting in court to keep the house. And instead of adhering to its own zoning code, the city began trying to rewrite it to help the family.

When asked about the case, Menino defended the family?s character and intentions.

?The O?Flahertys are a hard-working family in Dorchester who built it on their own property,?? Menino said. ?There was no issue of a hindrance to anybody else?s property.??

City officials shut down West Roxbury project
On Roslindale?s modest Catherine Street, three West Roxbury real estate agents wanted to build a two-family townhouse in 2005.

Because their plans seemed to meet local zoning, they easily got a building permit. But construction was soon halted by next-door neighbor Janice Loux, the head of the local hotel workers? union and a powerful ally of the mayor. Loux contended that the developers were encroaching on her land.

Instead of challenging the project in court, as is customary, Loux went to City Hall, where, the developers say, she got the benefit of every doubt.

?The way I look at it was, she holds the political weight,?? said one of the developers, Michael Keane. ?She brings so many votes to the table. She said jump and they said, how high???

The Zoning Board of Appeals heard Loux?s challenge of the building permit, even though it stemmed from a boundary dispute usually handled by the courts.

?This should not be here,?? Robert Shortsleeve, acting chairman, said at a 2005 hearing.

Because the board doesn?t have the authority to sort out personal property disputes, the members sought advice from the city law department. In a confidential memo, city lawyers sided with Loux and, six months later, the Zoning Board revoked the permit.

Two years later, when the developers revised their plans and started work again, Loux got that shut down, too, by challenging other zoning standards on the opposite side of the house.

Loux said she never got any special treatment, though she acknowledged turning for help to her friend Michael Kineavy, the mayor?s policy chief. She said Kineavy told her she had to follow the process like anybody else.

?I am completely confident that we presented our case and prevailed on the facts,?? she said.

Menino said that the city followed ?the letter of the law?? and that he had never talked to Loux about her case.

?I?m the mayor of Boston,?? he said. ?I try to make this work for all our people, not just some of our people.??

For two years, the developers gave up. They let the half-built townhouse languish. A city inspector ordered it torn down.

Then in April, Keane?s development partner, Stephen A. Morris, reached out for help. After all, he, too, was a Menino supporter, he noted in an e-mail message to Kineavy, accusing the city of skewing the process to help a friend of the mayor.

?At this point we question whether we can continue our support,?? Morris wrote. ?We are not looking for favors, but we are looking for the City to stop harming us.??

In July, the developers had to tear down the townhouse. Keane estimates the loss at more than $300,000. He still hopes to build, however, and is willing to scale back plans by the distance the city has decided, after four years, his plans erred: 6 inches.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...n_bostons_small_construction_projects/?page=2

My favorite part was this:

"Ruggles sued in Superior Court, saying the property, under zoning rules, was too small.

But the city issued building permits and the O?Flahertys quickly built the house. By the time a judge ordered the family to tear it down, they?d been living there for more than three months."

and this

"And instead of adhering to its own zoning code, the city began trying to rewrite it to help the family."

Yeah Greenwayguy developers can only progress if they followed the rules huh?
 
Last edited:
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

^Kentxie & ^Stellarfun (earlier)
Thanks for providing history with your posts. Interesting and helpful.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

^Kentxie & ^Stellarfun (earlier)
Thanks for providing history with your posts. Interesting and helpful.

A couple of comments.

Kentxie, -- Menino, the BRA, and Chiofaro all know that Chiofaro is not going to throw up an architectural abomination atop the garage, for the simple reason that Don has always been about flashing the cachet of his being the most expensive landlord in town.

If Chiofaro wants to get Mandarin Oriental type prices for his condo residences, you can be sure the garage will be so gussied up you'd never recognize it.
_________________

Sicilian,

My view is that the BRA's scoping document did not rule out Chiofaro building something that was 400, 500, even 700 feet tall. Their instructions to Don were basically this: before the city can consider a non-conforming building, you need to provide us with a study of several alternatives; such alternatives being buildings that would conform to the current code, and/or the plan, and/or the regulations.

Presumably, the alternatives would demonstrate that it is economically infeasible to construct a conforming building, or at least a building that offers benefit to the city from the standpoint of future taxes, etc., and thus, on the basis of such a demonstration, would allow the city to grant relief in some manner. Menino is not that much of a prideful fool that he would forego a building assessed for $1 billion for a garage assessed at 1/15th that.

Without these alternatives, an incompetent lawyer could successfully sue the city for wrongfully having given Chiofaro relief from having to construct a conforming building, or even promising him that if he came in with a non-conforming building no taller than x height, it would be approved.

We are now 18 months in since the scoping document was sent, and all I have seen from Chiofaro is a p.r. parade of new iterations of the project, each more conceptual than the previous. Further, there have been no conversations with the Harbor Towers residents (whose 'rights' in the Harbor Garage are noted in the scoping document with an instruction to Chiofaro that he must describe how those 'rights' will be addressed by his proposed project).

From all that I can see, Chiofaro has not budged from this statement in the ENF he submitted, which basically asserts, 'This project is great because I say so, and don't ask me to waste time or money on looking at alternatives.'

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.

http://www.env.state.ma.us/mepa/pdffiles/enfs/050609em/14411.pdf

If my perception is correct, Chiofaro will never develop this site, given his big middle finger to the process, --whether the process is good or bad, constructive or detrimental, ir really immaterial.

He seems not to want to play in the process, and has, to date, shown little enthusiasm or activity that would signal he, even grudgingly, will be part of it. He seems more interested in either playing martyr, or of a man just going through the motions at this juncture.

Also for reference,

http://www.newra.org/ZLC/HarborTowers_PNF_041609_partial.pdf

http://www.env.state.ma.us/mepa/meparcproj.aspx?eoea_num=14411
http://www.newra.org/ZLC/20090717HarborGarageMEPAdecision.pdf
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

^^^
HenryAlan, you asked the following question:

"If this is what is possible to build given the existing zoning and legal framework, are you going to be happy with the result? It's a simple question, I'm not asking you to commit to changing your stance on the legal framework, just whether you think it would be a good addition to the Greenway."

You know what would be a good addition to the Greenway (and the waterfront)? Another project ike Rowes Wharf. Elegant, active, and iconic - every bit or more as iconic as the 700' thing. And guess what? It would (generally) conform to the existing regulatory envelope that everyone on this board is kvetching about. Just because Chiofaro throws out some ugly red herring doesn't mean that the existing zoning requires an ugly building. And don't give me some BS retort about economics. Chiofaro paid what he paid knowing full well what the zoning was. If he thought he'd need to get a variance, he should have done what every other smart developer does and put the thing under agreement on a contingent basis, and then not close until he got his relief.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

^stellarfun

While I've been thinking (and suggesting) for a while now that I felt Chiofaro's project was dead in the water, your post really is incredible in terms of understanding of how things work -- much of which I didn't know. It's great to read this type of informed perspective.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top