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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Way to go, Data, your tweet made Boston Magazine’s article about the NE Aquarium’s position on the Pinnacle project! Thanks Massachoicetts for the link!




!
580FCE20-B5C3-488F-A7CF-75343FDF3D2D.png
 
Just popping in to suggest that if you want to bitch about the NEAQ, make a thread about it in Boston Architecture and Urbanism 🦈
 
Couple of things:

Why does the Chiofaro building's roof sort of fade into the clouds?

Also, the Boston Magazine article about the infighting and Napoleonic personalities on the condo boards is hilarious, and totally what I expected from a strange cloistered place like the harbor towers.
 
this is a central wharf council video, not a harbor garage video. the video was released before the building design was public.
 
Czervik.Construction said:
Couple of things:

Why does the Chiofaro building's roof sort of fade into the clouds?

Also, the Boston Magazine article about the infighting and Napoleonic personalities on the condo boards is hilarious, and totally what I expected from a strange cloistered place like the harbor towers.
Click to expand...

As what Ethan said, and I also think it was more of a place holder building. Although yeah, funny how it fades into the clouds. Its Dimensionless!
 
Czervik.Construction said:
Couple of things:

Why does the Chiofaro building's roof sort of fade into the clouds?

Also, the Boston Magazine article about the infighting and Napoleonic personalities on the condo boards is hilarious, and totally what I expected from a strange cloistered place like the harbor towers.
Click to expand...

I think it was very intentionally done to illustrate that the plan doesn't care how tall the building is (which is the right approach!).

Also, I'm sure those renders predate Chiofaro's filing, so they didn't know exactly what he was proposing.


EDIT:

For what it's worth, the Boston Magazine article referenced above has some more statements from Dir. Spruill. They basically sum up as:

- The project doesn't have a good climate resiliency component.
- Okay, the project has a good climate resiliency component, but they should be doing more to contribute to the neighborhood's resiliency.
- Okay, so they're making the biggest contribution ever to neighborhood resiliency and public space, but the City hasn't had time to fully consider whether this is the best use.
- Okay, so this project has been proposed for 20 years and the City did a big study that explicitly called for a building of this precise height here, but... BIG DEVELOPER! EVIL! KILL!

That last part in quote form:

“We are not advocating that a garage is a great choice for this site,” says Spruill. “Why are we buying into the developer’s narrative that in order to replace the garage we must have a 600 foot tower and the bare minimum in terms of climate resilience? We simply don’t believe that argument—it’s a false choice.”
Click to expand...

Every part of that statement is NIMBY BS bog standard playbook. You could play bingo with it. Calling publicly-debated zoning with many supporters in the community a "developer narrative?" Check. Ignoring property rights in arguing that a property owner's proposal for their land is somehow the worst option of many undefined and undefinable alternatives that random members of the public could propose on their own? Check. Moving the goalposts by calling the first proposal I've ever seen to actually raise a waterfront plot in Boston "the bare minimum"? Check.

This is all about the Aquarium losing cheap parking. That's it. That the Boston Magazine reporter didn't ask about that is unfortunate.
 
Last edited:
Equilibria said:
This is all about the Aquarium losing cheap parking. That's it. That the Boston Magazine reporter didn't ask about that is unfortunate.
Click to expand...
theyre not losing cheap parking. 1st off, its currently not cheap and 2nd, the MHP guarantees them 250 spaces during the day 500 on nights and weekends, more than they typically use.
 
Gunner02 said:
Honestly, tobyjug is right. Aquariums are cruel and usually unethical; borderline illegal with regards to their process and justifications of detainment. I don't mean to tangent off but to me, NE Aquarium has benefited in so many ways privately and publicly for years. They want their cake and to eat it too. Their argument is inherently selfish in the end...and those at Harbor Towers, don't even...

I have submitted my support.
Click to expand...
Agree, are they any different from how animals are treated at the circus?
Maybe not.
 
Sprngh2o said:
Agree, are they any different from how animals are treated at the circus?
Maybe not.
Click to expand...

Without wading too far into this (heh) there is a huge difference. Aquariums don't only exist to show animals to the public. They both fund and conduct a huge amount of oceanographic research. They also function as animal control for the local oceans - NEAQ experts are brought in to assist whales in peril, for instance. I get the sense they do a whole lot more useful work than zoos for land animals do, much less the circus.

NEAQ is not SeaWorld.

real_EthanHunt said:
theyre not losing cheap parking. 1st off, its currently not cheap and 2nd, the MHP guarantees them 250 spaces during the day 500 on nights and weekends, more than they typically use.
Click to expand...

Not during construction, though, and that will be a period of years.
 
Honestly, I'd say people should demonstrate in front of the Aquarium and calling out their obstructionism. Maybe that will scare off some would be visitors and bring them back to the negotiation table.
 
Equilibria said:
Without wading too far into this (heh) there is a huge difference. Aquariums don't only exist to show animals to the public. They both fund and conduct a huge amount of oceanographic research. They also function as animal control for the local oceans - NEAQ experts are brought in to assist whales in peril, for instance. I get the sense they do a whole lot more useful work than zoos for land animals do, much less the circus.

NEAQ is not SeaWorld.



Not during construction, though, and that will be a period of years.
Click to expand...

I agree to a certain point but let’s not confuse it. Aquariums do conduct research, THIS one also sells events in the middle of the aquarium until 1 or 2am. I’ve been to a 200 person event there where the DJ is set up right in front of penguin exhibit* as they sleep. There is also trash in the water and absolute disturbance all over to their small ecosystem and I could tell you with certainty that ‘research’ will show none of that is conducive to a healthy environment for Nemo and his buddies.

Separately, if one thinks that the way in which this aquarium or others is different in how they truly attain these creatures, you are mostly mistaken. I don’t deny they are more ethical, RELATIVELY, than seaworld (which says almost nothing)but to think aquariums are different than zoos or operate holistically with high moral standards, would again be a mistake.

it’s about $, like everything. OK sorry for the tangent. Again, my point is the aquarium shouldn’t be making claims of others’ greed or coming at someone else’s motives... it’s the hypocrisy here on many levels that has me speaking out like this. That’s all.🤗
 
Last edited:
Those renderings look amazing.



Whatever happened to the Aquarium's proposal to the Blueway Park?

It looks to me that the Aquarium is being used as a final tool to stop or delay the project from moving further if the lawsuits from CLF or Harbor Towers residents don't pan out.
I expect the Aquarium interests are different than the developers. It would be nice to see something change on this parcel and the developer seems to have the most energy to get something going.

Where is the Aquarium CEO Vikki Spruill actually from? How many CEO's have the Aquarium had in the last 10 years? I don't think they have a real vision for the area.
 
Last edited:
If I had to read between the lines here, it seems that some professional NIMBY organization (looking at you Amos and the CLF) reached out to Vikki with a welcome to Boston call and then convinced her with a one sided presentation that obstructing the garage project had overwhelming public support. If a billionaire stops by your office for a chat, as a CEO of a non-profit heavily reliant on donations you drop what you're doing and indulge them. It sure seems like she's reading word for word from a Harbor Towers Condo Association press release or some other self serving brainless outfit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top