Couple of things:
Why does the Chiofaro building's roof sort of fade into the clouds?
Also, the Boston Magazine article about the infighting and Napoleonic personalities on the condo boards is hilarious, and totally what I expected from a strange cloistered place like the harbor towers.
I think it was very intentionally done to illustrate that the plan doesn't care how tall the building is (which is the right approach!).
Also, I'm sure those renders predate Chiofaro's filing, so they didn't know exactly what he was proposing.
EDIT:
For what it's worth, the Boston Magazine article referenced above has some more statements from Dir. Spruill. They basically sum up as:
- The project doesn't have a good climate resiliency component.
- Okay, the project has a good climate resiliency component, but they should be doing more to contribute to the
neighborhood's resiliency.
- Okay, so they're making the biggest contribution ever to neighborhood resiliency and public space, but the City hasn't had time to fully consider whether this is the best use.
- Okay, so this project has been proposed for 20 years and the City did a big study that explicitly called for a building of this precise height here, but...
BIG DEVELOPER! EVIL! KILL!
That last part in quote form:
“We are not advocating that a garage is a great choice for this site,” says Spruill. “Why are we buying into the developer’s narrative that in order to replace the garage we must have a 600 foot tower and the bare minimum in terms of climate resilience? We simply don’t believe that argument—it’s a false choice.”
Every part of that statement is NIMBY BS bog standard playbook. You could play bingo with it. Calling publicly-debated zoning with many supporters in the community a "developer narrative?" Check. Ignoring property rights in arguing that a property owner's proposal for their land is somehow the worst option of many undefined and undefinable alternatives that random members of the public could propose on their own? Check. Moving the goalposts by calling the first proposal I've ever seen to actually raise a waterfront plot in Boston "the bare minimum"? Check.
This is all about the Aquarium losing cheap parking. That's it. That the Boston Magazine reporter didn't ask about that is unfortunate.