The St Regis Residences (former Whiskey Priest site) | 150 Seaport Blvd | Seaport

[stellarfun]

How many major developments were proposed in those 42 Acres?
Harbor Garage proposal was the reason CLF challenged the so called Harbor Plan along with so called Whiskey Priest development to give them sometype of history for not just challenging the Harbor Garage proposal.

That's the devil in the details. Why didn't CLF make such an uproar about the entire Fan Pier development when it was all parking lots and plenty of open space?

The problem with Harbor Garage is their is no Open Space for the public. The developer will actually create better options for the overall public than leave it completely barricading the ocean. CLF is being very Hypocritical towards this specific situation.

If CLF challenged the original proposals in the Seaport with all the open space from the beginning of the developments then you can have an argument but they didn't. They waited to the Seaport to be completely built-up along with blocking the waterfront then decided to go after Harbor Garage and Whiskey Priest proposals which both sites are existing structures that add no value to the overall public.

For a non-profit company to say we think this garage is a better option then more open space for the overall public in this location along with more tax revenue for the city.

Maybe the IRS should be looking into these types of Non-profit companies which seemed to have a specific agenda.

^^^This is incoherent gibberish worthy of the everyday soliloquies of that other Donald.

1.) The 42 acres covers an area with two proposed towers, Chiofaro's and Hook Lobster's.

2.) Chiofaro's Harbor Garage building, if he ever gets to build it, will barricade the ocean (your words) about as much as the garage does now. Chiofaro is creating open space by placing the garage ramps on Milk St. The view one will get from the Greenway after this open space is created, is simply more of the Aquarium, with the ocean out of sight.

3.) As has been previously explained to you numerous times, 'open space' already exists between the current garage and the harbor. The open space runs between East India Row and Milk St, along the east side of the garage and is perhaps 30 feet wide. This is part of the Harborwalk.

4.) To my knowledge, the CLF has never asserted that retention of the existing garage is the best option for this parcel of land.
____________
An underlying issue with Whiskey Priest was that Cronin and the previous owner of the site -- either from willful disregard (previous owner) or ignorance and a failure to perform due diligence (Cronin, giving him the benefit of the doubt) -- were in violation of the terms and conditions of state-issued permit allowing building on the site. And Cronin, as the successor owner, was called on it.

 

[JANAM]

Could not going after Atlantic Wharf had anything to with the fact that nothing was done to modify the footprint of the existing building on the site whereas these other projects are all creating new buildings and new footprints? I feel like that's a pretty significant difference.

The Whiskey Priest project actually shrunk the existing footprint of the bars for the new development and built a huge harborwalk for the public so I don't think it has bearing.

I just don't think the proposal at Lewis Wharf was in the mix during with Fan Pier or Atlantic Wharf approval process. It was only when their own water views were being threatened that they decided to sue other waterfront projects as cover for their own self serving agenda.

 

[TheRifleman]

^^^This is incoherent gibberish worthy of the everyday soliloquies of that other Donald.

1.) The 42 acres covers an area with two proposed towers, Chiofaro's and Hook Lobster's.

2.) Chiofaro's Harbor Garage building, if he ever gets to build it, will barricade the ocean (your words) about as much as the garage does now. Chiofaro is creating open space by placing the garage ramps on Milk St. The view one will get from the Greenway after this open space is created, is simply more of the Aquarium, with the ocean out of sight.

3.) As has been previously explained to you numerous times, 'open space' already exists between the current garage and the harbor. The open space runs between East India Row and Milk St, along the east side of the garage and is perhaps 30 feet wide. This is part of the Harborwalk.

4.) To my knowledge, the CLF has never asserted that retention of the existing garage is the best option for this parcel of land.
____________
An underlying issue with Whiskey Priest was that Cronin and the previous owner of the site -- either from willful disregard (previous owner) or ignorance and a failure to perform due diligence (Cronin, giving him the benefit of the doubt) -- were in violation of the terms and conditions of state-issued allowing building on the site. And Cronin, as the successor owner, was called on it.

#2 The existing garage is already barricading the Ocean with a 90% footprint concrete block from the public.
Why didn't CLF focus their non-profit funds on the Seaport instead of Harbor Garage? Instead we handed out tax dollars to let all the corporations build on open priceless space in the Seaport to barricade the ocean from the public. Not only that---- CLF pays no taxes---Doesn't make any sense why CLF would go after an existing structure development vs actual open space. Unless there was an agenda

#3 The majority of the public would rather a Chiofaro/Pru tower over the parking garage that blocks 90% of the footprint from the overall public.
The area is very uninviting. (city planners should be all over this)

#4 There main goal is to delay the progress which has been going on for decade concerning the Proposal. Look at the Greenway in that area its AWFUL along with that STUPID IMAX BLOCK

The Greenway is a disgrace in that area. Thank God for CLF and Great city planners right?

