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

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

Can't believe those photos got leaked out so quickly. I went to the presentation but I left just at the end of the Committee questions before the public questions. Committee questions were good and seemed supportive. As they started to show slides of the ground-level, some folks seemed very appreciative.

I'm sure that the public questions would be much of the same bull crap you would expect, but I really don't think at this point they can drag this around much longer. And Holy Crap, are they a bunch of ugly freaky worthless looking shut-ins who are not even worthy of living in a Massachusetts suburb. Yeah, I said it and I stand by it. Take the "Don't Build the Copley Tower" guy, make a him look more odd, and multiply that by 100.

The presentations were great and to the point. I could even sense Vivian Lee's support for this.

Key things
- They stressed a few times that these are merely conceptual, so nobody should get worked up or in love with what you see.
- Ted said "We're not going to be cute about this". Then followed up with this is going to be big.
- Don said multiple times that they have to get the max 600ft to make this viable.
- Don even lightly 'threatened' at one point to leave the garage for generations if the public does not accept this now.
- Don said that the team is going for a "WOW" effect that draws North America to this location.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

What gives? This appears to be in the 600 - 625 range:

Massport Height Map

I also read that as the 600' line passing between the two current towers (putting the garage site between the 600' and 625 contours) too.

But you'd have to say that the dotted yellow line is close enough that if somebody leaned on the FAA, they could jog it a few feet and suddenly it'd look like they were doing you a favor by not taking you down to the 200-something that prevails over the pier-tips.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

I'm sure that the public questions would be much of the same bull crap you would expect, but I really don't think at this point they can drag this around much longer. And Holy Crap, are they a bunch of ugly freaky worthless looking shut-ins who are not even worthy of living in a Massachusetts suburb. Yeah, I said it and I stand by it. Take the "Don't Build the Copley Tower" guy, make a him look more odd, and multiply that by 100.

Paul McMorrow tweeted the following at the beginning of public questions,

First question from a neighbor who doesn't want all these people having fun and spending money next door
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Here are the pretty pictures of the ground level interaction:

Slide3.jpg


Slide7.jpg


Slide5.jpg


Slide13.jpg


Slide12.jpg


Slide11.jpg
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

The presentations were great and to the point. I could even sense Vivian Lee's support for this.

Key things
- They stressed a few times that these are merely conceptual, so nobody should get worked up or in love with what you see.
- Ted said "We're not going to be cute about this". Then followed up with this is going to be big.
- Don said multiple times that they have to get the max 600ft to make this viable.
- Don even lightly 'threatened' at one point to leave the garage for generations if the public does not accept this now.
- Don said that the team is going for a "WOW" effect that draws North America to this location.
Thanks for the live reportage. It is sincerely appreciated.

To draw North America to this location I think they're going have something more unique than four seasons, which, as I understand them, are quite widespread.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

I also read that as the 600' line passing between the two current towers (putting the garage site between the 600' and 625 contours) too.

But you'd have to say that the dotted yellow line is close enough that if somebody leaned on the FAA, they could jog it a few feet and suddenly it'd look like they were doing you a favor by not taking you down to the 200-something that prevails over the pier-tips.

The dotted yellow line represents an exception zone, created because of surrounding buildings at a similar height (i.e. it would be hard for a plane to hit our building without hitting another one first...). Don might have issues at 200' above any neighboring building. His nearest neighbor at that height is IP, 750' away.

On the other hand, because the controlling limit for Downtown is based on go-arounds - the runway whose centerline is closest is uni-directional - Don could also make a case that there's simply no reasonable circumstance under which a plane in peril would circle back over his site because he's too close to the field. Essentially, it's the same principle that allows control towers to be so high.

Purely based on the map, though, the border of the Downtown zone is out by the end of the Aquarium pier. I can't see any way anyone could claim the garage isn't in it.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Thanks Arlington, my pleasure.

The ground level looks very much for the concept that Cook/Fox also did for the Government Center proposal a few years back.

There was actually one committee question that I didn't realize at the time is hilarious. He asked if the architects had considered that new architecture shadows over Boston's majority of classis aarchitecture in that immediate area, and he cited the Custom House as an example. Although that is my favorite building in the world, I had to laugh because it's a good 3 football fields away at least and this development is replacing a poor 1960s landscaper and is right next to Harbor Towers. I suppose there is also the fact that no one designs 1913 buildings anymore.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

I didn't see Vivian Lee look up once during the entire 45 minutes I was there. Too busy on her cell phone.

I think she's on board with this. What's not to like?
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

What gives? This appears to be in the 600 - 625 range:

Massport Height Map

The FAA limit is based on radar coverage. Too many tall buildings in that area block the FAA's ability to track incoming planes. Same situation with Rosslyn Virginia where the FAA allowed some talls, and then said no more.

The FAA cautioned, however, that development of additional high-rises along the Virginia side of the Potomac River could present "a cumulative and unacceptable impact on radar performance" for aircraft.

Chiofaro is free to build the FAA another radar site.

The FAA is currently proposing to lower building heights in the one engine out zones, but that is separate from the radar issue and the height of these towers

.The FAA's current rules require buildings that are located within three nautical miles, or approximately three and half miles, of airports to be fewer than 200 feet above ground level.

The agency said it is necessary to consider lowering the height limit now because areas around major airports are becoming more developed.

"Structures as diverse as microwave towers to office buildings and wind turbines are being built in ever-increasing numbers near many airports," the FAA said in its notice. "While developers may erect these structures, the FAA must consider the impact of the structures on the safe operation of flight and their impact on the safe, efficient use and preservation of the navigable airspace and airport capacity and efficiency."

