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

[Rover]

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.

No, it can't. Tax revenue is the lifeblood of a city. Waiting another decade or more based on your personal whims means kissing off tens of millions of dollars that could be going to schools, affordable housing, police, etc - you know, the things that make a city livable. Given the constraints on the site (height, open space, square footage) imposed by the city/state/etc this is about as good as we're going to get, unless you yourself would like to cough up the money to build something according to your own personal vision.

 

[Blackbird]

And that's exactly the way it should remain. I stand by what I said before, a tower of this size should not be standing at waters wedge, it should be on the other side of the Greenway.

International Place is right next door, on the same side of the Greenway, and the exact same height.

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.

Ah yes. Nothing as aesthetic as a massive slab of wood paneling hanging over the Greenway.

 

[citydweller]

International Place is right next door, on the same side of the Greenway, and the exact same height.

One International Place is not on the same side of the Greenway. The Boston Harbor hotel is. (much smaller in stature). Or has early alzheimer's got the best of me?

btw: I really do like the design of International place.

 

[lexicon506]

No, it can't. Tax revenue is the lifeblood of a city. Waiting another decade or more based on your personal whims means kissing off tens of millions of dollars that could be going to schools, affordable housing, police, etc - you know, the things that make a city livable. Given the constraints on the site (height, open space, square footage) imposed by the city/state/etc this is about as good as we're going to get, unless you yourself would like to cough up the money to build something according to your own personal vision.

 

[Suffolk 83]

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.

I don't mind the design but then again I had very low expectations. When developers get painted into boxes like this one, there's almost no chance you're going to end up with a good design. I think your points are all valid except the South Florida bit

 

[Blackbird]

One International Place is not on the same side of the Greenway. The Boston Harbor hotel is. (much smaller in stature). Or has early alzheimer's got the best of me?

btw: I really do like the design of International place.

Nope, my bad. Harbor Towers and the Federal Reserve are the only towers on the other side.

 

[Equilibria]

I don't mind the design but then again I had very low expectations. When developers get painted into boxes like this one, there's almost no chance you're going to end up with a good design. I think your points are all valid except the South Florida bit

True - and further, the next cycle will not and cannot generate a building notably different in proportions. The proportions are locked in by state law. There will be no slender glass spire here, ever.

I don't think this design looks at all like South Florida. I actually don't think many buildings in Boston have that sort of layer cake look. Comes with putting balconies first, which we don't do here.

 

[nm88]

This is one of the most iconic sites remaining in the city. The view from the water should be jealously guarded. It's our international brand. True, it's hard to be bold, neighborly and meet endless regulations - but can't we do better than this? It's too important a location.

 

[Rover]

This is one of the most iconic sites remaining in the city. The view from the water should be jealously guarded. It's our international brand. True, it's hard to be bold, neighborly and meet endless regulations - but can't we do better than this? It's too important a location.

What do you suggest? Given the constraints?

 

[chrisbrat]

This is one of the most iconic sites remaining in the city. The view from the water should be jealously guarded. It's our international brand. True, it's hard to be bold, neighborly and meet endless regulations - but can't we do better than this? It's too important a location.

genuinely baffled at any dislike for this design. i know that tastes differ and everyone's got opinions, but this seems to me to be if not a homerun than at least quite a solid base-hit. i guess i'd also add in to the conversation that at the time of their construction, both JHT and international place had tons of haters based on design and how they did (or didn't) interact/play well with their environment. i think time has shown, in both instances, that knee-jerk "anti-ism" was both way overblown and almost entirely to do with something -- anything -- prominent and tall being where before there had been nothing.

 

[Mike02125]

The greatest thing to come out of this proposal will be the Blueway and a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the New England Aquarium to step up to the plate and face its future. This is the one shot they have at a huge infusion of money and a complete rebuild of their public realm master plan. I truly don't care nearly as much about the design of the upper floors of a tower as I do about the opportunity to give the aquarium the shot in the arm that it so badly needs by radically improving the people-level experience on Central Wharf. I love that aquarium but we all know that it needs a lot of help.

