Pinnacle at Central Wharf (Harbor Garage) | 70 East India Row | Waterfront | Downtown

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm really not sure why people are so fixated on who owns it or whether or not it was a good investment. My desire is to see this building rise above the harbor, and it seems pretty likely at this point that it will. Let's talk about the architecture, the merits of the claims about flood resiliency, the engineering process, etc. For whatever reason, Chiaforo's name is strongly associated with this project. Whether it's because he owns it or because some less transparent ownership arrangement wants him to build it doesn't much matter.
 
stellarfun said:
It has been many a year since I took a course in agency, so my memory has surely faded, but I do distinctly recall that a principal cannot simultaneously be an agent with respect to the same transaction. In the very first pages of the PNF filing, Ram's Head is listed as the owner (the Principal) of the Harbor Garage property. just beneath that entry, Chiofaro & Co. is listed as the agent.

This discussion of Principal in Wiki is a fair outline of the difference between Principal and Agent.

Principal (commercial law) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Partners are principals.
___________________________
I did a little test to see if anybody reads the links I posted. The linked article in Commonwealth magazine contains this gem from Ted Oatis (in 2010), "Oatis says the garage generates an operating profit of $8.5 million a year."

Before there is a chorus of 'I told you so', operating profit is not the same as net profit, as operating expenses do not include interest payments on loans. In this instance, the operating profit would be further reduced by the interest paid to the lender in CT on the two balloon notes made to the 'joint venture' of Prudential and Chiofaro.
____________________________
Chiofaro, in the Globe obituary of his partner Ted Oatis, compared their partnership to that of The Odd Couple (a play and comedy series which antedates most posters on this board) starring Felix and Oscar. Oatis was Felix, and Chiofaro was Oscar. Neil Simon, the playwright, intended they be stereotypical opposites.

"Felix exemplifies the precision and perfection that Banker's are known for. He has very specific views about how things are to be done. Going with the flow when things change without warning makes his brain twitch with nervous discomfort. He seeks order and predictability.

"Oscar, on the other hand, is a stereotypical Merchant. He is easygoing and takes things as they come. In fact, Oscar would rather things not be orderly and consistent. What's the fun in that?

"Despite the fact that Oscar is constantly frustrated by Felix's ordered lifestyle, he is very loyal and places value, albeit unconsciously, on their friendship. Their relationship matters, and that is a hallmark trait of Merchants."
erep.com

Felix and Oscar: The Core Values Odd Couple

Felix and Oscar. These two names pack serious imagery of the difference between an uptight neat-freak and an easy-going laid-back personality. We can analyze their personalities today and produce a textbook case study of what it means to be a Banker or Merchant.
erep.com erep.com
Click to expand...
it's commercial real estate dude, EBITDA is what people look at not net profit. depreciation, amortization, and taxes don't matter. interest expense is 100% less than 8.5MM /year on a 90MM loan and if they were cranking out 8.5mm 10 years ago they're 10000000% doing better than that now through inflation, modernization of systems / reduced expense load, and fall off in interest rates. the property makes money full stop.
 
HenryAlan said:
I'm really not sure why people are so fixated on who owns it or whether or not it was a good investment. My desire is to see this building rise above the harbor, and it seems pretty likely at this point that it will. Let's talk about the architecture, the merits of the claims about flood resiliency, the engineering process, etc. For whatever reason, Chiaforo's name is strongly associated with this project. Whether it's because he owns it or because some less transparent ownership arrangement wants him to build it doesn't much matter.
Click to expand...

Well said. I think one of the disorienting factors here [and I have no idea if it's been mentioned upthread here, but perhaps it's worth reiterating] is what an outlier Chiaforo is in this town in terms of his *developer persona.* Generally all of the other big-time Boston developers are reserved and measured in the brand-identity they project. But Chiaforo, with the platform the Globe loves to give him, is clearly in love with his image as the "brash flamboyant hard-charging maverick." Frankly it's embarrassing the way the Globe gives him a soapbox--it's in fact demeaning to both the newspaper and himself in terms of how it embellishes a stereotype that masks his complexity as a regular human being. Now, whether or not there's an inverse proportion to the ink gushed over him in the broadsheet, and the amount of points he actually has--or the amount of developer prowess he actually still possesses, having not put up a tower in 30 years--I don't know.
 
