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

[coleslaw]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

But it seems like they don't have to move the whole airport just the radar. How expensive would that be?

 

[datadyne007]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

But it seems like they don't have to move the whole airport just the radar. How expensive would that be?

Anything over $0 is too expensive for Logan/Massport right now. Just trust me on this. I know first hand.

 

[KentXie]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

So how was Tommy's Tower ever going to be built 1,000ft in Downtown. That would have broke every Boston Guideline in the city. Every development is an exception in this city.

That would have to be an exception I'm assuming. You have to start somewhere. 600 to 700ft could be reasonable?

Except it wasn't. Tommy's Tower was rejected because of the FAA's objections.

 

[TheRifleman]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Except it wasn't. Tommy's Tower was rejected because of the FAA's objections.

Tommy's Tower was over the FAA guidelines but if this got momentum their would have been some serious political pressure on the FAA to making an Exception.

Bottom-line every development in the city is an exception for sometype of city or state guidelines.

Anything can change and at this point Boston only has a couple more buildable locations ---600, 700 or even 800. If the political pressure is on the FAA to make certain exceptions it can be done in my opinion.

 

[393b40]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Anything can change and at this point Boston only has a couple more buildable locations ---600, 700 or even 800. If the political pressure is on the FAA to make certain exceptions it can be done in my opinion.

That's what I was thinking. Bank Of America have to get the FAA to change some flight paths and other crap when they wanted to build their HQ there?

From Wikipedia for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_America_Corporate_Center

On May 15, 1989, a ruling by the Federal Aviation Administration stated that the tower's height would potentially jeopardize some flights taking off and landing at Charlotte-Douglas International Airport. The ruling came even though Charlotte's dominant airline, US Airways, and airport officials had determined that the tower was not a hazard. A June 12 appeal filed with the regional FAA office in Atlanta upheld the original ruling resulting in the case being appealed to Washington. Although the FAA could not force NCNB to halt construction of the tower, its "declaration of hazard to air navigation" could have potentially cost the city millions in federal airport grants as well as impeding the ability of NCNB to secure insurance for the tower upon its completion.[16]

By December 1989, the issue was resolved when the FAA ruled that slight changes in air-traffic procedures around the building would resolve the hazard posed by the 871-foot (265 m) tower. With the influence of both U.S. representative Alex McMillan and Senator Ernest Hollings, the reversal of the original ruling was made after further review by the FAA.[17] Since its construction, there has not been an incident involving an aircraft and the tower.

I'm not suggesting Chiofaro has those kinds of connections or that level of influence. But let's not pretend like the FAA is some sort of immutable and all-powerful agency. You get the right Representative or Senator involved and the FAA is going to change.

Further Edit:

Flight paths and radar are two different things, but still, if push came to shove and their was a big enough and important enough development that needed to occur the FAA is going to get told off by someone.

 

[paperless paul]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

An interesting take on the relationship between the city and shadows that some here may find refreshing. And from a normally NIMBYish neighborhood journal no less. The comment section may get a little bit fresh.

 

[George_Apley]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Tommy's Tower was over the FAA guidelines but if this got momentum their would have been some serious political pressure on the FAA to making an Exception.

How?

Bottom-line every development in the city is an exception for sometype of city or state guidelines.

FAA is federal. How many federal exemptions have led to development in Boston?

Anything can change and at this point Boston only has a couple more buildable locations ---600, 700 or even 800. If the political pressure is on the FAA to make certain exceptions it can be done in my opinion.

What political pressure?? "We want to build high! Let us!" Where's the leverage to twist the FAA's arm? There isn't any.

 

[George_Apley]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

But it seems like they don't have to move the whole airport just the radar. How expensive would that be?

It's more complicated than that. Move the radar and now other sites get fouled up. We can't up and move Logan's radar every time we want to build a new building as tall as we want.

Plus, as has been said, MassPort has ZERO self-interest to do it.

 

[pel_north]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Is there any way to get around the FAA?

Book everyone of them an all expenses paid trip to a deserted island with no return flight. That's legal right?

 

[JeffDowntown]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

You know, everyone seems to be missing the other way you pay for a slender development, that meets FAA standards -- get higher rents.

