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

[DZH22]

The city of Boston did the shadow studies for this project, and IIRC, the city determined that 600 feet near the SW corner of the site was as high as a building could go without casting a new shadow on Long Wharf on October 31.

The Commonwealth, in applying relief from Chapter 91 requirements, had decreed the no new shadow on Long Wharf on October 31 specification.

Why is this date in particular so important? The amount of dumb requirements for building in this city is staggering.

 

[Suffolk 83]

We all know the score in the city, I dont understand why we have to wring our hands and get all worked up about heights and how people complain about density and traffic and this and that. Its utter nonsense that shadows on LONG WHARF of all places at the end of October matter to anybody, but that's the score. We go over this again and again here, people need to accept what it is or actually go to the community meetings yourself and support what you believe so strongly in.

 

[Blackbird]

the city determined that 600 feet near the SW corner of the site was as high as a building could go without casting a new shadow on Long Wharf on October 31.

The Commonwealth, in applying relief from Chapter 91 requirements, had decreed the no new shadow on Long Wharf on October 31 specification.

I don’t even mind the height of the proposed tower, but I also have absolutely no idea why anyone would care about this.

 

[odurandina]

I also have absolutely no idea why anyone would care about this.

1. from the mouths of babes,
0.003% of Boston's residents slashes/reduces/sacks/ stonewalls/filibusters/ ruins/ ends every project.
2. you've won the thread.

 

[Massachoicetts]

I like the height... but in general, I dont there has been a single time that Ive been in a Boston or any city park and said "Shit we have to leave in 10 minutes because from 8:31am to 8:38am there will be a shadow in that corner!" . Like I get the point thats trying to be made... but .. come on here lol.

So in situations where they could possibly take away the crown, a really good part of the building... im not okay with.

 

[Czervik.Construction]

Sadly you cannot use the Central Park example of some of the tallest new buildings in the world casting a shadow onto Central Park all day long and how the park has not imploded into a black hole of dark matter, because of the sheer size of the park vs the size of Boston Common.

 

[Coyote137]

There was to be a public meeting on this next Monday in the Atlantic Wharf building, but it has been cancelled.

 

[Rover]

There was to be a public meeting on this next Monday in the Atlantic Wharf building, but it has been cancelled.

They couldn't round up enough NIMBY's?

Regarding shadows I agree with the comments here. No we don't want open space completely covered in shade but I agree with the notion that the length of time and time of year matters. Saner heads prevailed on the Winthrop Square development and hopefully that will continue.

 

[whighlander]

i am pushing for a City that adopts greater empathy for more iconic architecture
and a something for everyone concept that embraces height diversity.
Get a crystalline top filled with Xenon or other gas that permits zero shadow
This would allow the tower to move up to 9th, or possibly even 8th tallest,
while still being in FAA and shadow compliance......
i would push for it at the meetings, but the BPDA seems to be set on 600'.
Someone said 600' would be a frightful outcome, and leave a few people traumatized.

7. Federal Reserve 614’
8. 1 Boston Place (FCC docs have 606.00’), FAA docs give 602’
9. 1 Congress St spire tip (u/c) 601’
10. 1 International Place 600’
11. Tower at Central Wharf 600’
12. 1 Financial Ctr 599’
13. 100 Federal St./Downtown 591’
>180m

Odurandina -- Shadows are if not now a soon to be irrelevant issue
A real cloaking device -- not science fiction is at hand -- so far at wavelengths longer than visible light

You can now hide 3D objects from view by surrounding them with specialized materials*1 which bend the light*2 around the object -- just as if it was not there. This is a purely passive technology and is getting to the point where it works over all possible angles at a wide enough range of wavelengths to cover the visible band [if scaled to the visible]. For a 2D-like object such as a cylinder sticking out of a plane -- like a tower sticking out of the ground its been demonstrated in the infrared

so-called metamaterials fabricated out of layers of ordinary materials with a resultant with properties not found in traditional materials

*2 so far the wavelengths are mostly in the so-called TerraHertz range of frequencies between the microwave and the infrared

 

[odurandina]

Whigh,
Our real problem: after Central Wharf, what do you have
1. 1 Bromfield St
will it (even) top 450'

Is Boston's construction becoming boring, dull and predictable--like, when a new site is unveiled,
we already know something squat, dull and featureless will ultimately be built there?
Are we running low on exciting places to build transformational architecture?
examples that inspire dread that the next soulless garbage is coming soon:

