- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Messages
- 5,078
- Reaction score
- 1,656
Move the aquarium bashing somewhere else please.
Move the aquarium bashing somewhere else please.
It's okay for the NE Aquarium Executives to bash the Harbor Garage project by trying to give it no merit.
But we shouldn't bash the Aquarium?
Nobody is telling you that you cant bash the aquarium, only that you need to do it elsewhere.
A month after a Suffolk County judge tossed out waterfront development plans across the state — including a much-debated one in downtown Boston — the Baker administration is trying for a quick fix to a complex problem.
State environmental officials on Friday began the process of reapproving 17 municipal harbor plans that govern building along waterfronts from Gloucester to New Bedford, hoping that will be faster than appealing the ruling by Judge Brian Davis that the state has been improperly approving the plans for decades.
That means a new round of public review for the plans by state environmental agencies, but not rewriting them entirely at the local level first. That could mean the difference between months of delay, and perhaps years. State officials on Friday started the process of launching public comment, which could begin later in May.
Well that's good news and a step in the right direction. Too bad this, like almost everything else here, will move at half the pace of every other city's construction.
The final [South Boston] plan that was submitted to the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs and in December 2000 was the result of many months of public meetings and significant input from area residents, property owners, neighborhood organizations, harbor advocates and an MHP advisory committee appointed by Mayor Thomas M. Menino. The Plan is the most expansive and ambitious of the City’s harbor plans including all areas subject to the state’s Waterways Regulations (Chapter 91) extending from West 4th Street at the end of the Fort Point Channel to Pier 4 along the inner harbor. The MHP planning principles developed to guide future waterfront development, enhance the public realm and activate the waterfront
Ok, I'm exaggerating a bit, but I also don't put Boston on the same level as Detroit or Pittsburgh- those 2 cities are in no way close to Boston in terms of growth, popularity, demand for various industries (med, tech, education, finance, etc), or just overall draw. I don't think anyone in the world would consider Boston to be a second-tier city along the levels of Detroit, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Charlotte, etc. and would instead put it with Chicago, SF, LA, or NY in terms of "perceived" magnitude or impact to the US. I am thrilled with the construction boom we have been experiencing, especially during a time when so many other cities are struggling from the pandemic. My point was simply that Boston is notorious for all the hoops/red tape and lengthy approval processes and push-back from small but vocal groups. I get frustrated when a beautifully designed project with so many street-level and accessibility improvements such as this will bring to an iconic, heavily foot-trafficked spot (especially for what garbage obtrusive parking garage is there) is dragged out for decades for BS reasons. How long has it been teased that this garage was going to be taken down? Early to mid '00s? Also, I just want one iconic supertall over 1000 feet- not here obviously- to stand out on our lengthy plateau of a skyline. Ok rant over.Not EVERY other city. For instance, Detroit's 680' (down from over 900' at one point) Hudson Block Tower has been U/C for something like 3 years and still hasn't fully reached ground level. We're lucky we have had so much going on that all our hopes and dreams aren't in 1 skyscraper basket like they would have been before 2015. There are a few obvious cities that are absolutely killing it and Boston is at least closer to those than to the stagnant ones (for instance, Pittsburgh). Once South Station Tower is up, in under 10 years we'll have gone from 2 buildings over 200m to 6, and 5 buildings over 600' to 10. That's quite the top level revelation given that we went 40 years between 200m buildings and almost 30 years between our 5th and 6th 600' buildings!