 

[odurandina]

Stellarfun is confabulating; When the tower goes up, 40% of the current width of the Garage (the maxium that is realistically possible) will join up with the Central Wharf Cul-de-sac to create the appearance of a gaping wide opening to the Harbor.

Are we still playing this game? We'd have seen a proposal by now if Chiofaro wasn't already squeezed right up to the edge of failure.

 

[FK4]

I'm not going to dredge up the history of this project here. The standards for what passes muster in most of these AB posts is troubling, because it matches exactly what passes muster in my neighborhoood.

Great posts. Nice to actually see someone both informed and involved. The level of discourse on this site is basically at the level of Fox News, at best. I actually quoted you over in the Edison Plant development thread.

 

[Sicilian]

Why didn't CLF focus their non-profit funds on the Seaport instead of Harbor Garage?

They did. CLF was deeply engaged in the South Boston Waterfront Municipal Harbor Plan process. You didn't read one of my posts above describing what CLF accomplished at Fan Pier by digging in there, aggravating the landowner, administration and individuals such as yourself.

 

[FK4]

Thanks Stellar and LrFox for filling in the details.

My gripes are about perception and representation. I am arguing that these groups seem, to most, like elites battling other elites. They absolutely do tackle good/important/progressive issues (but I already knew they did that).

Here's what else I know:
When my wife and I visit the Seaport to take a stroll on sunny Saturdays (as we've done many times) there are lots of families and kids playing in the new park spaces in/around fan pier. Playing frisbee on the green. Enjoying the view. This is obviously a guess, but most do not seem to be rich people. They seem like everyday greater Boston people.

These people have no idea about any of this. They don't know the Cronins from the Fallons from the Skanskas. All they know is that they can play frisbee on the green. And that they can get a nice harbor view all around these developments.

And so this is a big part of why I take exception to some of the CLF's "acting on behalf of" work. Acting on behalf of whom?

To the general public, if they are even aware of any of this at all, it's all just a bunch of Rich Person A battling Rich Person B. Now let me get back to my Frisbee...

EDIT:
Also, please do not conflate my views with other aBrs' broadbrush rants against these groups (incl. in other threads). I am asking how they can operate with more community involvement, more diverse representation, so that their prioritization of initiatives is actually in-line with what the community wants/needs. I am not advocating they they disappear.

Entities like Skanska build private projects for rich people, and left unfettered, the public gets nothing. I don’t see where this “rich people battling rich people” thing comes in, other than the fact that all nonprofits are chaired by wealthy people. That’s why they’re successful nonprofits.

While I do think at a certain point we should be paying attention to the possibility that there’s a separation between the “real” need of “the people” and the perceived need as determined by some elite groups, it’s important to not get too unidimensional on this. Without groups like this, there would be no frisbee and there’s be a “private property” sign on that grass. In the end, the zeitgeist is an extremely smallminded one that tramples nuance and elevates the slogan to a greater extent than we’ve seen in a long time. There’s not much the individual can do about that other than question their own assumptions and the simplistic explanations that are constantly being put forth in the media and the internet.

I don’t know what more these organizations can do... they certainly attract environmentalists, because I know people who were green and crunchy and now work there. I hear what you’re saying, though, but the mission of, eg, the CLF isn’t really to listen to the community, but to enforce the law and protect the waterways for perpetuity. If the public’s interest transiently deviates from that, I’m not sure I would support the CLF doing the same…

 

[bigpicture7]

...I don’t see where this “rich people battling rich people” thing comes in, other than the fact that all nonprofits are chaired by wealthy people…

But this is exactly where it comes in. First, no, not all non-profits are chaired by wealthy people. Numerous community non-profits in the poorer parts of Boston are largely run by non-wealthy people (and I don't have time to dig up all the citations) - but to your point, many of these struggle financially. Search the recent Globe.

Second, I am not saying "rich people shouldn't be involved"...I was asking for better representation in their governance, such as to guide prioritization of the initiatives they undertake. Even the CLF, I presume, has limited resources that govern a priority order of pursuits.

