archBOSTON ARCHIVE

[user_198]

Any city in New England other than Boston that can build and sustain a 1000 foot tower.

[statler]

[castevens]

1. Boston, Massachusetts: 589,141
2. Providence, Rhode Island: 173,618
3. Worcester, Massachusetts: 172,648
4. Springfield, Massachusetts: 152,082
5. Hartford, Connecticut: 141,578
6. Bridgeport, Connecticut: 139,529
7. New Haven, Connecticut: 123,626
8. Stamford, Connecticut: 117,083
9. Waterbury, Connecticut: 107,271
10. Manchester, New Hampshire: 107,006

[castevens]

None of those.

[patrick0000]

what you need to remember is that there are places around the world where amazingly tall buildings stick out of relatively height-lacking sections of cities. so anywhere can build a 1,000 footer, if only for reasons of pride.

now, as for the second part of your question, as to whether or not somewhere could sustain a 1,000 footer, thats an entirely different story. I would say the most urban area in new england after boston, would definitely be hartford connecticut, and therefore that's where the best chance of sustaining a 1,000 footer would be. however, the "best chance" doesnt mean it can be done.

currently, i think hartford has a 500 something footer for a tower, and there were a whole bunch of proposals there in the 1980s for some really tall buildings, but im not convinced it would be wise to build a 1,000 footer, unless they had a "if we build i, they will come" strategy or something.

none of those other cities you mentioned would be able to support a 1,000 footer, in my opinion, either, castevens...especially not manchester, worcester, or springfield, however stamford, ct might be able to, as odd as it would look, because of its proximity to the big city, which means the sustainability would really not be owed to stamford, but to new york.

[TGSwimFly]

I can envision a thousand footer along the coast somewhere, maybe RI or CT (?) as a condo building. I don't think the office market is strong enough in the northeast right now to construct something that large unless most of it was dedicated to residential/hotel. So maybe it could be built in Hartford, or some location on the coast like Bridgeport or maybe Newport, as a mostly residential building.

Definitely not in most of the cities listed just because the demand isn't there.

So, I can see a residential highrise on the coast, where people are willing to pay a lot of money, but that's about it.

[ablarc]

Thousand-footers are for big cities.


Hoboken, N.J., a small low-rise city consisting mostly of row houses and medium-size apartment buildings. Now gentrified, this is generally thought to be one of the nicest places to live in New Jersey or the New York metropolitan area.

Population: 38,577
Area: 1.28 square miles.
Density: 30,239 persons per square mile.



Boston

Population: 589,141
Area: 48.4 square miles
Density: 12,172 persons per square mile.




If Boston had the density of Hoboken, it would have a population of 1,463,568.

.

[patrick0000]

perhaps you are right, but i wouldnt hold my breath for that, even on the coast. a 100-story residential sounds more like miami coast material, not noreaster coast material! i wouldnt pay to live on a new england coast for what a unit in a building that tall would likely go for! haha, you could probably see some sea weed and clouds for most of the year and when youre lucky maybe a seagull or two in the summer. no, but seriously, a project that big would never go anywhere in new england if only because of the planning boards. it would add 2,000 people to the population immediately, though, wherever it was built (100 stories x 20 units per floor...conservative estimate)...which would be kinda cool.