The Boston Arch (Aquarium parking garage) [Archive]

05-25-2006, 04:55 AM

Chiofaro plans high-rise housing on Greenway
Developer aims to use site of parking garage

By Steve Bailey, Globe Staff | May 25, 2006

With Boston's office market recovering and developers beginning to jockey for position, International Place builder Donald Chiofaro is readying plans for a huge new tower across the Rose Kennedy Greenway from the twin office towers he built in the city's last great building boom more than a decade ago.

Chiofaro, one of Boston's best-known developers, won't comment on his plans, which are preliminary. But two City Hall sources said yesterday that Chiofaro is negotiating an option to buy the parking garage across from the New England Aquarium and wants to build a tower on the site that would largely be residential and rival in scale the nearby 400-foot-high Harbor Towers.

The 1,380-space garage is owned by Urban Growth Property Trust, which bought it six years ago from Equity Office Properties as part of a $180 million transaction that included parking garages in five cities. Urban Growth could not be reached for comment.

Chiofaro is scheduled to present his initial ideas for the site today to the Boston Redevelopment Authority. A BRA spokeswoman declined to comment, but a city official said the agency would be open to Chiofaro's plans to demolish the garage -- considered an eyesore on the new Greenway -- and build a tower with underground parking.

Chiofaro's proposal comes at a time of renewed interest in tall buildings in Boston.

In February, Mayor Thomas M. Menino proposed building a 1,000-foot tower on the site of a city-owned garage in Winthrop Square.

Among other projects in the pipeline: Equity Office's proposed 31-floor tower at Russia Wharf on the Greenway and Boston developer Joseph Fallon's plans for a smaller office building on Fan Pier. And Hines Interests LP of Houston continues to push its long-stalled tower over South Station, while Delaware North Cos. has zoning in place for two 40-story towers at North Station.

The activity has been fueled by declining vacancy rates and rising office rents, particularly in the downtown business district. Commercial real estate broker Grubb & Ellis reports that office vacancies in the central business district fell to 11.5 percent in the first quarter, dipping below 12 percent for the first time in four years. Rents in the top floors of some towers in the Back Bay are being quoted a $60 a square foot, Grubb & Ellis said.

Chiofaro, a model for Tom Wolfe's high-living, highly extended real estate mogul in the novel, ``A Man in Full," has proven himself a survivor in Boston's real estate world. Two years ago, he used bankruptcy protection to block New York-based Tishman Speyer Properties from seizing control of International Place. Proclaiming Tishman and his associates ``a gang of pirates," Chiofaro brought in a new partner, Prudential Real Estate Investors. While he significantly reduced his own stake, and Tishman walked away with an estimated $40 million as a consolation prize, Chiofaro was able to maintain his position atop his beloved International Place.

At best, the tenacious Chiofaro has a mixed relationship with city officials. Currently, he is seeking a tax abatement that would cut International Place's $17.6 million property taxes by $3.75 million for fiscal year 2005. City officials, sensitive to rising property taxes for homeowners, are staunchly opposed.

``They believe they can raise $734 million in capital for the property, and then claim it's only worth $424 million for property-tax purposes," said city assessor Ronald Rakow. ``We disagree."

Chiofaro's partner, Ted Oatis, said they have ``a pending tax-abatement case with the city assessor. It is a commercial disagreement and is in process. We have a fiduciary duty to our tenants and investor partners, and we are relying upon expert advisers. Our only goal is a fair and reasonable result."

05-25-2006, 04:57 AM

^^
Forgot to login...

KentXie

05-25-2006, 04:58 AM

^^Forgot to login twice...

statler

05-25-2006, 08:47 AM

This would be great if it happened but I'm thinking Vivian Li (sp?) is going to have a hissy fit.

JSic

05-25-2006, 09:30 AM

This is great news. That gawddawful garage has got to go.

bowesst

05-25-2006, 09:36 AM

Yes!!!!!!!!!!1111

BostonSkyGuy

05-25-2006, 10:00 AM

Finally! That garage drives me nuts, I always hoped they'd remove it and put something...anything there. Hopefully this goes through, plus it's a nice height. Maybe they'll do a decent design. If it looks like the Harbor Towers I'll be pissed.

LeTaureau

05-25-2006, 02:58 PM

This is terrific! Notice how a lot of the vacant lots and or ugly parking garages now have development proposals - Winthrop Square, Province St, The Clarendon, Several Chinatown developments, and now the Aquarium parking garage. Next all we need is the Gov't Center garage to come down. Developable land is becoming more and more scarce downtown, a good and healthy sign to me.

ckb

05-25-2006, 08:27 PM

I'm pretty sure that in the end, this will become an "un-tower" given the pressures of people afraid of height and of shadowing the Greenway.

I hope Chiofaro is able to push something through (and that the term "huge" will allow him to come down to a profitable "big" as he works through the process).

With its frontage on the Greenway on one side and the Harbor on the other side, there is absolutely no reason for this to be a multi-story parking garage.

For the Gov't Center garage, though, I'm afraid we'll have to wait longer (the best I can hope for is the idea presented in the old forum of chopping it in half (the portion which overhangs Congress St.).

KentXie

05-25-2006, 09:05 PM

Well considering that he wants to build something that rivals the Harbor Towers and that the attitude towards skyscrapers seems to have change slightly to a more favorable one, this might actually be a pretty tall tower.

Matt

05-26-2006, 05:57 AM

from today's globe..

Chiofaro thinks big as Greenway project would rival the Pru
By Steve Bailey and Chris Reidy, Globe Staff | May 26, 2006

Don Chiofaro, the man who built giant International Place, does not think small. And he is not thinking small as he eyes an ambitious new development on the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway

According to Chiofaro and City Hall officials briefed on his plans, the huge mixed-use project would total about 1.2 million square feet -- the equivalent of the Prudential Tower itself. It would include a 175-room hotel, 125 condos, 800,000 square feet of office space, and significant retail space. The early concept is for two buildings, including a 475-foot tower -- about 75 feet higher than the neighboring Harbor Towers. Ted Oatis, Chiofaro's partner, said the project would open a pedestrian corridor, creating a view to the harbor.

Projected cost: $600 million to $800 million.

City Hall officials, who met with Chiofaro for the first time yesterday, called the project ``very preliminary." But they and Chiofaro confirmed that the developer has secured an option to buy the parking garage just in front of the New England Aquarium, and plans to demolish the garage and replace it with 1,400 underground spaces. One official estimated it would take two to three years to get the project through the permitting process. The site is about 1.3 acres in all, bounded by Milk Street, East India Row, and Atlantic Avenue.

``This is the most exciting piece of real estate in the city of Boston," Chiofaro said yesterday after meeting with the Boston Redevelopment Authority.

The project, reported in The Boston Globe yesterday, would mark a remarkable comeback for Chiofaro. Two years ago, Chiofaro was in danger of losing control of International Place to New York-based Tishman Speyer Properties. In response, Chiofaro took International Place into bankruptcy, and brought in Prudential Real Estate Investors to refinance the project. Tishman Speyer walked away with about $40 million in profit, Chiofaro's ownership was reduced, but he retained his position in International Place.

Prudential has had very preliminary talks with Chiofaro about participating in the new project, but is far from a deal, the firm said. ``Don Chiofaro has been a great partner in the International Place deal," said spokeswoman Theresa Miller. ``As with all our partners, we are eager to explore an opportunity that has potential for benefiting our investors. This project could be one of them."

Since he completed the second tower of International Place in 1993, Chiofaro has tried to do other large projects in the city and failed. Chiofaro won and then lost the development rights to build what later became the 36-story headquarters for State Street Corp. on the edge of Chinatown. He later sued the minority investors who were his partner. He also had and lost the rights to develop the South Boston Waterfront site that became Manulife Financial's US headquarters.

Chiofaro is known to have a cool relationship with Mayor Thomas M. Menino, whose support is critical for any developer. Yesterday Menino said housing affordability and parking are of particular concern to him.

``Whatever goes there has to be sensitive to the people of Harbor Towers and the aquarium. Both have gone through a lot in the last 12 years," Menino said, referring to the Big Dig reconstruction. The BRA declined to comment.

Early reaction to the Chiofaro proposal was cautious. Until more details are public, the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway Conservancy plans to withhold comment, said Nancy Brennan , the conservancy's executive director. The conservancy is a private nonprofit gradually assuming responsibility for maintaining the new parks.

In general, the conservancy is inclined to look favorably upon development that would bring new life to neighborhoods along the Greenway, she said. ``Residences and offices that bring more families and people who will use the Greenway's parks and amenities would be a great thing for the city and would strengthen the neighborhood," Brennan said.
Joseph T. Baerlein , co chairman of the Harbor Towers Condominium Trust , noted that Harbor Towers residents take up about 400 parking spaces in the garage that Chiofaro wants to redevelop under leases that won't expire until 2018 and 2019. The heating and cooling systems for Harbor Towers also are located in the garage, he said.

Baerlein expects that Chiofaro's project would include underground parking that would replace what would be lost from the garage. Concerns about Harbor Towers parking and its heating and cooling systems are not ``obstacles that can't be overcome," he said. ``It's prudent and wise to have an open mind about this" proposal, said Baerlein. Of the garage, he said, ``We wouldn't exactly be losing a crown jewel here."

Steve Bailey can be reached at bailey@globe.com; Chris Reidy at reidy@globe.com.

castevens

05-26-2006, 06:03 AM

Picture of the garage?

I'm unfamiliar (although I bet I'll know once I see it)

shiz02130

05-26-2006, 10:01 AM

From yesterday:

http://www.seanhenryryan.com/arch/05.25.06/harborgarage.JPG

quadratdackel

05-26-2006, 11:27 AM

Are those two taller buildings in the background the Harbor Towers? Those look like decently tall buildings, so taller than that would be great, although that would have been interesting if they would've proposed a 1000-footer or something.
The garage sure won't be missed. The proposed underground parking is essentially the same size (1400 proposed vs 1380 current). Of course, I'd prefer seeing 0 parking spaces, but I understand that's not currently realistic, and this will at least increase the people to parking spaces ratio, or more importantly, significantly increase the number of people who might own cars and parking spaces but probably aren't using them very often. So I like this proposal, even if I've heard "This is the most exciting piece of real estate in the city of Boston" before (Winthrop Square, Waterfront).

chumbolly

05-26-2006, 01:06 PM

If Chiofaro can pull this off, his next project should be fixing Iraq. It's on the water, so Vivian Lee is going to sink her teeth in; it's on the Greenway, so the random cast of charachters that calls the Greenway shots will throw their weight around; it would definitely soar, and we know how that goes over; but worst of all, it would block some views and screw up the parking situation for Harbor Tower residents. Those people are well versed in raising stink. I can hardly imagine a more challenging project to get off the ground.

BostonSkyGuy

05-26-2006, 02:57 PM

It said 2 to 3 years for the permit process (which is a clusterfuck) add another 5 for the bullshit that Chiofaro is going to deal with from opposition to the project (see Chumbolly's post).

Looking at it objectively, I can understand their concern with the parking situation to an extent. Their spaces will continue over into the new 1,400 space underground spots, but where will they park in the mean time when/if the original garage is torn down?

Also I would have really liked a 600-800 footer here because this is one of the really, really good spots on the waterfront for a project of that size.

I see this project being proposed as a pretty decent sized building 500'+? but if it gets built at all, it won't be any where near that. Another building similiar to the size of the Harbor Towers would be great, but I'm not the biggest fan of the design of those Towers (as some of you know.) Practical? Sure. Asthetically Pleasing? Hardly. I hope this project does what those two buildings don't, add to the waterfront skyline.

chumbolly

05-26-2006, 04:37 PM

Another building similiar to the size of the Harbor Towers would be great, but I'm not the biggest fan of the design of those Towers (as some of you know.) Practical? Sure. Asthetically Pleasing? Hardly. I hope this project does what those two buildings don't, add to the waterfront skyline. The Harbor Towers are actually a disaster from the point of practicality. The workmanship was horrible (they started shedding chunks of concrete within 15 years of being built) and the infrastructure is completely inadequate. Owners aren't allowed to install clothes washers or dryers because it would overwhelm the systems, and the electrical wiring supposedly can't handle the demands of some home theater systems. I know people that own million and a half dollar condos in there, and they don't have a washer in their unit. Crazy. I was thinking that the one ace Chiofaro may have up his sleeve is he could offer to upgrade the mechanical systems that are located in the garage in order to win the support of HT residents.

quadratdackel

05-26-2006, 04:56 PM

I know people that own million and a half dollar condos in there, and they don't have a washer in their unit.
Maybe if you can afford a $1.5M condo, then you can afford laundry service? Still, the situation is pretty remarkable. I guess housing downtown is just that in-demand?

BostonSkyGuy

05-26-2006, 05:22 PM

The Harbor Towers are actually a disaster from the point of practicality. The workmanship was horrible (they started shedding chunks of concrete within 15 years of being built) and the infrastructure is completely inadequate. Owners aren't allowed to install clothes washers or dryers because it would overwhelm the systems, and the electrical wiring supposedly can't handle the demands of some home theater systems. I know people that own million and a half dollar condos in there, and they don't have a washer in their unit. Crazy. I was thinking that the one ace Chiofaro may have up his sleeve is he could offer to upgrade the mechanical systems that are located in the garage in order to win the support of HT residents.

I had no idea this was going on. Just another reason to hate the Harbor Towers for me I guess. I don't know, I know a lot of people who like them and I just don't see it. For such a great spot I feel like they could have come up with a much better design. I would have preferred glass because it would mix up the waterfront a bit. I'm just shocked that all that is going on, it's pretty disturbing.

KentXie

05-28-2006, 08:07 AM

I have a question, how can a 475ft tower rival the Prudential?

castevens

05-28-2006, 09:20 AM

in ugliness?

lexicon506

05-28-2006, 01:21 PM

I have a question, how can a 475ft tower rival the Prudential?

He doesn't mean it will rival the Pru in height, but in amount of space and square footage that the complex will have.

BostonSkyGuy

05-28-2006, 01:51 PM

KentXie

05-28-2006, 07:10 PM

Remember that 111 Huntington is only 554 feet and I think you could make an argument that it's one of the best buildings in Boston.

Sometimes I think we focus too much on height, if it's 475' and looks as good as 111 Huntington, I'll be more than happy.
I don't think any of us really focus on the height. It's just that the word rival has been exaggerated too much since there are many towers in Boston that is taller than 475 feet.

Ron Newman

05-30-2006, 09:07 PM

I'm not sure this would really cause problems for the likes of Vivian Li, as their main interest is ensuring public access to the waterfront. This project should not infringe on any of the existing walkways there.

lexicon506

05-30-2006, 09:13 PM

Oh don't worry, as long as it's within 5 miles of any body of water our friend Vivian will have something to say about it :roll:

bosma

05-31-2006, 01:36 AM

There is plenty of parking at the Boston Harbor Hotel Garage. But that might be a long walk for HT residents. Maybe they could set up a Valet.

Ron Newman

05-31-2006, 05:15 AM

I don't see how parking is an issue, given that the proposed project includes an underground garage.

justin

05-31-2006, 05:16 AM

During construction... Neighborhood crybabies don't take much to provoke.

justin

statler

06-21-2006, 01:28 PM

No new info per se, but some interesting behind the scenes stuff to keep in the back of your mind for when/if this project starts getting ramped up.

How not to win friends

By Steve Bailey, Globe Columnist | June 21, 2006

Don Chiofaro, once a star linebacker and captain of the Harvard football team, is a scrapper, a man who likes contact.

