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

Status
Not open for further replies.
BKNA said:
Comments are fun. It's either so great that there's no way it will get built or just plain terrible and should never have even been proposed.
And no, not new here. Just seems more extreme than usual.


Can't tell if this is sarcasm or just completely misplaced.
What previous design was nicer? The 2009 version? It didn't receive any approvals.
Any version you've seen between then and this weren't even allowed to be submitted much less receive any approvals.
The previous designs were all before the MHP set new rules for what was allowed on this site so they aren't even comparable as none of them would be allowed.
Click to expand...


No not the 2009 version, the circa 2014 version was way nicer... see:
index.jpg


And see:
chiofaroproject.jpg


The 2009 or whatever it was version was much much worse. I don't want to post a picture of that ugly dystopian monstrosity.

The 2020 design is just way too fat.

The only issue I took with the 2014 design was that they were getting rid of parking for the aquarium which is still a big issue for the viabity of the aquarium at that location. I still say if they are going to kill the aquarium then might as well permit a tower at the aquarium location instead, right at the end of the pier, so it will pay for relocation costs to build out a new Aquarium in Quincy. But just watch Chiofaro fund the lawsuits against a tower blocking his views...


My point was that the above previous design was the reason that the location got approvals for going to 600' in the first place. Publishing that design was what kicked off the waterfront planning process that might allow for a tower at this one specific location. So bait and switch. Boston was sold two slender towers and got a fat ugly out of proportion tower.
 
BKNA said:
Full BPDA filling here:
bpda.app.box.com

2020-01-22_Project Notification Form (PNF)_Harbor Garage Redevelopment.pdf | Powered by Box

bpda.app.box.com bpda.app.box.com


Garage discussed in filing. Figure 2-14 has what you're looking for.
Click to expand...
Thank you very much for the link to the PNF.

The garage is indeed in the plans, all underground at 1,100 spaces (from 1,475 current).

The residential -- about 200 units -- is to be rental, which surprises me.

Over 60 percent of the GSF is office, which suggests to me that they'll need a lead tenant before building this.

They've addressed resiliency.

This is a serious PNF, about 550 pages longer than the ENF filed for the first design.
________________
re: the 2014 iteration. It was a non-starter because it failed to meet Chapter 91. Open to the sky did/does not mean open to the top of a glass atrium.
 
whighlander said:
Equilibria -- the recently filed PNF gives 585 for highest occupied level and 600 for the "architectural top" -- that suggests maybe there are things touching 610 to 615?
Click to expand...
Wishful thinking.
This is the spec as stated in the PNF.
585 feet to highest occupied floor (and in no case shall any structure exceed the FAA height limits or 600 feet, whichever is lower)
Click to expand...
 
Maybe this was designed by the KPF team that did Hudson Yards and looked past 30 Hudson Yards to the SOM-designed Equinox Hotel next door. It has very similar setbacks. It looks like a limestone-type cladding, I like it a lot. At least it is not another glass box.

Given that Walsh is the mayor, do we think this has a chance of being approved?
 
lexicon506 said:
Chunky, hulking, awful proportions, imposing, does nothing to improve access to the waterfront, looks air-lifted out of South Florida. Keep the garage and let's wait until the next real estate cycle. This thing is a monstrosity.
Click to expand...

Not sure if its your intention, but yours is boilerplate NIMBYspeak for "lets delay this thing until the end of time so nothing gets built".
 
Re: parking.

The PNF asserts that demand for parking is declining in downtown Boston, thus the reduction of 375 spaces from the current..

Of the planned 1100 spaces, 300 are being reserved for HT residents, and about 300 for project residents and tenant employees. About 250 spaces are set aside for Aquarium visitors during weekdays between 9 AM and 6 PM, and 500 spaces for Aquarium visitors on weekends. This 'set-aside' for Aquarium visitors appears to be a city of Boston requirement.

Loading docks off Atlantic Ave. Access to the garage off East India Row, on the SE corner of the site.
 
lexicon506 said:
Chunky, hulking, awful proportions, imposing, does nothing to improve access to the waterfront, looks air-lifted out of South Florida. Keep the garage and let's wait until the next real estate cycle. This thing is a monstrosity.
Click to expand...

Sounds like someone lives in the Harbor Towers...

I love how this will be lit up at night. Love the crown. Boston desperately needs more of this.
 
Swing and a big miss, it's almost comical how leading firms seem to just phone in their Boston designs. They must anticipate the conventional, provincial mindset here and respond accordingly (the ghastly South Station tobasco bottle, awkward Winthrop Square, ho-hum One Dalton...) and now this—an obese throwback 1920s NY tower with setbacks on steroids. This looks like something Elkus would come up with so why bother with KPF? At least the BU book stack and the Huntington Ave tower are on their way—something to look forward to.
 
Brad Plaid said:
Swing and a big miss, it's almost comical how leading firms seem to just phone in their Boston designs. They must anticipate the conventional, provincial mindset here and respond accordingly (the ghastly South Station tobasco bottle, awkward Winthrop Square, ho-hum One Dalton...) and now this—an obese throwback 1920s NY tower with setbacks on steroids. This looks like something Elkus would come up with so why bother with KPF? At least the BU book stack and the Huntington Ave tower are on their way—something to look forward to.
Click to expand...