 

[goody]

A few diagrams I think are pretty useful. Program (p. 130 in the PDF of the PNF)

and a site plan with the future Blueway (p. 140).

 

[stellarfun]

The design constraints, as outlined in the PNF.

The placement and footprint of the tower has been driven primarily by the open space requirements and guidelines of the DWMHP, most particularly the mandate to preserve 50% of the Project Site as open space. A large public plaza was created along Milk Street by allocating 30% of the open space to the north. This grand plaza along historic Central Wharf will create a new East-West pedestrian connection between the Greenway and the water, and is a key component for the full realization of the proposed Blueway vision.

The tower footprint was limited to 50% of the Site and designed to maximize public spaces along Central Wharf to the north and along the Harborwalk to the east, while locating 10% of the open space on the Project’s south side for additional separation from the adjacent Harbor Towers residences for privacy and views. Careful thought was given to the placement of ground floor lobbies and ramps to best meet the needs of building occupants, respect concerns of the City and neighboring properties, and enhance the public experience. Retail frontage has been maximized to create a vibrant street wall along three sides of the Site.

In response to the DWMHP requirement limiting shadow fall on Long Wharf, the tower form took on a stepped language, with the mass reducing through a series of setbacks as the building ascends. In addition to reducing the shadow fall, these setbacks also break down the scale of the tower, relate to heights of neighboring buildings, improve wind mitigation, provide outdoor spaces to building occupants, and open view corridors for neighboring Harbor Towers residences.

The resulting form is an extruded geometry, where volumes peel apart from one another and stepback as the tower rises, creating a stepped expression that is wider at the base and narrow at the top (Figure 2-22). The tower shape reflects the program within, starting with retail at the base, (Figure 2-23 to Figure 2-26) followed by a series of setbacks up the height of the tower that reduce the floor plate size for proper leasing depths through the office portion, and continuing to the upper portion with the smallest floor plate for residential units where shallower depths are desired. Each of the setbacks creates exterior terraces that are accessible to the building occupants.

The stepped form becomes a unique and powerful image on the skyline while being respectful of the existing context (Figure 2-27). Another strategy that was used to reduce the shadow impacts was a rounding of the overall form of the tower into a clover-like plan. This also had the added benefits of easing pedestrian flow around the base of the building by creating smooth circulation paths (Figure 2-28) and opening up view corridors to the water (Figure 2-29). The rounded form was given a more refined expression by folding the façade in and out along the perimeter of the tower. The folded expression of the façade enhances the verticality of the tower, which is further emphasized by treating one side of the fold as a solid panel, creating vertical bands. As well as improving the appearance of the tower, the folded language acts to mitigate wind as it travels around the tower, and reduces any potential impacts of solar glare by scattering and diffusing light reflections, rather than allowing them to focus on one point. The façade is based on a plan module of approximately seven feet of glass and three feet of solid, with the solid portion expressed as a metal or terra cotta panel.

Building footprint on lot: About 28,000 sq ft
Below grade parking, six levels: 1,100 spaces, about 433,000 sq ft
Base: 40 feet, two floors of retail / amenity space, 42,000 sq ft.
Office: 320 feet, 22 floors, 538,000 gsf, average about 24,500 sq ft per floor
Residential: 225 feet, 18 floors, 284,600 gsf, average about 15,800 sq ft per floor
Roof mechanicals: 15 feet
___________________________
A straight-forward, rectangular-box alternative:

Building footprint 28,000 sq ft
32 floors
Building's gross square feet: 896,000
Height 416 feet: 32 floors, @ average 13 feet height floor to floor

 

[odurandina]

Yes! Let's do that!
Boston's skyline has been spoken of so disreputably for so long-- why stop now?
We must keep it going!
By 2025, we'll have ~45 buildings within 100~110' of the magical "FAT 500'."
and just 6 taller than 610'
Nil dynamic range: fat, stunted Downtown towers
a barren, un-built Back Bay by any reasonable standard--with no mid range,
and a smattering of 230~325' nubs throughout.

