Hey, there! Log in / Register
Group overseeing Greenway accepts free office space from developer who wants to build tower next to Greenway
By adamg on Sun, 07/26/2009 - 8:59pm
Matt Conti reports:
The expanding relationship between developer Donald Chiofaro and the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway Conservancy has created the perception of a quid pro quo between the two organizations. ...
Chiofaro wants to tear down that garage near the Aquarium and put up a 700-foot skyscraper, of course.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Business as usual, I see.
Business as usual, I see.
After paying 35 dollars to
After paying 35 dollars to park our car for two hours in that garage last night, my only consolation is that a grand tower to replace said garage may benefit from my coin. A city needs such projects to generate jobs and to demolish as many "New Boston" concrete bunkers as possible - the Aquarium excluded of course.
I'm happy to see the garage
I'm happy to see the garage go, and I loathe the horrible concrete buildings that started springing up like noxious mushrooms in the 60's, but I'd want to see what this proposed building is supposed to be like before endorsing it.
Also, let's remember that the Aquarium is actually an ugly concrete box (by the same jerks that brought us City Hall, IIRC), which has had ugly metal crap attached to it, presumably to distract us from the concrete part. I would not be averse to seeing it replaced with something better on the same site.
Chifaro's proposal
Here ya go
It's ridiculous that the city is opposing this. I guess anything interesting or remotely urban needs to be whittled down into banal mediocrity via the BRA and NIMBYs who want to live in a city but don't want it to resemble a city... unless it's where they live. Look at the small number of whining Harbor Towers residents complaining about the towers being too tall and out of character for the area.
Largely featureless glass
Largely featureless glass boxes? I'm opposed. Surely it can't be difficult to hire an architect who can build something that looks nice, and which is comfortable to be in (e.g. a building right on the water that has windows which open to allow the sea breeze in). The proposed design is certainly banal mediocrity.
Also, tall buildings really aren't that good; they isolate people from the street level, and function as vertical cul-de-sacs; a bad idea for the 'burbs, and not a great idea in the city. I'm increasingly convinced that Boston had it right with its 10-story height limit for all those years.
Wow a developer wants to
Wow a developer wants to build Iconic tower development which improves the skyline and opens the the highway median strip, also known as the Greenway, to the harbor versus keeping an ugly falling apart concrete elephant of a garage.AND WAIT? THEY DON'T WANT PUBLIC MONEY OR TO TEAR DOWN A HISTORIC BUILDING LIKE SHREVES FOR A GENETIC OFFICE BOX? Sounds great!
B-But!
Oh noes the shadows!!!!!1111
Oh noes teh mayorz is no friend of the developer! EPIC FAIL!
Oh noes BRA hasn't been bribed along with the usual city council members and 'public interest' extortion groups!
Oh noes, the cantankerous snobs at Harbor Towers might lose their views, not have a semi-illegal walled off section of the harborwalk all to themselves, and have their parking spaces taken away during construction!
We'd rather have a giant steadily spawling concrete parking structure blocking off the harbor and reminding us all of a giant rotting whale carcass! Because, damnit it goes with the box of an aquarium!
welcome creeps
Welcome another set of anon creeps for this project.
Corruption's cool.
If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. That's what I always say.
If you are really going to
If you are really going to mount a, 'save the parking garage' campaign, or cry about there being shadows and tall buildings in the downtown of a city, I pity you.
And really I'm a creep for supporting a positive development in a city which seems to have a torrid half century love affair with rectangles with stripes, office park landscrapers, tearing down any truly historic buildings with political favors whilist using the same oversight boards to block unconnected developments, and otherwise rushing for very anti-urban megablock projects? Give me a break, or at least lose the snark and make criticism on specific points.
Most of the criticism, as far as the number of letters issued during the public comment period, for this project is from the self serving twits in Harbor Towers, whom can not fathom having any new development encroaching on their God given right to a view.
God's not that powerful
God won't protect their views - zoning laws will. You obviously need to do a little more homework. If Chiofaro could build this "by right" there would be no argument. The reason there is controversy (in almost all of these cases) is that most zoning in the city runs from 1 story up to about 15 stories downtown. He needs a variance - in most cases the BRA crams this down people's throats because it's very hard to get someone with standing to take on the case that will probably drag on for years and cost a lot of money.
One more thing - we have millions of sf of empty space and essentially zero population growth - if we build this tower - who is going to work there (without causing vacancies around the city).
I'm not opposed to height - but there's a right way and a wrong way and a right place and a wrong place. The south side of one of our best parks that we are trying to invigorate is not a smart place to put a big building.
Which park are you referring
Which park are you referring to? How can something be one of our "best" parks if it's in need of invigoration? But seriously, which park?
My question, too
If you mean Christopher Columbus Park, the Harbor Garage isn't on the south side of that. The Marriott Long Wharf Hotel and the Aquarium are in between.
Greenway
Stevil can certainly talk for himself, but I'm up a bit early :-).
It has the potential to be one of Boston's best parks.
But how is this site on the 'south' side of the Greenway?
I don't see how that is possible.
I'm asking for a compass for Christmas
I thought the road ran in Northeasterly direction at that point but you are correct it is directly N-S so yes the tower is on the East - either way - all or most of the day large parts of the Greenway will be in shadows from this and other buildings. I don't think we should be adding to the problem. I used to think the same way many others think - just build it - shadows make no difference - but after listening to the "noes shadows" people, I changed my mind - they make a lot of sense - primarily that people tend to avoid parks with shadows and if we are to turn the Greenway into the success that it can be we need to limit large construction around the park. It's not the easy solution - but it's the better solution.