The developer of International Place fought and won a long court battle with his former lender, Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America, and won another court battle with his former equity partner, Hillman Properties. When he lost the rights to build what became the successful One Lincoln Street tower downtown, he sued and lost to a group of minority investors who were his partners. Most recently he went to war against giant Tishman Speyer Properties -- ``a gang of pirates," he called them -- who tried unsuccessfully to dislodge him from atop International Place.

Now Chiofaro is doing battle again, this time against the City of Boston. His goal: to slash International Place's property tax bill by $3.75 million, or 21 percent. And, by the way, Chiofaro is hoping the mayor will back his new plan for a huge mixed-use project just across the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway from International Place. Good luck, pal.

Testimony is to resume this week at the state's appellate tax board into Chiofaro's appeal of the $17.6 million tax bill last year for International Place's twin towers. Chiofaro's abatement request has drawn a strong response from the city, which notes that International Place's tax bill has declined 5.2 percent in five years while single-family taxpayers have seen their property tax bills soar 38.4 percent.

The arguments are arcane in a way that only a tax lawyer could love. But at base the city accuses Chiofaro of trying to game the system by valuing International Place much higher when it suited his purposes in his bitter battle with Tishman Speyer in bankruptcy court and much lower only months earlier when it suited his purposes for taxes. Chiofaro says the differing approaches are entirely appropriate.

In its fight with Tishman, the Chiofaro Co. filed for bankruptcy and brought in a new partner, Prudential Real Estate Investors, which recapitalized the property at $734 million, or $200 million more than the fiscal year '05 assessment from a year earlier, the city says. Three independent appraisals were done within a year, ranging from a high of $715 million to a low of $600 million by Cushman & Wakefield. Cushman, however, put a $424 million value on International Place in a separate appraisal for tax purposes.

``This is $176 million, or 30 percent, less than the value they told the bankruptcy court for a valuation just four months later," city assessor Ronald Rakow says.

Chiofaro's longtime partner, Ted Oatis, says this is the first time International Place has challenged its assessment, and had an obligation to do so on behalf of its tenants. Oatis offered several examples where the city had set the assessment far below the sales price of particular buildings. Such differing valuations are common, he said. ``There is clearly a difference of opinion, and that is why we are going through this process," Oatis said.

Rakow said Chiofaro was ``taking these differences to the extreme to hide from the strong investment demand for office towers . . . When you cut through all the smoke, the basic fact is that the assessment and underlying taxes for Mr. Chiofaro's building have actually declined during a period when office properties have sold at record prices. With this as a context, and given the $734 million recapitalization of his property, and the $600 million plus valuations presented to the bankruptcy court, does he really believe he's been over-assessed?" The city says the building's worth $539 million.

Every taxpayer, big and small, has a right to challenge his tax bill. But our mayor is a man who keeps score, and no project in this city goes anywhere without his support. Tom Menino doesn't much like Don Chiofaro anyway. Chiofaro's battle to pay less taxes at a time when homeowners are paying more won't help.

Steve Bailey is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at bailey@globe.com or at 617-929-2902.
Link (http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2006/06/21/how_not_to_win_friends/)

quadratdackel

06-21-2006, 03:23 PM

BostonSkyGuy

06-21-2006, 03:29 PM

I definately like this new tower idea, and I thought I liked Chiofaro for thinking/acting big in Boston, but, assuming it is this simple, his manipulating his propoerty's value in order to dodge taxes on it is really inexcusable and if I was Menino or whoever, I'd find someone else for the new tower unless Chiofaro makes up what he owes, and I certainly wouldn't let the taxes on International Place go any lower. If this property's too expensive for him, there's probably someone else who would gladly take it off his hands.

Exactly. So you allow him to build this new tower, and in 10 years the property value is deemed "excessive" by him again and you're in the same situation. The city has enough problems, it doesn't need Chiofaro suing it every few years because he doesn't think he should have to pay taxes in accordance to his buildings worth.

This whole thing just doesn't make sense to me. You're a prominant developer in a city, one of a handful of people who seems to do a good job getting things done and you decide to go after the city because you don't think you should have to pay taxes on your property? So what's he saying, his building isn't worth what they say it is? Wouldn't it be worth it to pay the 3 or 4 million more in taxes every year and then say in 10 years the building is going to be worth AT LEAST 50 million more? Look at the price of buildings these days, construction costs are skyrocketing. The whole thing is absurd. I'm shocked he chose this path and if I were the city, I'd be trying to stick it to him in every way.

Ron Newman

06-21-2006, 03:41 PM

Chiofaro also got into a big fight with Fred Salvucci and the Big Dig, years ago, about the placement of International Place Phase 2 and the relocation of an off-ramp.

bosdevelopment

06-22-2006, 08:28 AM

chumbolly

06-22-2006, 11:35 AM

It's irrelevant whether or not Chiaforo is requesting an abatement on his property. These are two separate issues all together. Menino isn't some sort of gestapo dictator that has the ability to hold a "personal score" against a taxpayer. The city receives enough in taxes as it is, let the guy build this tower, it's only going to result in more revenue for city hall.

Ahhh ... in a perfect world, I suppose. But did you see the article in today's Globe about how Menino threatened to audit the lease for Fanueil Hall because the company that runs it was going to boot a "local" merchant in favor of a chain? The local merchant sold flip flops. Score one for preserving the local flavor of FH. Or not.

citydave75

06-22-2006, 11:59 AM

My understanding- and I may be mistaken- of commercial property taxes is that they are fundamentally different from residential taxes.

Commercial taxes are based on a property's value which is directly related to the commercial tenancy and rent revenue within the building. So if a building is 90% occupied it has a very different tax bill than it would if the building were 50% occupied. This is obviously not the case with a residential property tax.

Because occupancy rates change fairly often it is not at all uncommon for a commercial property owner to appeal his property tax bill- IE his rental revenue- which directly correlates to his tax bill- may have dropped significantly, therefore he wishes the property to be reassessed to reflect the current level of occupancy.

I don't know the specifics of this case, but there are different ways to assess the value of a given property. One is based on current cash flow- which will render a lower value when occupancy is low- and another is based on the market expectation of where the office market is likely headed- IE, the value will be greater than current cash flow because rental rates and occupancy are expected to improve thereby increasing the future cash flow of the property.

My point is not necessarily to defend Chiofaro- again, I don't know enough about the specific case- but to explain why an owner might appeal a tax bill.

DudeUrSistersHot

06-22-2006, 01:56 PM

Menino isn't some sort of gestapo dictator that has the ability to hold a "personal score" against a taxpayer.

Ehh...

You have to draw thew line between "shouldn't be" and "isn't". Surely, he shouldn't be. But the fact is that he more or less is.

bosdevelopment

06-22-2006, 10:39 PM

bosma

06-23-2006, 03:05 AM

Citydave you are correct, I am not sure of the specifics either. I do know that tenants pay the taxes on the building, so it is Chiofaro's responsibility to challenge the tax rate if he thinks it should be lower. He probably got some heat from tenants

briv

08-14-2006, 12:59 AM

This is an excerpt from Steve Bailey's Boston Sampler in Friday's Globe:

I went to a downtown hotel yesterday to hear the trustees of Harbor Towers explain the sky-high costs of renovations to condo owners -- and promptly got tossed out of the ``private" meeting. Not to worry. A letter to residents outlines the costs, and they are much higher than I led you to believe in last week's column about the failing systems in this concrete waterfront eyesore. The costs for the two towers, according to the letter: $75 million to $95 million, depending on the extent of the overhaul. The assessment on condo owners, based on the higher estimate, ranges from $79,772 to $239,804. If you lived here . . . you'd be unhappy now. [end of quote]

Certainly, this will be a factor in whatever happens to that garage. On a side note, Ive always wondered what happens to large condo complexes when the huge costs to maintain giant, aging buildings become an unjustifiable burden to their occupants. Could we possibly see a Harbor Towers demolition sometime in the near future?

Another side-note: From what I understand, these buildings have been plagued with very serious structural and systems problems from, relatively, the very start. For example, after only a few years of their completion, rebar was already bursting through their concrete columns due to the proximity to the salty sea air and the architects' insistence on unrealistically slim columns. These problems, alongside the Hancock window fiasco, makes me wonder how Pei, Cobb and Freid is even in existence today, much less how they maintained their status as the elite firm they are regarded as.

bostonman

08-14-2006, 07:35 AM

I would really like for these two towers to be demolished and have something new put in its place. With all of the issues these towers have had throughout the years, I think that it might be better for them to be demolished and have the current owners or somebody else put up something useful on that plot of land.

JSic

08-14-2006, 07:44 AM

Tear 'em down and the garage with them, and build 3-4 new, more attractive condo towers.

chumbolly

08-14-2006, 08:24 AM

I wonder what will be the ultimate fate of these towers and other large condominium towers. Clearly, they've got a lifespan, so what will happen at the end of it? Buying out each and every owner would be near impossible and cost prohibitive, so I don't see a developer knocking it down and re-building. It seems that condominium skyscrapers ultimately face some really tough issues. Has anyone ever seen a similarly sized condo tower meet its end?

quadratdackel

08-14-2006, 02:39 PM

^ Condo towers vs. commercial towers: In terms of lifespan, should there be any difference? (Why?) Certainly condo towers can be split up among many more owners than commercial towers, which would complicate things as you say.

...I vaguely recall something about statewide height limits for buildings within some distance of the waterfront. Would this apply to any replacement buildings if these get demolished?

chumbolly

08-14-2006, 03:44 PM

^My first thought is, no, there shouldn't be a difference in life span. My concern is more what happens when the building reaches the end of it's life, and as you say, the issue is disparate ownership that causes all sorts of problems. But on reflection, certainly some condo towers, such as Harbor Towers, have issues with chronic under-investment in maintenance and repairs because it's hard to wrangle capital improvements from 300 separate owners. I imagine most modern towers, such as, say, the Hancock, will last pretty much forever so long as they're properly maintained and a single corporate owner is likely to spend the money to keep the tower in shape. But a steel-reinforced concrete tower sitting next to the ocean that hasn't been properly sealed over the years (because, in part, the owners refused to pay to fix the building) will not be giving the Roman aqueducts a run for the money.

DowntownDave

08-14-2006, 05:34 PM

I used to wonder how practical it would be to build two new, larger towers, offer swaps to the residents of the old ones, then demolish the old towers and replace those with new, smaller ones. Thus everyone gets out of the old building and the developer ends up with more revenue than before.

quadratdackel

08-14-2006, 06:03 PM

^ Something tells me that the Harbor Towers residents are not anxious to have even more construction in their neighborhood than already proposed by Chiofaro and then get told to move out of their units into new ones. From page 1 (Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 10:57 am)

from today's globe...

``Whatever goes there has to be sensitive to the people of Harbor Towers and the aquarium. Both have gone through a lot in the last 12 years," Menino said, referring to the Big Dig reconstruction. The BRA declined to comment.

bosma

08-16-2006, 01:27 AM

Maybe a condo building would become som unattractive due to its poor condition (leaks, bad a/c, broken elevators etc) that nobody would want to buy units in the building then the prices of the condos would go down.

Or the operating costs become so high that nobody wants to buy.

TimmyG

08-16-2006, 09:26 AM

Here in New Jersey, there are some ugly condos along the Palisades. I haven't seen any demolished yet. Usually, huge buildings are not demolished unless it's absolutely necessary.

statler

06-19-2007, 04:26 AM

Harbor Garage going on market
Waterfront site likely to host mix of uses

By Thomas C. Palmer Jr., Globe Staff | June 19, 2007

The hulking Harbor Garage, on a premier site near the Boston waterfront and New England Aquarium, is going on the market today and will likely be redeveloped into a mixed-use complex friendlier to the city's waterfront visitors.

The concrete garage, designed in '60s brutalist style by I.M. Pei, could bring $170 million or more, according to the broker, Cushman & Wakefield of Massachusetts Inc.

InterPark, the large national owner and operator of parking garages, is selling the 1,380-car structure as commercial real estate prices in Boston have hit astronomical levels. It is sometimes referred to as the Aquarium Garage.

"Developers have been calling us for years with ideas for this property," said Marshall Peck, InterPark chief executive. He said InterPark intends to remain the parking facilities operator there even with a new owner.

Donald J. Chiofaro, developer and co-owner of the nearby International Place towers, once called the site the "most exciting piece of real estate in the city of Boston." Chiofaro had an option to buy the garage that expired several months ago, and yesterday he vowed to bid on it again.

Chiofaro had offered InterPark $130 million in his earlier bid, based on his plan to develop a mixed-use complex of more than 1 million square feet. But he will have stiff competition this time, with bids expected to come in over the next month or so, according to Elizabeth C. Thomas, executive director of Cushman & Wakefield.

Local, national, and international investors have already gotten wind of the offering and are making inquiries, she said.

Rob Griffin, president of Cushman & Wakefield, called the property "the next Rowes Wharf," referring to the upscale condo, office, and hotel complex farther down the waterfront. "We really feel like it's going to be strongly sought after," he said.

Griffin noted that the garage, which comes with 30,000 square feet of retail space, will bring in millions of dollars in revenue to carry the purchase cost while a new owner goes through an expected two or three years of permitting for redevelopment of the site.

"You don't get any better situation," Griffin said.

Chiofaro's plan, which he shared with city officials about a year ago, was to raze the garage and build a 175-room hotel, 125 luxury condominiums, 800,000 square feet of office space, and retail space. The plan was for two buildings -- one 475 feet high, or 75 feet taller than the adjacent Harbor Towers buildings.

"The feedback we got was that it was too dense. Anything you build there, you're going to affect people's views," Chiofaro said yesterday.

Other complicating factors for the eventual buyer are that up to 400 of the parking spaces in the garage are leased to residents of Harbor Towers for about another decade, and that the residential high-rises' heating and air-conditioning systems are located in the garage building. Both situations would require delicate coordination with Harbor Towers management and residents during several years of construction.

Dirigo Spice Corp., an importer and seller, occupied the 1.3-acre site and garage at 70 East India Row along Atlantic Avenue before 1966, when the Boston Redevelopment Authority urged the company to move to make way for the garage.

An investment fund controlled by Chicago real estate mogul Samuel Zell bought the garage in 1996 for $55 million. InterPark purchased the property in 2002 through a unit called Urban Growth Property Trust as part of a package deal of 11 garages nationwide for $180 million. Urban Growth has $20 billion in assets in 20 markets, according to its web site.

Thomas C. Palmer Jr. can be reached at tpalmer@globe.com.
Link (http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2007/06/19/harbor_garage_going_on_market/)

How much will Vivian water this down? The site is almost completely surrounded by open space. Think she will demand more? :roll:

czsz

06-19-2007, 12:52 PM

Harbor Towers NIMBYs will squish anything proposed there. Dig in for a long fight, a la Columbus Center.

Added bonus: soon the Greenway conservancy will be up and running and able to whine about shadows on their precious scar.

Ron Newman

06-19-2007, 01:37 PM

Well, I can't blame the Harbor Towers residents for wanting to make sure they still have an HVAC system...

czsz

06-19-2007, 01:46 PM

Something tells me that won't be the most difficult aspect of those negotiations.

statler

06-19-2007, 01:47 PM

Well, I can't blame the Harbor Towers residents for wanting to make sure they still have an HVAC system...

HVAC and paid parking spots are legitimate grips, views, open space and shadows less so.

The HVAC stuff is just an engineering issue.

Everything else is a 'mine vs theirs' type argument. i.e. Do 'I' have more right to 'my' view than the 'they' have to build a better urban environment for 'them' to enjoy?

stellarfun

06-19-2007, 04:45 PM

I see the makings of a deal.

High-cost high-rises
By Steve Bailey, Globe Columnist | August 4, 2006

What is it going to cost to fix Harbor Towers?