Its a nice looking building that is about 300 feet too short . How would this be skyline altering . Just about every new building in Boston is 600 feet . Bostons skyline looks like it was clipped off , nothing sticks out . Its a flat dull skyline and this building will not make a difference . Its a shame that airport had to be built on the other side of the harbor . It has killed all creativity .

ok, let's do it:

Highrises (within FAA limits) that would totally fix Boston's dull skyline,
and could (actually) be built tomorrow.

How Tall Are Boston's Buildings and Should They Be Taller?

Actually, when the Pru went up, in 1964, i believe it was 10th tallest in the world at that time. i'm 100% certain when the Hancock was first cladded in 1972, it was the 10th tallest enclosed building in the world at the time. i believe it remained in the top 10 for a couple of years, possibly...

archboston.com

 

[Bubbybu]

it looks like an updated version of the US Bank Tower in Los Angeles. I like it.

 

[stick n move]

Yea this tower among alll the additions coming online soon will really be a huge change to the entire skyline. It so far has kinda seemed like even though a lot has been built, the skyline more or less still looks essentially the same. With the bulfinch office, sst, this, winthrop sq, even 1pos, there will finally be a very noticeable change to the skyline. Im excited. I think this design looks great too, put me on that side..

The poster saying IP was hated, the hancock.. etc when first built is spot on. Theyre icons now, this will be too.

 

[DZH22]

It so far has kinda seemed like even though a lot has been built, the skyline more or less still looks essentially the same.

I have been thinking that 3 more buildings, some combination of 600'+ downtown or 500'+ Back Bay/elsewhere (ie Cambridge), will be the tipping point to really say it feels like a new skyline. With Winthrop Square, State Street, and South Station Tower, that tipping point is in sight. Now it seems that maybe we can keep going from there! There's this "Pinnacle" tower, plus hopefully reboots at 1 Bromfield and that Mass Ave/Boylston Parcel, plus a potential large tower at the Hurley site, plus potentially 500' at Volpe. Fingers crossed that we can keep this train chugging along!

 

[shawn]

Some rendering angles of this make me think of what Copley Place might have looked like. I too see lots of the US Bank Tower (LA), and I like it. If we get The Sudbury-quality cladding materials on this, it could be a star.

I do wish the clover leaf levels were more irregular in height, though. Too much symmetry in these elements make the tower look fatter than it has to.

 

[whighlander]

'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.

Stellar -- once again we have a "Houston we have a problem" -- a lot of ABforum folk have very minimal understanding of the water ebb and flood in Boston Harbor -- I suggest a day spent at Pier 4 Steps when the weather is more pleasant.

It's not the Bay of Fundy or Mont St. Michael in France -- but Boston tides daily swing about 3m or 10ft.
Every month with proper lunar & solar alignment we get almost another meter
Less Frequently we can get even more when the earth is closest to the sun and the above alignments happen
Anything else requires a major Storm Surge, heavy precipitation or both -- very very low probability -- with the storm blocking the drainage of the inner harbor and the precipitation leading to more inflow from the Charles and lesser extent the Mystic

Note: -- Despite what various computer projections predict for the next 100 years -- the tidal range experienced today has not significantly changed over the past 150 plus years -- What has changed is the drainage of the high tide from the inner harbor as many wharfs, and mud flats became Atlantic Ave, Logan Airport, etc.

Indeed -- it was that very 10 ft range which led to the Dams on the banks of the Charles circa 200 years ago which in turn led to bad sanitation. The Back Bay stink led to filling the Back Bay -- etc.

If you feel compelled to raise the sea walls by a foot or two -- well OK -- it will hardly make any perceptible difference

 

[NatickxBoston]

When I'm older I'm going to lobby the FAA to raise the height limits in the city. Toronto's airport is close to downtown Toronto and they have structures upwards of 2000 ft.