Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

[vanshnookenraggen]

Trans National Place
115 Federal St, Boston

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v633/tmac9wr/WinthropSquare.jpg
http://www.boston.com/business/ticker/0125_building_005.jpg
Piano (left) and Belkin (right)

Status
Proposed

Architects
Renzo Piano (formerly) (http://www.rpbw.com/)
CBT/Childs Bertman Tseckares Inc. (www.cbtarchitects.com/)

Stats
Name: Trans National Place
Project Address: 115 Federal Street at Winthrop Sq, Boston.
Map & Plan Links: Boston Globe Special Interactive - Green Giant (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/special_projects/2007/futureofboston/greengiant/)
Neighborhood:Financial District
Uses:Unofficial: Office, Retail
Land Sq. Ft.: Unknown
Building Sq. Ft.: Unknown
Height: 75 floors, 1,270ft (with spire)

About
In 2006 Boston mayor Thomas Menino proposed selling off a city owned parking garage in Winthrop Sq in the heart of the Financial District, to be replaced with a 1000ft, "iconic" tower. A request was made for bids and after months of speculation only one proposal was put forth. The proposal was by Steven Belkin, owner of Trans National Properties., a credit card company, a vast "travel empire" and coincidently the owner of the adjacent office building. The design, a sleek, ultra-modern glass tower designed by renowned architect Renzo Piano (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renzo_Piano) was to feature a large rooftop garden and restaurant and a large public "green space" at the base of the tower. The tower itself would be built on stilts. However in March 2007 Piano stepped away from the project and a final design has yet to be released, though it is said to be "Piano inspired".

In early 2007 preservationists struck back after it was reveled that construction would require destruction of a nondescript Paul Rudolph building next to the Winthrop Garage. Preservationists requested, and received, a 90-day stay of demolition for the building so it could be determined if it has historically significant enough to save.

Then a little know law that forbid new buildings from casting a shadow on the Public Garden and Boston Common was brought into light . This could affect the tower as it is projected to cast a shadow for 15min at certain times of the year.

Images
http://architecturalrecord.com/news/images/070315rudolph2lg.jpg
http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/4880/bra5zw9.jpg
http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/9071/bra1sd0.jpg
http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/6457/bra4ym6.jpg
http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/7967/bra2un7.jpg
http://img423.imageshack.us/img423/5614/bra3ch4.jpg
http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i52/castevens12/115winthrop.jpg

Renderings of Trans National Place in Google Earth by shiz02130
- Mass Ave and Bolyston (http://www.seanhenryryan.com/arch/115-Federal/boylston-mass.jpg)
- Boylston and Dartmouth (Copley Square) (http://www.seanhenryryan.com/arch/115-Federal/boylston-dartmouth.jpg)
- Bolyston and Arlington (http://www.seanhenryryan.com/arch/115-Federal/bolyston-arlington.jpg)
- Beacon and Arlington (http://www.seanhenryryan.com/arch/115-Federal/beacon-arlington.jpg)
- Hancock Observatory (http://www.seanhenryryan.com/arch/115-Federal/hancock-observatory.jpg)
- Southeast Expressway (http://www.seanhenryryan.com/arch/115-Federal/se-expressway.jpg)
- Cambridge side of Harvard Bridge (http://www.seanhenryryan.com/arch/115-Federal/mass-morrissey.jpg)
- Columbus Park (http://www.seanhenryryan.com/arch/115-Federal/columbus-park.jpg)
- ICA (http://www.seanhenryryan.com/arch/115-Federal/ica.jpg)
- BU Bridge (http://www.seanhenryryan.com/arch/115-Federal/bu-bridge.jpg)
- Close-up of Downtown (http://www.seanhenryryan.com/arch/115-Federal/downtown.jpg)
- BCEC (http://www.seanhenryryan.com/arch/115-Federal/bcec.jpg)
- Bunker Hill Monument (http://www.seanhenryryan.com/arch/115-Federal/bunker-hill.jpg)
- North Washington and Causeway (http://www.seanhenryryan.com/arch/115-Federal/nowash-causeway.jpg)
- Hot air balloon above North Washington and Causeway (http://www.seanhenryryan.com/arch/115-Federal/nowash-causeway-balloon.jpg)
- Tremont and Mass Ave (http://www.seanhenryryan.com/arch/115-Federal/tremont-mass.jpg)


Links
- Former Trans National Place Thread (115 Federal St, Winthrop Square) (http://architecturalboston.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=41)
- NECN Interview with Steve Belkin (http://www.boston.com/partners/worldnow/necn.html?catID=83465&clipid=1367420&autoStart=true&mute=false&continuous=true)
- Boston 2017 - Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/special_projects/2007/futureofboston/)