And Third, the whole issue is the perception that CLF picks their battles perhaps in a way that serves the self-interest of certain wealthy people, rather than the greater community. Again, I very conscientiously have been choosing the word perception, because I believe these groups do a lot of good. But, for example, if they had better representation on their board, would the choice of initiative prioritization be the same? In the end, their credibility is undermined if the perception of non-representativeness exists (which it clearly has been recently).

 

[bigpicture7]

This thread - and I should say, the specific angry/ignorant/toxic posts of a few aBers - has made me really angry. To the point that I'll probably take one of my breaks from this site for a bit.

I had doubts/concerns about CLF that I was enjoying discussing thoughtfully with several knowledgable posters who champion the CLF more than I do, yet were graciously donating their time to talk through things (Sicilian, Lrfox, stellarfun...and yes FK4...and others) - yet the dialogue kept getting interrupted by vile, senseless blather by people who weren't even reading the prior posts.

Given how this type of a thread demoralizes a lot of us, I am taking the time to write this post of thanks to Sicilian, Lrfox, stellar, FK...so that you know your time and effort is appreciated. I may not agree with everything you write, but you are making me (and I am sure many, many other silent readers) better informed and more open-minded. A heartfelt thank-you: and keep fighting the good fight.

Lastly, some of my thoughts/concerns were admittedly influenced by reading this. It's by no means a perfect argument (and fyi it leans left, yet it's certainly also critical of the left) - but it does offer an eye-opening view of how many non-governmental groups are a lot less pure than one might think (and run the risk of undermining representative democracy by employing band-aid fixes, rather than fixing the core of the issue: inept/ineffective gov). I read many books and don't take any of them too seriously; suffice to say, this one simply helped broaden my perspective.

 

[FK4]

This thread - and I should say, the specific angry/ignorant/toxic posts of a few aBers - has made me really angry. To the point that I'll probably take one of my breaks from this site for a bit.

I had doubts/concerns about CLF that I was enjoying discussing thoughtfully with several knowledgable posters who champion the CLF more than I do, yet were graciously donating their time to talk through things (Sicilian, Lrfox, stellarfun...and yes FK4...and others) - yet the dialogue kept getting interrupted by vile, senseless blather by people who weren't even reading the prior posts.

Given how this type of a thread demoralizes a lot of us, I am taking the time to write this post of thanks to Sicilian, Lrfox, stellar, FK...so that you know your time and effort is appreciated. I may not agree with everything you write, but you are making me (and I am sure many, many other silent readers) better informed and more open-minded. A heartfelt thank-you: and keep fighting the good fight.

Lastly, some of my thoughts/concerns were admittedly influenced by reading this. It's by no means a perfect argument (and fyi it leans left, yet it's certainly also critical of the left) - but it does offer an eye-opening view of how many non-governmental groups are a lot less pure than one might think (and run the risk of undermining representative democracy by employing band-aid fixes, rather than fixing the core of the issue: inept/ineffective gov). I read many books and don't take any of them too seriously; suffice to say, this one simply helped broaden my perspective.

Bigpicture, I hear you. Your comments and clarity are appreciated, hard to dialogue on the internet without spirits running high and sinking to the lowest common denominator... although some are harder to tolerate than others. Lord knows I’m guilty on here of that sometimes as well, though. I do want to respond to your other post (the reply to mine) - I get what you’re saying, but I disagree, to an extent, at least. To clarify a bit: when I referenced wealthy people heading nonprofits i only meant major ones and should have been explicit. You just aren’t going to find a large organization, regardless of whether it is for or not for profit, that isn’t headed by somebody with business expertise… Which of course usually means someone who made money along the way. That’s never going to change, but whether or not you or I or anyone thinks that’s a good thing or not is a separate issue.

As for representation and actually gauging what the “community” (a loaded term) wants... This is complicated. On the one hand, I think we are seeing, generally, a large scale reaction against embedded interests, and that includes a lot of seemingly left leaning and liberal organizations that have evolved to really become double-talking, hypocritical, and fomenting niche interests that captivate the privileged left but suppress or harm the people’s left. And I think that doesn’t need to be stamped out. My concern is that the reactionary ethos has translated into a paranoia and suspicion against all wealth, and all establishment groups, regardless of whether they actually do good things or not. Even worse, there is in the zeitgeist a seeming desire to derive more satisfaction from tearing down something that’s actually good (if it smacks of establishment) and elevating things that appear, superficially, democratic. Some people would seem to see the government bequeathing developable land to private enterprise to be a move “of the people” and the CLF’s opposition as some elitist power move. I see things as quite the opposite.