Starve the rental market (office or residence) in Boston a bit, and the super high rental rates will suddenly make the impossible, attainable.

 

[TheRifleman]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

It's more complicated than that. Move the radar and now other sites get fouled up. We can't up and move Logan's radar every time we want to build a new building as tall as we want.

Plus, as has been said, MassPort has ZERO self-interest to do it.

I could see if a private developer is asking for 1000ft-1200 Skyscrapers that jeopardizes the safety of passengers- but seriously adding an extra 100 or 200ft?

The FAA are only guidelines for entire surroundings--- Would Harbor Garage Development really have an affect on really anything adding 100ft on top of a 600FT project?

It's not that complicated you just need to understand what the other guy is seeing.
#1 All I'm saying is that 650ft Tower in that illustration was Amazing addition to Boston skyline in that location. I'm saying that this site is screaming for Height especially taking your eyes off 400ft Harbor Towers development.

 

[HenryAlan]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

You know, everyone seems to be missing the other way you pay for a slender development, that meets FAA standards -- get higher rents.

Starve the rental market (office or residence) in Boston a bit, and the super high rental rates will suddenly make the impossible, attainable.

Sure, an artificial supply constraint would alter the economics. everybody knows that. But I think very few desire that, especially when the Mayor is talking about adding 30,000 units in fifteen years.

 

[JeffDowntown]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Sure, an artificial supply constraint would alter the economics. everybody knows that. But I think very few desire that, especially when the Mayor is talking about adding 30,000 units in fifteen years.

We all know the supply constraint is going to happen anyway. Besides, this is on the waterfront -- it is NEVER going to be middle class affordable. Super luxe and pay the freight. No one is complaining about 22 Liberty in the Seaport.

(Do the math on how many major developments are needed to hit the 30,000 number, it is daunting!)

 

[stellarfun]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Chiofaro has known about the FAA's height cap on his proposed project for over five years.

The FAA has relocated radars elsewhere to facilitate development. I'm certain they would consider installing a second radar to provide coverage of aircraft arriving at Boston from the west, to eliminate the coverage gap that would result if Chiofaro's tower(s) goes above 407 feet. The first step is to due a feasibility study, which should cost under $1 million. If the feasibility study indicates that a second radar location will provide the necessary coverage, and FAA agrees, then the cost of this additional radar facility should be in the high seven, low eight figures.

One thing: the FAA isn't going to pay for the feasibility study, or the cost of constructing the second radar tower, or installing the radar equipment.

Has Chiofaro offered to pick up the cost of the feasibility study? Not that I can determine. Is MAssport willing to pick up the cost? Unlikely, why should they? They have no skin in this game What about the city? What is the economic value to the city if Chiofaro builds 1.5 million gsf in two tall towers, instead of the same gsf in a single shorter tower? City tax revenue going to be significantly higher to recover the city's cos.? (Head's up, Rifleman. For the city to pay the radar costs is analogous to what you rant about at the Seaport.)

The reality seems to be that Chiofaro can't or doesn't want to spend the necessary money to get some manner of project approved. A professor at NU does the massing perspectives, shadow studies, etc. for different alternatives, the very things that Chiofaro should be putting on the table. As a developer, why let opponents of your project seize the high ground by defining what your project is?

For more than five years, Chiofaro has known he has a problem with the HT easements in the garage. He has apparently made no serious effort to address or resolve these. The letter of support from a HT resident references the fact that the easement problem has not been resolved, let alone addressed in a serious way.

I am beginning to wonder if the terms of his financing note for the garage require that Chiofaro make an effort to develop the property, or he is in default. Thus this succession of dreamy renders represent the minimum effort that's required to satisfy the terms of a note. He certainly has not put any serious money on the table, either for lawyers to negotiate a settlement with the HT residents, or for consulting firms to prepare and develop the necessary analyses that are requisite to his getting state and local permits approval. (And that's putting aside his FAA problem.)

Tobyjug asked whether Chiofaro is 'all hat, and no cattle'? Indeed.

 

[TheRifleman]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

^^^^
Stellarfun,

You make a lot of valid points.