The fear of that unknown -- a potentially huge number -- has plunged Boston's concrete waterfront eyesore with its million-dollar views into campaign mode. Groups and splinter groups of neighbors have formed to support and question the wisdom of the massive renovation project. Charges, of course, are flying.

``It is like Russia. We are the owners. We pay substantial fees, and we don't have any rights," says Helen Rees, a prominent literary agent who has lived in Harbor Towers since 1993. ``It is like KGB Towers I and II."

The passions are rising as a decision by the board of trustees nears about the extent of the renovation of the 40-year-old twin towers, one of the lesser works of famed architect I.M. Pei. Joseph Baerlein, a cochairman of the board, says the buildings' electrical, heating, and air conditioning systems need replacing, but he is unwilling to estimate the reconstruction costs. ``I don't want any number attached to my name yet. I don't know," says Baerlein, a principal in Rasky Baerlein Strategic Communications, a Boston public relations firm.

Harbor Towers, which has 624 units and more than 1,200 residents, was built between 1968 and 1972 at a cost of about $35 million. One resident deeply involved in the deliberations put the projected cost of the renovations at $50 million to $60 million, maybe more. Another owner said she had been told the assessment for the construction would be about $80 a square foot, putting the share for her double unit at $200,000.

It was just a decade ago that Harbor Towers' residents were hit with a substantial assessment to replace 1,700 leaking windows. The Battle of the Leaky Windows was long-running and heated, and included a particularly nasty special election contest for the board.

Not this time. The board has deferred a scheduled election for three trustee seats from September to October so the current 10-member board can vote up or down on the renovation, which has been in the planning for years. Baerlein says the board agreed it would be too difficult for new board members to wade into the middle of such a complex decision. Rees says delaying the election ``increases the anxiety about what they are going to do with the assessment."

Some angry residents also complain they have been denied access to engineering and other reports. Until recently they were required to sign nondisclosure statements to see the studies and were not allowed to make notes. Baerlein says the limitation on access protects the integrity of the bidding among contractors. Some residents want a vote on the renovations; Baerlein says the board will decide.

Yesterday, in an effort to calm the waters, the trustees sent out a seven-page letter explaining the proposals. ``What is troubling is what this letter does not contain -- direct answers to our many questions and evidence that this project is absolutely necessary," says Peter Brill, an architect and outspoken critic of the trustees' efforts.

Many residents, however, are supportive. ``The problems are not going to go away," says Mahmood Malihi, a principal of Leggat McCall Properties. ``It is like the dams of New Orleans. When it does fail, it could be catastrophic." Adds Baerlein: ``The alternative of doing nothing is not an acceptable alternative if you have a shred of common sense."

Construction could take up to 20 months, and residents worry what the disruption and a big assessment could mean for property values. Already the upfront costs have exceeded $3 million, including nearly $250,000 in lawyers' fees to Holland & Knight.

No one doubts that something has to be done. But who can blame anxious Harbor Towers residents for looking out their windows -- the ones that no longer leak -- to the still unfinished Big Dig below and worrying about where it all ends?

Now if only a similar costly problem were to arise with Tremont on the Common, and rather than try and repair, the better cost solution would be an implosion and something new.

tocoto

06-19-2007, 05:35 PM

BostonSkyGuy

06-20-2007, 12:19 AM

Another deal might be the Harbor Towers residents get lots of money from a big developer for aging systems and parking in return for not hindering a large (tall) new development at the Aquarium garage site.

Bingo. I don't really blame the people living in the Harbor Towers for bitching about the quality of the buildings and all of the problems that have come along with them. Both from an asthetic and architectural standpoint the HT have been one of the worst projects to grace the city of Boston. Something needs to be done with these buildings.

The best case scenerio is the above happens only the residents somehow trade their square ft. in the HT for something in a new building(s) if to be put out for a substancial time while the new tower(s) are being built AND a tower at the aquarium site can be built at the same time. This about as likely to happen as the Celtics getting Greg Oden with the #5 pick, but it would be the best case (in my opinion).

czsz

06-20-2007, 12:36 AM

BostonSkyGuy

06-20-2007, 01:39 AM

I don't understand the hate for Harbor Towers. At worst they're architecturally neutral, and could use some help at street level. Compared to some of the other monstrosities nearby (Government Center garage, anyone? Or even that brick garage-pluts-vent-stack building that currently houses the Haymarket T stop) they don't inspire much vitriol in me.

The difference in what you listed is that those are garages. There's never going to be a garage built that anyone on this site will like.

This building is an atrocity both in terms of architecture (read through the thread to see why) and from an asthetic standpoint. They look like two concrete slabs with windows. For that location, there should be something better, something MUCH better.

ablarc

06-20-2007, 06:38 AM

I don't understand the hate for Harbor Towers.
They're concrete. Folks feel a duty to hate concrete.

At worst they're architecturally neutral, and could use some help at street level.
And at best they're architecturally iconic because of their totemic stance: mute and mysterious.

Compared to some of the other monstrosities nearby (Government Center garage, anyone? Or even that brick garage-pluts-vent-stack building that currently houses the Haymarket T stop) they don't inspire much vitriol in me.
Now, there's a seriously horrendous building. Pretentious and stupid.

ablarc

06-20-2007, 06:42 AM

The difference in what you listed is that those are garages. There's never going to be a garage built that anyone on this site will like.
Nonsense. Boston's MotorMart Garage is more than a credit to its surroundings. In fact, I'll bet more than half the folks on this board who have walked by it didn't even realize it was a garage.

Miami Beach is an object lesson in how to build good above-ground garages.
[/quote]

czsz

06-20-2007, 12:58 PM

They're concrete. Folks feel a duty to hate concrete.

It does seem that way. I guess I enjoy virtually anything that offsets the tyranny of brick, brown, and beige in the Financial District (I'll draw the line at the precast crap being erected at the Seaport, though).

The muted nature of the towers is an overlooked blessing as well. I wouldn't want some flashy, splashy building like the Intercontinental Hotel on this site.

statler

06-20-2007, 01:07 PM

I can see how some may like these building in an architectural fetishist sort of way, but you have to admit that they suck from any kind of urbanist perspective.
The question is, can you make them more urban (more interesting and denser at the street level) without ruining what you like about them architecturally?

czsz

06-20-2007, 01:16 PM

There's clearly the opportunity to build something along the Greenway streetwall that would help integrate this block into the city. Perhaps another structure with shops and restaurants along the water would be desirable - the residents' pool and such could be moved to the roof, and cease to be a patch of conspicuous private exclusivity along what should be a public waterfront.

atlantaden

06-20-2007, 01:59 PM

Joseph T. Baerlein , co chairman of the Harbor Towers Condominium Trust , noted that Harbor Towers residents take up about 400 parking spaces in the garage that Chiofaro wants to redevelop under leases that won't expire until 2018 and 2019. The heating and cooling systems for Harbor Towers also are located in the garage, he said.

Thousands of employees of Enron, Polaroid, and numerous other companies that had iron-clad, life-time pension plans suddenly found themselves holding a worthless piece of paper. How many of us have signed contracts with health-clubs or whatever...only to see those contracts null and voided when new owners took over. If you think that 400 parking spaces leased in this very valuable piece of property till 2018 can't be voided by some legal maneuver or another then think again. Frankly, I don't know how the residents of Harbor Towers can afford to live there considering the legal costs billed to the Condo Association and the past special assessments...and future assessments which are coming down the pike. It'll be interesting to see the trade offs that are made between residents and Chiofaro. The Harbor Tower residents need to remember the saying "pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered," during their negotiations.

atlrvr

06-20-2007, 02:04 PM

Chiofaro should just volunteer to fix their crappy buildings so no one gets assessed, if they will support whatever development he proposes.

BostonSkyGuy

06-20-2007, 05:34 PM

Nonsense. Boston's MotorMart Garage is more than a credit to its surroundings. In fact, I'll bet more than half the folks on this board who have walked by it didn't even realize it was a garage.

Alright, this one I agree with. In generalizing I forgot about the MM Garage, which I agree blends in with the area well. Infact, even alone that building is great and I have no complaints about it what-so-ever.

I meant more along the lines of garages like the one at the Aquarium, Government Center, etc. where they're just eyesores. Would anyone object to garages that have the look and feel (at street level/surrounding area) of the MotorMart Garage? I doubt it. The fact is they don't care to build garages that are asthetically pleasing and fit into the urban enviornment. That's why when someone wants to build a tower, they always look to tear down garages.

TheBostonBoy

06-20-2007, 07:58 PM

ya that is true BostonSkyGuy, that is the only thing that really gets torn down in Boston anymore. With limited open space, and all the historic buildings that can't be torn down, the only option is to tear down garages so it makes sense.
Also where is MotorMart Garage located (address)??? I think I know what you are talking about I am just unsure if I am thinking of the right building.
When it comes down to it, this does seem like a great project but I really don't know how it is going to be built with the troubles they will have with the people living in HT and also Chiofaro is gonna have to deal with Menino, so it seems like thinks aren't looking to great for this project.

BostonSkyGuy

06-20-2007, 08:10 PM

Also where is MotorMart Garage located (address)??? I think I know what you are talking about I am just unsure if I am thinking of the right building.

It's across from the Boston Park Plaza Hotel.

Here is a picture for those who aren't familiar with it.

http://www.motormartgarage.com/images/pixs/home.jpg

Bobby Digital

06-20-2007, 08:12 PM

i know boston isnt florida.... but down there they build towers with the first 8 stories being a parking garage. usually those towers are fat down the bottom and get dramatically skinnier after the first 9 or so floors.... why cant you build a building with a seem less transition in boston? all the towers here are "fat" as all of you bitch about so often....sure the garage floors need ventilation, but you could disguise that couldnt you? why doesnt anyone think outside the box?
first floor retail and entrances.... 2-10 or whatever parking garage.... rest of it office/hotel/residential.

vanshnookenraggen

06-20-2007, 08:30 PM

Go figure one of the most hansom buildings in Boston is a garage. I guess that is just proof that modernists don't know what they are doing.

06-20-2007, 08:41 PM

Go figure one of the most hansom buildings in Boston is a garage. I guess that is just proof that modernists don't know what they are doing.

And the facade is precast concrete. (even the detailed emblems)

BostonSkyGuy

06-20-2007, 09:48 PM

i know boston isnt florida.... but down there they build towers with the first 8 stories being a parking garage.

Some of the newer towers (proposed) seem to have this. I always thought that this was the way to go. I love when they incorporate transporation (SST) or parking WITH a tower/building. It kills two birds with one stone for lack of other words, and it allows people to have cars if they wish. Especially residential towers, it makes sense to have the first few floors of the building be parking--doesn't it?

why doesnt anyone think outside the box?
first floor retail and entrances.... 2-10 or whatever parking garage.... rest of it office/hotel/residential.

My guess is that part of it is that with height being so taboo in this city, developers are afraid to waste space that could go to condos, office space, etc. with parking. Instead of making an 800 foot tower with parking on the first say 8-10 floors, they're being forced to make 400-500 foot buildings (max, for the most part) with no parking because the parking in that situation would waste valuable space.

The city wonders why there's a real lack of fluidity in certain parts (the Waterfront for example) and it's because they aren't flexible in areas where it seems boneheaded not to be.

singbat

06-20-2007, 09:59 PM

Go figure one of the most hansom buildings in Boston is a garage. I guess that is just proof that modernists don't know what they are doing.

there are a number of very hansom (pun?) converted buildings in the mews on the flat of beacon hill. the modernists should go see...

atlrvr

06-21-2007, 10:28 AM

The reason you don't see above ground parking taking up the bottom levels of towers here is because most buildings here are limited in their height or by FAR....above ground parking therefore decreases the amount of leasable or sellable space allowed, whereas, below grade parking doesn't.

Bobby Digital

06-21-2007, 12:26 PM

Yea it sorta slipped my mind that you could just build underground garages.... i guess it depends on the site and whats under it.... wonder if theres a limit to underground parking even w/o something under it... ie a subway..... is FAR an acronym for something?

Ron Newman

06-21-2007, 12:27 PM

Underground parking on wharves probably isn't a good idea.

PerfectHandle

06-21-2007, 12:29 PM

is FAR an acronym for something?

Floor Area Ratio, which is the usable square footage of a building divided by the square footage of the lot it's on.

statler

06-21-2007, 01:01 PM

Underground parking on wharves probably isn't a good idea.

Why not? If they can build tunnels under water, why not garages?

06-21-2007, 02:51 PM

I think Rowes Wharf has 5 levels of underground parking. Independence Wharf has underground parking and Russia Wharf will have underground parking.

And with Russia Wharf they also have to deal with the Silverline tunnel that runs underneath the building.

czsz

06-21-2007, 02:54 PM

It's not a bad idea in theory, but hellishly expensive and easily done wrong. Witness the ubiquitous tunnel leaks plaguing the Big Dig...

ChitchIII

06-21-2007, 02:59 PM

I believe Russia Wharf is slated to have 6 levels of underground parking.

ChitchIII

06-21-2007, 02:59 PM

I believe Russia Wharf is slated to have 6 levels of underground parking.

nico

06-27-2007, 10:10 AM

The original article says that the garage is owned by Urban Growth Property Trust. Does anyone know if this is the Interpark garage near the aquarium?
According to the guy who runs the interpark garage, interpark purchased their garage (perhaps interpark is owned by UG Property Trust...I'm trying to figure this out) near the aquarium for 87m a few years ago and were recently offered 175m. The garage is hugely successful, clearing over 30k/day and the company is not interested in selling the property for anything less than 250m.

I'm trying to figure out which garage this is. I'd walk down at lunch...but with today's heat it's probably not a good idea. I'm thinking that there are two garages...one beige, and one red brick
Anybody know?...Ron?

stellarfun

06-27-2007, 10:18 AM

dirtywater

06-27-2007, 10:34 AM

Ron Newman

06-27-2007, 11:11 AM

The garage contains a convenience store (I think 7-Eleven) and formerly also had a Century Bank branch. I think the water side of the garage is used as classroom space for the Aquarium.

stellarfun

06-27-2007, 11:53 AM

Sel de la Terre is not in a garage; it is in an office building owned by Fidelity. Legal Seafoods is also in the building. Fidelity is building a park on Central Wharf to the south of this building and in between this building and the garage in question, which is often referred to as the Aquarium garage. The Aquarium itself is to the east of the new park being constructed (and almost completed) by Fidelity.

I believe the garage in question is the building just below Central St. The Fidelity Park is being built in the space just above Central St.
http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q199/tahitiplage/SNAG-01556.jpg

Ron Newman

06-27-2007, 11:55 AM

That's correct. Sel de la Terre is in the building between State and Central streets.

ablarc

06-27-2007, 06:55 PM

...the building between State and Central streets.
Imo that building deserves demolition before the garage. The views that are spoiled by that graceless lump...

czsz

06-27-2007, 07:24 PM

I agree, but for all its lumpy gracelessness, it's actually still one of the better buildings - early 20th century, some details intact - lining the Greenway.

statler

06-27-2007, 08:02 PM

...the building between State and Central streets.
Imo that building deserves demolition before the garage. The views that are spoiled by that graceless lump...

I've never quite understood your beef with that building. Every time I'm in the area, I look and search for some flaw I may have missed, but I just can't find it.
It's not the most exciting building in the world but I think it is a nice building and it fits well into the area.
I think it is the area around it that is the problem.
Fix that and that building will be perfect for the area.

ablarc

06-27-2007, 08:16 PM

06-27-2007, 09:56 PM

^ Remove it in your mind entirely, and see the void that would result. Now place into the void any building of similar footprint that you like.

Do this exercise looking towards the harbor, then do it again from the harbor.

