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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm positive this comparison has been made before, but urban renewal pictures like this honestly look like European cities after being bombed out in WW2. Except we did it to ourselves.
 
theSil said:
I'm positive this comparison has been made before, but urban renewal pictures like this honestly look like European cities after being bombed out in WW2. Except we did it to ourselves.
Click to expand...

Another big difference is that when European cities rebuilt, they often followed old street patterns and prioritized pedestrians.

When Americans rebuilt, they’d ask “what can we do to make sure no one will ever enjoy walking through this neighborhood ever again?”.
 
eddy2698 said:
How substantial are those demands going to be? Will it just be throwing more money at those opposed to the project while committing additional capital to creating public spaces or is there actual design changes to the building itself that need to be addressed?
Click to expand...

I didn't get the specifics about she seemed relatively more positive about it then the pdf there

Im hoping its just throw a little money here, do a little this and that.
 
Massachoicetts said:
I didn't get the specifics about she seemed relatively more positive about it then the pdf there

Im hoping its just throw a little money here, do a little this and that.
Click to expand...
IMO, the person at the BPDA was being a bit disingenuous.

The BPDA, following approval of the Downtown Waterfront Municipal Harbor Plan, was to develop guidelines for activating the public space realm. The BPDA did not do so in timely fashion, and the Aquarium Director, in her comments letter to the BPDA, complained about such; i.e., it's difficult to evaluate and comment on the public realm part of the Pinnacle development when there are no BPDA guidelines to reference. Chiofaro and Rams Head are in a worse predicament, -- without the guidelines, they are, in effect, shooting in the dark with what the city wants to see.

IIRC, the BPDA is only now awarding a contract for a consultant to help the BPDA develop these guidelines. From the reported conversation, it appears the guidelines, when issued, will not impose onerous or difficult-to-achieve standards that would affect project design and development in a major way.
 
Last edited:
Blackbird said:
Another big difference is that when European cities rebuilt, they often followed old street patterns and prioritized pedestrians.

When Americans rebuilt, they’d ask “what can we do to make sure no one will ever enjoy walking through this neighborhood ever again?”.
Click to expand...

A few tried the American way, most notably Rotterdam, but have spent the last few decades moving back towards traditional development patterns.
 
This is yet another example where the people who are against it are the loudest (because hardly anyone but the neighbors even know about it), but if it were to be built (and everybody can see it) youd hear near universal praise about how its an icon of Boston.

People came out strongly against the Hancock too, now look at it. I cant imagine Boston without it. Imagine if they had listened to the opposition then... This is a beautiful design that would become the Hancock of the waterfront skyline.
 
Last edited:
stick n move said:
People came out strongly against the Hancock too, now look at it. I cant imagine Boston without it. Imagine if they had listened to the opposition then... This is a beautiful design that would become the Hancock of the waterfront skyline.
Click to expand...

I believe the Custom House Clocktower only got built because it was a Federal building, exempt from the local rules. That was all the way back in 1915. I consider that and the Hancock to be the 2 most iconic buildings on the skyline by far. Will we ever see such a bold statement like either of those buildings ever again?

This one looks fantastic, but is in that next tier with The Pru (love it or hate it, I love it), 1 Dalton, Millennium Tower, upcoming State Street Tower, and The Fed. Given that it's about the exact same height as 5 other existing buildings downtown, it's tough to go so far as to say it's the "Hancock" of the waterfront. If anything it will share the spotlight with International Place and the Custom House. The only way we are going to get another "Hancock" impact building in this day and age is to actually build something as tall, or taller, than the Hancock itself.
 
This building would be a centerpiece and is perfectly designed to replace Harbor Garage in such a needed area that would positively change the Greenway and Waterfront for the better. I applaud the developer's design.
The building would be Icon and a masterpiece for the city of Boston.
 
DZH22 said:
I believe the Custom House Clocktower only got built because it was a Federal building, exempt from the local rules. That was all the way back in 1915. I consider that and the Hancock to be the 2 most iconic buildings on the skyline by far. Will we ever see such a bold statement like either of those buildings ever again?

This one looks fantastic, but is in that next tier with The Pru (love it or hate it, I love it), 1 Dalton, Millennium Tower, upcoming State Street Tower, and The Fed. Given that it's about the exact same height as 5 other existing buildings downtown, it's tough to go so far as to say it's the "Hancock" of the waterfront. If anything it will share the spotlight with International Place and the Custom House. The only way we are going to get another "Hancock" impact building in this day and age is to actually build something as tall, or taller, than the Hancock itself.
Click to expand...

It is the same height as 1IP, but due to its location its roof appears taller from the harbor. I do think if it were a smidge slimmer itd be perfect, but still a great design.
 
Last edited:
Johnnyrocket891 said:
Definitely brings Boston in the 21st century of some amazing architecture.

To leave the garage as is and not move forward with the developer's proposal would be a sin for the city of Boston.
Click to expand...
Absolutely!

If this thing was 20% slimmer and 20% taller, I'd be in LOVE. But, I'll gladly take it as is.
 
And if I'm not mistaken, the State St. building will pop up in that gap, to bring another spectacular addition to this view of Boston.
 
HenryAlan said:
And if I'm not mistaken, the State St. building will pop up in that gap, to bring another spectacular addition to this view of Boston.
Click to expand...

If you are referring to the above render across the harbor, the State Street Building will be off frame, way to the right, with Government Center and the Sudbury in between.
 
This reminds me Phillip Johnson's dilemma with International Place. He was quoted: "How do I fit too big a building into too small a space without destroying the neighborhood?" His answer - create a village of buildings and hopefully diminish/disguise the size. Here we are again. To my mind, a building too big for its lot. Okay, money issues are tricky. Yes, the architect (TMM) is attempting to resolve the challenge with set-backs and artful skin design. Thankfully, it's not another generic glass box. However, wouldn't a slimmer version be profitable? It would make it more neighborly and less overwhelming. This is Boston. Our neighborly blocks are who we are.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top