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

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

stellarfun said:
Chiofaro doesn't have the money, doesn't have the tenants, and certainly never had $50 million to give to the city if the city would only permit his tower.

Chiofaro never began negotiations with the residents of Harbor Towers who have him by the gonads because of their property rights with respect to his garage. Until he starts those negotiations, nothing he says, or promises, or does can be taken seriously.

I put him in the same b.s. league as Frank McCourt; two peas from the same pod.
Click to expand...

Whatever............The facts are

The taxpayers gave
Liberty Mutual 46 Million
Fallon the Developer 72 Million
Hynes left a giant hole in the heart of the city.

Sorry pal that is the reality. Chiofaro might not have the money but either did these assholes. I just like his plan for the garage.

I actually like McCourt.

"negotiations with the residents of Harbor Towers" why bother? The BRA is not willing to negotiate the height of his development. So what is the sense of negotiating when the BRA is already killing the development? We live in the city of Boston the garage is next to (2) 400ft buildings a 600Ft building across the street. But the BRA is saying it doesn't fit the DNA of Boston. Maybe Chiofaro can build a Skyscraper in Quincy. Maybe Quincy fits the DNA genetic code. LOL
 
Last edited:
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

stellarfun said:
Chiofaro doesn't have the money, doesn't have the tenants, and certainly never had $50 million to give to the city if the city would only permit his tower.

Chiofaro never began negotiations with the residents of Harbor Towers who have him by the gonads because of their property rights with respect to his garage. Until he starts those negotiations, nothing he says, or promises, or does can be taken seriously.

I put him in the same b.s. league as Frank McCourt; two peas from the same pod.
Click to expand...

I'd take Chiofaro and McCourt over Menino and the BRA's selective reasonings for why certain developers get promoted and bullshit "environmental studies" any day. If you want a bs league, you can probably put the mayor, the BRA, and their "it's too iconic next to the Greenway" in there.

Also, I will not put the blame squarely on Chiofaro for the lack of money or the lack of tenants. First of all, if anybody ever learned anything about business, then it is known that:

1) It is not advisable as a banker to lend money or commit to lending money for a construction project that doesn't seem to have a chance to be approved.

2) As the CEO of any firm, it is not advisable to line up to move for a project that doesn't seem to have a chance to be approved.

Now stellar, you might say, "Why, Chiofaro hasn't done any negotiating with the nearby residents or come up with a concrete monetary figure for the project, etc etc. Thus this is his undoing." To that, I say (and many times early and echoed by TheRifleman) why would anyone negotiate or come up with the figure when the first part, determining the height through negotiating is not possible? Chiofaro has already showed signs of being negotiable by conceding height once already. I don't know about you, but if I was a developer or anybody who is trying to negotiate for something, if the person who I am trying to bargain with is not willing to negotiate at all or concede something, then it is pointless to continue on.

If you were to buy a car and you want to buy it for $15,000, would you negotiate with a car dealer who refuses to part with it for anything lower than $21,000?

The point is, Chiofaro has already conceded height. He has shown signs of budging from what he wants but the Mayor and the BRA has stubbornly refused to continue any form of negotiation until Peter Meade, of all people, decided to speak to him. The ball is in the Mayor's court, not Chiofaro. If he wants to continue negotiation, he needs to show signs that the 200 ft is not fully concrete.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

A national article on Frank McCourt:
http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/08/mccourt-divorce-201108

___________________________________________________
KentXie, I don't believe you or The Rifleman have ever owned any real property, so certain concepts in real property law may be a bit alien.

When Chiofaro bought the garage, he (presumably) knew it came with encumbrances: i.e., the residents of Harbor Towers have, as a matter of right, easements that give them a property interest in the garage. (This is a legacy of the development of Harbor towers, when the garage was built as an ancillary but integral part of the towers.)

Because of those easements, Chiofaro can't do jacksh*t about developing the garage without addressing those easements. Chiofaro presumably knows that, the BRA certainly knows that, the banks certainly know that, the condo association at Harbor towers certainly knows that, and any prospective tenant knows that as well. He is dead in the water until he reaches at least an understanding, if not an agreement, with the residents of Harbor towers on how their property interest in his garage will be taken care of.

IMO, he overpaid for damaged goods given his primary intent to immediately develop the property. (The 'damage' being the easements.) He should have discounted the price sought, but that's old history, ---except when it comes time for him to make his balloon payment to the folks in Hartford who lent him the financing.