The agency noted it does not have the power to prevent developers from constructing new buildings, even if the lower height limit is eventually implemented.

"The FAA is not authorized to grant or deny construction projects," the agency said in its notice about the proposed height limit change. "Rather, Part 77 defines a number of obstruction standards that are used to identify obstacles that may have an adverse impact on the navigable airspace.

"Even upon the issuance of a Determination of Hazard, the developer is free to continue construction," the agency continued. "However, zoning authorities and private insurers may be reluctant to permit construction of the structure, given the FAA's determination that it poses a hazard to navigation."

The FAA issued a notice of proposed policy about the potential change on April 28 and is accepting comments until June 27.

The agency noted that existing buildings that are taller than the new limits would be grandfathered in, but the more stringent rules would be applied to changes to those structures.

Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/transport...posal-to-limit-building-heights#ixzz35gmUkOe4
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

The FAA limit is based on radar coverage. Too many tall buildings in that area block the FAA's ability to track incoming planes. Same situation with Rosslyn Virginia where the FAA allowed some talls, and then said no more.

I'm curious - where are you getting that from? The Rosslyn quote isn't anywhere in the Hill article, and Part 77 is based on obstructions to the navigable airspace, not obstructions to radar.

It's possible that the 400' limit set on the site was related to radar, but that's not reflected on the map.

It's also a bit implausible to me that a 600' building set against a backdrop of 600' buildings would impede radar coverage. Logically, the next highest building in the pie slice of blocked space would currently control, and this building represents only about a 20' increase over that. The only reason to control height further than that would be to avoid blocking the space between the buildings, but there's no airliners in there (hopefully).

Even in a vacuum, the height difference between this building and the control tower roof means that 10 miles from the airport it's only blocking aircraft about 1800' off the ground. At that height, I actually don't think Logan has the responsibility to track the traffic, as it's not in controlled airspace.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Did Chiofaro bother to show a site plan with the building footprints?
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)


Ah. The radar limit applies separately from the Part 77 limit, and only is a big deal in Rosslyn because those buildings lie right along the approach path. In fact, the FAA made no statement in that case that the building in question would be an impediment to radar, only that the cumulative impact of many structures could plausibly affect it. Since the plateau in Rosslyn is well below 350', that's theoretically a reasonable concern.

The issue in Boston is solely obstruction-based, and not even really that. The FAA is just really aggressive with height limits. They tried before to limit Chiofaro's building to 407' to match the towers next door, basically out of convenience and (as he noted) without noting Massport's own height limits.

Chiofaro's not stupid. If he's proposing 600' again, it's because he thinks he can get it. Either that, or he's angling for a way to dump all the public amenities later because he "can't afford them" when the NIMBYs make him shorten the building.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

IIRC, the FAA said that Chiofaro's towers, when combined with other tall buildings, blocked radar coverage of planes descending to land on runway 15R, and helicopters traveling up/down the Charles River.
_____________________

As for this latest iteration, I note it is the same sq ft, at the same price, as the 2010 iteration, along with the same claim that he can't build anything less than 1.3 million sq ft. Without a footprint, I don't know whether he again takes a park that is owned by Fidelity.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

So, only ground floor renders? Ha. Clever.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

So, only ground floor renders? Ha. Clever.

What he did was move the renders from last year -- version 2.5 -- inside and put a 'retractable' roof over them.

In effect, four years in from version 2.0, he has already VE'd out what he proposed in 2.0, given he is proposing to construct the same square footage at the same price.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

I am adamantly against this project, it will utterly ruin the beautiful ambiance that exists on the waterfront. The huge girth of the buildings is obscene for such a delicate part of the city. I want to see the waterfront from the greenway, I don't want my vision blocked by a massive structure. If built, the character of the area transforms from nearly quaint and welcoming to imposing and more isolating. A visitor's awareness will always be partially diverted from the water to the towering presence of the tall buildings. Yes, I want to be in the sun when viewing the beautiful scenery later in the day and not have a shadow cast over me and the area around me.

Just because a developer buys property it doesn't entitle him to put up whatever he wants. Commerce of this scale has its place, it isn't here. If the waterfront guidelines allow this, I've lost faith in the process. If Vivien Lee accepts this project, I've lost trust in her. If Mayor Walsh approves, his urban vision is uninformed and I will assume that he is partly pandering to his construction union buddies.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

I am adamantly against this project, it will utterly ruin the beautiful ambiance that exists on the waterfront. The huge girth of the buildings is obscene for such a delicate part of the city. I want to see the waterfront from the greenway, I don't want my vision blocked by a massive structure..

"It will utterly ruin the beautiful ambiance that exists on the Waterfront."

Yeah that CEMENT WALL REALLY creates a great ambiance in the area.

It seems their are a lot of agendas on this board. Chiofaro has not even shown us the entire plan so to say that the current CEMENT WALL IS THE BEST we can do is Joke.

Concerning Stellarfun Height: Harbor Towers is 400Ft high, across the street is IP at 600 Ft. The FAA and Massport will give Chiofaro the height in the end 600FT is not an issue in this location. Use some logic. This is the city of Boston which their are not that many locations to build higher. Prices are skyrocketing. Two slick towers at 600ft will not ruin the area. What is ruining the area is that GARAGE.

Stellarfun=a Harbor Tower Resident.

I would like to see the entire plan & vision: His floor plan looks fantastic to me.
 
Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Isn't your vision already blocked by what's there now?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top