One question why would Chiofaro or any other developer start wasting money when their zoning guidelines are stuck at 200ft to build? That would mean the city & the BRA would have to okay a development above 200ft before Chiofaro could ever consider spending (Donating) money on the FAA or any other city agency that needs a case study to justify height in the city of Boston.

My point is the Illustration that the professor from NU presented---is that this garage presenting a 650FT Tower in the Skyline would look amazing. Everything below that does nothing for the skyline---Harbor Towers will continue to be the focal point in that area (Like I said those are not the most attractive buildings to look at for a 1st class city)

So basically the BRA has no clue on good development---Also Harbor Garage has something most developments don't have (The BLUE LINE on-sight)

 

[TheRifleman]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Stellar---Your also complaining about Chiofaro not picking up the tab for anything?

What about the taxpayers picking up the tab for Seaport? I haven't heard Chiofaro ask for the public money yet? Was IP built with taxpayers money?

 

[stellarfun]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Rifleman, its not a matter of what height or shape your aesthetic sense deems appropriate for a building at the harbor's edge.

Long before Chiofaro bought the Harbor Garage, there were restrictions in place -- some local, some state -- about what could be built there. (To that add existing easements giving other private parties an ownership interest in the property.)

Further, if a major Boston-based developer (particularly one with an office view of the airport) had intentions of building tall on a site such as the Harbor Garage, one ought to have a conversation with Massport, --who likely would have told the developer, 'You need to speak to the FAA too.'

All of this should have been identified and known to any purchaser / developer doing a modicum of due diligence prior to the purchase. This is not frigging rocket science.

Being aware of the existing limits and restrictions, if one then proposes a building that, to be built, needs relief from these limits, then one develops and provides the analyses that support and justify the granting of the relief.

Chiofaro, frankly, acts and behaves as if laws and restrictions don't apply to his project, when they inhibit or impede his building his vision. Its a cart before the horse approach to development.

Put aside the height issue. He proposed meeting Chapter 91 open space by creating open space on another wharf on property he did not own. He proposes filling in the harbor to create a 'stairs to the sea' architectural feature, as if CoE authorization to filling in any harbor is automatic (authorization rarely happens). He suggests building an over-sized floating parking garage for the HT residents, but then can't find a place to dock it.

^^^ Not his. Just to show these 'garages' do exist.

 

[JeffDowntown]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

Rifleman, its not a matter of what height or shape your aesthetic sense deems appropriate for a building at the harbor's edge.

Long before Chiofaro bought the Harbor Garage, there were restrictions in place -- some local, some state -- about what could be built there. (To that add existing easements giving other private parties an ownership interest in the property.)

Further, if a major Boston-based developer (particularly one with an office view of the airport) had intentions of building tall on a site such as the Harbor Garage, one ought to have a conversation with Massport, --who likely would have told the developer, 'You need to speak to the FAA too.'

All of this should have been identified and known to any purchaser / developer doing a modicum of due diligence prior to the purchase. This is not frigging rocket science.

Being aware of the existing limits and restrictions, if one then proposes a building that, to be built, needs relief from these limits, then one develops and provides the analyses that support and justify the granting of the relief.

Chiofaro, frankly, acts and behaves as if laws and restrictions don't apply to his project, when they inhibit or impede his building his vision. Its a cart before the horse approach to development.

Put aside the height issue. He proposed meeting Chapter 91 open space by creating open space on another wharf on property he did not own. He proposes filling in the harbor to create a 'stairs to the sea' architectural feature, as if CoE authorization to filling in any harbor is automatic (authorization rarely happens). He suggests building an over-sized floating parking garage for the HT residents, but then can't find a place to dock it.

^^^ Not his. Just to show these 'garages' do exist.

My only question on all this is how do we "know" that Chiofaro is not having (in private) all of these various conversations? This is not like it is his first development project.

Seems to be a lot of ass-uming going on here.

 

[stellarfun]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

My only question on all this is how do we "know" that Chiofaro is not having (in private) all of these various conversations? This is not like it is his first development project.

Seems to be a lot of ass-uming going on here.

Yes there is a lot of ass-uming, but Chiofaro, if anything is becoming predictable.

