Harbor Garage Redevelopment Pontificating | Waterfront

Status
Not open for further replies.
The City is considering requiring 40% (supposed to be 50% under the law) open space now. They had been ok with 30%.

Don Jr. is right - With 40-50% open space, the base of the tower becomes just lobbies & loading docks with little to no room for retail.

For harbor garage project, space is the current frontier
By Shirley Leung GLOBE COLUMNIST DECEMBER 22, 2016

We end 2016 the way we started: fussing over the details of Don Chiofaro’s harbor garage project.

The latest twist is that the city might require more open space on the site than it previously proposed, reducing the footprint of what Chiofaro could build. The potential adjustment comes after the Boston Planning & Development Agency sifted through hundreds of community comment letters and found that neighbors and activists clamored for more open space on the downtown waterfront, where the $1 billion project would go, next to the New England Aquarium.

The state sets a minimum requirement of 50 percent open space on the Boston waterfront to ensure public access, but that number can modified on a case-by-case basis. The city has proposed allowing Chiofaro to provide just 30 percent of open space but is now considering 40 percent. That would squeeze the development footprint of the building.

...

“We have an open mind, and we are confident — as long as everything else works — we can make something good happen,” Chiofaro said Wednesday as we talked in a conference room on the 46th floor of his International Place complex.

The new attitude is perhaps a sign that Chiofaro senses he’s close to getting through a major part of the city planning process and he doesn’t want to screw things up.

...

Chiofaro’s son, Donald Jr., who is vice president at his father’s company, explained that 50 percent lot coverage would mean the ground floor would consist primarily of a lobby and service entrances, leaving little room for public amenities like restaurants.

He offered up how Atlantic Wharf is able to load up on restaurants on the ground floor, including Trade and Smith & Wollensky, in part because the city allowed lot coverage to exceed 70 percent.

“It’s a balancing act, and it’s a planning decision,” Chiofaro Jr. said, “and it’s a mistake to go to 50 percent.”

...

Full article: http://www.bostonglobe.com/business...i1OXVVnkYyCUpngDg0xK/story.html?event=event25
Click to expand...
 
I'd love to see this get resolved by an agreement to extend Central and India wharves back to their original length, and count the added surface area against the denominator.

But i recognize that that will not happen.
 
The open space thing is crazy. There's a massive public park right nearby (Christopher Columbus Park). A 30% plaza is just fine for this site to open up to the Harbor.
 
datadyne007 said:
The City is considering requiring 40% (supposed to be 50% under the law) open space now. They had been ok with 30%.

Don Jr. is right - With 40-50% open space, the base of the tower becomes just lobbies & loading docks with little to no room for retail.
Click to expand...


How can the city require 40-50% open space when they already allowed an above concrete garage to be built that occupies 90% of the property already?

This does not make sense to me
 
TheRifleman said:
How can the city require 40-50% open space when they already allowed an above concrete garage to be built that occupies 90% of the property already?

This does not make sense to me
Click to expand...

The garage was built before the ordinances.
 
datadyne007 said:
The garage was built before the ordinances.
Click to expand...

So the city puts in an ordinance after allowing a structure like this to be built only to prevent the garage from actually being redeveloped which is blocking 90% of the waterfront from the public.

That's logical-

This is why the development process is so screwed up.
 
TheRifleman said:
So the city puts in an ordinance after allowing a structure like this to be built only to prevent the garage from actually being redeveloped which is blocking 90% of the waterfront from the public.

That's logical-

This is why the development process is so screwed up.
Click to expand...

No. The garage was built at time in the city's history when we did not cherish our beautiful waterfront, as at the time there was a massive highway running down it. Once we started to think about how to reclaim our waterfront by burying the Central Artery, then we started to think about the uses we wanted & how we wanted the urban realm to be shaped. They settled on 30% open space to provide public space & views out to the Harbor. If they hadn't, we could have ended up with a wall of buildings which would essentially do the same thing the CA did.

Rowes Wharf by Adrian Smith (during his time at SOM) was truly visionary as it was the first building to be designed in anticipation of the CA coming down. At the time there was no reason for that incredible arched gateway. Now it's a vibrant connection to the waterfront.
 
TheRifleman said:
So the city puts in an ordinance after allowing a structure like this to be built only to prevent the garage from actually being redeveloped which is blocking 90% of the waterfront from the public.

That's logical-

This is why the development process is so screwed up.
Click to expand...

Makes sense to me. This is to prevent developers from replacing the parking garage with another structure that would take up 90% of the plot.
 