Articles
- "Taking a Bath" - Big building won?t stop making big waves (http://www.weeklydig.com/news_opinions/articles/taking_a_bath) 05/16/2007
- Winthrop Square garage revenue will pay for BHA upgrades (http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2007/05/07/daily49.html) - 05/11/2007
- Talk is cheap, but where are tower payments? Belkin hasn?t coughed up (http://business.bostonherald.com/businessNews/view.bg?articleid=1000169) - 05/09/2007
- Piano vs. Rudolph Fight Called Off[/url - 03/27/2007
- [url=http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2007/03/17/renowned_architect_quits_tower_project/]Renowned architect quits tower project (http://www.archpaper.com/news/2007_0327.htm) - 03/16/2007
- Rudolph Building, Eyed for Piano Skyscraper, Gets Temporary Stay of Execution (http://archrecord.construction.com/news/daily/archives/070315rudolph.asp) - 03/15/2006
- City's tallest tower clears first hurdle (http://www.boston.com/business/ticker/2007/01/citys_tallest_t.html) - 01/25/2007
- 1,000-foot tower or public park? (http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/12/22/1000_foot_tower_or_public_park/) - 12/22/2006
- Towering dream: Belkin bullish on $1.2B icon (http://business.bostonherald.com/realestateNews/view.bg?articleid=172762) - 12/19/2006
- One bidder for Mayor's tower (http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2006/11/13/daily15.html) - 12/04/2006
- Balkin' Belkin (http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2006/12/01/balkin_belkin/) - 12/01/2006
- A glass tower of singular design is sole response to mayor's call (http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/11/14/a_glass_tower_of_singular_design_is_sole_response_ to_mayors_call/) - 11/14/2006
- BRA Press Release (http://www.cityofboston.gov/bra/press/PressDisplay.asp?pressID=344) - 11/13/2006
- Tommy?s Tower proposals on way: Belkin will be hard to beat for plum project (http://business.bostonherald.com/businessNews/view.bg?articleid=166862) - 11/12/2006
- Hub architects: No chance for mayor's tower (http://boston.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2006/10/02/story3.html) - 09/29/2006
- Tower plan draws players: Belkin creating crack project team (http://business.bostonherald.com/businessNews/view.bg?articleid=157413) - 09/14/2006
- Save Boston (http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2006/08/18/save_boston/) - 08/18/2006
- High and Mighty? (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/07/19/high_and_mighty/) - 07/19/2006
- Tycoons being neighborly: Belkin, Zell may be eyeing tower (http://business.bostonherald.com/businessNews/view.bg?articleid=142794) - 06/09/2006
- Mayor urges 1,000-foot skyscraper (http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/02/18/mayor_urges_1000_foot_skyscraper/?page=1) - 02/18/2006
- Mayor's skyscraper call met with tepid reaction (http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2006/02/27/story7.html) - 02/26/2006

There are a lot more articles but you guys didn't put any of the links up.

[vanshnookenraggen]

I've decided to close the old thread and create a new one because 54 pages is too long for any sane person to wade through. I will be adding any relevant news posts from the old thread to the first post.

Also, lets leave that argument in the old thread.

\/It's as easy as me deleting the posts or moving them to 'Politics'.\/

[kennedy]

ending arguments on this forum is about as easy as building the burj dubai on top of the north end. and then putting up a sister tower above fenway.

[atlantaden]

Very nice job getting all this Trans-National info together!!

[BostonSkyGuy]

Very nice job getting all this Trans-National info together!!

Agreed. I think that any future pretty-good sized projects that will be having their own threads should be set-up similarly. This way when people ask about original renderings, original design specs, etc. will be easily found in one thread.

To stay on topic, what did everyone think about the Boston: 2017 feature in Boston magazine? I thought it was one of the more positive write-ups I've seen about building in Boston. For once I thought the globe was pretty balanced in coverage of development.

[atlantaden]

^^^^^^^^^

Enjoyed the articles about future developments but frankly, having been around long enough to have seen so many cool projects proposed (hmmmmmmmmmm, where to begin)...then die out for whatever reason, kept me from being more positive. Similar to being a long-time Sox fan where over the years, hopes were brutally dashed at the last possible minute that when 2004 came along it was like...ok...should I get excited yet? LOL You don't give up hope but it's hard to get too excited though I have to admit...coming back from the brink of disaster and beating the Yankees was, for me, the BEST! Even winning the series couldn't top that for me. Anyway, you get the picture why it's hard to get excited about cool developments proposed for Boston.

[Lrfox]

Agreed^^^^

Great job getting the information together in one place. now you can tell any new member to, "go read page one, then ask questions." that should keep clutter down. I do believe it's too early to be that hopeful, but i do love this project more and more every day.

[justin]

The more I see of this project the less I like it. It seems to me that, sadly, many people on this forum are so easily seduced by the mere fact of height as to give Tommy's tower a free pass on just about every other aspect of design. Gehry has curves, Libeskind shards, and Piano exposed girders; all we're getting is a non-descript box sheathed in starchitect's wrapping paper. And all this before CBT has value-engineered it...