Hurley Bldg
1 Merrimack St
Midtown Hotel site
O'Neill Bldg (low section or entire bldg)
JFK Fed (low park development)
1-2-3 Center Plaza
1 Bromfield St
Sheraton Towers
Hines Convention Center
2 Charlesgate W
1000 Boylston St
1065-80 Boylston St
601 Newbury St
any site in the West End near Charles River Park
or Beacon Hill
Any site not called Copley Tower, Winthrop Square or 1 Dalton St
Anywhere along Mass Ave, Huntington Ave, Brookline Ave, Boylston St, Beacon St, Tremont St,
Harrison Ave, Albany St, Melnea Cass, Washington St, Ruggle St or Rutherford Ave,
Anything owned by a college or Boston Housing Authority
East Boston
Charlestown
South Boston
Dorchester
Mission Hill
Fenway
Roxbury

 

[stellarfun]

Why is this date in particular so important? The amount of dumb requirements for building in this city is staggering.

October 31st is Halloween. A lot of people out and about, perhaps using Long Wharf. End of October weather can be mild.

This is not a city-imposed limit. The city has nothing to do with it. Chapter 91 applies to the shorelines of the entire commonwealth, not just Boston, and its based on the ordinances of 1641. If the Commonwealth suddenly decided that 380 years of precedent no longer apply, then its free rein for everyone to build as much as they want and as high as they want, everywhere there are tidelands.

The state is giving RHDC very generous relief from the otherwise tight height limits imposed on structures subject to Chapter 91, as this building is, and which do not provide a maritime-related use. Chiofaro chose not to introduce a maritime-related use into his project. That was his decision.

There are other new Boston buildings that cast shadows; 150 Seaport casts 'new' shadows year round. How was Cronin able to get a Chapter 91 license? The project provides a maritime-related use.

The new large, natural-gas- powered generating plant recently built in Salem happens to be north of the Salem ferry pier, and casts no shadows. If it had been built south of the ferry pier, and it cast shadows on October 31, which is a HUGE day in Salem, it is quite likely the Commonwealth would restrict the height of the plant so it cast no new shadows on the pier on October 31st. (There are actually no shadows on this pier.)

 

[odurandina]

The Massachusetts coast is a dressed down version of the Hollister Ranch.
as far to one extreme as Brisbane & Surfer's Paradise is to the other.

Even if the Harbor Garage, Lobster Tower & stumps on Summer St next to S. Station went Max FAA,
1/6th of a mile in the Downtown vs 1519 miles of coast doesn't add up to much
in the overall scheme.

Bostonians in 1933 would have laughed at a silly millionaire quarrel.
Highrises aren't the problem: there aren't any.

Boston + the rest of the state:
1. absurd zoning laws: Urban mid-rises demonized: wealthy communities: nil units added in decades.
2. millionaires claim to be protectors of the public interest-- In reality, they're protecting their interest:
re; keeping (you) out.
3. sub-standard transportation access to "so more people can enjoy the beach....."
they really don't care to see 'urban folk' on Plum Island.
4. as few amenities as possible to help make a day at the beach more enjoyable--
'no hanging around on our quaint streets please....'

Worst offenders: the Piping Plover & seal overlords.
(Now) you can't swim or surf without getting eaten by a Great White shark.

Of course, there are benefits to limited development:
Cliffwalk at Ruggles Ave:

 

[stellarfun]

odurandtina, the distinction between Massachusetts and California is that the citizens of Massachusetts have 'owned' parts of the tidelands of the Commonwealth since the early days of the Massachusetts Bay colony. There would be no Boston Harborwalk today if it were not for Chapter 91, as Chapter 91 was the means for securing public access on what otherwise was private property.

In California, the original owners of property owned the tidelands, and the state subsequently has sought to diminish that ownership by providing public access through the California Coastal Commission, which enforces the California Coastal Act of 1976. (California became a state in 1850, when numerous large ranches already exited, e.g., Warner's Ranch. In 1976, Jerry Brown was in hist term as governor, and Democrats controlled the legislature.)

The sweeping purpose and scope of the California Coastal Act of 1976 is outlined in the link below. A property owner could reasonably believe that this Act amounted to a confiscation.

Codes Display Text

With respect to the beach-coast at Malibu, where I recall you are known to frequent,

Two Malibu property owners fined $5.1 million for blocking access to public beach

For decades, some Malibu property owners have made it hard for the public to reach public beaches.

www.latimes.com

For Hollister Ranch, see:

California Coastal Commission

Also see an ongoing effort by the state of California to flex its power: Martin's Beach, and the billionaire owner of the beach.

State sues Silicon Valley billionaire over access to Martins Beach

After more than a decade of battles, the state is suing Vinod Khosla, arguing that the beach has been open to the public since the 1800s.

www.latimes.com

 

[odurandina]

i'm probably being a bit hard. Things are slowly improving on both coasts:
you can (now) walk onto Gaviota trail and Cojo Point without getting shot.
and there's a bus to Plum Island.