Are you looking for a more monumental building for the location?

This building was completely renovated in the late ninety's and one could argue that it has the nicest facade facing the greenway after Rowes Wharf.

ablarc

06-28-2007, 06:18 AM

Are you looking for a more monumental building for the location?
Sure, its placement is inherently monumental, especially from the harbor, with skyline for background. That's partly what makes it so disappointing; it dominates that view like a fat man.

Go out Long Wharf a spell to see the effect and the lost opportunity. Imagine a building like the Guggenheim Bilbao in its place: a building with artistic presence and cultural significance. The Boston Opera?

This building was completely renovated in the late ninety's and one could argue that it has the nicest facade facing the greenway after Rowes Wharf.
Arguing that damns both this building and the Greenway with faint praise. (I guess they both deserve it.)

underground

06-28-2007, 08:43 AM

The worst thing about that building is that the side facing the Greenway is a giant ventilation duct; although the smells coming out of it are always interesting. Also, I think it's owned by Eaton Vance, not Fidelity. It says Eaton Vance Building on it, and I know that they are still in the building.

statler

06-28-2007, 08:54 AM

statler

06-28-2007, 08:54 AM

stellarfun

06-28-2007, 09:35 AM

Once upon a time, the aquarium had dreams of relocating to the parcel in the Charlestown Navy Yard where they're finishing the condo mid-rize, and where the Spaulding Rehab hospital should start constructing its new hospital within the next year or so.

Had the aquarium moved, then the combination of its parcel with the garage, the Fidelity Park, the Fidelity building, would have made an outstanding site for something monumental and defining.

czsz

06-28-2007, 01:23 PM

The Boston Opera?

Aping Sydney? No thanks. Besides, the winds blowing off the harbor aren't the most hospitable during opera season.

But oh, to rebuild the old Huntington Avenue opera house...

ablarc

06-28-2007, 05:44 PM

Go out Long Wharf a spell to see the effect and the lost opportunity. Imagine a building like the Guggenheim Bilbao in its place: a building with artistic presence and cultural significance. The Boston Opera?
So is it the building itself you don't like, the location or both? Would it be fine if it were tucked into the financial district with other buildings of the same age and size?
It would be fine in the financial district. Where it is, it's a lost opportunity to do something much better, which is what the site demands. And it's much too humdrum and graceless to brazenly occupy such a prominent spot.

This is also one of the few places in Boston where I would advocate a much lower building. A Gehry building would be just fine: Guggenheim or even IAC, which is about the same height but monumental and interesting.

statler

06-28-2007, 05:50 PM

This is also one of the few places in Boston where I would advocate a much lower building. A Gehry building would be just fine: Guggenheim or even IAC, which is about the same height but monumental and interesting.
Do you still have that photoshop you put up on the old board with the Gehry in place of this building?

ablarc

06-28-2007, 06:56 PM

[quote=ablarc]Do you still have that photoshop you put up on the old board with the Gehry in place of this building?
http://66.230.220.70/images/post/opera-house/01.jpg

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/opera-house/02.jpg

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/opera-house/03.jpg

awood91

09-05-2007, 09:59 AM

Final offers sought for Hub garage site

The fate of one of the last key development sites in downtown Boston, the hulking Harbor Garage, could be decided within days, with final offers due Friday, according to executives close to the deal.

InterPark, the garage?s owner, is now seeking ?best and final? offers after an initial round of bidding. With both local and out-of-state developers competing, the price could soar past the $130 million mark, executives said.

In the hunt are Don Chiofaro - developer of the landmark, twin-tower International Place complex - New York-based Tishman Speyer Properties, and Boston-based Leggat McCall, among others.

The gray concrete garage next door to the New England Aquarium sits on a prime development site off Atlantic Avenue near the harbor.

Developers competing for the site are eyeing a range of options, from high-rises to mixed-use complexes with office, residential and retail rolled in.

Chiofaro, while praising the site, also called it ?complicated.? A number of other developers are already moving ahead with new office towers and projects at nearby downtown and waterfront locations. Meanwhile, the site is subject to extensive state Chapter 91 waterfront regulations, currently in flux after a controversial court ruling.

?While this is a good site, it is complicated,? Chiofaro said.

http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1029433

statler

09-05-2007, 10:29 AM

I thought this was dead! Whoo hoo!
http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/peps/news/stories/logo_banana_dancing.gif

vanshnookenraggen

09-05-2007, 02:56 PM

Soar!!!!

stellarfun

10-11-2007, 04:20 AM

From the Globe today

Harbor Garage bidders pared; sale seems near

By Thomas C. Palmer Jr., Globe Staff | October 11, 2007

The Harbor Garage, a seven-story block of concrete on the Boston waterfront near the New England Aquarium, could have a new owner by the end of the week.

The firm handling the sale said there are a handful of bidders, from an initial group of 15, that remain in the running.

"We are very, very close to a buyer here," Rob Griffin, president of Cushman & Wakefield of Massachusetts Inc., said yesterday at a meeting of the Appraisal Institute and the Commercial Brokers Association.

Donald J. Chiofaro, co-owner of the nearby International Place towers, has long had his eye on the garage as a development site. The garage has Boston Harbor on one side and the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway - whose parks are now finally opening up to public use - on the other.

Chiofaro this week confirmed he still hopes to capture the garage and its potential for a hotel, office, residential, or mixed-use project. "But I can't tell you anything more than that," he said.

Others in the third and final round of bidding on the garage are Gale International, which is redeveloping the old Filene's building; Legatt McCall Properties LLC, which just completed One First Street residences in East Cambridge; Brookfield Properties of New York, which owns 75 State Street in Boston; and Northwood Investors LLC of Greenwich, Conn., according to a Boston real estate executive who asked not to be named because he was not authorized to discuss the marketing.

None of the other bidders would comment.

All the bidders offered about the same amount of money for the property, made more valuable with the rapid redevelopment of Boston's waterfront property, Griffin said.

"It's going to come down to terms," he said, meaning which bidder is the most attractive in terms of financing, readiness to close quickly, or other requirements specific to the property.

The 1,380-car garage, built in the 1960s by architect I.M. Pei in the so-called brutalist style, went on the market in June.

Cushman & Wakefield said at the time it could bring $170 million or more. It has about 30,000 square feet of retail space, seven floors above ground, and two below.

The 1.3-acre property has been owned since 2002 by InterPark, a national operator of parking garages.

A complicating factor to the sale is that Harbor Towers, a two-building residential complex next to the garage, leases spaces in the garage for up to 400 of its residents.

Griffin and others said yesterday that while 2006 was a record year for investment sales in Boston, 2007 was on track to surpass it until the credit crunch of late summer slowed activity somewhat. The problems were concentrated in the residential loan markets but resulted in jitters throughout the economy and made potential buyers of commercial properties more cautious, executives on the panel said.

Nevertheless, the garage - which sometimes gives families visiting the New England Aquarium sticker shock with its $32-a-day prices - was "very well received," Griffin said. "We've had a ton of activity."
http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2007/10/11/harbor_garage_bidders_pared_sale_seems_near/

Corey

10-11-2007, 08:59 AM

Looks like a good investment to me. Too bad I can barely afford to park there for a day. :P

statler

10-11-2007, 09:22 AM

There needs to be a signature building on the lot. It is such a prominent location, on the water front and on the Greenway.

The developer needs to hire a good architect (i.e. not CBT) and let them do their thing. They cannot cheap out on this.

NIMBY's and the city need to be reasonable about this. No 'open space/green space/set back' requirements! It's almost completely surrounded by green space and open space as it is. Let them build lot line to lot line!

Vivian Li needs to move out to Franklin or Wellesley and let the city be a city.

I need to go cry in a corner because none of those things will happen. :cry:

tmac9wr

10-11-2007, 12:17 PM

This lot has sooo much potential. We know it can't be an extremely tall building (The FAA forbids that, right?), but that doesn't mean it can't be beautiful and iconic. It would be fantastic to see the building look great not only in the sense of being a tall building, but to also look good and interact well with the street. The activity at the base of this building seems to be too great to ignore. I think it would be cool if the main entrance would be mostly glass and would enable you to look through the entire building without too much of an obstructed view of the harbor. That would look great from the greenway.

The inclusion of a large bar/restaurant in the base would be amazing aswell, something along the lines of InterContinental. It's in a perfect position to be able to back itself up right onto the harbor like the InterContinental.

Beton Brut

10-11-2007, 12:39 PM

This lot has sooo much potential. We know it can't be an extremely tall building (The FAA forbids that, right?)

This site is distant enough from the path of Runway 9/27 that you could likely build a building of the scale of Belkin's proposal for Winthrop Square without too much problem. Outbound flights on 9/27 bank South and would never overfly this location (or anything else north of State Street).

The same case should be made for developing Delaware-North's site at the Garden, and the westernmost portion of the Government Center Garage - slim, 70-80 stories, > 900'. The vig would be an annual contribution to the upkeep of the Greenway.

The neighbors will have different ideas, I'm sure.

vanshnookenraggen

10-11-2007, 03:05 PM

Im not sure they could build that tall, economically, since it is located on fill.

Ron Newman

10-11-2007, 03:11 PM

The Hancock Tower is on fill.

nm88

10-11-2007, 06:39 PM

The fact that it means the destruction of one I. M. Pei structure and will sit beside two other I. M. Pei buildings may help in the decision about an architect. It does seem the perfect place for some kind of signature statement. It might be poetic, don't you think, if the developer sought out Renzo Piano now that he's been all but stiffed by Belkin. This is a far better site anyway for his brand of work. (Regretfully, I agree about CBT; enough already.) Other Boston-based options? Is Kallman still in the area? That firm might be a good idea. How about Diller-Scofidio? (I know, NY) Hell, here's a wild idea -- Maya Lin!! I've seen her small structures. This woman is a major, major talent -- imagine if Boston built her first tall building. Very cool... That's how the city should be thinking. Someone should broach the notion of how this will honor Ted's mom, get him behind it... okay, now I'm rambling...

gravedigger4444

10-11-2007, 06:55 PM

The Harbor Towers are about 400' tall and Int'l Place is roughly 600' so something in the 450' to 525' range should fit in rather nicely in that area to kind of look like a step between those two sites. As you know, The residents of Harbor Towers will make certain objections against anything with heights that block views. They will not come out and use blocked views as such. They will come up with something else even though blocked views is what they're really concerned about, but, arguably, that is not a reason to prolong and hinder a project (but I can sympathize if I lived there).

whighlander

10-13-2007, 01:01 AM

The site is calling
Calling for something from London

I see a Foster and Partners tower

I See a glorious Double Helix in honor of Boston/Cambridge as the Bio Hub of the World

Westy

awood91

11-19-2007, 07:39 PM

Monday, November 19, 2007 - 6:26 PM EST
Chiofaro buying waterfront garage, plans major project

Boston Business Journal - by Michelle Hillman

Developer Don Chiofaro is the winning buyer for the Harbor Garage, where he plans to build a large-scale, $1 billion mixed-use project. Chiofaro, who owns nearby International Place in Boston with Prudential Real Estate Investors, is buying the garage for about $150 million, according to a real estate source who asked not to be named because the transaction has not closed yet. Chiofaro plans to propose a mix of uses for the site including hotel, residential, office and retail.

"We won the bid," said Chiofaro on Monday night. "We?ve got it under agreement. We?re going to close in a couple of weeks."

The garage is located across the street from International Place and is thought to be one of the best waterfront development sites in the city other than Fan Pier on the South Boston waterfront. It also overlooks the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway.

The Chiofaro Co. and Prudential signed a purchase and sales agreement on Friday, according to Chiofaro Co. spokeswoman Luisa Cahill. The team has been aggressively pursuing the property since it was first brought to the sale market in July. The property attracted more than a dozen bidders, said Robert E. Griffin Jr., president of the New England Area of Cushman & Wakefield of Massachusetts Inc. whose firm sold the property on behalf of InterPark. Griffin confirmed the property is under agreement. He called the 1,380-car garage "certainly one of the most desirable locations in the city being right on the water."

The property will remain operating as a garage until the Chiofaro Co. completes the city permitting process, Cahill confirmed. That could take as long as three years.

http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2007/11/19/daily14.html?jst=s_cn_hl

tommym96

11-19-2007, 08:07 PM

great news

tmac9wr

11-19-2007, 10:36 PM

$1 Billion Project!!!!! This parcel isn't extremely large, but that is a very very large price. I'm really looking forward to what we're going to see out of this project...the location and budget scream "iconic building". I just hope it lives up to the hype.

awood91

11-19-2007, 10:52 PM

yeah, $1billion is huge, but we won't be seeing anything serious out of this for a while. I can't believe the permitting process takes three years! Plus, Chiofaro needs to design his plans before hand, which will obviously take plenty of its own time. By the time this thing is built, the current 'boom' will be long over :(

kz1000ps

11-19-2007, 11:25 PM

If it weren't for the dollar figure, I would've glazed over this news item. But $1 billion on a site no more than 60,000 square feet? This is going to be something big.

justin

11-20-2007, 02:47 AM

By the time this gets built, inflation will cut that figure to size.

ChunkyMonkey

11-20-2007, 03:18 AM

New life awaiting garage on Greenway
Developer will pay $155m for the site; offices, condos likely

By Thomas C. Palmer Jr., Globe Staff | November 20, 2007

Donald J. Chiofaro, who developed International Place, has agreed to buy the Harbor Garage, between the New England Aquarium and the new Greenway on Boston's waterfront, for about $155 million and will probably replace it with a large complex of offices, residences, and a hotel.

"We've been looking for a big deal, and this is the deal we've been looking for," an ebullient Chiofaro said yesterday. "We love this site. It's on the Greenway and on the water."

Sometimes referred to as the Aquarium garage, the seven-story block of concrete, with parking for 1,380 cars, went on the market in June. It was designed by the firm of I.M. Pei and built in the 1960s, and has been owned since 2002 by InterPark.

Chiofaro, who is not expected to close on the property for several weeks, said it's too early to say what shape his redevelopment of the project will take. But, he said, "To build a significant nice project there you're going to have to build something that has some scale."

Whatever he does replace the garage with would probably include office, residential, hotel, and retail space. The site is next to the two 40-story Harbor Towers condo buildings.

"It's a billion-dollar project on the water," said Rob Griffin, president of Cushman & Wakefield of Massachusetts Inc., which represented the seller. There were about a dozen bidders initially, Griffin said, but it came down to three at the end.

The dollar bids among finalists were similar, but Chiofaro prevailed because of "flexibility and creativity in dealing with issues surrounding the management and ownership of the parking garage," Griffin said.

Under the agreement, InterPark will manage the parking now and when a new garage is built.

Parking is an issue because Harbor Towers residents lease several hundred spaces in the garage. Also, mechanical equipment for Harbor Towers is located in the garage building.

In addition, the aquarium relies on the garage for many of its visitors, despite its stiff downtown-size hourly rates.

Chiofaro acknowledged that whatever he builds there, "It will have to have a lot of parking. We're going to replace in some fashion a lot of it."

Chiofaro called himself "a friend of the aquarium" and said he has spoken to executives there about getting through what could be two to three years of construction.

Until a few years ago, the hulking garage sat next to a rusting elevated Central Artery highway through downtown that carried more than 150,000 vehicles a day.

Now it overlooks the Wharf District blocks of the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway, which replaced the highway. The garage also faces a small but elaborate new park funded by Fidelity Investments, along Milk Street adjacent to the aquarium.