For those who are interested in background on development of the site:

The ENF for the Harbor Garage filed with the Commonwealth, This is seven pages long, and while there is no date, it is for the initial design, so sometime in 2008-2009. No subsequent ENF has been filed to my knowledge.
http://eeaonline.eea.state.ma.us/eea/emepa/pdffiles/enfs/050609em/14411.pdf

The ENF contains this sentence
"A Chapter 91-compliant alternative [to the proposed building] would result in a significantly smaller project that would not only trim public benefits but would also be financially infeasible."

To propose a non-compliant project t o the state is like vigorously waving the red cape in front of the bull. The state wrote back, the reply was longer than the seven page ENF submission. I can't immediately find a link, but the reply said the ENF was inadequate, and listed items that were omitted in the ENF. The reply specifically referenced the easements held by Harbor Towers in the garage, and asked how would these easements be addressed. IIRC, it also raised FAA height limits.

The summer 2010 issue of Commonwealth magazine. This is an enlightening, informative article based on interviews with Chiofaro and Oatis, principals at the BRA, and the lead design architect .
https://commonwealthmagazine.org/economy/just-plain-ugly/

Surprisingly, the article ^^^ does not mention the parking spaces.

In essence, the joint venture of Chiofaro and Prudential bought a garage in 2007, which was encumbered by an easement in the garage for 300-400 parking spaces for HT residents until February 2022, --about 15 years.. Chapter 91 also imposed a height limit on any structure built on that land, which is classified as tidelands.

The Harbor Towers were built in the early 1970s. The towers were built half a decade before the seminal decision of the Supreme Judicial Court in 1978 affecting development of the Boston waterfront. That decision, specifically affecting Lewis Wharf, upset the development applecart. That decision specified that private ownership of tidelands was subject to the lands being used for a public purpose related to maritime commerce. I think it a fair question whether the Harbor Towers could have been built if construction was scheduled to start after the 1978 court decision.
https://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/1979/378-mass-629-2.html
^^^ 1978 decision of the Supreme Judicial Court, features a lengthy treatise on public use of tidelands since the earliest days of the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

The lower court decision in this case by the Massachusetts Court of Appeals, and which contains a map of the land at issue on Lewis Wharf
http://masscases.com/cases/app/6/6massappct214.html
 
stellarfun said:
For those who are interested in background on development of the site:

The ENF for the Harbor Garage filed with the Commonwealth, This is seven pages long, and while there is no date, it is for the initial design, so sometime in 2008-2009. No subsequent ENF has been filed to my knowledge.
http://eeaonline.eea.state.ma.us/eea/emepa/pdffiles/enfs/050609em/14411.pdf

The ENF contains this sentence
"A Chapter 91-compliant alternative [to the proposed building] would result in a significantly smaller project that would not only trim public benefits but would also be financially infeasible."

To propose a non-compliant project t o the state is like vigorously waving the red cape in front of the bull. The state wrote back, the reply was longer than the seven page ENF submission. I can't immediately find a link, but the reply said the ENF was inadequate, and listed items that were omitted in the ENF. The reply specifically referenced the easements held by Harbor Towers in the garage, and asked how would these easements be addressed. IIRC, it also raised FAA height limits.

The summer 2010 issue of Commonwealth magazine. This is an enlightening, informative article based on interviews with Chiofaro and Oatis, principals at the BRA, and the lead design architect .
https://commonwealthmagazine.org/economy/just-plain-ugly/

Surprisingly, the article ^^^ does not mention the parking spaces.

In essence, the joint venture of Chiofaro and Prudential bought a garage in 2007, which was encumbered by an easement in the garage for 300-400 parking spaces for HT residents until February 2022, --about 15 years.. Chapter 91 also imposed a height limit on any structure built on that land, which is classified as tidelands.