 

[dhawkins]

How about an homage to the working port of Boston with a container tower and a splash of color! credit; https://www.dezeen.com/2015/08/20/shipping-container-skyscraper-crg-architects-replace-slum-housing/

 

[odurandina]

i love that. Longfellow Tower blight needs a dark green or indigo & a blue.
The FAA height limit for the container terminal is 149~200'.
Height is an affliction and Boston is the cure.

 

[whighlander]

odurandtina, the distinction between Massachusetts and California is that the citizens of Massachusetts have 'owned' parts of the tidelands of the Commonwealth since the early days of the Massachusetts Bay colony. There would be no Boston Harborwalk today if it were not for Chapter 91, as Chapter 91 was the means for securing public access on what otherwise was private property.

In California, the original owners of property owned the tidelands, and the state subsequently has sought to diminish that ownership by providing public access through the California Coastal Commission, which enforces the California Coastal Act of 1976. (California became a state in 1850, when numerous large ranches already exited, e.g., Warner's Ranch. In 1976, Jerry Brown was in hist term as governor, and Democrats controlled the legislature.)

The sweeping purpose and scope of the California Coastal Act of 1976 is outlined in the link below. A property owner could reasonably believe that this Act amounted to a confiscation.

Codes Display Text

With respect to the beach-coast at Malibu, where I recall you are known to frequent,

Two Malibu property owners fined $5.1 million for blocking access to public beach

For decades, some Malibu property owners have made it hard for the public to reach public beaches.

www.latimes.com

For Hollister Ranch, see:

California Coastal Commission

Also see an ongoing effort by the state of California to flex its power: Martin's Beach, and the billionaire owner of the beach.

State sues Silicon Valley billionaire over access to Martins Beach

After more than a decade of battles, the state is suing Vinod Khosla, arguing that the beach has been open to the public since the 1800s.

www.latimes.com

Stellar -- good summary of the "Current State" of "Beach Rights"

Actually in its infinite wisdom and desire to demonstrate such or at least keep the citizenry enthralled by such matters the Commonwealth has provided a web page devoted to the topic

Massachusetts law about beach rights

Laws, regulations, cases, and web sources on beach rights law.

www.mass.gov

A couple of highlights of the history:
Massachusetts laws
Colonial ordinances of 1641-1647 Extended private ownership from the mean high water line to the mean low-water line, or 100 rods from the mean high-water line, whichever is less. Previously, ownership had extended only to the high-water mark (under section 16 of the Body of Liberties of 1641).

MGL c.91 Waterways. Section 1 maintains the historical right of access to fish or fowl, defining "Private tidelands'', as "tidelands held by a private party subject to an easement of the public for the purposes of navigation and free fishing and fowling and of passing freely over and through the water."

MGL c.130 § 32 Fishing gear swept ashore; recovery. The owner of any fishing gear which is swept ashore by storm or tide or other natural causes and deposited upon the shore, beaches or flats, whether public or private, may recover the same within thirty days from the time of such deposit without liability for trespass.
The key all that follows are the terms which have never changed in over 350 years -- the Public has access to tidal lands for: fishing, fowling or general navigation through and above the waves -- and the words are very specific -- defining Private Tidelands as:

"tidelands held by a private party subject to an easement of the public for the purposes of navigation and free fishing and fowling and of passing freely over and through the water."

Thus on a nice summer day if you are above the Low Tide line -- even though you are walking in water up to your shoulders -- if you stroll beyond the boundaries of a Publicly owned beach -- you could be subject to arrest for trespassing. A few more inches deep so that you are floating or swimming and you are OK -- as by right you could be fowling?, fishing with your toes??, or navigating from one beach to another or just drifting with the winds.

Chapter 91 *1 passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor into law in 1866 uses these definitions in concert with a number of early Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rulings on specific challenges to expand on this Colonial Era concept. Later regulations built upon Chapt 91 have been challenged and these challenges have further defined the various possible relationships between Tidal Lands and the Citizenry.

So -- the answer with respect to all things Tidal -- is -- Its Complicated. But don't blame Boston or any city or town -- while this creature oozed off Beacon Hill nearly 400 years ago -- the Legislature and the Citizenry have not seen fit to revise the underlying principles to be compatible with the Information Age.



