Harbor Garage Redevelopment Pontificating | Waterfront

Status
Not open for further replies.
This process is sicken and its amazing when billionaires that don’t have to pay taxes can game the economic process for the better of the public.
After 12years what are the city planners logically thinking at this point?
The garage is a better option?

Chiofaro proposal its not even a debate that the garage is the better option than the developer proposal.

It’s the garage for the rest of our lives on the greenway or the developers proposal?

Really CLF?
Bottom line—harbor towers residents and CLF rather the garage for the area. Which is very bad for the overall public
 
Last edited:
There's an opinion page circulating today (BBJ) that hints to the fact that the author of the opinion piece thinks Chiofaro should be willing to "give" more to assure the project proceeds. (that's the way I read it anyway) Could he really "give" any more (i.e.:shorter tower?) and still have a financially viable project? I really do not understand the opposition to height by HT residents when you consider that even if Chiofaro lowered his tower to 400 feet, (same height as both Harbor Towers) it will block views from certain HT building viewlines at 400', so what does it matter if it goes to 600 feet?....The taller tower requires the height because the ugly garage gets buried underground, which allows for the beautiful new opening to the harbor, connecting back to the Greenway....Everybody wins!....Maybe Don can "give" them free assigned parking for life.
 
Last edited:
You really have to laugh at the idea of an underground waterfront garage. Unless, of course, the car of the future is James Bond's submersible Lotus Esprit.
 
tobyjug said:
You really have to laugh at the idea of an underground waterfront garage. Unless, of course, the car of the future is James Bond's submersible Lotus Esprit.
Click to expand...

You're right, tobyjug. It may have to be called an underwater groundfront garage. :)
 
Doesn't InterContinental Boston have underground Parking?
Do they have flooding issues?
 
^ The "bathtub" that the Intercontinental sits on also supports ventilation infrastructure for the CA/T; indeed, the entire hotel is constructed around a vent-stack. The Internet tells me that the hotel has parking for 375 vehicles (presumably below grade). I'm not aware of a flooding issue at this location. It should be noted that the hotel was constructed several years prior to Hurricane Sandy, when issues of severe coastal flooding and planning for resilience to climate change became a point of discussion.

To refresh everyone's memory, here's some video from last winter, shot about 50 yards from the Harbor Garage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwpUTIzAxCU

Here's
 
Re: Harbor Towers sue to stop 600' Central Wharf Tower

odurandina said:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/busines...garage-site/K8TQNho0uYl5OXkSV7Z2hO/story.html

we don't have an active thread for a project that evidently exists (as there's a big lawsuit about it), hell, if a glass patio under the Preggo get a thread maybe the Waterfront yimby's can get a thread too and everybody can be happy.
Click to expand...

Can I sue Harbor Towers for violating Chapter 91 because THEIR towers are blocking my access to the harbor, or has the statute of limitations already run out? (sarcasm)
 
Re: Harbor Towers sue to stop 600' Central Wharf Tower

odurandina said:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/busines...garage-site/K8TQNho0uYl5OXkSV7Z2hO/story.html

we don't have an active thread for a project that evidently exists (as there's a big lawsuit about it), hell, if a glass patio under the Preggo get a thread maybe the Waterfront yimby's can get a thread too and everybody can be happy.
Click to expand...

Soldier on.............

The 'real news' in the Globe article was this:
breaks agreements governing parking and land use made when the state handed the site over to the Boston Redevelopment Authority in 1964.
Click to expand...

What, precisely, is set out in these agreements? Methinks the HT residents' case rises or falls on the language in the agreements.
 
Re: Harbor Towers sue to stop 600' Central Wharf Tower

stellarfun said:
Soldier on.............

The 'real news' in the Globe article was this:


What, precisely, is set out in these agreements? Methinks the HT residents' case rises or falls on the language in the agreements.
Click to expand...

The case has no merit.

*The original site was approved for 400ft tower #3.
What is the complaint that the developer needs an extra 200ft? After 400ft it doesn't matter how high the developer goes nobody really has views to block.

The city & state are allowing a developer who owns the site to help add more housing and build something that adds value to the overall public by replacing a 7 story above concrete garage that is already blocking public access by 95%.
The public is getting additional PARK and 50% more open space. Or the public can continue to look at the Garage sit there as the developer continues to collect his profits. Please tell me where the logic is for a non-profit CLF & Harbor Tower residents to be suing this developer at this point? They are not protecting the waterfront its already blocked by a 7 story concrete structure.

Harbor Tower Residents and CLF have their own personal agendas---They would rather the garage than a development which is very disingenuous to the overall public taxpayers.
If anything the public should be suing Harbor Towers to take down their gated community pool area and allow public access from the Greenway to the waterfront since the public spent billions.