"If Rowes Wharf commands the highest rents, this is comparable," Griffin said. "It's one of the best sites, if not the best site in the city."

http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2007/11/20/new_life_awaiting_garage_on_greenway/

stellarfun

11-20-2007, 04:34 AM

$1B complex planned for Greenway site
By Scott Van Voorhis | Tuesday, November 20, 2007

International Place builder Don Chiofaro plans to construct a $1 billion office, hotel and residential complex along the new Greenway.

Chiofaro, who emerged victorious yesterday after a bidding war for the hulking Harbor Garage next door to the New England Aquarium, said he is now turning his attention to plans for developing the site.

Several firms competed for the seven-story, 1,380-car garage, valued at over $130 million.

The victory is a big one for Chiofaro, giving him the chance to put his mark on Boston?s cityscape with a second landmark project. It also comes after struggles in recent years, including an attempt by a New York real estate firm to wrest control of International Place from Chiofaro.

?We have been looking for a big deal and it is the big deal we wanted,? he said.

Chiofaro estimated the size of the complex at roughly 1 million square feet, with 700,000 square feet of office space, and roughly 100 condos and 200 hotel rooms. The project will be aimed at the luxury end of the market, including the office space.

While Chiofaro declined to discuss the height of his proposed complex, it is likely to be significant given the size of the plans he is discussing, said Vivien Li, head of the Boston Harbor Assocation.

?He is probably hoping for something like International Place, but he will never get something that high,? Li said. But, she added, ?there is nothing at this point that will be downtown that will be lower than 10 stories.?

To go higher than 10 stories, however, Chiofaro will have to put the project through the extensive, state Chapter 91 review process.

Chiofaro said he expects it could take more than three years to line up all the permits to build his next big project. And it?s a timetable that suits him fine.

While uncertainty now hangs over key parts of the real estate market and economy, it will be a new market by the time the project is approved and is ready to start construction.

?It?s the perfect time to go through an approval process,? Chiofaro said. ?I would much rather be going through the approval process today than to be coming out of the ground.?
http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1045918

KentXie

11-20-2007, 05:05 AM

Wow three years. By then the office and condo/hotel market could cool. It's ridiculous.

stellarfun

11-20-2007, 06:01 AM

I think Tommy's Tower will be built before this ever gets started. Chiofaro doesn't have deep pockets, although Prudential does. Whomever finally develops the site -- and I sort of wonder whether Chiofaro might do a Pritzker and sell a fully permitted site some years down the road.

There is the issue of the 400 parking spaces that are under long-term lease to Harbor Toweers. Building an underground garage -- lets say for 1200 spaces -- plus the building utilities means they are going to have to go depp into the harbor muck to build the underground part of this. That's not going to be cheap.

statler

11-20-2007, 07:16 AM

Oddly enough this building could end up being less urban than the garage.

The garage currently has a pretty good selection of ground floor retail. Hopefully they will replace or add to that retail space in the new building.

Ron Newman

11-20-2007, 08:15 AM

Other than the 7-Eleven, is there any ground floor retail? The bank closed, and the water-side is all offices and auxiliary exhibits for the Aquarium.

Cojapo

11-20-2007, 09:00 AM

?He is probably hoping for something like International Place, but he will never get something that high,? Li said. But, she added, ?there is nothing at this point that will be downtown that will be lower than 10 stories.?

Why not? It is downtown, plenty of public transportation options, and not in Logan's flight path? So, why not?
Has anyone seen the development going on in other cities in the northeast? Boston is lagging behind badly. If MA wants businesses to take up shop here, then they need to become more welcoming and allow quick, but thorough, review processes.
"Massachusetts, It's all here" might be their marketing slogan, just don't expect to take up shop in their backyard.

Ron Newman

11-20-2007, 09:22 AM

Not in Logan's flight path? Are you sure? This site is damn close to the airport.

Cojapo

11-20-2007, 09:39 AM

Not in Logan's flight path? Are you sure? This site is damn close to the airport.
My thought was if they approved the Nashua St residences, which if I remember correctly, would be around 400 feet and One International, which is aprox 550 ft, then something between that certainly wouldn't be, right?

statler

11-20-2007, 09:58 AM

?He is probably hoping for something like International Place, but he will never get something that high,? Li said. But, she added, ?there is nothing at this point that will be downtown that will be lower than 10 stories.?

Hell, I'm just surprised that she isn't calling for the garage to be torn down and the lot converted into a park.

stellarfun

11-20-2007, 10:12 AM

If the parcel is 55,000 sq ft, and the building footprint is 50,000 sq ft, and the leasable sq ft per floor is 40,000 sq ft, then you have a building of 25 stories, no more than 30 stories with whatever hat is put on it.

Cojapo

11-20-2007, 10:15 AM

castevens

11-20-2007, 10:28 AM

because 40,000 x 25 stories = 1,000,000 square feet

Beton Brut

11-20-2007, 11:19 AM

Not in Logan's flight path? Are you sure? This site is damn close to the airport.

Absolutely certain:

We know it can't be an extremely tall building (The FAA forbids that, right?)

This site is distant enough from the path of Runway 9/27 that you could likely build a building of the scale of Belkin's proposal for Winthrop Square without too much problem. Outbound flights on 9/27 bank South and would never overfly this location (or anything else north of State Street).

The same case should be made for developing Delaware-North's site at the Garden, and the westernmost portion of the Government Center Garage - slim, 70-80 stories, > 900'. The vig would be an annual contribution to the upkeep of the Greenway.

The neighbors will have different ideas, I'm sure.

Don't believe me? Look at this satellite image (http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=42.362096,-71.012707&spn=0.067987,0.145569&t=k&z=13&om=1).

Runway 9/27 is on an east-west axis, and departing flights often take off west, over the South Boston Waterfront, Bay Village, the South End, and Jamaica Plain; they often bank south immediately after taking off. 15/33 offers over-water approaches/departures toward Hull, or landside over East Boston (Day Sq.), Chelsea, Everett, and Somerville (they're at 3000 feet over Davis Sq., Ron). 4L/22R & 4R/22L overfly Revere (Beachmont) and Orient Heights, or Castle Island. 14/32 is short, mono-directional, and over-water only.

None of Logan's five active runways faces this site, or any of the others in the above-quoted post. From an FAA standpoint, Chiofaro can build as high as he wants here. Conversely, Belkin may yet have issues with the FAA on Winthrop Square, and the Hines project at South Station has had a well-documented history of issues.

11-20-2007, 12:18 PM

because 40,000 x 25 stories = 1,000,000 square feet

I sure hope the floorplate isn't 40,000sf. That would make for one fat looking tower.

stellarfun

11-20-2007, 01:49 PM

Absolutely certain:

Don't believe me? Look at this satellite image (http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=42.362096,-71.012707&spn=0.067987,0.145569&t=k&z=13&om=1).

Runway 9/27 is on an east-west axis, and departing flights often take off west, over the South Boston Waterfront, Bay Village, the South End, and Jamaica Plain; they often bank south immediately after taking off. 15/33 offers over-water approaches/departures toward Hull, or landside over East Boston (Day Sq.), Chelsea, Everett, and Somerville (they're at 3000 feet over Davis Sq., Ron). 4L/22R & 4R/22L overfly Revere (Beachmont) and Orient Heights, or Castle Island. 14/32 is short, mono-directional, and over-water only.

None of Logan's five active runways faces this site, or any of the others in the above-quoted post. From an FAA standpoint, Chiofaro can build as high as he wants here. Conversely, Belkin may yet have issues with the FAA on Winthrop Square, and the Hines project at South Station has had a well-documented history of issues.

The FAA has very recently raised an issue with regard to massing high rises near airports where the mass may interfere with radar line of sight. The FAA allowed a 385 foot tower in Rosslyn (Arlington) Virginia but said that was it. (The FAA chopped three feet off the tower height.) Anything more built there would have to be of lesser height to avoid creating a radar blind spot. The aquarium site is closer to the Logan tower than Rosslyn is to the tower at Reagan National airport. Have no idea whether the FAA would raise this with with respect to Boston. I think Boston, San Diego, and Reagan National are the only U.S. airports with high-rises that close to the airport.

bdurden

11-20-2007, 02:06 PM

Orlando Executive Airport is about 3 miles from downtown Orlando; the FAA cuts all their proposals to less that 440 feet. Now that downtown Orlando is booming with highrise development, its created a stubby, linear effect.

Ron Newman

11-20-2007, 02:20 PM

Does "executive airport" mean it's not a real airport, it's just for private planes?

lexicon506

11-20-2007, 04:38 PM

He's gonna try something big....depending on the success or failure of Winthrop Sq. he might even propose Boston's very unlikely second supertall. It's gonna be a hard sell to get something taller than International Place, but maybe he can come to an agreement where he pays a monthly allowance to the Greenway Conservancy to help maintain the parks?

bdurden

11-20-2007, 04:54 PM

Does "executive airport" mean it's not a real airport, it's just for private planes?

Basically--from wiki:

"...the Orlando Executive Airport serves as a general aviation and corporate aviation airport for the greater Orlando area. Its proximity to the East-West Expressway as well as downtown Orlando makes it a popular airport for private business and pleasure travelers alike. In 2003, the airport had 240,000 operations (takeoffs and landings) on its two runways. However, the airport is still considered the "minor" airport of Orlando, Florida, as the Orlando International Airport remains the primary airport for both domestic and international flights, drawing significantly more passengers every year."

gravedigger4444

11-20-2007, 05:21 PM

As you all know, the Harbor Towers are 400'. Something in the 450' - 525' range in that location should still look rather impressive.

Cojapo

11-20-2007, 07:13 PM

KentXie

11-20-2007, 09:04 PM

I don't really care for too much height here on this location but this tower better look good.

TheBostonBoy

11-20-2007, 11:00 PM

It's be nice if something along the height of SST was built here. It would add a little more density to downtown and would not be that much taller then it's surroundings. Imagine the view of the skyline from the harbor!

I agree, if they built something in the range of height of SST, I would be extremely happy. Like Cojapo said, this would improve the skyline from the harbor immensely. From the harbor, this site is kind of in the middle, so it would divide the waterfront buildings and make for one amazing sight.

Although the 3 years of wait is very disapointing. With a wait that long, I don't have too much hope that this is going to happen because like many of you said, the boom will probably be diminishing by then, and 3 years is a long time for building in Boston. This gives NIMBY's and all other kind of idiots time to protest and bitch, and finally get this reduced to an 8 story parking garage lol

stellarfun

11-21-2007, 04:17 AM

IMO, this is not going to be any tall tower.

A.) The size of the building has already been cut by 200,000 sq ft. What last year was to be two towers, now appears to be a single tower. (Two towers would have cut the view for 25 percent of the space.)

B.) Chiofaro doesn't have the money to do this, and fight the long fight for a tall tower. Chiofaro is not a Tommy favorite, so the path to tower-dom will not be greased. Prudential is the financial backer, and they will be looking for something to happen quicker rather than later.

C.) Its to be a tri-use building: I'm guessng that the commercial will be on the lower floors, the hotel above that, and the condos on top. The nature of the site is that you have wonderful unobstructed views on all four quadrants without have having to go high.

D.) The Harbor Tower comdos have a lease for 400 garage spaces through 2018-2019. Harbor Towers probably has an even longer ground lease for their mechanicals in the garage.. They start boitching about a tall tower and the project will stall in litigation.

E.) The current owner-operator of the garage chose Chiofaro/Prudential because they were the most flexible. I read this as indicating rather generous terms about revenue sharing from continued operation of the current and future garage (especially near-term). This would also suggest that Prudential wants somethinh built sooner rather than later.

F.) I think the height of Russia Wharf and the Intercontinental are a pretty good indicator of how high you can now build, without engendering lots of opposition, on the east side of the Greenway.

I still feel that if Chiofaro gets a project fully approved and permitted, but the market isn't right to build, Prudential will sell the site and the rights to somebody else, a la Fan Pier.

Waldorf

11-21-2007, 10:29 PM

Three International Place? :)

tmac9wr

11-25-2007, 04:50 PM

I agree with DarkFenX...the height of the tower is not nearly as important as how good the building looks. I would be perfectly happy with something along the same height as Harbor Towers or even shorter, as long as the building looks great and has great interaction with the harbor and the greenway.

six

11-26-2007, 09:42 AM

I just hope it doesn't end up being another squat little box building like so many others seem to. Something between the size of two international place(540') and SST(640') would be fine with me but, maybe I'm just daydreaming. I hope vivien doesn't ruin things! She's already saying that whatever is built won't exceed the height of those hideous harbor towers. I know if there is a building put there and if I was going to purchase a highend condo on one of the upper floors I would want to see over the towers not stare at those ugly ass things outside my windows. I suppose either way someone will have to deal with looking at them.

TheBostonBoy

11-27-2007, 03:58 PM

Ya, I wish it would be that tall, but like you pointed out, that is just a dream. Also, like six said, I hope this is not another crappy box, or nothing like Harbor Towers. I think this should be another glass tower, because all the new construction on the waterfront has been mainly glass buildings, and I think a nice slim, glass tower would look great on the waterfront. Then it would go well with Russia Wharf too.

Ron Newman

11-27-2007, 04:15 PM

The title of the thread needs to change from "parking lot" to "parking garage".

commuter guy

11-27-2007, 10:49 PM

A building(s) with lower height in this location does not concern me from an aesthetic standpoint (assuming its designed well) due to its location near the edge of the financial district along the harbor. In my opinion, the most dramatic cityscapes involve a complex step up appearance with lower buildings in the foreground and taller buildings in the background. Think of the view of Beacon Hill from the Cambridge side of the Charles River, the views of San Francisco with its buildings rising up steep hillsides, or the high rises of Manhattan rising behind the low rises neighborhoods of Astoria and Long Island City in Queens.

Compare this to the less complex and interesting view of the high rises that rim lower Manhattan that nearly abut the NY harbor or the view of International Place from the other side of Fort Point Channel.

stellarfun

11-28-2007, 07:21 AM

itchy

11-30-2007, 05:55 PM

1) It's clear that Chiofaro has deep pockets and is willing to sink a lot of money into this project to do it right.
2) It's also clear that the Aquarium, which is right next door and would likely have at least some effect on the decision of many of the potential tenants/guests of this building to move here, needs a good kick in the pants.

What are the chances Chiofaro might invest in renovations/expansion to the Aquarium in order to make his own development that much sexier?

stellarfun

12-01-2007, 04:33 AM

ablarc

12-01-2007, 08:23 AM

The title of the thread needs to change from "parking lot" to "parking garage".
Yeah.

Is "lot" starting to mean "garage."? If so how will we distinguish them in the future?

stellarfun

12-16-2007, 07:04 AM

Chiofaro closes on Harbor Garage purchase

Boston Business Journal - by Michelle Hillman (http://www.bizjournals.com/search/results.html?Ntt=%22Michelle%20Hillman%22&Ntk=All&Ntx=mode%20matchallpartial) Journal staff

The Chiofaro Co. (http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/gen/The_Chiofaro_Co_DBA381000563446E9870D73061393783.h tml) closed on its acquisition of the Harbor Garage where it plans to build a large, mixed use project. The acquisition price is reportedly about $150 million.

Boston-based Chiofaro Co., owners of International Place in Boston, plan to propose a mix of uses for the site including hotel, residential, office, and retail. The site, which overlooks the Boston Harbor and the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway in downtown Boston, could cost as much as $1 billion to develop.

The 1,380-car garage was purchased by Chiofaro and its financial partner Prudential Real Estate Investors (http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/related_content.html?topic=Prudential%20Real%20Est ate%20Investors) which also owns the 1.8-million-square-foot, two-tower International Place.

