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

Status
Not open for further replies.
What is the footprint size difference between the garage and the proposed tower? If the proposed tower has a smaller footprint, wouldn't that in turn mean a 600 foot tower would not block anymore of the harbor than the existing garage does?

Even if the tower was a modest increase in footprint size, wouldn't a modern, glass tower look a hell of a lot better than a concrete garage?
 
Last edited:
mass88 said:
What is the footprint size difference between the garage and the proposed tower? If the proposed tower has a smaller footprint, wouldn't that in turn mean a 600 foot tower would not block anymore of the harbor than the existing garage does?

Even if the tower were a modest increase in footprint size, wouldn't a modern, glass tower look a hell of a lot better than a concrete garage?
Click to expand...

You're trying to apply logic to NIMBYISM. My advice is to take two aspirin and wash it down with Goldschlager. Although truth be told that's my solution to a lot of problems... ;)
 
mass88 said:
What is the footprint size difference between the garage and the proposed tower? If the proposed tower has a smaller footprint, wouldn't that in turn mean a 600 foot tower would not block anymore of the harbor than the existing garage does?

Even if the tower was a modest increase in footprint size, wouldn't a modern, glass tower look a hell of a lot better than a concrete garage?
Click to expand...
The lot for the garage is 57,000+ sq ft. The garage's footprint covers nearly all of the lot, and is much larger than the proposed tower's footprint.. Because the proposed Pinnacle building would have no maritime-related use, Chapter 91 (a state law) applies and the law requires that 50 percent of the land area owned by Prudential (Chiofaro) be 'open to the sky'; so no building can be constructed on 28,000+ sq ft. of the lot. If the Pinnacle were to include a maritime-related use, e.g., the Hook Lobster parcel, then the 50 percent limit would not apply.

The Pinnacle design conforms to Chapter 91. The limits on height, 600 feet, and building mass, 900,000 gsf, were set by the city, and the design conforms to those limits as well.

The garage is 400,000 sq ft. according to the assessing records.
 
The citizens of Mass will continue to walk by a concrete block on the most prime spot of the Rose Kennedy Greenway.
Great job to the Aquarium executives who reap 100's of thousands in salary for using their vision and supporting those seals swimming a fiber glass container.

Talk about missed opportunity-
 
7B3D8391-3A9A-439B-90AA-28E6A52B45F0.jpeg
AB1C72AE-0C9C-410F-8500-0ACDAB88842A.jpeg
 
If I were Prudential, the day after the HT residents' easement for xxx spaces in the garage expires next year, I would have structural engineers conduct a very thorough non-destructive test scan of the structural integrity of the concrete. There are several types of scans that could be used. (I doubt the rebar was epoxy covered 50 years ago.)

At the conclusion of the engineering assessment, I would announce the results, which might be along the lines of:
a.) the garage is unsafe and must be closed immediately;
b.) the garage has a remaining useful life of 5-7 years;
c.) the garage has a remaining useful life on 20-25 years;
d.) the garage was built like the proverbial brick shithouse and will last another 100 years.

I'm betting the answer will more likely be a.) or b) rather than c.)

Prudential is no under obligation to repair the garage to prevent a collapse, or extend its useful life.

The HT residents and the Aquarium would then be confronted what to do if the garage is condemned, or otherwise inaccessible.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately I feel like if it has to be condemned chiofaro loses his leverage. His leverage right now is let me build something better or I can just keep the garage, rake in money, and you keep the shitty waterfront garage to look at. If it has to be demolished no matter what then he doesnt have leverage over them and they can fight any proposal post demo until a low rise is built in its place.
 
stellarfun said:
If I were Prudential, the day after the HT residents' easement for xxx spaces in the garage expires next year, I would have structural engineers conduct a very thorough non-destructive test scan of the structural integrity of the concrete. There are several types of scans that could be used. (I doubt the rebar was epoxy covered 50 years ago.)

At the conclusion of the engineering assessment, I would announce the results, which might be along the lines of:
a.) the garage is unsafe and must be closed immediately;
b.) the garage has a remaining useful life of 5-7 years;
c.) the garage has a remaining useful life on 20-25 years;
d.) the garage was built like the proverbial brick shithouse and will last another 100 years.

I'm betting the answer will more likely be a.) or b) rather than c.)

Prudential is no under obligation to repair the garage to prevent a collapse, or extend its useful life.

The HT residents and the Aquarium would then be confronted what to do if the garage is condemned, or otherwise inaccessible.
Click to expand...

This makes absolutely no sense. Why in God's name would you want a profit making garage condemned if you're the owner? The minute that happens NIMBY'S will sue to have it torn down and a park built in it's place all on the owner's dime while zoning issues are litigated until the end of time.
 
Rover said:
This makes absolutely no sense. Why in God's name would you want a profit making garage condemned if you're the owner? The minute that happens NIMBY'S will sue to have it torn down and a park built in it's place all on the owner's dime while zoning issues are litigated until the end of time.
Click to expand...