Refs from Official Commonwealth of MA sources:

Selected cases
Arno v. Commonwealth, 457 Mass. 434 (2010)
After registration, the landowner had fee simple title to any portion of his property that once was submerged tidelands, subject to a condition subsequent that his parcel be used for a public purpose, and fee simple title in any historical tidal flats, subject to an easement of the public.
Boston Waterfront Dev. Corp. v. Commonwealth, 378 Mass. 629 (1979)
Provides "a comprehensive overview of the history of Massachusetts tideland law."
Commonwealth v. Alger, 61 Mass. 53 (1851)
Called by the Supreme Judicial Court "probably the leading case on the subject."
Commonwealth v. City of Roxbury, 75 Mass. 451 (1857)
Explains at great length and in great detail the origins of and changes to property rights along the shore
.....
Navy Yard Four Associates v. Department of Environmental Protection, 88 Mass. App. Ct. 213 (2015)
Court upheld the validity of agency's definition of Commonwealth tidelands to include both submerged lands and tidal flats.
Opinion of the Justices to the House of Representatives, 365 Mass. 681 (1974)
In disapproving a proposed bill to allow walking along private beaches, court provides a clear summary of the law.
Spillane v. Adams, 76 Mass.App.Ct. 378 (2010)
Standard for low-water mark. "No definitive standard for tidal marks has been adopted in our appellate case law, and we take this opportunity to do so. The appropriate standard for low water mark is the 'mean low water' as determined by the NGVD."
Storer v. Freeman, 6 Mass. 435 (1810)
Explains the change in the law from low-water mark to high-water mark in 1641-47.

*1
another whole web site devoted to Tide Lands specifically chapt 91 [with a few excepts]

Chapter 91 - Frequently Asked Questions

www.mass.gov

Overview: the purpose of Chapter 91
Adopted in 1866, Massachusetts General Law Chapter 91 protects the public's interest in waterways of the Commonwealth. It ensures that public rights to fish, fowl and navigate are not unreasonably restricted and that unsafe or hazardous structures are repaired or removed. Chapter 91 also protects the waterfront property owner's ability to approach his land from the water.

Why don't some people have permits or licenses?

Approximately 20,000 licenses have been issued since 1866, but many structures remain unlicensed for a variety of reasons. Many landowners don't realize they need authorization. Some owners simply are unaware of the law; others assume that prior owners obtained proper licensing; and still others don't know that a change in structure or use requires new licensing. Unlicensed structures are considered a public nuisance under M.G.L. Chapter 91, and their owners may be subject to MassDEP enforcement for maintaining unauthorized structures.

Are there penalties for unlicensed structures or work?

Unlicensed structures may be considered a public nuisance or a hazard to public safety or may significantly interfere with navigation. Unless properly licensed, these structures can be ordered removed and may be subject to fines. Our goal, however, is to bring people into compliance with Chapter 91, and the Department encourages owners of unlicensed structures to contact MassDEP and apply for a license to avoid enforcement action.

Can an owner maintain or repair licensed structures?

Maintenance or repair of licensed structures is not only allowed by Chapter 91, it is required. Required work must be performed according to the conditions of the license, including using materials of the same dimensions and quality and in the same locations and elevations as specified in the license. Common examples of replacement work include replacing old pilings, decking or rip-rap. Additionally, replacement or maintenance work can include: re-paving of road surfaces, installation of road curbs and lighting, stabilization of road or rail beds, reconstruction of culverts or catch basins, and maintenance or repair to public transportation facilities or drainage systems necessary to preserve the facilities for their original use.

 

[whighlander]

Base on my reading of the Chapt 91 stuff and the infamous:
"tidelands held by a private party subject to an easement of the public for the purposes of navigation and free fishing and fowling and of passing freely over and through the water."

If daDon built a large boom into the tower and from time to time flicked a fishing line into the middle of the harbor -- fly fishing style -- I suspect he'd only have to worry about any FAA limit

Of course I'm not a lawyer and I don't even play one on TV or the Web

 

[Rover]

Base on my reading of the Chapt 91 stuff and the infamous:
"tidelands held by a private party subject to an easement of the public for the purposes of navigation and free fishing and fowling and of passing freely over and through the water."

If daDon built a large boom into the tower and from time to time flicked a fishing line into the middle of the harbor -- fly fishing style -- I suspect he'd only have to worry about any FAA limit

Of course I'm not a lawyer and I don't even play one on TV or the Web

Its easier than that! He should invoke the IMAX rule where apparently showing aquatic films for a fee allows you to block waterfront access and just show Flipper, Finding Nemo and When Sharks Attack on a continuous loop in the building's lobby. The sky's the limit!

 

[Vivanna]

There are other new Boston buildings that cast shadows; 150 Seaport casts 'new' shadows year round. How was Cronin able to get a Chapter 91 license? The project provides a maritime-related use.

Stellar, what maritime related use was provided at 150 Seaport?