I’m not as well versed in the details of the CLF and I feel driven by the opposition into becoming far more of a cheerleader than I actually am (also, as so often is the case with so many things these days)... but I do think there’s something dreadfully wrong if the public perception of them as an organization is that they are just pushing projects that “serve the self interests of certain wealthy people”. I believe your quote is referencing what you see as perception and not your own view, but — simply looking at their website and paying closer attention to what they do rather than what one might learn in the comments section of a news article would answer any question one might have about their priories. I actually and quite strongly disagree with your assertion that it is incumbent upon them to change the make up of their board or the projects they choose to fight for, when if there is a perception problem as described above, that misperception is so utterly misguided and yet unfortunately in line with a deluded and fairly rabid national discourse that is out for blood more than solutions, it’s pretty much an immutable one. Pointless to try to change, and not their responsibility, either. If we are to live in a world where fighting for public amenities to suit everyone on the Charles and the Harbor is considered some elitist endeavor, we are in deep trouble, indeed. I suppose in that case we may as welll wait for the inevitable for the Charles River Conservancy, the Charles River Watershed Association, the Trustees of Reservations, and the Boston Foundation.

 

[TheRifleman]

FK4–if these nonprofit companies cared about public opinion why not create an overall polling system concerning the issues for the public on their websites to help guide them with the best interest of the public allowing a both sides of the view well documented arguments from both sides to choose from backed with data?

Then at least the public can view both sides of the argument and choose what is the best interest for the public which could guide these nonprofit agencies based on public polling results. At least their is documented data that they are looking out for the best interest of the public based on their data.

 

[Rover]

Could not going after Atlantic Wharf had anything to with the fact that nothing was done to modify the footprint of the existing building on the site whereas these other projects are all creating new buildings and new footprints? I feel like that's a pretty significant difference.

I'm not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt given their recent history. South Boston power plan is modifying the footprint of an existing structure yet they're butting in with their hand out for a payoff. IMAX Theatre is a total and complete blockage of waterfront views to benefit a private entity. Again, you have to pay to enter that space.

Sure seems to me they're picking favorites instead of sticking to principles.

Regarding citizens groups, particularly litigious ones, it comes down to this: there's no accountability. What some posters want apparently is a situation where certain projects that clearly violate every rule on the book (IMAX) are allowed to proceed with nobody running to court, while other projects where the entity trying to build is not in "favor" gets to slog it out in court for a decade over far smaller zoning variances unless they pay off these people via donations to their pet causes. All the while, these same unaccountable organizations profess via friendly media outlets to "represent the public".

I myself prefer to live in a representative democracy. You get what you vote for, or if you choose not to vote, you get what other people vote for. If you don't like Marty Walsh, vote him out. Or, stack the City Council with rivals who will exert certain levers of power to keep him in check. That's the right way for the system to work. Not deploying a "phalanx of lawyers" for any project that you don't like. Nobody elected Hostetter, the Barr Foundation, Shirley Kressel, Ned Flaherty, or the CLF to act on our behalf, and we can't fire them if they do a shitty job. How then is this any different then than dealing with the Mafia back in the day?

 

[Suffolk 83]

Hold on a minute... is Ned Flaherty involved with the CLF? Hadn't heard that name in a while

 

[Rover]

Hold on a minute... is Ned Flaherty involved with the CLF? Hadn't heard that name in a while

I'm lumping all NIMBY's who exist to block development to get their names in the paper for other nefarious reasons (like when Ned offered to drop his opposition in exchange for a job ). Ned, Shirley, Amos, CLF, etc etc. Its always the same tune.

Different than other groups like Boston Foundation or Friends of Public Garden who do seem to be more interested in their mission and less about generating headlines.

 

[Beton Brut]

I'm lumping all NIMBY's who exist to block development to get their names in the paper for other nefarious reasons...

Because the most adept painters always favor the broadest available brush...

 

[stellarfun]

Stellarfun is confabulating; When the tower goes up, 40% of the current width of the Garage (the maxium that is realistically possible) will join up with the Central Wharf Cul-de-sac to create the appearance of a gaping wide opening to the Harbor.

Are we still playing this game? We'd have seen a proposal by now if Chiofaro wasn't already squeezed right up to the edge of failure.

Moi? Confabulate?

The 50 percent open space requirement as decreed by the Commonwealth is to be satisfied by having 30 percent on the Milk St (north) side; and the remaining 20 percent on the east and south sides, without further specification on the percentages for the east and south sides.