The leverage Stel is proposing has to do with the Aquarium and Harbor Towers residents' shared reliance on the Harbor Garage for parking. Parking is the real reason the Aquarium is opposed to this project - they see their appeal to suburbanites declining if it's not easy to drive there and park (they can't admit this because they have an ostensible environmental mission). The HT residents have a parking agreement that expires shortly, but they might figure that if they screw Chiofaro over enough to abandon redevelopment they can have another one.

If the garage is condemned, everyone loses. The problem is that "everyone" includes Prudential, which is why they wouldn't do it.
 
Equilibria said:
If the garage is condemned, everyone loses. The problem is that "everyone" includes Prudential, which is why they wouldn't do it.
Click to expand...

It'd be a hell of a game of chicken, though.

And to be honest, even if no one does anything in the near term, we're eventually heading toward this nonetheless. History is replete with wastelands left behind by those who went down with their ships.
 
bigpicture7 said:
It'd be a hell of a game of chicken, though.

And to be honest, even if no one does anything in the near term, we're eventually heading toward this nonetheless. History is replete with wastelands left behind by those who went down with their ships.
Click to expand...

We're headed toward the garage remaining forever because every major player (Chiofaro, Prudential, the Aquarium, and HT residents) makes money. The losers are the people of Boston, who have been hoodwinked by the CLF and the other NIMBY "environmental advocates" into believing this is somehow good for them.
 
Equilibria said:
www.bostonglobe.com

Advocates urge Janey to re-do downtown waterfront plan, and her rivals agree - The Boston Globe

As the state moves to OK a Walsh-era waterfront zoning plan that would allow a 600-foot tower along Boston Harbor, pressure is growing on Acting Mayor Kim Janey to withdraw it.
www.bostonglobe.com www.bostonglobe.com



Then propose one, raise the millions in financing to build it, and execute on it, Vikki.

The only false premise I see around here is that tall buildings are somehow incompatible with the waterfront. I have no idea where that notion came from, but everyone quoted in here seems to have adopted it like gospel. Sounds like pure NIMBYism to me, though.

If you support redoing the Municipal Harbor Plan, you support this garage staying in place for another decade. That's the plain truth. CLF? Supports a garage. Spruill? Supports a garage. Six other environmental groups? Support a garage. Michelle Wu? Supports a garage. Every one of these people and groups needs to be held accountable for this in plain terms. The environmental community of Boston has banded together to maintain a car-first waterfront in direct violation of all of their supposed principles and for no good reason I can perceive except some form of corrupt, blind self interest.
Click to expand...
I know there was a public hearing on this by zoom in July. We should make a point of speaking up if there’s another one because all the wrong voices are being heard.
 
Equilibria said:
We're headed toward the garage remaining forever because every major player (Chiofaro, Prudential, the Aquarium, and HT residents) makes money. The losers are the people of Boston, who have been hoodwinked by the CLF and the other NIMBY "environmental advocates" into believing this is somehow good for them.
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing, I am just taking it one step further: we are heading toward the garage remaining forever AND eventually becoming condemned. The present logic of the situation suggests that Pru/Chiofaro will milk it for all the revenue they can until the building physically fails and is condemned. Then it will sit there rotting forever. I simply do not see any investor (who doesn't have approval for a tall structure in its place) investing the 9 figures it would take to restore the garage as a garage when, in a couple of decades, the mid-20th-century reinforced concrete technology inevitably fails.
 
It's also shortsighted to think HT residents and the NEAQ are the only NIMBY's here. CLF grifters are only siding with them out of convenience. The minute their interests diverge that happy marriage is over. If there's a chance to 1) condemn the garage and have the owners pay for the demo, and 2) force the site to stay unbuilt for decades while they file multiple lawsuits, you're insane to think the CLF will pass that up in order to keep HT parking spaces.
 
And the bad guys win. This whole thing just makes me furious.

FWIW, Chiofaro probably didn't have the warewithal to build this anyway, and the market didn't want the office space so it would never have happened until the next boom cycle (if then). I know all that. I just hate to see the hypocrisy and bad faith rewarded.

www.bostonglobe.com

Citing equity, climate concerns, Janey scraps harbor zoning plan - The Boston Globe

Acting Mayor Kim Janey says the city will re-do a controversial waterfront zoning plan that would enable a 600-foot tower along Boston Harbor, with an eye to concerns about equity, public access, and climate change.
www.bostonglobe.com www.bostonglobe.com

EDIT: Uhub points out the obvious: the prior plan actually proposed ways to address sea level rise, and Janey just ripped them up and restarted a decade-long process. Tremendous cowardice in the face of corrupt hypocrisy from herhonnah here that might actually prevent Boston from preparing for rising seas.

www.universalhub.com

Janey rips up waterfront plan that would have finally allowed Chiofaro skyscraper and James Hook hotel

Acting Mayor Kim Janey today cited Boston's unique vulnerability to rising sea levels in announcing she was withdrawing a waterfront plan developed by then mayor Marty Walsh under which the Chiofaro family would have finally gotten to build a skyscraper next to the New England Aquarium, long...
www.universalhub.com www.universalhub.com
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top