Subsequent to the initial 'Arch' proposal, the one that was rejected out-of-hand, his next iteration was the public square: a very animated site of activity, all hours of the day and much of the night. To create the square, he appropriated 'Fidelity' park, and trumpeted how the square would be a great entrance to the Aquarium. Though the first the Aquarium knew of the 'square' was at its public unveiling by Chiofaro.

He, and his son, are participating in the various BRA planning studies. They've made presentations. You may recall the presentation of some months back, where part of the garage site (and maybe E. India Row) would become a beach, with cabanas etc., among other seasonal uses.

Within months, the beach apparently washed out to sea. And while the beach would have helped satisfy Chapter 91, its replacement, a seasonal-themed (skating rink, basketball court, etc.) passage under glass, apparently does not.

And I certainly think if there had been any progress on resolving the HT easements in the garage, the letter of support from a HT resident would have referenced that progress. Would have been an additional plus.

Finally,

...SUCCESSFUL NEGOTIATION DEPENDS NOT ONLY ON WHAT YOU WANT TO DO BUT WHAT YOU THINK THE OTHER FELLOW WANTS TO DO, HIS CONSTRAINTS AND HIS MOTIVATION. WHAT ARE HIS OBJECTIVES; HOW LONG WILL HE BE ABLE TO CARRY THE PROPERTY OR CARRY THE SPACE? DOES HE HAVE PARTNERS? WHO? WHAT DO THEY WANT? WHAT IS THEIR MOTIVATION? IF YOU ARE TRYING TO ACQUIRE A PIECE OF PROPERTY, WHAT IS THE SELLER'S TAX BASIS? WHAT IS HIS DEBT? WHAT DOES HE NEED TO GET OUT OF THE PROPERTY AND THEN WHAT DOES HE WANT OVER AND ABOVE THAT? MOST TRANSACTIONS HAVE TAX RAMIFICATIONS, CLEARLY A VERY BIG PART OF THE ACQUISITION PROCESS. WHAT POSITION WILL HE BE IN RELATIVE TO THE TAX QUESTION? AN UNDERSTANDING OF THESE MATTERS WILL HELP YOU TREMENDOUSLY
....
DON'T FORGET THAT NEGOTIATION IS A GAME, A CONTEST. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF PEOPLE, TWO OR THREE INSTITUTIONS INVOLVED, AND IT CAN BECOME VERY MUCH OF A GAME. SOME PEOPLE NEVER WANT IT TO END, SO IT WILL GO ON FOREVER AND EVER. RECOGNIZE WHEN YOU ARE IN THAT GAME, AND FIGURE OUT A WAY TO END IT.

Donald Chiofaro

 

[Mike02125]

Re: The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage)

It’s a funny thing – people have always criticized developers for releasing renderings that show their buildings at their best angle and in their most positive light and for not releasing renderings from an unflattering angle.

But what the Harbor Towers/George Thrush crowd has done is release an image that is unflattering – at a specific and certain view from a certain vantage point.

I work in the Seaport, and I think the reason Harbor Towers and George Thrush chose that particular angle is to try to prove that from a very specific/certain angle, and at a very specific/certain vantage point, you can no longer see the Custom House Tower
But take a 2-second walk in either direction, and the view of the Custom House from the Fan Pier Harborwalk is currently blocked by… Harbor Towers.

Also, my office view used to show The Custom House. The PWC building now blocks it and also my view of half the skyline. The PWC building is a 20-story stump, should everyone in my office building have thrown a tantrum that our views are now blocked? It seems silly in a 21st Century city.

The bigger point is that skyline views are valuable - so why are we so scared of creating a skyline? Of creating something worth looking at. Can't you see somebody 20 years from now saying "Building X is going to block my views of Harbor Square!" A lawyer three floors above me said that he was mad that the PWC building was now blocking his view of International Place. Think of the irony. I hate this old-fashioned thinking that Boston is a sacred, open-air museum and nothing can change and we all need to see things as they once were.

Another point worth making - the worst part of Boston's skyline today are the concrete Harbor Towers. I think the development just behind it at a higher/grander scale will soften and even humanize the concrete towers. This would be a net positive for the rest of the city.