The property will continue to operate as a garage until the Chiofaro Co. completes the city permitting process which could take up to three years, according to a previous Boston Business Journal report. The seller, InterPark, signed a long-term agreement with the Chiofaro Co. to continue to operate the garage. Located between the New England Aquarium and Harbor Towers condominiums, the garage has been owned and operated by InterPark since 2000. The seven-story garage has a separate entrance for Harbor Tower residents, who park on two-levels of below-ground parking.
http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2007/12/10/daily67.html?jst=b_ln_hl

kennedy

12-22-2007, 09:27 PM

This will be awesome if it ever works. But it seems to good to be true.

No pictures, by any chance?

whighlander

12-26-2007, 08:36 AM

Don Chiofaro is a guy with BIG Ideas as well as sometimes BIG Pockets and Big Pull {remember the temporary private down ramp from the Temporary Lane of the Expressway during the Big Dug {see post about Canal Street ? but once more I digress {see previous post today} wrapping around International Place

I wouldn't doubt that he's had the Aquarium Garage plan in mind for years

I'll go out on limb and make a New Years prediction - -Chiofaro's scheme when fully unveiled with have a large housing component included -- specifically to get the Harbor Tower' folks involved

He'll also have an as yet hidden plan to demolish the Harbor Towers and Build Bigger on that site as well

Westy {post # 100 ? -- finally?}

statler

12-26-2007, 08:51 AM

Chiofaro's scheme when fully unveiled with have a large housing component included -- specifically to get the Harbor Tower' folks involved
He'll also have an as yet hidden plan to demolish the Harbor Towers and Build Bigger on that site as well

I'm assuming you are implying these two project will be related. i.e. offering incentives to Harbor Towers residents to sell him their condos in exchange for a good deal in his new building? Then he takes over the Towers and rebuilds.
While I hope you are right - I'd love to see it happen - I see a few problems.
Stubborn people who refuse to move out of the Towers or who hold out for too much money. He may be able to evict them if he becomes the majority holder in the Towers, but he would have a huge fight on his hands.
And speaking of fights...even if he does get the towers torn down, he will have a major fight with Ms. Li over what gets put in their place. Personally, I don't really care about the height, but the density is critical(see ablarc's Seaport thread (http://www.archboston.org/community/showthread.php?t=1924)). Either way, she is going to make his life a living hell. Hopefully he has the pull to work around her (and Menino).
I wish him luck.

PS
Congrats on 100 posts - newb.

statler

09-21-2008, 09:07 AM

This should elicit some calm and rational responses here:

Banker & Tradesman - September 22, 2008
Developer Denied Access To Hub Mayor
By Thomas Grillo
Reporter

What does it say when the developer of a proposed $1 billion skyscraper on Boston?s waterfront can?t get face time with the mayor?

Donald J. Chiofaro has been rebuffed in repeated attempts to meet with Mayor Thomas M. Menino, sources told Banker & Tradesman. The snub, they said, has frustrated the gregarious landlord who paid $153 million last year for the Boston Harbor Garage near the New England Aquarium.

If Chiofaro gets his way, he will demolish the 7-story concrete facility along the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway and replace it with a glass office tower, hotel and condominiums.

But it won?t happen until the mayor gives his blessing. Developers who want to build in Boston understand the importance of Menino?s support: without it, the project is just a dream.

?Menino is truly the guy behind the green curtain,? said one developer referencing the Wizard of Oz. ?I?ve been told over and over never to forget who signs the building permit ? it?s the mayor. In some ways it?s like waiting in a delicatessen: take a number and wait for your sandwich. And if you can?t get in to see him, you?re f**ked.?

Boston?s ?Don? is co-owner of International Place, a pair of office buildings with 1.8 million square feet in the Financial District where he recently hosted ShaNaNa, the 1950s nostalgia band, at a party for tenants. The former star linebacker and captain of the Harvard football team is not popular with Menino. One City Hall source described Chiofaro as an ?annoying? guy with a ?tin ear.?

Menino: Tower?s Too Tall
There?s bad blood between the pair dating back to 2006 when Chiofaro sought to slash International Place?s property tax bill by $3.75 million, or 21 percent. The relationship has not improved since Menino learned Chiofaro wants to build a skyscraper taller than the 40-story Harbor Towers, a pair of waterfront condo buildings adjacent to the garage he owns.

?The building is too tall for the site,? Menino told Banker & Tradesman.

Menino acknowledged he has not met with Chiofaro. But he said the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) staff has held multiple meetings with him since April. The mayor expects the planning agency to vet projects, complete an initial review and get comfortable with a plan before it goes much further.

?The mayor will be prepared to meet with Don at the right time, but he expects his BRA managers will do some work beforehand,? said John F. Palmieri, BRA director. ?At this stage, Don is interested in doing a fairly substantial development at the garage. Our concern has to do with height, massing and density because of its location.?

?It?s not a place to accommodate great height,? Palmieri added. ?We?ve met a couple of times, but we haven?t encouraged him to spend a lot of time or money refining the plan because the most important issue for us is how it fits on the Greenway.?

Vivian Li, executive director of the Boston Harbor Association, who met with Chiofaro last week and has seen renderings of the planned tower, declined to specify the building?s height. She said it is taller than 40 stories but shorter than 85 stories ? the original height for the project. Zoning only allows for a 5-story building on the waterfront, she said.

Through a spokeswoman, Chiofaro declined to comment, saying in a voice mail message he has been ?unable to get permission from City Hall to talk about the project.?

Bubbybu

09-21-2008, 09:30 AM

This is another criss-cross Boston eff up....decent idea...bad location.
Forty stories on that parking lot parcel would be death to that part of the Greenway which is one of the nicer parcels with the fountain and po-mo blade lights.

People often overlook or don't care about the fact that one of Boston's strong points imo is its terrific sunlight distribution and lack of heavy shadows in its greener areas. This proposed tower belongs where those hideous Harbor Towers are...

If you want Chicago, where you will no longer need sunglasses by 2012 move there...

Menino is right in this case....in terms of pure aesthetics the smart, though probably improbable thing is to get rid of those two blotches, those horribly dated harbor towers, and build a sleek modern tower on that parcel of land.

Another factor in my opinion is that what makes the waterfront skyline nice is that it is pushed back off the water and smaller structures dominate the immediate water front...this gives a nice multi-dimentional feel to it. The array of high-rises in terms of shape and height is also very nice and a 40 story tower pushed much closer to the water would dominate that array.

I would applaud Menino numerous times over if he can stop the development of this tower on that garage location....

There are a good number of truly ugly buildings in prime locations in this city that need to be wrecked with abandon (One Boston Place anyone?)....obviously the city can't do that on a whim but that is no reason to ruin the character of this city with new poorly located buildings just so some people can get their 'tower-fix'

I'd even prefer for the garage location that Drucker-Pelli quick buck design that was proposed for the Shreve Crump & Low Building parcel...that would actually fit quite well.

Lrfox

09-21-2008, 09:57 AM

^^Bubbybu, welcome to the forums first off.

I tend to agree with you in terms of the proposed height at this location, but if it's condos, 40 residential stories isn't all that high. certainly not as high as 40 office floors. Anything much taller than that, is a no-no here.

However, I think positive development, particularly in this area where it replaces a garage and will be oriented towards the Greenway (at least on the ground floors) should be encouraged.

The fact that the developer can't even get an audience with the mayor is crazy. He should at least discuss with him alternatives to the proposed height. It reminds me of a stubborn relationship between 13 year old girls. If the Chiofaro has a "tin ear," then have one meeting with him and do what is done with every other project in this city, leave it to NIMBY opposition, delayed permitting and approvals, and surely he'll run out of money, lose interest, or chop it down to a more "desirable" height (I don't see what's SO bad about 40 stories here, particularly residential stories which are shorter, but that's another issue).

Not meeting with someone who's interested in developing a project of this nature, and who spent over $130 million acquiring a property (regardless of prior relationships with the person) is sending a terrible message to other potential developers.

On a final note, I happen to like OBP, and I don't think I'm alone.

Tim Jackson

09-21-2008, 10:19 AM

For me an ideal waterfront area, for me, would consist of a lot of great low- to mid-rise buildings directly on the water (Rowes Wharf, for example), with all of the larger towers rising up on the other side of the Greenway. That's kind of what we have going right now, but I like the openness that that area has right now, and it is one area of Boston that I would hate to see canyonized. The skyscrapers belong in the Financial District, Back Bay, and DTX, not directly on the water.

vanshnookenraggen

09-21-2008, 11:54 AM

Man, this is classic Boston politics at work.

Also I agree that this is the wrong place for 2 40 story towers, condos or not.

ShawnA

09-21-2008, 06:38 PM

Tim Jackson

09-21-2008, 07:32 PM

ShawnA, we realize that when somebody wants to invest in a city it's a good thing. That's basic. However, the developer/investor needs to be sensitive to the surrounding area and make the project improve the surrounding society as a whole rather than detract from it. If a developer dumps $100 million into an area, but the product is a precast debacle that does nothing to benefit or improve the area, what good has it done?

Let's use this proposal as a case study. Right now, that area of the Boston waterfront is, in my opinion, a very nice part of the city. Granted, it could use work (particularly the Greenway), but, as a whole it is a great part of the city. What we have now is a collection of primarily low and mid rise buildings right on the waterfront. On the other side of Atlantic Ave. is where all of the skyscrapers in the Financial District reside. It creates a very attractive scene and the pedestrian activity at Columbus Park, Rowes Wharf and around the Aquarium is great. Now, plop a large, out of scale forty story tower in the middle of that. It will disrupt the surrounding area. If you were to place four or five of these towers along the waterfront, what you would have is a wall of steel and glass suddenly plummeting down into the water below. That is not an ideal situation. Height is great, but only in the correct areas. In Boston, skyscrapers belong in the Back Bay, Financial District, and DTX primarily.

Everybody here would love to see more height and stunning architecture added to the Boston skyline. Just look at the threads for The Clarendon, Copley Place Tower, 45 Province, South Station Tower (this is a pipe dream, I know), Columbus Center, and the Filene's Tower. There is, for the most part, wide spread support for all of those projects. This just goes to show that height is not everything. Height is great if appropriate, but it is far better to have a ten story building that compliments its surroundings and generates street life than a forty story tower that looks out of place and disrupts the surrounding environment.

Now, if a forty story tower isn't appropriate at this specific location, then what is? Well, a mixed-use 10-15 story building would work well. On one side, you could have retail and restaurant space that opens up onto the Greenway, and some more retail/restaurant space on the other side near the Aquarium and the water. Up above, I suppose more office space would be appropriate, with possibly the second floor being additional retail. Green space wouldn't really be a priority, considering the plethora of park space that just recently opened - the Greenway. Put in some underground parking to help offset the loss of the garage, and the actual usage of the building would be complete.

As for the appearance, a design incorporating both brick and glass would be great (not the precast crap, the real deal - although that may be asking for a bit too much from today's developers). Detailing (now I'm daydreaming) would include some touches surrounding the ocean and aquatic life, considering its location to the waterfront and the Aquarium. A building such as this would be far better in that location than a forty story glass tower.

To sum this rant up, height is great if it is in the proper location, but the actual usage of the building is far more important than the height and overall appearance of it (I would much rather have a city full of so-so architecture but with a vibrant, active city life than a dead city with stunning modern works). Before you advocate for a project, consider the surroundings and what would best benefit the surroundings - then you plan.

Bubbybu

09-21-2008, 07:34 PM

Since I'm new here and since we are just sharing opinions I will politely say that I strongly strongly disagree with Shawn....

strongly...

And on an unrelated note does anyone know the what the opposite of 'airtight logic' is?

yigal

09-21-2008, 09:06 PM

The one good thing about building high close to the harbor towers is that it would dilute their ugly influence on the skyline if they're part of a cluster of buildings.

Mike

09-21-2008, 09:48 PM

I'm probably in the minority here but I like the way the Harbor Towers look on the skyline.

tmac9wr

09-21-2008, 09:55 PM

I think 40-stories or taller (not much taller) would be perfectly fine for this location. This has the potential to be the first great development on the Greenway that was built after the highway went underground. Tall doesn't necessarily mean a building has to be a hulking mass. If the design gets progessively thinner as the building rises, similar to older buildings in New York, then this can be both tall and graceful--allowing everyone to be happy.

With the exception of the Harbor Towers the buildings surrounding this parcel aren't tall, so there aren't going to be too many shadows on the Greenway as it is. Also, this is on the East side of the Greenway so shadows would only be cast by this tower early in the morning.

However, the most important aspect of this project should be how it interacts at street level. This parcel has the luxury of having the Greenway on one side and water on the other side...it would be wise for them to take advantage of this.

The most interesting thing about that article to me was when it said that the original plan called for an 85 story tower!

Lrfox

09-21-2008, 10:31 PM

I'm probably in the minority here but I like the way the Harbor Towers look on the skyline.

I like how they look on the skyline, but how they interact on the ground level is another story. I too hope whatever is built at the Aquarium Garage is much more engaging for the pedestrian. This is one of the most exciting potential sites as it presents incredible opportunities.

KentXie

09-21-2008, 10:34 PM

As for the appearance, a design incorporating both brick and glass would be great (not the precast crap, the real deal - although that may be asking for a bit too much from today's developers). Detailing (now I'm daydreaming) would include some touches surrounding the ocean and aquatic life, considering its location to the waterfront and the Aquarium. A building such as this would be far better in that location than a forty story glass tower.

I respect your opinion and you do have a good explanation. But let me say this. You are wrong to say that a forty story is 'out of place' when you have 2 twin 400 foot towers right down the street, unless the Harbor Towers are getting demolished.

Tim Jackson

09-21-2008, 10:38 PM

I personally don't like the Harbor Towers at all really. I guess it isn't out of place in the sense that there are those two buildings nearby, however, I don't like the Harbor Towers where they are either. In essence, I don't like tall buildings on that side of the Greenway. Probably should have explained that in my little rant, rather than just say it would be out of place.

vanshnookenraggen

09-21-2008, 11:12 PM

underground

09-22-2008, 08:41 AM

1. To the pedestrian on the street standing in front of whatever gets built here, what is on the ground floor will have an exponentially larger impact than how tall this building is.

2. Since the ancient Greeks, we've known that wide streets with stubby buildings looks ridiculous.

3. Designing a city so that it looks good from the water is nice, but please... that shouldn't be the first, second, or third thing in mind when planning the downtown area of a major metropolitan area.

pelhamhall

09-22-2008, 08:49 AM

Let's not forget that we haven't even seen any plans yet. So who really knows if it's a great idea, a good idea, a bad idea, or a horrible idea?

The story here is that because Don is not the mayor's buddy, and therefore, he gets treated like crap.

If Joe Fallon, cheapskate developer of the Siberia Park Lane Prison Towers, controlled this site, the mayor would be taking a different track with the development because they are friends. So to me, the real story is Menino's failure to bring any modern professionalism towards politics and continuing to do back room deals with his buddies like some old-time hack. The so-called Greenway is ringed with parking garages - Hard Rock, Haymarket, Gov Center, Aquarium - that is FOUR massive parking structures that ring our fabled "greenway" median strip system. Let's tear them all down and replace them with city-sized buildings. Maybe 30 stories, maybe 90 stories. It is, after all, the heart of the downtown part of our city.

Bubbybu

09-22-2008, 08:55 AM

My one nightmare vision of this tower is

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b197/behindthepen/gs01row17seat4.jpg

http://graphics.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Globe_Photo/2008/04/03/1207242700_0710.jpg

Whether or not my fears are justified, as you said, we should really check out the mockups first

atlrvr

09-22-2008, 09:05 AM

If the 40 story tower was on the side closest to the Financial District then this would be different. What he is proposing is slamming a 40 story tower in with 5 and 6 story buildings. This will ruin the area.

Exaggeration of the year.