Agreed. A lot of mediocrity. We need people to think outside the box the way they do in NYC.
 
Mike02125 said:
Anybody know of Mark Sandman from the Cambridge/Boston-based band Morphine? He played a 3-string bass guitar, he removed the other strings (and removed the guitar completely from the band). Why limit himself to only 3 strings? Because he felt that creative people are more creative when boxed in. Give an artist 128 colors and they can do a lot, but limit them to 4 and see what they come up with. It changes how the mind works and our very approach to creativity. His explanation for removing strings from his bass stuck with me.
Click to expand...

Great metaphor (and interesting story). I have always thought that the "think outside the box" line got things backwards. We are always inside a box -- what is the solution given those constraints? Clearly great answers can come from such a process, and I think you are right that such a result is seen in this building.
 
Rover said:
Not sure if its your intention, but yours is boilerplate NIMBYspeak for "lets delay this thing until the end of time so nothing gets built".
Click to expand...

Haha ok so now you're a NIMBY if you don't genuflect for every proposal a developer puts out there? This is an ugly building with very few redeeming qualities. 2014 proposal was very nice, this one is not. Boston can afford to be picky and wait for a design that's worthy of this site.
 
I prefer the 2014 plan, but still think this is very nice.

cjbski said:
Agreed. A lot of mediocrity. We need people to think outside the box the way they do in NYC.
Click to expand...
Brad Plaid said:
Swing and a big miss, it's almost comical how leading firms seem to just phone in their Boston designs. They must anticipate the conventional, provincial mindset here and respond accordingly (the ghastly South Station tobasco bottle, awkward Winthrop Square, ho-hum One Dalton...) and now this—an obese throwback 1920s NY tower with setbacks on steroids. This looks like something Elkus would come up with so why bother with KPF? At least the BU book stack and the Huntington Ave tower are on their way—something to look forward to.
Click to expand...

I agree this isn't very "outside the box" compared to NYC's towers, but it's still a good looking building. I also wouldn't call this phoning it in, I'd call it working within strict parameters. This property needs to max out its square footage due to the a large purchase price, and can only go as high as 600 ft due to Logan Airport; it also has strict open space requirements. Unfortunately with those limitations, it's going to result in a bulky building unless you try for two buildings, which has already tried & failed, twice.
 
Last edited:
lexicon506 said:
Haha ok so now you're a NIMBY if you don't genuflect for every proposal a developer puts out there? This is an ugly building with very few redeeming qualities. 2014 proposal was very nice, this one is not. Boston can afford to be picky and wait for a design that's worthy of this site.
Click to expand...

You can wait until you're 6 feet under, but you'll never get something "worthy" (as per your subjective definition) built on this site...at least until we bring back low wage labor, minuscule material and land costs, and/or people who care about vanity over ROI, and eliminate people who are concerned about 15 minutes of shadows on a man-made pier, the CLF, etc. Oh, and then there is the BPDA...
 
I might be the only one but I loved this design. Maybe darker reflective blue glass but this looks like it belongs on the edge of the water front.

Tower.jpg


This new proposal looks like if anything that it should be built somewhere in the financial cluster hidden.
 
tangent said:
The 2009 or whatever it was version was much much worse. I don't want to post a picture of that ugly dystopian monstrosity.
The 2020 design is just way too fat.
My point was that the above previous design was the reason that the location got approvals for going to 600' in the first place. Publishing that design was what kicked off the waterfront planning process that might allow for a tower at this one specific location. So bait and switch. Boston was sold two slender towers and got a fat ugly out of proportion tower.
Click to expand...
no doubt 2014 is better. its also completely illegal due to the MHP. the tower on the right casts shadows and the atrium was not deemed to be open space. that design did not play into the MHP decisions at all.

it also wasnt the developers choice to not go with this design so not a bait and switch. 2 slender towers were offered and city and the state said no thanks, we'll impose restrictions that could only result in a chunky one.
 
tangent said:
The only issue I took with the 2014 design was that they were getting rid of parking for the aquarium which is still a big issue for the viabity of the aquarium at that location. I still say if they are going to kill the aquarium then might as well permit a tower at the aquarium location instead, right at the end of the pier, so it will pay for relocation costs to build out a new Aquarium in Quincy. But just watch Chiofaro fund the lawsuits against a tower blocking his views...
Click to expand...
thats absolutely not correct. 1100 has always been the minimum amount of parking being discussed. there wasnt a written requirement for it to be set aside for the aquarium at the time, but it was always accounted for in the calcs.
 
'Open to the sea'.

That mantra of yore will not be met by this proposal. What does that promise in is not the IMAX which will eventually move, but resiliency requirements. Currently, the highest of the high tides are 11' - 12' above the Boston City Base (BCB). The January 2018 record storm-related tide was 16.1' above BCB, and there was extensive flooding in the vicinity of the garage.

The project will be protected to 21' above BCB, or about ten feet above the occasional highest high tides, e.g., 'king tides', and five feet above the January 2018 tide. Berms will provide much of the protection; their height will block any pedestrian view of the sea from the Greenway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top