The Harbor Towers were built in the early 1970s. The towers were built half a decade before the seminal decision of the Supreme Judicial Court in 1978 affecting development of the Boston waterfront. That decision, specifically affecting Lewis Wharf, upset the development applecart. That decision specified that private ownership of tidelands was subject to the lands being used for a public purpose related to maritime commerce. I think it a fair question whether the Harbor Towers could have been built if construction was scheduled to start after the 1978 court decision.
https://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/1979/378-mass-629-2.html
^^^ 1978 decision of the Supreme Judicial Court, features a lengthy treatise on public use of tidelands since the earliest days of the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

The lower court decision in this case by the Massachusetts Court of Appeals, and which contains a map of the land at issue on Lewis Wharf
http://masscases.com/cases/app/6/6massappct214.html
Click to expand...
Below is a link to the state's 20 page response, in July 2009, to the seven page ENF.
https://eeaonline.eea.state.ma.us/EEA/emepa/pdffiles/certificates/071709/14411enf.pdf

___________________

Edited to add:
The last five pages of the state's reply is a list of individuals/organizations that commented on the ENF. Some of the names are duplicates, suggesting they signed more than one comment letter.

Many of the usual suspects, although some usual suspects didn't comment. Two comments from Fidelity, one from Pembroke Real Estate which is Fidelity, and one from Edward C. (Ned) Johnson IV. Bloomberg states his current net worth is $10B. Ned is the younger brother of Abigail. Abigail is wealthier than Ned. Odds are that the comments from Fidelity were not in support.
 
Last edited:
I quickly read through 67 pages of comments received between Oct 23 and Oct 29. All but one were in opposition. The one in favor was two sentences.

Those opposed mostly submitted a slightly personalized generic form letter addressing climate resiliency, public access, and community impact. Boilerplate for the most part. These comments appeared to be organized by a North End community group. Once upon a time when I reviewed comments in an official capacity, sixty comments saying pretty much the same thing counted as one comment, Quantity is no substitute for quality. And to be candid, 60 comments saying pretty much the same thing are easy to address/dismiss.

Those complaining about the height and volume are trying to re-litigate history. The height and volume are approved by the city.
 
stellarfun said:
http://archboston.com/community/thr...ent-pontificating-waterfront.5327/post-360582
Click to expand...
In my opinion (i.e., conjecture), bringing in the CLF is a total hoax/smokescreen, whatever euphemism you wish; besides the ridiculous New England Aquarium NIMBY naysayers against the Pinnacle Project, it is the rabid, whining, ENTITLED horde of Harbor (Rat) Towers (HRT) dwellers that is the prime driver in opposition to the development of a tower to replace the hideous eyesore known as the Harbor Garage! According to what information I have gleaned on the matter, many residents, specifically those residents residing in HRT units at least 200 FT above ground level, have their collective panties in a bunch because of their concern for losing what they considered to be their GOD-GIVEN ENTITLED RIGHT to be able to view the Custom Tower, which is in my opinion, the penultimate high rise in Boston - it is a TRUE ICON! Well, to get to the "legal" point, though I am not a barrister, lawsuits presented by plaintiffs to the courts in defense of their rights to maintain vistas, views, whatever, invariably FAIL IN COURT. And I am sure that there is quite the number of Lawyers residing in the brutalist eyesore HRT!!! So how to bolster your argument against the Pinnacle beyond the TRIVIAL ARGUMENT for preserving your view? - HIRE the Conservation Law Foundation to dredge up old legislation regarding the environmental preservation of the lands and uses of such lands in immediate proximity to the Harbor Front. Thus now we hear that a building such as the Pinnacle will be in violation of such CMR Environmental Legislation, even though this tower will be set back somewhat (perhaps 100 to 150 FT) from the water's edge while one of the Brutalist NIGHTMARE Harbor Rat Towers stands in at a mere TEN FEET from water's edge (I am using Google Maps as the metric)!!!!!!! I can write a book here about all of the whining NIMBYISM and hypocrisy surrounding this contentious matter, but I have no time for it right now, yet the burning question remains as to the HOW AND WHY was there no hue and cry to preserve the Boston Harbor back in ca. 1970 when this GOD AWFUL, UGLY, STERILE, ARCHITECTURAL MONSTROSITY project known now as the Harbor RAT Towers started construction???? WHERE WAS THE CLF THEN??? And if it did not exist at that time, why was there no other legal body to speak up against this hideous, unwelcoming residential complex at that time? One more fact for those YUTES (architectural and engineering youths) out there reading this), the original concept for the BRUTALIST Harbor Tower Project was for THREE IDENTICAL TOWERS, not just the TWO we see today!!! OMG!!! Just think - we could have an ADDITIONAL 50% more of concrete UGLINESS STARING DOWN UPON US if there were three bestial towers!!!
 