I am well aware of the 150ft
I am well aware of the 150ft rules for height in that area of the city. But guess, what? THAT ZONING RULES WAS ENACTED BEFORE HARBOR TOWERS (400FT) WAS BUILT!
Zoning in this city is a joke. In most cases it dates from the 1920s and has been used a political tool by every mayor with the BRA since to extort money. Many of the best areas of the city are no impossible thanks to current zoning, which is a pretty good indicator of what's wrong with what can be built with the current system. Think about it, nearly a century has passed and there hasn't been a complete overhaul of zoning to allow developers a clear picture of what can be built without playing the BRA negotiating game.
If one has such a problem with the zoning of this project, I'd sincerely hope you'd go to the meeting concerning the Shreve's building, which is flying the face of preservation laws (So the decrepit fairly generic for its time MDC brick box of an office building is historic, but Shreve's unique art deco/beaux arts style is not? Sorry I forgot who owns the mayor's ear) and zoning without abandon.
This project is located NORTH EAST of International Place. Given the height of that tower complex and the lack of any major problems with the FAA, long periods of shadow on the Geenway, winds, etc. from it, you'd think that would be enough of a hint this new tower wouldn't be problematic. The new towers are going to be slender and located far away from Christopher Columbus Park that shadows shouldn't be an issue there either.
Christopher Columbus Park is bordered by historically protected areas, the harbor, and the Greenway. As such there will always be enough direct, reflected, or diffused light to never really allow strong shadows permeate the park for any part of the day.
Why people hate tall buildings
Because they've mostly been crap, foisted on us by assholes. If this is your project then it comes with the territory, I don't know how you can get ring around the collar because of opposition, but then that's how all rich developers and their hired complainers act. Take your medicine.
People hate tall buidlings?
People hate tall buidlings? Wow so I guess we ought to tear down the Hancock Towers, the Customs House, and the Pru because they are reviled symbols of Boston.
"f this is your project then it comes with the territory, I don't know how you can get ring around the collar because of opposition, but then that's how all rich developers and their hired complainers act."
Let me guess, you live in harbor towers and don't want to lose your precious view or exclusivity of living on that section of the waterfront?
Take my medicine? What's that supposed to mean?
You're the one pining away for the preservation of one of the ugliest parking garages in the city which disconnects the waterfront. Maybe you need some medication?
People once hated the Pru
and I don't think many people really warmed to it until the first-floor level was enclosed and converted to its current shopping-mall configuration in the early 90s. Before that, it was a dismal and windswept place to walk, a place to actively avoid.
People like the Pru now?
The Pru provides a nice masters-of-the-universe view to people who can afford to dine at Top of the Hub -- at the cost of casting a shadow and being an eyesore for everyone else.
And the signage is tacky.
Garage or bust!?
I don't think anyone's proposing maintaining the garage - just building something suitable for the area - if Mr. Chiofaro overpaid for the garage on the assumption he could build something bigger than allowed by zoning - well then he guessed wrong - bad investment - too bad - build something else.
(You are right above - the zoning and planning system in this town is a mess and we need to bag the BRA and get proper - defensible zoning and planning that allows appropriate growth without all the "exceptions" which seem to be the only zoning law in this town - Shreve's is sadly disappointing - ran into an architecture professor there taking pics the other day - but the building went through due process - as an impartial observer would rather see shreve's stay - but the process was fair - if not please let us know more details)
The Pru is an ugly, ugly
The Pru is an ugly, ugly building (as are its companions, such as 101 Huntington). The new Hancock is really not good either; it is terrible at street level -- which is what's really important, since people do not live at skyline scale -- and the only reason it is tolerable on the skyline is because you can't really see it; it reflects the sky. Featureless glass rectangles should never be built, and should be torn down when encountered.
The Customs House is very good, but the hotel running it is screwing it up a bit, by ignoring the India Street entrance, which is much more impressive than the McKinley Square side. Of course, there's no real ground level retail, but given that it was originally a waterfront government building, this can be forgiven.
If the proposed new building were to be a companion for the Customs House, or at least was as nice to look at, I'd be happy. If it followed in the mold of Rowes Wharf, but had more surface detail and a better street level, I'd be happy too. But the proposal sucks; I don't want it there. And, btw, Harbor Towers also suck, and should be torn down asap and replaced with something better. I don't live there, I just hate bad buildings and love good buildings.
Oh the terrible nimbys
Oh the rich meanie condo people who are scaring the nice developer!
Oh Boston sucks now you should take anything else!
OH my building looks just like the ICA which means it's nice! You should love it or you're a philistine!
Oh the view is bad anyway! Don't look out your window if you have a problem! Turn on a fan and smoke a bag of weed!
Then there are other people...
...who think that 4 stories is a good max height, separate from whether or not a skyscraper is done well. :)
Wait a minute!
Hold on a second, is the BRA against this tower project? I'll have to check, but I'm pretty sure I really hate the BRA. I'll have to reserve judgment on this tower until I can read up and make my own informed opinion.
Dude, it's 2009, can we have
Dude, it's 2009, can we have a moratorium on "oh noes?" And lolcats.