The IRS should be auditing CLF claims and what this agency is really about.

Not only that the Developer/Investors should counter sue both Harbor Towers and CLF for disingenuous claims as this site as been sitting for almost a decade because of false claims from these groups. I would consider going after these groups because the site they are fighting over is an above parking garage not open space.

http://www.wcvb.com/article/residents-sue-to-stop-proposed-600-foot-tower-on-boston-harbor/22122238

Just listen to these fools.
 
Last edited:
What I liked the best in that article was the comments section. Usually in the Glob its pro-NIMBY, but the CLF and the HT NIMBY's were getting ripped to shreds. Older loons, I mean activists, like Amos and Shirley aren't used to this as they expect to be lionized whenever they launch some brainless opposition. Now they're regularly being mocked. About time I say.
 
The entire problem with their argument is they are claiming to protect the waterfront?
From what a 7 story concrete garage covering 95% of the site.

There will be a point that the developer has had a enough and he will just build on top of the garage which will completely screw the city, Aquarium vision and the overall public.

Thank you-- CLF and Harbor Tower residents for looking out for protecting the waterfront for the public. Your entire view is complete LIE to the public along with using non-profit funds to protect a personal interest not the overall public's interest which is FRAUD--

The only possible way of opening up the waterfront remotely on this site is Chiofaro/Pru vision which includes an amazing opportunity to create a beautiful interactive park along with a connectivity to the Greenway.

If I was a Harbor Tower Residents I would consider suing the Harbor Tower trustees for misusing their condo fees for fraudulent self-interest claims if they are not on board with his type of logic.

You can't tell me that all residents agree with this?
 
Harbor Towers' website says they have 624 residential units, and according to the Globe article (Lawsuits target high-rise, Thurs. 7/12/18), "A dozen residents and the CLF filed separate lawsuits Wednesday that urge a judge to stop a project that has the support of both the Walsh and Baker administrations". Out of 624 units, only twelve signed on to fight the project in this lawsuit. I would bet that most owners would rather see a nice project next door, which would most likely increase the value of their property-as long as beneficial parking issues are addressed.
After reading the Chapter 91 Overview and Summary, (on the Mass.gov website) I learned quite a bit, and I don't see how the CLF lawyer says the state environmental secretary "broke a state law protecting the waterfront earlier this year when he approved a city zoning plan" that would allow the project to move forward.
Chapter 91 laws were formally established in 1866, but the philosophy behind Chapter 91 dates back to the earliest days of the Mass. Bay Colony, most notably in the Colonial ordinances of 1641-1647. Harbor Towers and the parking garage were built under the same Chapter 91 laws that we have now, and they blocked the waterfront in the process, so it could be said that Don Chiofaro is actually trying to remedy that somewhat by getting rid of the garage, and by opening things up more again. How is giving approval for this endeavor "breaking the law"?
 
lapradetom said:
Harbor Towers' website says they have 624 residential units, and according to the Globe article (Lawsuits target high-rise, Thurs. 7/12/18), "A dozen residents and the CLF filed separate lawsuits.... Out of 624 units, only twelve signed on to fight the project in this lawsuit. I would bet that most owners would rather see a nice project next door, which would most likely increase the value of their property-as long as beneficial parking issues are addressed.
Click to expand...

1. Chiofaro team told me 2 years ago, "it's only a few residents. We have the general support from most of the Harbor Towers residents."

i barely believed them. This was a mistake that probably painted a lot of Harbor Towers residents in a bad light. i should have changed my posts to start with 'The # of Harbor Towers residents who are opposed is overstated. What few are opposed are toilet paper.... '

2. i never thought the number could be so low.

3. Chiofaro says this (tacit legal extortion) is just a negotiating ploy.


4. Yes; i think this thing's in the bag (provided the tower is a good design).

lapradetom said:
A dozen residents and the CLF filed separate lawsuits Wednesday that urge a judge to stop a project that has the support of both the Walsh and Baker administrations"
Click to expand...

lapradetom said:
After reading the Chapter 91 Overview and Summary, (on the Mass.gov website) I learned quite a bit...
Click to expand...

One part i found quite encouraging months ago...

The MHP stipulates:
To facilitate the harbor planning process a range of public benefits and mitigation offsets need to be advanced for projects that propose building metrics that do not conform to Chapter 91 standards.
Click to expand...
 
Don strikes again

davisharbor1.jpg

JIM DAVIS/GLOBE STAFF

https://www.bostonglobe.com/busines...rbor-garage/B3OqEGZEwHgi1JIJxtStDK/story.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top