Tension Member said:
In my opinion (i.e., conjecture), bringing in the CLF is a total hoax/smokescreen, whatever euphemism you wish; besides the ridiculous New England Aquarium NIMBY naysayers against the Pinnacle Project, it is the rabid, whining, ENTITLED horde of Harbor (Rat) Towers (HRT) dwellers that is the prime driver in opposition to the development of a tower to replace the hideous eyesore known as the Harbor Garage! According to what information I have gleaned on the matter, many residents, specifically those residents residing in HRT units at least 200 FT above ground level, have their collective panties in a bunch because of their concern for losing what they considered to be their GOD-GIVEN ENTITLED RIGHT to be able to view the Custom Tower, which is in my opinion, the penultimate high rise in Boston - it is a TRUE ICON! Well, to get to the "legal" point, though I am not a barrister, lawsuits presented by plaintiffs to the courts in defense of their rights to maintain vistas, views, whatever, invariably FAIL IN COURT. And I am sure that there is quite the number of Lawyers residing in the brutalist eyesore HRT!!! So how to bolster your argument against the Pinnacle beyond the TRIVIAL ARGUMENT for preserving your view? - HIRE the Conservation Law Foundation to dredge up old legislation regarding the environmental preservation of the lands and uses of such lands in immediate proximity to the Harbor Front. Thus now we hear that a building such as the Pinnacle will be in violation of such CMR Environmental Legislation, even though this tower will be set back somewhat (perhaps 100 to 150 FT) from the water's edge while one of the Brutalist NIGHTMARE Harbor Rat Towers stands in at a mere TEN FEET from water's edge (I am using Google Maps as the metric)!!!!!!! I can write a book here about all of the whining NIMBYISM and hypocrisy surrounding this contentious matter, but I have no time for it right now, yet the burning question remains as to the HOW AND WHY was there no hue and cry to preserve the Boston Harbor back in ca. 1970 when this GOD AWFUL, UGLY, STERILE, ARCHITECTURAL MONSTROSITY project known now as the Harbor RAT Towers started construction???? WHERE WAS THE CLF THEN??? And if it did not exist at that time, why was there no other legal body to speak up against this hideous, unwelcoming residential complex at that time? One more fact for those YUTES (architectural and engineering youths) out there reading this), the original concept for the BRUTALIST Harbor Tower Project was for THREE IDENTICAL TOWERS, not just the TWO we see today!!! OMG!!! Just think - we could have an ADDITIONAL 50% more of concrete UGLINESS STARING DOWN UPON US if there were three bestial towers!!!
Click to expand...
Welcome!
 
Yeah good point. The people screaming bloody hell to remove the hulking concrete mess to a public space/tower really didn't seem all too concerned when they wrapped a freeway through the center of Boston and bulldozed olde style architecture for concrete madness. F ing hypocrites.
 
Massachoicetts said:
Yeah good point. The people screaming bloody hell to remove the hulking concrete mess to a public space/tower really didn't seem all too concerned when they wrapped a freeway through the center of Boston and bulldozed olde style architecture for concrete madness. F ing hypocrites.
Click to expand...

Excuse me?! You realize Harbor Towers was built years after the Central Artery and the likelihood that anybody living in those buildings had anything to say during that era is highly remote?
 
