- Aug 19, 2008
- Reaction score
It is not wise for essential government services (such as City Hall) to be placedI still feel like this is the perfect site for the city to land swap and then plunk down a new City Hall.
I want to see if Chiofaro could build another masterpiece for the Public.There is without doubt a lot of maneuvering going on over this parcel. But I very seriously doubt that anyone, in either the public or private sector, is telling Chiofaro anything, or asking him anything. From everything that has slipped out, Prudential is very clearly in the driver's seat.
From the public's perspective, this is most likely good. They have radically more capital than Chiofaro, can be way more patient* (in waiting out parking easements, for just one example where patience could be a plus), and from my experience with Prudential RE folks in other departments, they're probably vastly more professional in working through the complexities than is Chiofaro (or hiring a replacement for him, if they go that route).
*I said they "can be" more patient. I have no way to know if they actually will be more patient. They might be getting ready to put it on the market for all I know. If so, even that would be good: some new energy on the owner side would be refreshing.
I never said that the garage can't be knocked down. If a new owner, or even Chiofaro, wants to build a tower on the site, while keeping the garage, the developer (or Chiofaro) can do so. That's the meaning of 'grandfathered'.^^^
Stellarfun now your telling me the Billion dollar Barr foundation will determine what is built here and their will be a tax abatement give to a company similar to Skansa if they gain control of the site but the reality if you have been saying is that the Garage cannot be knocked down due to CHAP 91.
So which is it? Can the garage be knocked down or not?
Your basically saying it's okay for another developer to do anything they want but not Chiofaro.
And I'm saying that your a hypocrite in your views. There is basically no process here.
I'm away from home and won't have my computer for a few days but I'll get to it once I'm able. I too am curious as to how it might look.Sorry if this has been covered, but has anyone done a massing of what the BRA would allow... single tower, 600 feet, at the BRA proposed square footage?
The BRA did, the BRA said it would be a slender tower, at the SW corner.Sorry if this has been covered, but has anyone done a massing of what the BRA would allow... single tower, 600 feet, at the BRA proposed square footage?
[Emphasis added.](4) (a) Description of the Project and Potential Impacts. The ENF shall include a concise but accurate description of the Project and its alternatives, identify any review thresholds the Project may meet or exceed and any Agency Action it may require, present the Proponent's initial assessment of potential environmental impacts, propose mitigation measures, and may include a proposed Scope.
i can't wait to see Boston's first 400' tower built over i-90.I'd suggest he let the State build a waterfront park where the garage is and negotiate the rights to an air rights parcel over the Pike after the state decks over it (maybe between Berkeley and Arlington streets).
Stellar a generally good review of the key issuesBelow is replying to a now-deleted post / rant against billionaires, Gates, Zuckerberg, et al.
You don't need renderings to determine whether you comply with Chapter 91. All you need is a site plan, and a basic building floorplate.
You don't get credit for good design, or penalized for a shitty design. Whether the facade is Carrera marble or cinder block matters not a wit.
Both the BRA and the Commonwealth have signaled some flexibility in applying Chapter 91 requirements to the Harbor Garage project, i.e., chiofaro need not provide all the open space set out in the law / regulations. The Commonwealth has some flexibility in this regard.
But, IIRC, Chiofaro provided zero open space on the re-developed garage site.
His glass enclosed atrium/lobby does not count as open space. His stairs to the sea, in essence built on Federal property (the navigable waters of the United States are owned by the United States), did not qualify. His use of BRA-owned or city-owned land elsewhere does not count.
His whole approach, from the beginning is 'all or nothing'. Even when he knows that environmental assessments for a project such as his require an examination of alternatives.
Chapter 91, The Massachusetts Public Waterfront Act
Chapter 91: An Overview and Summary
The Commonwealth's primary tool for protection and promotion of public use of its tidelands and other waterways is Massachusetts General Law Chapter 91, the waterways licensing program. The Commonwealth formally established the program in 1866, but the philosophy behind Chapter 91 dates back to the earliest days of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, most notably in the Colonial Ordinances of 1641-1647.
The Colonial Ordinances codified the "public trust doctrine," a legal principle that dates back nearly 2000 years, which holds that the air, the sea and the shore belong not to any one person, but rather to the public at large.
The oldest program of its kind in the nation, Chapter 91 regulates activities on both coastal and inland waterways, including construction, dredging and filling in tidelands, great ponds and certain rivers and streams......
Chapter 91 comprises four basic areas of geographical jurisdiction. Any activity that takes place in one of the hot link areas listed below requires Chapter 91 authorization. The areas are:
Flowed Tidelands - Any project located in, on, over or under tidal waters seaward of the present mean high water (MHW) shoreline. Jurisdiction in this case extends seaward three miles, to the state limit of territorial jurisdiction.
Filled Tidelands - The limit on filled tidelands is: A.) Outside Designated Port Areas, the first public way or 250 feet from mean high water, whichever is farther landward and B.) Inside Designated Port Areas, the historic MHW shoreline (i.e., all filled areas)......
Activities Requiring Authorization
There are five basic types of activities subject to Chapter 91 authorization. These include both new and existing unauthorized activities, and are as follows:
Structures - Placement or construction of any structure, regardless of size, whether permanent or seasonal. Examples of typical structures include, but are not limited to: piers, wharves, dams, seawalls, weirs, booms, breakwaters, bulkheads, ripraps, revetments, jetties, piles, lines, groins, roads, culverts, bridges, buildings, parking lots, cables, pipes, conduits, tunnels, wires, floats, etc.
Filling - Placement of any unconsolidated materials that is confined or expected to remain in place in a waterway, except for material placed by natural processes. Such placement includes material placed for the purposes of shoreline protection, beach nourishment, or subaqueous disposal of dredged spoils.
Dredging - Removal of materials, including but not limited to rocks, bottom sediments, debris, sand, refuse, plant or animal matter, in any excavating, cleaning, deepening, widening, or lengthening of any waters in the Commonwealth. The Department must also know the location where the removed material will be disposed.
Change in Use - Any use of the authorized premises or structures for a purpose unrelated to the authorized use, whether express or implied. An example of such a change in use would be the conversion of a commercial fishing establishment to an office building.
Structural Alteration - Any change in the dimensions of a structure or fill from the specifications contained in the existing authorization.
Demolition/Removal of Structures - Approval is required for removal of any unauthorized structure or fill that was previously not authorized or for which there is not a current and valid grant or license.
Parenthetical bolded as it fits Boston Harbor to a 'T'.F. 2. Any discharge of dredged or fill material into the navigable waters incidental to any activity having as its purpose bringing an area of the navigable waters into a use to which it was not previously subject, where the flow or circulation of navigable waters may be impaired or the reach of such waters be reduced, shall be required to have a permit under this section.
G. 1. The Governor of any State desiring to administer its own individual and general permit program for the discharge of dredged or fill material into the navigable waters (other than those waters which are presently used, or are susceptible to use in their natural condition or by reasonable improvement as a means to transport interstate or foreign commerce shoreward to their ordinary high water mark, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide shoreward to their mean high water mark, or mean higher high water mark on the west coast, including wetlands adjacent thereto), within its jurisdiction may submit to the Administrator [of EPA] a full and complete description of the program it proposes to establish and administer under State law or under an interstate compact. In addition, such State shall submit a statement from the attorney general (or the attorney for those State agencies which have independent legal counsel), or from the chief legal officer in the case of an interstate agency, that the laws of such State, or the interstate compact, as the case may be, provide adequate authority to carry out the described program.