What kills this area is the suburban landscaping in front of Harbor Towers. Who cares about their architecture. The pedestrian hardly notices them at all when you walk this area. Also, the classic skyline view from the harbor or Logan would actually not be altered in a negative way. The Harbor Towers appear in front of this new proposed tower from that angle.

Something in the 500-600 foot range would look like a natural step-up from the existing towers, and if the ground floor is well designed, it would be a big benefit to the area. The whole eastern side of the greenway is devoid of decent street life.

Lastly, this seems to be a debate over aesthetics which shouldn't be THE primary concern in new development. How about the fact that it's 1 block from the Blue Line station that is severely UNDER-capacity. Sounds like the perfect place for increased density.

In conclusion, as long as they get the ground floor right then all is well, and the height is just an academic talking point.

JSic

09-22-2008, 09:41 AM

stellarfun

09-22-2008, 10:25 AM

In today's credit market, Chiofaro has a lower chance of doing something big here than Belkin has of building Tommy's Tower. Chiofaro filed for bankruptcy in 2004, perhaps a strategic move at the time, but nonetheless.

underground

09-22-2008, 10:59 AM

Is there any realistic chance that the Harbor Towers could be torn down and replaced any time soon? Seems highly unlikley...
Structurally, they're a disaster. The Condo Association's been wrangling over how to pay for repairs for years. They might fall into the ocean before an agreement's reached.

KentXie

09-22-2008, 11:55 AM

Is there any realistic chance that the Harbor Towers could be torn down and replaced any time soon? Seems highly unlikley...

Personally, I dont hate them but I dont really care for them either. What I dislike is the "twins" trend that seems way too prevalent in the city, that these towers are a part of....

Twins trend? What do you mean? Do you mean two buildings that are alike? If so, then I think there are only 3 real twin towers in Boston which isn't exactly too prevalent.

Ron Newman

09-22-2008, 12:14 PM

What are the other two pairs?

There would have been another if Philip Johnson's original plan for a second copy of 500 Boylston had been approved.

JSic

09-22-2008, 12:21 PM

"Twins trend? What do you mean? Do you mean two buildings that are alike? If so, then I think there are only 3 real twin towers in Boston which isn't exactly too prevalent."

There are:
- Harbor Towers
- Charles river park twin residential towers
- twin residential towers at Northpoint Cambridge (not Boston, but still)
- Millennium Place (not identical, but close enough)
- Back Bay Marriot and Westin (OK, this one's a reach, but they are similar and nearby to each other)
- 28 and 60 State Street (see above - similar tops)
- 260 and 265 Franklin (again, similar and nearby)
- 1 and 2 International Place (different heights and tops but ortherwise pretty much alike)

I'll leave 1 Beacon and 1 Federal out of this.

Tim Jackson

09-22-2008, 12:39 PM

vanshnookenraggen

09-22-2008, 12:51 PM

In conclusion, as long as they get the ground floor right then all is well, and the height is just an academic talking point.

...

Exaggeration of the year.

Bubbybu

09-22-2008, 01:17 PM

what that spot needs is color...not height

between the stained aquarium...it's imax twin, the harbor towers and the nice but neutral sal de terre building, it's really suffocating at times

all that concrete and gray

that would be a good spot for a new and actually modern imax and a general movie complex (it's amazing how bad the 'modernization' of the aquarium actually is)

....sigh pipe dream

underground

09-22-2008, 02:08 PM

What makes color and height mutually exclusive?

KentXie

09-22-2008, 05:48 PM

Of the list you provided, I would classify three as twins - Harbor Towers, Charles River Park, and the Millenium Towers (that are in Boston - I am not including the NorthPoint towers). Hardly a trend. Other than the similar skin, I wouldn't consider the two International Place towers twins.

The two "real" twins, as in towers with completely identical designs are the Harbor Towers and the two Charles River Park Towers. I was wrong about the third, I thought two of the three apartment towers at the Pru was the same but they are all different. The Millennium Towers does not fall under the category since the design for each is actually different. Boston only has two "real" twins.

Patriots_1228

09-22-2008, 05:55 PM

You people are you crazy any time someone wants to invest in your city its a good thing. I tried of hearinIt's the wrong location; that is the same thing they said about the John Hancock Tower and it is now its the most famous building in Boston. Am I right or wrong. And you guys wonder why whe have a boring skyline. I'm moving to New York.

Actually, i'd have to say the Prudential Center, Fanuil Hall, the State House, Fenway, Quincy Market, and many others are better known throughout the world. That little point aside, i catch your drift. But, you gotta think, that pickyness is why Boston [imo] is such a good lookin city. all the peices fit.

briv

09-22-2008, 07:09 PM

Can one of the people who think a 40-story tower here will ruin this area explain the correlation between building heights and the quality of an area? I really don't see it, especially in this case.

BostonSkyGuy

09-22-2008, 08:25 PM

A sleek glass tower would be perfect for this spot in my opinion. I kind of agree with "Bubbybu" in that the whole area seems kind of "bleh" from ground level. It'd be a nice change-up to the other architecture in the area.

I think the most important thing however will be how it incorporates street level. I think that a lot of people look strictly at the design and height and fail to look at how it will incorporate to the street level when they judge a project.

Tim Jackson

09-22-2008, 09:16 PM

I think ruin might be a bit strong, but I am definitely not a fan of tall towers coming right up to the edge of the waterfront. I acknowledge that the appearance of the city from the water is not the main concern (nor should it be), but I have always liked the smaller buildings right along the waterfront (I am not a fan of the Harbor Towers). They belong on the other side of Atlantic Ave.

I guess my argument is more from an aesthetic standpoint than anything else. I understand that this is not the top priority in any development (as I said in my earlier post), but I would rather see a series of mid-rise buildings rather than new towers on those plots of land. Let me put it this way, if a 40-story tower was put there and it really added significant life to the area, I would be reasonably happy, but I still wouldn't be thrilled having another 400+ foot tower right on the water.

KentXie

09-23-2008, 12:06 AM

I think the thing that should be most emphasized here is the design. If the design is good, build as tall or as short as the developers want. It just have to look good.

Lrfox

09-23-2008, 09:57 AM

^That's where I agree. I don't have a problem with 40 stories if they don't build a huge box to get most sq. footage out of the height. something sleek would work very well and certainly not "ruin" the area. With the Aquarium Complex, the Wharves, and Columbus park all right in the area, this isn't going to "destroy" the connection with the RKG and the waterfront.

That being said, the most exciting prospect of this project to me anyway (aside from losing an ugly garage), Is having a project designed specifically for this plot, POST central artery. I think there's a lot of potential there. So if it were to exclude a tower, that would be fine if it interacted well with the street and worked to include itself along the RKG.

The only way that scar is going to heal is new projects and renovations that incorporate the Greenway into their design and this is one of the first of those and I'd hate to lose it over the negative attitude of the mayor over a tower which won't have too much effect one way or another (the BASE is the key component here).

The priority is certainly at the street level here, and not for a tower, but 40 elegant stories won't be so bad at all.

pelhamhall

09-23-2008, 10:13 AM

I would be a proponent of a good development here, and I would be an opponent of bad development here.

Height?

What does that question have to do with the above statement? It's just a detail.

Show me the proposal!!! This has to be leaked sooner or later.

riffgo

09-23-2008, 12:46 PM

Exactly! There's no reason to get up in arms over something no one has seen. Six stories or sixty, let's see what the developer has to offer before we start offering preferences and criticism.

Suffolk 83

09-23-2008, 06:40 PM

I think the thing that should be most emphasized here is the design. If the design is good, build as tall or as short as the developers want. It just have to look good.

You sound like a NIMBY: they don't seem to be wetting their beds over the Copley Tower... and it seems to be because they will LIKE looking out their window at it. Shadows seem to be something they can work with vs the usual "shadows kills plants and all life" excuse. Maybe you can pacify NIMBY's by building something beautiful and elegant no matter how tall. Who knew? What would happen if all developers of proposed projects retained excellent designs that are appropriate? Would NIMBY's shut up?

ablarc

09-23-2008, 07:19 PM

I am definitely not a fan of tall towers coming right up to the edge of the waterfront ...They belong on the other side of Atlantic Ave.

I guess my argument is more from an aesthetic standpoint than anything else.
Oh Tim, I dunno...

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/pellihkgifc/020.jpg

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/pellihkgifc/030.jpg

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/pellihkgifc/040.jpg

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/seaportnyc/020.jpg

Suffolk 83

09-23-2008, 07:41 PM

Ablarc, I don't always agree with you, but you generally know your stuff.... I can not find 5 good reasons why this IS NOT a good location... it might not be what Boston is used to, but I can't find ANY reason why this is not a good local for a building: short or tall, fat or slim, intelligent or streetsmart.... granted something intelligent and provacative would be very nice.

I disagree with anyone saying no height is servicable... I don't see the negatives of such a project.

KentXie

09-23-2008, 09:49 PM

You sound like a NIMBY: they don't seem to be wetting their beds over the Copley Tower... and it seems to be because they will LIKE looking out their window at it. Shadows seem to be something they can work with vs the usual "shadows kills plants and all life" excuse. Maybe you can pacify NIMBY's by building something beautiful and elegant no matter how tall. Who knew? What would happen if all developers of proposed projects retained excellent designs that are appropriate? Would NIMBY's shut up?

Wait, I'm confused? I sound like a NIMBY? And yes I do wish that it will be possible to pacify NIMBYs with that technique. But right now, I'm looking towards the design of the skyscraper because frankly I'm sick of seeing boring boxes. Copley Place is a good first step. I would love to see some more innovative designs similar to that in this location, where it is quite visible, especially if its going to be tall.

KentXie

09-23-2008, 10:18 PM

Another good example of tall towers at the waterfront is the towers that stand over the river that passes through Chicago.

http://www.arrakeen.ch/usacan/178%20%20Chicago%20River.jpg

nm88

09-23-2008, 11:42 PM

The examples above are really very different cities from Boston with very different waterfronts. Feels like we're comparing apples and oranges. Bigger cities with bigger waterfronts don't share our challenges.

I'm not for or against height there. What I hope for that spot is an architectural icon. It's one of the few times I would request such a thing.

A great statement does not absolutely require height, not really, just good design.

But a little height there might work too.

riffgo

09-23-2008, 11:46 PM

I don't find the other cities pictured SO different, and I question how VERY different the waterfronts are.

Ron Newman

09-24-2008, 07:31 AM

That's the Chicago River. But Chicago's lakefront towers are set well back from the shoreline, with large parks and a highway in between.

atlrvr

09-24-2008, 08:34 AM

And in Boston, there is a 40 story skyscraper in between this site and the water.

http://www.northeastcruiseguide.com/images/Boston/Boston_Harbor_Skyline-7331.jpg
The garage is partially obscured by the right Harbor Tower from the classic skyline photo angle.

I really don't even understand the debate about stepping back from the water.......if someone wants to argue about scale over the greenway, that's fine, but I feel like most have already stated that the greenway needs more height to make it feel more intimate due to the relative width of it.

I'm a fan of facadectomy's, and though there is nothing historic about the existing parking deck, I would like to see the first few floors make an attempt at sharing context with the brick buildings across the greenway. But as far as overall height, I see no reason that this site needs to be limited. Again, it's a block from a T station, and fronts a road that has relatively decent capacity. This parcel make more sense to me for density/height than Belkin's parcel once people get past their hard-on for a pyramid shaped downtown skyline.

Bubbybu

09-24-2008, 09:12 AM

how can anyone compare Hong Kong and Chicago to Boston? They are entirely different...as NM88 said

Boston needs to develop along the lines of it's own strengths...which is not and never will or should be a dominant skyscraper array

looking at the Boston Harbor picture the glaring blotch is imo the Harbor Towers... their only negative visual impact is from that dead on water shot...or from a view facing the water

if you stick a 40 story building where the garage is and; it will block out numerous buildings from different angles...for some of them it doesn't matter but others it would negatively impact previously nice views imo....

Not to mention the effect on the Greenway, which I don't think in itself suffers from being too wide...what it suffers from is a monocromatic background that makes the green lose a sense of density....what it needs is more sidewalk activity/ ground level density, night lights and contrasting colors along the route...height itself provides no positive benefit especially since that building would stick out from numerous angles like a middle finger out of a fist...it would be better to keep the Green Way streamlined with a fairly uniform height than to plop a dramatic tower place in the middle so chaotically.

I think that a tall building would only help is if it is something very sleak, curved and is cast with a glass tint that easily blends with the sky...another angular building wont benefit the area at all...so I also dunno why, unless you believe that the developer would contract some celebrity firm to design the building, you post pictures of the type of skyscrapers that would probably not go there...

I really wanna see the design

underground

09-24-2008, 10:45 AM

We're seriously going to argue that city planning should be conducted so that boaters have something nice to look at?

Ron Newman

09-24-2008, 11:22 AM

The title of this thread is "New tower at Aquarium parking lot". Does this mean the surface lot next to Harbor Towers, rather than the Harbor Garage?

ablarc

09-24-2008, 11:36 AM

Parking "lot": it causes me no end of despair that this phrase is coming to refer in popular usage equally to surface parking and structure parking. This kind of linguistic sloppiness has potential to do great harm.

There's all the difference in the world between a wretched parking lot and a parking garage with shops on the ground floor. If we confuse the two linguistically we'll come to think of them as equal.

Reminds me of that old oxymoron "urban sprawl." Got the whole country thinking cities sprawl --when the real culprit was the suburb all along. It took decades to repair the damage caused by this linguistic faux pas. Let's not repeat it.

A lot is a lot and a garage is a garage.

Mr. Moderator?

Ron Newman

09-24-2008, 11:44 AM

I agree. I'm asking because there is in fact a surface lot in this area, as well as the garage (which does have some retail use on the first floor, though much of the intended retail space is now used as an annex to the Aquarium)

Padre Mike

09-24-2008, 12:10 PM

I'm sure whatever is proposed will be looked at from the point of view of morning-afternoon shadows over the Greenway as well as downtown. I'd like to see a couple of towers of mixed use and different heights, narrow in scale, with an abundance of retail, etc. at the base. It's time for something unusual here, proportioned like the "needle" being built on the Chicago waterfront.

pelhamhall

09-24-2008, 12:19 PM

I agree - the Chicago Spire is certainly controversial, but being on the waterfront should be no reason to dumb down development. Check this photo out for context:

http://sustainabledesignupdate.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/chicago_spire600.jpg

I also like the Hong Kong example. A tall building on the water is a beacon. If done right, it can be stunning.

pelhamhall

09-24-2008, 12:28 PM

Also, for those old enough to remember, the World Trade Center was originally built right on the harbor before the Financial Center was added on the fill in front. This is a great picture:

http://www.angelfire.com/art/papainc/images/World_Trade_Center.jpg

I personally think tall buildings rising from the edge of the water are breath-taking. More so than ones buried among other tall buildings.

Bubbybu

09-24-2008, 01:56 PM

yes that spot is calling for something along those lines...not a spire but something like what is in London or Barcelona....sleek, colorful, round and phallic....and not too tall
it would be perfect and it would leave some space to build around for the sake of retail

of course that is a pipe dream

riffgo

09-24-2008, 05:39 PM

What's, "too tall"?

KentXie

09-24-2008, 05:46 PM

riffgo

09-24-2008, 05:55 PM

Well said! Perhaps that's why our skyline looks so anemic.

nm88

09-24-2008, 07:15 PM

I like our skyline. You know instantly it's Boston. Can't say that many cities.

ablarc

09-24-2008, 10:24 PM

Every city's skyline is familiar to those who live there.