Tension Member said:
In my opinion (i.e., conjecture), bringing in the CLF is a total hoax/smokescreen, whatever euphemism you wish; besides the ridiculous New England Aquarium NIMBY naysayers against the Pinnacle Project, it is the rabid, whining, ENTITLED horde of Harbor (Rat) Towers (HRT) dwellers that is the prime driver in opposition to the development of a tower to replace the hideous eyesore known as the Harbor Garage! According to what information I have gleaned on the matter, many residents, specifically those residents residing in HRT units at least 200 FT above ground level, have their collective panties in a bunch because of their concern for losing what they considered to be their GOD-GIVEN ENTITLED RIGHT to be able to view the Custom Tower, which is in my opinion, the penultimate high rise in Boston - it is a TRUE ICON! Well, to get to the "legal" point, though I am not a barrister, lawsuits presented by plaintiffs to the courts in defense of their rights to maintain vistas, views, whatever, invariably FAIL IN COURT. And I am sure that there is quite the number of Lawyers residing in the brutalist eyesore HRT!!! So how to bolster your argument against the Pinnacle beyond the TRIVIAL ARGUMENT for preserving your view? - HIRE the Conservation Law Foundation to dredge up old legislation regarding the environmental preservation of the lands and uses of such lands in immediate proximity to the Harbor Front. Thus now we hear that a building such as the Pinnacle will be in violation of such CMR Environmental Legislation, even though this tower will be set back somewhat (perhaps 100 to 150 FT) from the water's edge while one of the Brutalist NIGHTMARE Harbor Rat Towers stands in at a mere TEN FEET from water's edge (I am using Google Maps as the metric)!!!!!!! I can write a book here about all of the whining NIMBYISM and hypocrisy surrounding this contentious matter, but I have no time for it right now, yet the burning question remains as to the HOW AND WHY was there no hue and cry to preserve the Boston Harbor back in ca. 1970 when this GOD AWFUL, UGLY, STERILE, ARCHITECTURAL MONSTROSITY project known now as the Harbor RAT Towers started construction???? WHERE WAS THE CLF THEN??? And if it did not exist at that time, why was there no other legal body to speak up against this hideous, unwelcoming residential complex at that time? One more fact for those YUTES (architectural and engineering youths) out there reading this), the original concept for the BRUTALIST Harbor Tower Project was for THREE IDENTICAL TOWERS, not just the TWO we see today!!! OMG!!! Just think - we could have an ADDITIONAL 50% more of concrete UGLINESS STARING DOWN UPON US if there were three bestial towers!!!
Click to expand...

Odurandia is that you?
 
Per wiki, at least, the garage was originally meant to be a third Harbor Tower. If true, it means the site was always meant to host a highrise. We should be counting our blessing that a third Harbor Tower wasn’t built here, because then the area would be unchangeably dead. At least with the garage, we have a faint glimmer of hope that the street wall could be livened up some day.
 
The CLF involvement has a lot to do with their board being full of waterfront condo owners...
 
Blackbird said:
Per wiki, at least, the garage was originally meant to be a third Harbor Tower. If true, it means the site was always meant to host a highrise. We should be counting our blessing that a third Harbor Tower wasn’t built here, because then the area would be unchangeably dead. At least with the garage, we have a faint glimmer of hope that the street wall could be livened up some day.
Click to expand...
The third tower was to be near Rowes Wharf. The garage was apparently sited where it presently is to provide public parking for the Aquarium. The Aquarium was built shortly before Harbor Towers.
 
stellarfun said:
The third tower was to be near Rowes Wharf. The garage was apparently sited where it presently is to provide public parking for the Aquarium. The Aquarium was built shortly before Harbor Towers.
Click to expand...
Yes, I believe it was to be where the pool is now, it looks like it would have been really tight?

1605550234547.png
 
jdrinboston said:
Excuse me?! You realize Harbor Towers was built years after the Central Artery and the likelihood that anybody living in those buildings had anything to say during that era is highly remote?
Click to expand...

No. The point was far worse damage had been done. I don't care if a 250fter goes there.. I just think this area is so underwhelming. So Concretey and that garage is terrible to look at. If the tower doesnt go here, lets atleast make it a park or something unique.
 
Vivanna said:
Yes, I believe it was to be where the pool is now, it looks like it would have been really tight?

View attachment 8333
Click to expand...
I have a very faint recollection of reading that the third tower was scrapped to make the parcel for what would become Rowe's Wharf larger, and more attractive from a development standpoint. The third tower would have been south of the pool, and mostly on what is now the north part of Rowes Wharf. I am more than willing to have my memory corrected.

The city apparently was a co-developer of Rowes Wharf. According to the Herald, Rowes Wharf was previously a parking lot.
www.bostonherald.com

City sells off stake in Rowes Wharf for $14M

City Hall is quietly cashing out of its equity stake in Rowes Wharf, considered the crown jewel of Boston’s waterfront and one of the city’s most successful redevelopment efforts. The Boston Redeve…
www.bostonherald.com www.bostonherald.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top