Further, the Commonwealth decreed that all 50 percent of the open space was to be 'open to the sky'; i.e., no glass pavilions, canopies, awnings, balconies, etc. You surely recall that an early Chiofaro scheme for this property counted a very large, glass-roofed, multi-season, multi-use pavilion as 'open space'.

As your presumption is that a 40 percent open space levy has "squeezed [Chiofaro] right up to the edge of failure", then the 50 percent requirement surely has shoved him and his vision over the precipice.

The Commonwealth's 50 percent requirement existed at the time Chiofaro purchased the garage, so a developer (other than an ignorant or arrogant one) would have been aware of this limitation, and adjusted the purchase price accordingly.

As I understand it, the 50 percent requirement may sometimes be met through offsets. IIRC, Chiofaro, early-on, proposed an offset using land that he did not own.

 

[stellarfun]

....................

Are we still playing this game? We'd have seen a proposal by now if Chiofaro wasn't already squeezed right up to the edge of failure.

To help in your assessment of the tightness of Chiofaro's financial squeeze, the Commonwealth has decreed a building footprint of 29,000 sq ft (that's rounded up a bit). 31 floors at 29,000 sq ft gets you 900,000 sq ft of building, which is the most that the city is allowing.

At an average 13 feet between floors, that's a building that comes in at 400 feet, surely coincidentally the height of HT. True, Chiofaro can taper the floor footprint so the east side is lower, and the west side is higher and get to 500 or 600 feet max height, but 600 feet will be at the SW corner of the building (remember, no new shadows on Long Wharf March through October). And to get 600 feet at the SW corner, the 20 percent of open space (divided between east and south sides) would be entirely on the east side, away from the water.

 

[TheRifleman]

Stellarfun, If the city and these nonprofit companies really cared about the overall public why not issue out a poll to the overall public to decide the fate of the garage.

The current harbor garage vs chiofaro/Pru original proposal

What are the positives of keeping the concrete garage in place along with a list of negatives.
The garage in my opinion is demoralizing the area and there could be a lot of benefit to the overall public with chiofaro’s/Pru proposal.
For example the developerment could create the blueway park connected to the greenway along with being on rapid transit open to the public. Very inviting to all- everybody- not just the selected few with money.

What is CLF vision for the garage? the problem is they don’t own it. And parking at this point is priceless in the city so what would give the developer any incentive to knock it down to create a beautiful area for the public.

Unless you really believe the garage is perfect for the public on this location. The problem is you don’t decide what actually gets built here only the investor.

You talk about laws, laws get changed everyday and change for every single development. I remember when gambling was illegal in this state. I remember when smoking pot was illegal in this state. All you can constantly say is chap 91 so Chiofaro paid too much for the garage as the taxpayers have issued unlimited tax incentives for every other corporation/ developer over at the seaport to justify zoning building codes.

Harbor garage is a disgrace in that location and the city along with CLF should be supporting the knocked down. The site was originally zoned for another 400ft tower before the garage was built in the first place until Mayor Menino started getting involved nothing more than some political agenda. According to our exMayor the garage was the better option for the public. I disagree and I bet the majority of the public would too.

 

[Rover]

Well said. Would totally be in favor of a public referendum on this issue. Let the people decide.

Also to stellar's credit, even though he claimed for years Chiofaro paid too much for the garage after I proved him wrong mathematically using stellar's own #'s and a comparison to the Common garage he did eventually stop posting that. Your point remains though Rifleman, which is with Don making money hand over fist with that garage, he holds all the cards.

 

[stellarfun]

We may have to create the equivalent of a Godwin's Law for HT. I re-entered the debate because the ogres of CLF and Barr had migrated over to the HT project, but there is little point continuing to re-litigate in this thread a project that is now 12 years old and no further advanced than it was in 2007 when Chiofaro bought the garage for $153 million. The cost of burying the existing garage was stated by Chiofaro to be $180 million in 2014, and IIRC, that burying estimate was originally given by Ted Oatis, his late partner, several years before.
https://www.bostonherald.com/2014/0...-1b-two-tower-project-for-harbor-garage-site/

Rifleman & Rover, I leave it to you to figure how Chiofaro recovers a sunk cost of $335 million with a 900,000 square foot building. If that proves impossible, then I propose the garage be re-clad in brick, replicating the appearance of India Wharf which was on the site for many decades. Call the reclad garage a homage to Bulfinch.