And it is neither the city's role nor responsibility to remedy his problem by taking the easements by eminent domain, as was once suggested on this board in this thread.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

There was once a wise and patient US diplomat in the Clinton Administration who served in the Middle-East peace negotiations. After a long period, where much was discussed and little was decided, he came to a few personal conclusions: he decided that there are assholes on both sides.

I feel like this aptly descibes our city and its dealings with Chiafaro. Lots of sturm-and-drang. Plenty of blame to go around. Not a lot to show for it.

Speaking as a minority holder (on this website) of the opinion that we presently have a great skyline and should tread very very carefully how we alter it... I'm not sure I would trust that responsibility to the fickle inclinations and personal taste of Mr. Chiafaro. No, correction, I am sure I would not. His trite rendering of how he would render that section of the RKG is all the evidence a rational mind, it seems to me, would need.

His rust colored attempt at a soaring statement left me, well, underwhelmed. To be charitable.

Yes, build some height. Yes, maybe match Harbor Tower. Maybe not? But maybe? 700 feet? I don't know. I would need to be convinced, but I'd listen. Give us an architectural icon. For sure. Make a grand statement. Put a new destination on the map. It's an appropriate place for such a gesture. But let's take care in how we do that, let's do the very best we can - not just what we can.

We easily have one of the prettiest cities in the country, and what makes us special has nothing at all to do with height. Let every other Tom, Dick and Harry of a city chase the bland and generic goal of height. Who cares. They would die to have what we have.

Let quality of design be our guide. Let's see where that takes us.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Just curious, what is the scope of the Harbor Tower easement?
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

among other things previously discussed, the towers' HVAC system is in the garage building.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Hutchison said:
Just curious, what is the scope of the Harbor Tower easement?
Click to expand...
Hundreds of parking spaces for the next 20 years or so, plus as Ron Newman mentioned, part/much of their utility infrastructure is located within the garage.

It was the parking spaces that led Chiofaro to suggest, very briefly apparently, that he would build a floating parking garage for them. Never did say where he would tie it up, so cars could get on and off.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

nm88 said:
Let quality of design be our guide. Let's see where that takes us.
Click to expand...
You want to see where it takes us? Look around us. Name one grandeur building we designed in Boston and was built. Your statement would make a sliver of sense if Boston had even one or two tower that would stand out from the rest if placed in the middle of another major city.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

KentXie said:
You want to see where it takes us? Look around us. Name one grandeur building we designed in Boston and was built. Your statement would make a sliver of sense if Boston had even one or two tower that would stand out from the rest if placed in the middle of another major city.
Click to expand...

I don't believe "standing out" is what good design is about. That's what lesser cities believe, and that's where they consistently go wrong.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

nm88 said:
I don't believe "standing out" is what good design is about. That's what lesser cities believe, and that's where they consistently go wrong.
Click to expand...

I agree, let's make sure that only the lesser cities such as London, Moscow, New York, and Toronto get new "stand out" towers. In Boston, we will proudly let the 60's and 70's boxes dominate our skyline.... forever!
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

nm88 said:
I don't believe "standing out" is what good design is about. That's what lesser cities believe, and that's where they consistently go wrong.
Click to expand...

I can agree with that statement 100% I don't agree with Boston development consistently building boxes.


stellarfun said:
A national article on Frank McCourt:
http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/08/mccourt-divorce-201108

___________________________________________________
KentXie, I don't believe you or The Rifleman have ever owned any real property, so certain concepts in real property law may be a bit alien.

When Chiofaro bought the garage, he (presumably) knew it came with encumbrances: i.e., the residents of Harbor Towers have, as a matter of right, easements that give them a property interest in the garage. (This is a legacy of the development of Harbor towers, when the garage was built as an ancillary but integral part of the towers.)

Because of those easements, Chiofaro can't do jacksh*t about developing the garage without addressing those easements. Chiofaro presumably knows that, the BRA certainly knows that, the banks certainly know that, the condo association at Harbor towers certainly knows that, and any prospective tenant knows that as well. He is dead in the water until he reaches at least an understanding, if not an agreement, with the residents of Harbor towers on how their property interest in his garage will be taken care of.