Comparing Rowes Wharf compared to Harbor Garage situation is like comparing
Apples vs Cars

Rowes Wharf development site was not a garage making unlimited amounts of money on a daily basis.
The city has created a shit show out of this process. The developer/investors need an economic advantage on why should they should knock the garage down to replace their investment overtime.

This is a dead zone for the Greenway and I'm at the point to saying that the Garage is depressing the Greenway from it's full potential. The city & state's job for the public should be supporting developments that make sense for the overall good for the public and the area.

If this was GE looking at this site: The garage would be knocked down, 10% of open space required, 100 Million in tax breaks along with the Aquarium bulldozed.


This is on the city & state concerning this process. This is a joke at this point.
What economic sense does it make for the developer to develop a concrete barrier that created a wall against the waterfront that is producing tens of millions of dollars a year to be redeveloped? What incentive can the city & state think of to help get this area flourishing?
 
I'm not comparing Rowes Wharf to the Harbor Garage. I'm using it to illustrate my point in how we are avoiding the mistakes of the past with the waterfront zoning plan.
 
KentXie said:
Makes sense to me. This is to prevent developers from replacing the parking garage with another structure that would take up 90% of the plot.
Click to expand...

Doesn't make sense to a businessman that is making millions in parking revenue a year that can justify the loan.

The problem with the ordinance is the city and state allowed an above parking garage in a prime location in which 90% of the plot is create revenue/Income which seems to be growing.

The city & state are forcing the developer/investors from actually redeveloping the garage in such a high potential area that would make the city flourish even more.

This is just outright stupidity.
 
The only thing I don't understand is why the guideline doesn't think an open arch like Rowes Wharf on this plot is sufficient to satisfy the 50% open space. To me, that sounds like the perfect compromise.
 
TheRifleman said:
Doesn't make sense to a businessman that is making millions in parking revenue a year that can justify the loan.

The problem with the ordinance is the city and state allowed an above parking garage in a prime location in which 90% of the plot is create revenue/Income which seems to be growing.

The city & state are forcing the developer/investors from actually redeveloping the garage in such a high potential area that would make the city flourish even more.

This is just outright stupidity.
Click to expand...

Well it doesn't make sense for the city to repeat the same mistake if the purpose of the guideline is to get it right the first time. And it is easier to replace a garage than a skyscraper.
 
KentXie said:
The only thing I don't understand is why the guideline doesn't think an open arch like Rowes Wharf on this plot is sufficient to satisfy the 50% open space. To me, that sounds like the perfect compromise.
Click to expand...

His winter garden was enclosed (as winter gardens usually are). The City would probably play ball with him if he opened it up.
 
datadyne007 said:
I'm not comparing Rowes Wharf to the Harbor Garage. I'm using it to illustrate my point in how we are avoiding the mistakes of the past with the waterfront zoning plan.
Click to expand...

The mistake was already made by the city & state in the first place---Nobody with a basic accounting/business degree or anybody with basic math skills would develop this site that is already a money machine vs the development risk involved.

The only way this mistake becomes rectified is supporting the developer with something that is economically rewarding.
 
KentXie said:
Well it doesn't make sense for the city to repeat the same mistake if the purpose of the guideline is to get it right the first time. And it is easier to replace a garage than a skyscraper.
Click to expand...

For the developer/Investor there is no reason to replace the garage then. For the overall public good and the area this is very bad.
 
They need to create a "meet us halfway" rule for currently existing structures, as opposed to treating a parcel that is 90% built on today the same as a parcel that is completely empty.

Basically, if new parcels required 50% open space, but the current structure only provides 10% open space, a developer would only have to provide 30% open space in order to redevelop. It's a common sense compromise that improves the current situation without discouraging a positive redevelopment.

Unfortunately, common sense isn't always applied when it comes to the Boston development process. Thus we are still stuck with a garage on the waterfront, cannot get an air rights project out of the ground, and continue to lose gems like the Dainty Dot and Times Buildings to the bulldozer.
 
I'm actually tired of looking at the garage in this area. I would like to see this developed before I die.

What a shame---This is not on Chiofaro/Pru. This is on the city/state at this point for not supporting this development that would be rewarding to the entire area of the Greenway along with creating a huge public good.

The city & state created this mess in the first place by allowing the garage to be built . Don't strongarm the developer trying to get something done here.

At this point I would take 20-25% public space since the development is already located on the Greenway its better than anything that is built there now. (that's logical)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top