Tim Jackson

09-24-2008, 11:18 PM

I would say, that the Back Bay skyline with the Hancock and the Pru would be fairly recognizable to most people, but if you handed someone from out of town a shot of the Financial District, they would most likely have little to no idea what city they were looking at.

nm88

09-24-2008, 11:52 PM

True, of course. Ablarc is right, imo. We are all inclined to view home favorably, wherever that may be. (Many of us from Boston may feel that more so.)

But the yen for height on this forum simply because -- what, other cities have it? -- seems, honestly, adolescent. Most of us get over our fascination with erections when we become men. Is height really, really, all that important? Wouldn't we be better served if we talk about good design instead of height. Shouldn't that be the standard?

I would not want to live in Hong Kong. The pictures, pretty as they are, reveal only part of the story of that evolving city. It is not a pleasant metropolis to inhabit (ask the citizens who live there), and the architecture, as photogenic as it may be, is in some part a reason for the unpleasantness. Honestly. The city is an ant's nest of congestion and confusion. Politics bear the burden of blame, of course, but architecture has not solved the problems, only exacerbated them.

The section of the city I like the best, the old part, feels real, original, local and liveable. It is, however, exorbitantly, mind-bogglingly expensive. The rest, the new stuff, is best appreciated from a distance, a great distance, preferably from the water -- which is where you see most pictures taken. It is not a pleasant city to experience on the street, not if you had to deal with it every day.

I love Chicago. One of the best walking cities in America. Some of my favorite buildings are there. Our own HHR shined in Chicago. Millennium Park? I wish we had that. But guys, they call it the city of big shoulders for a reason -- it goes on forever. I mean when they did the world's fair there at the turn of the last century they had room enough to literally create a whole new city, and to also make an enormous lake to go with it. They have boulevards and streets that create manageable L'Enfant-like grids. We have cow paths.

I'm off topic. It's not about liveability, this discussion is about skylines.

Forget pretty pictures. These are the creations of salesmen, city fathers, the architectural press or the architects themselves. We have a lovely skyline. Currently, an evolving one. By this time next year it will look modestly different. It is not an unrelenting wall of skyscrapers, true. Thank God. Any city can do that. We're better. We're Boston.

DZH22

09-25-2008, 12:32 AM

Let's keep something in mind about Boston's skyline here. The 4 tallest buildings (Hancock, Pru, Federal Reserve, 1 Boston Place) were all built between the years 1964-1976. While they are all unique, distinct buildings in their own right, that's 32 years without anything cracking our top 4! If you go beyond that, it's still been a full 20 years since anything broke into the top 7. Of course the skyline is going to be unmistakably Boston! All of the tallest buildings have been standing for 20-40 years already!
I know it is a beautiful skyline, but every year it seems to lose it's prestige just a little bit more. I also realize that Boston is amazing and about much more than just the skyline, but in my opinion, it's time for an update here. Copley Tower and South Station Tower are on the right track, but the financial district is definitely in need of a 700-900 footer, a pinnacle SOMEWHERE.
Oh and to tie it back to this thread, the greenway around here would be a nice place for a 400-600 footer, sleek design, minimal impact. Boston deserves to get these projects built.

KentXie

09-25-2008, 06:49 AM

But the yen for height on this forum simply because -- what, other cities have it? -- seems, honestly, adolescent. Most of us get over our fascination with erections when we become men. Is height really, really, all that important? Wouldn't we be better served if we talk about good design instead of height. Shouldn't that be the standard?

That's the type of talk that would create a skyline just like Boston, where everything is at the same height. It lacks any sort of ambition. Now what we are saying is not height > design. Now if you are going to build a skyscraper or a tower, build it tall. And Jesus Christ, a 400ft tower isn't tall unless you live in a small size city like Providence or Hartford. If we were really yearning for height, we make the tower to be at least 600 ft. It's not as if we are asking much in the height category.

statler

09-25-2008, 07:03 AM

JSic

09-25-2008, 07:57 AM

"I would say, that the Back Bay skyline with the Hancock and the Pru would be fairly recognizable to most people, but if you handed someone from out of town a shot of the Financial District, they would most likely have little to no idea what city they were looking at."

Personally, I've never really thought of the Back Bay as a true skyline. 2 spikes dont make a skyline (athough the addition os 111 Huntington has changed that a bit, and the new tower planned for Copley Place should continue to do so).

The downtown is a skyline - lots of continuity and density. But the problem is that its pretty bland - too many 60's-70's building blocks and a flat top at 600'. Time to break the ceiling with some tall, slim towers, and a spire or two wouldn't hurt.

yigal

09-25-2008, 08:38 AM

I've always been curious about why the height frenzy that swept through New York and Chicago skipped Boston almost entirely. Was it an official city policy to limit height to ~40 floors, or did it have to do with lesser demand for office space?

I kinda wish the Boston skyline made a bolder statement. It's not like the modest height makes the financial district a special treat to walk through - it just makes it look bland.

tommym96

09-25-2008, 08:42 AM

Personally, I've never really thought of the Back Bay as a true skyline. 2 spikes dont make a skyline (athough the addition os 111 Huntington has changed that a bit, and the new tower planned for Copley Place should continue to do so).

The downtown is a skyline - lots of continuity and density. But the problem is that its pretty bland - too many 60's-70's building blocks and a flat top at 600'. Time to break the ceiling with some tall, slim towers, and a spire or two wouldn't hurt.

Agreed. I've never considered the Back Bay to have a true skyline(yet). I also agree that while downtown has a legitimate skyline, it is bland and unimpressive. It is my opinion that they need to add modern skyscrapers that will symbolize progression, growth and other elements of a vibrant city; not a dormant city.

It's unbelievable how difficult it is to get a modern tower approved in this city when so many of the buildings are dated and hardly aesthetically pleasing. (Maybe that's the reason why?)

statler

09-25-2008, 08:45 AM

I've always been curious about why the height frenzy that swept through New York and Chicago skipped Boston almost entirely.

Read "Invented Cities: The Creation of Landscape in Nineteenth-Century New York and Boston (http://www.amazon.com/Invented-Cities-Creation-Landscape-Nineteenth-Century/dp/0300074913/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222350227&sr=1-1)" by Mona Domosh

It does a pretty good job of answering that question.

Bubbybu

09-25-2008, 09:02 AM

real estate is part of the problem obviously...a lot of the places that would be prime locations for a world class tower are already taken by old and or ugly old buildings. They had a good location for Trans-National but obviously we know how that is turning out...

In my opinion, the best locations in the city for an iconic tower would be the One Boston Place or One Beacon Place locations....not that the buildings are so hideous but because that is prime real estate on the border between civil and business Boston and it is ashame to have such gigantic boxes in such highly visible spots. Same with the Prudential Tower and many buildings in the financial district which need to be destroyed. The saving grace for The Pru was always that it was all alone and sorta cute for years...now that 111 Huntington is next to it, it has become a visible burden imo...even if it is beloved.

So when a spot opens up like at the Aquarium garage people want to rush to suggest a tower simply because it is available. If you could get something slender and iconic in that spot fine...but it is not the location for just another standard modern apartment highrise. Tear down Boston harbor Towers and then lets talk!

For Boston it will never be aobut how many tall buildings we have but about where they are located. New York and Chicago don't have to worry about that, but our officials can't relent on wanting to find the perfect spot of land and they shouldn't give into to cheapo developers with their nice but unspectacular local-firm designs.

PaulC

09-25-2008, 09:10 AM

I don't have a lot of faith in TNT happening. If it does I hope it leds to the old First National Bank building either being re-built taller or torn down and replaced with a better and taller building. It's hard to believe but that was not the only design for the building, although I heard that from the sky it looks like a 1.

Tim Jackson

09-25-2008, 09:12 AM

Personally, I've never really thought of the Back Bay as a true skyline. 2 spikes dont make a skyline (athough the addition os 111 Huntington has changed that a bit, and the new tower planned for Copley Place should continue to do so).

True, I can understand what you're saying. I still think that a photo of that area is far more recognizable than one of the Financial District - when given to an outsider.

On the topic of height making a great city, I agree with nm88. I am almost grateful that Boston doesn't have multiple 1,000+ foot towers. I hope it stays that way. Don't get me wrong, I am all for projects like Columbus Center, Copley Place, Columbus Center, etc., so it's not like I am anti-density. I would also be in favor of Boston getting one or two iconic skyscrapers to help it stand out, but I never want to see Boston become a mini-NY with 1,000 foot towers sprouting up everywhere.

atlrvr

09-25-2008, 09:25 AM

Holy Crap....we have people on here stating this would ruin the area, and others complaining this obscure views of some rather boring office buildings to boaters/photographers. Forget NIMBY, we have some NIM-C(ity) posters.

If Back Bay and South End survived John Hancock with its horrible windswept plaza, and the skyline didn't suffer too much even though it obscured many downtown buildings when viewed from the west, I'm sure a 400'-600' building with a thoughtful approach at the ground level isn't going to be a plague on the city.

I welcome the developer and architects to bring their best vision. This doesn't mean tallest. It can be 5 stories or 85 stories, just don't be scared to present something that could be great just because they are scared of the NIM-Cs. That said, its too late, as we never got a chance to see the initial concept....such is Boston.

ablarc

09-25-2008, 09:43 AM

I still think that a photo of that area is far more recognizable than one of the Financial District - when given to an outsider.
Rowe's Wharf and the Custom House distinguish the Financial District skyline from the water.

I have such a view on the wall in my office. Folks generally say, "That's Boston isn't it?"

When I inquire how they knew, they reply: "It's the big arch. That's a dead giveaway."

(That's what it means to be iconic.)

Ron Newman

09-25-2008, 11:31 AM

The Prudential Tower is not beautiful, but it's functional and well-recognized and is finally being knit into the fabric of the city. I'd rather leave it alone, thank you.

JSic

09-25-2008, 12:35 PM

I think its safe to say that the Pru or any other sizeable tower aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

I dont think we need to tear down any of the building blocks in the skyline. The city just needs to make the most of the remaining oportunities to build bold, sleek, and tall. In this way the newer towers will be the ones that stand out, and the older, blander ones will fade into the background while adding depth. To a limited extent this has already happened with the newer towers like 111 Huntington, Millenium Place, State Street Financial Center, 33 Arch, and the upcoming Filene's Tower, SST, and Copley Place. Now, we just need to push the envelope a little more - a little taller and a bit more bold.

tocoto

09-25-2008, 01:03 PM

I wonder if this clip from an article in the the B&T is about this project. I don't get the paper so I cannot read the entire story.

Developer Denied Access To Hub Mayor
By Thomas Grillo
What does it say when the developer of a proposed $1 billion skyscraper on Boston?s waterfront can?t get face time with the mayor?.....

Tim Jackson

09-25-2008, 01:18 PM

Go to page 17, statler posted that article there.

Beton Brut

09-25-2008, 01:58 PM

The Prudential Tower is not beautiful...

It's not beautiful, but it's well proportioned, and as a product of its era, it's quite handsome.

tmac9wr

09-25-2008, 02:10 PM

I've yet to have anyone explain why having a 'impressive' skyline in any way relates to having an impressive city.
Paris does not have an impressive skyline (La Defense is outside the city) The really nice parts of London do not have an impressive skyline. Prague does not have an impressive skyline.

I have no problems with tall buildings but they are not an essential element of all great cities.

Having an impressive skyline doesn't necessarily make a city any more impressive other than the fact that there is a pretty building to stare at. It's true that La Defense is technically not in Paris, but lets not kid ourselves and act like it's a far-away area...a few of my friends just got back from Europe and they never realized that La Defense wasn't apart of Paris (but this really doesn't have anything to do what we're talking about).

New York City and Chicago are two examples of how an impressive skyline relates to being an impressive city. The sheer size of their skylines is awe-inspiring. New York City is obviously more than just skyscrapers, and so is Chicago. While there are many factors that make those cities impressive, their skylines certainly make them even cooler.

Boston doesn't need tall buildings in order to make it impressive. We have some of the most beautiful streetscapes and architecture in the entire country. However, it seems like the attitude of our citizens is that having tall buildings will be detrimental to the city, which in my opinion is ridiculous. I agree with you that London does not need tall buildings to be impressive, but would you argue that the addition of the Swiss Re tower was a bad thing for the city of London? What about the London Bridge Tower?

Skyscrapers aren't necessary to make the city better, but they can be a great symbol of progression. A well-done building here could become a beacon for the Greenway. The one thing I don't understand is that some people on this board (not necessarily aiming this at you Statler) feel that the addition of a skyscraper like Trans National Place would be a bad thing for us. How? Philadelphia and Boston are both very similar cities, and they just added a new tallest building and it looks stunning. They also have a much larger building (over 1,300 ft. I believe) in the works. Does this make Philadelphia any less impressive than it was before? There are two sides to this argument, the people who are asking "Why?" and the ones who are asking "Why not?". I suppose I'm apart of the latter.

tobyjug

09-25-2008, 02:11 PM

The Prudential Tower is not beautiful...

It has personality, a great sense of humor, and is alot of fun on a date.

Lrfox

09-25-2008, 03:40 PM

^Well played. I was trying to do something clever about a lot of people "being inside" it. But you're comment is certainly funnier and a bit more appropriate.

KentXie

09-25-2008, 06:18 PM

There are other reasons for tall towers besides being aesthetically pleasing. The creation of a tower with a large amount of floorspace can lower the cost to rent out space. Larger companies will find Boston a lot more attractive to do business. The time is ripe before but Boston failed to take advantage of the recent low office vacancy rate.

nm88

09-25-2008, 07:26 PM

I've yet to have anyone explain why having a 'impressive' skyline in any way relates to having an impressive city.

Agreed. And I'd like to hear that explanation. That Boston would appear "ambitious" and "progressive" with some bold new towers, as some have posited here, means exactly what?

The reasons people come to work, live and learn in this city are already well established, and though those reasons continue to evolve as the city changes and grows I don't see many people deciding one way or the other because the city appears to be "progressive" and "ambitious." Because of a skyline?

L'Defense was mentioned. That's as progressive and ambitious as a city might get. Go see it. It's cold and soulless. And Parisians don't care for it much, to say nothing of the tourists.

I am not against height. I am for it when it's Pelli's SST, and I am against it when it's Piano's TNT.

Like others, I've become fond of the Pru, though I admit I'm happy for the additions.

But that's taste. And mine can be as faulty as the next guy.

We can all agree on one thing: this is a great city. And what makes it great has little to do with a skyline...or, if we're really honest, little to do with modern architecture.

tmac9wr

09-25-2008, 07:37 PM

^^ I tried to respond to Statler's post a little while ago. Tall buildings don't really make a city more impressive, but how could a tall building in this location be detrimental to the city?

vanshnookenraggen

09-27-2008, 03:31 PM

I moved the last 9 posts over to the My City Is Bigger Than Your City (http://www.archboston.org/community/showthread.php?t=2443) thread.

GW2500

09-29-2008, 12:07 PM

I can tell you a couple cool things tall buildings do to a city. First one is that a good sky line is impressive sight from a distance. When driving north to New York you get a good view of NY's skyline, and you first start seeing it from a good distance out. To say that isn't impressive would be a false statement. Also it gives communities and neighborhoods that are close to a city center even more of an association to that downtown. By that I mean if you are in North Jersey and can still see a lot of Manhattans buildings it gives the area an even stronger connection to a city's center by giving you visual proof. In Boston it is cool to be able to be 5 miles north of downtown and backbay and see the same buildings that neighbor hoods 5 miles south of downtown can see. Or to be in Stoneham (10 miles north) and to be in the attic of my parents house and clearly see Boston is cool. Also when inside city parks and you can see tall towers on it parameter it gives that park more of an urban park feel. Also think of the Charles river view from the Cambridge side.