IMO, he overpaid for damaged goods given his primary intent to immediately develop the property. (The 'damage' being the easements.) He should have discounted the price sought, but that's old history, ---except when it comes time for him to make his balloon payment to the folks in Hartford who lent him the financing.

And it is neither the city's role nor responsibility to remedy his problem by taking the easements by eminent domain, as was once suggested on this board in this thread.
Click to expand...



Are you serious with this post? Real Property Law means jackshit when the public’s best interest is involved. Our state and Federal Govt's can change laws in a heartbeat if they are in the best interest for the overall American citizens and taxpayers of this country.
I have seen land stolen from generational private landowners from the Govt to build Highways or bridges across the country.

The Harbor Towers garage was originally supposed to be the third tower around 400ft. Yes, I'm assuming Chiofaro bought the garage knowing the easements.

Laws are changed everyday by our lawmakers. Iron clad means bullshit today. It's all about the MONEY.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

nm88 said:
I don't believe "standing out" is what good design is about. That's what lesser cities believe, and that's where they consistently go wrong.
Click to expand...

I really hope you mistaken my term "standing out" for a bid at height because standing out is exactly what a good design is. How can an architectural feat in design for a structure NOT stand out? With the exception of possibly the Custom House and 111 Huntington Ave, no tower, whether it's the JHT or the small stubby towers in DTX would stand out in the middle of other major cities.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

KentXie said:
I really hope you mistaken my term "standing out" for a bid at height because standing out is exactly what a good design is. How can an architectural feat in design for a structure NOT stand out? With the exception of possibly the Custom House and 111 Huntington Ave, no tower, whether it's the JHT or the small stubby towers in DTX would stand out in the middle of other major cities.
Click to expand...

I think he meant location, Not every location needs to stand out.
And also a good design does not mean just height.

That's why I agreed 100%

I actually think Harbor Garage is a better spot to build a 600Ft+ than Congress St. Garage

At least Harbor Garage would be around a cluster of Towers 400Ft to 600Ft.

Congress St Tower would stand alone in that area......Could cause massive shadows on little Italy in the North End ..........Could lose character in that part of the city.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

^^Rifleman,

He's talking about design quality, not location. Look at his previous post.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

^^

Actually, I mean both. As I said, I believe I continue to be an exception on this forum. I don't think of height as the ultimate end-all goal. My favorite sections in my favorite cities have little to do with height and much more to do with context and history. I don't mean that as high-falutin' as that sounds. I like the Back Bay, the Lower Eastside, the Left Bank, Covent Garden, the Ramblas. Okay, right, that's all pretty high-falutin'. My bad.

Whatever our differences on this forum, I would agree that much of what has been built in the last 40 years in our city has been box-like and uninspiring. There have been a few exceptions, at least to my way of thinking -- Hancock, Rowes Wharf, Federal Reserve, Pei's Courthouse to name a few. (Are there others? I'm drawing a blank...)

My opinion is just that, one man's opinion. And I don't offer it as anything else.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

^nm88

You're not alone on this forum. A number of us have been making the same case for quite some time. With respect to this thread, the point has been made that both Chiofaro and the current administration may be incapable of producing the world-class outcome the site (and city) merits.

On your broader point, I agree that a stellar development project is not inspired by piling on height or density. I've heard of Renzo Piano and his legendary battle in Boston trying to make this point.

But it is fair to say that the way things play out in Boston, height is used as a chip in the poker game that is typically offered as a gift in rezoning to property owners and/or taken away from proposals as a gift to neighbors. It is rarely discussed from a "world-class" perspective of how a soaring slender building could fit onto a site.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Except that Boston have very few examples of buildings that have high quality design. I can spot a dozen from Philly's city hall and only a few involves height or density. Most of Boston's development are made with cheap material and lackluster design. Almost all that are notable were built by the beginning of last century.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

KentXie said:
Except that Boston have very few examples of buildings that have high quality design. I can spot a dozen from Philly's city hall and only a few involves height or density. Most of Boston's development are made with cheap material and lackluster design. Almost all that are notable were built by the beginning of last century.
Click to expand...

That is a fact..........Also I would have to consider the IP building one of the better quality in this city. Wasn't that built by Chiofaro?
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

TheRifleman said:
That is a fact..........Also I would have to consider the IP building one of the better quality in this city. Wasn't that built by Chiofaro?
Click to expand...

IP is hands down the best development in the downtown area in my opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top