I will lend what humble support I can to NIMBY efforts to derail this ill-conceived ego-trip before it defaces Boston's skyline forever. The cost of correcting a 1000ft mistake can only be measured in the thousands of lives.

justin

[Bobby Digital]

The more I see of this project the less I like it. It seems to me that, sadly, many people on this forum are so easily seduced by the mere fact of height as to give Tommy's tower a free pass on just about every other aspect of design. Gehry has curves, Libeskind shards, and Piano exposed girders; all we're getting is a non-descript box sheathed in starchitect's wrapping paper. And all this before CBT has value-engineered it...

I will lend what humble support I can to NIMBY efforts to derail this ill-conceived ego-trip before it defaces Boston's skyline forever. The cost of correcting a 1000ft mistake can only be measured in the thousands of lives.

justin

First off, Vanshnook, you did a GREAT job with this. This is EXACTLY what the moderator should be doing.

Second, how many 1,000 foot towers get scrutinized that harshly? I cant think of many. enlighten me if you wish..... This box with a spire is probably exactly what boston needs. It fits in well with the rest of the slightly boring architecture. Some absurd tower would not fit in. PERIOD.

This is a stepping stone for a whole lot of things IMO. This is 21st century shit right here, even if its not that adventurous architecturally. It fits in well, its got height we dont have, and buildings like the one proposed in chinatown would compliment this well IMO.

Every city needs a building with a spire( probably lit ip) as cliche as it might be. Boston was always afaid of this, and hopefuly it gets built. This is very big for boston arch..... obviously. But if the height gets approved, more conventional buildings with height get approved, and less conventional, abstract buildings get approval at a lower height... ie the building in chinatown.

We have the density, the culture, the "city feel" etc etc. This vastly progresses the city... hopefully. pull the "well if winthrop sq" got built, why cant this??? But dont kill cultural importance like chinatown, northend, back bay etc. Theres still plently of room to get stuff built..... I heard on EEI that their planning something for the front of TD Banknorth garden.... any news on that?
---

Edit: A Moderator should also make sure people spell his name right.

[kz1000ps]

The cost of correcting a 1000ft mistake can only be measured in the thousands of lives.

Hahahahaha getting a little melodramatic, eh? :wink:

[Bobby Digital]

I think we should all start making bets on when this is ACTUALLY completed, if at all. I'm saying 2014.

And the chances it does get built..... ehhh... 65/35 it does.

90/10 at a way lower height.

and on second thought, the rendering with the spire in it... does blow ass

[nico]

I really hope something gets built there in the next few years...but I'd rather see it closer in height to the Hancock tower. This thing dwarfs anything around it and sticks out like a soar thumb.

[Ron Newman]

a soar thumb.

Nice.

[Lrfox]

I like the height as is. I don't like the idea of anything higher (right now) or anything smaller. The rendering is fine, I think it fits into the skyline. I can't see much else fitting in here.

It will break up the monotony of the financial district skyline and allow for more scale in the future (e.g. 700-800 footers).

Not to mention, the SST will help this blend better too.

oh yeah... assuming either ever get built.

[BostonSkyGuy]

It will break up the monotony of the financial district skyline and allow for more scale in the future (e.g. 700-800 footers).

Not to mention, the SST will help this blend better too.

oh yeah... assuming either ever get built.

That's how I always felt about this project/the financial disctrict in general. I don't think it's a marvel of architecture or anything that is remotely unique. However, if it was something that was cutting edge or out of the norm, it would probably look even worse given the style of buildings already in the area.

If you go back to the first thread, I believe people photoshopped some other buildings into the space, so you could see what the site would look like with some "cutting edge" buildings.

The height in this area is actually pretty nice. You just don't notice it/grasp it because everything is in the 400-600 foot range. They all blend together. Like LRFox stated, I've always been for this building if only to throw a change-up into the area. Then you add in SST and maybe a future 700-800 footer and you'd have a decent skyline with different heights.

Mixing styles is going to be their biggest problem. There's really not a unique skyscraper in Boston and this one won't be the first. It's going to be difficult for one to break the mold so that others can follow, and then it won't look so out of place. I see the height differenciating itself before cutting edge designs.

[BostonSkyGuy]

If you go back to the first thread, I believe people photoshopped some other buildings into the space, so you could see what the site would look like with some "cutting edge" buildings.

I did the digging for you guys. Not to jump back to the other thread but here's the link to the page with some other buildings in the space. As you'll see some would work and look great, others...not so well.

http://architecturalboston.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=41&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=465

[dirtywater]

What does it take to be considered "cutting edge"? Contrary to assertions in this thread, this building is very cutting edge. The future is about sustainable design and this building incorporates innovative approaches to sustainability as well as other design features that make it very cutting edge for a skyscraper. A public park at the top of a 1,000 sf tower? Heliostats to direct sunlight into open space within or under the tower? Panels mounted on a "spire" to collect power for the building? All cutting edge, to name a few of the design elements.

Shape and form are not the only things that make a project cutting edge, but if you look at the top of the tower and the bottom of the tower, you will see that it is far from a simple rectangle with an appendage along the side. From the terrace-like form at the top, to the cut outs of the tower at the bottom, to the appendage along its side providing express elevator service to which the "spire" is attached, this building has its share of idiosyncrasies to make it a unique object as well. While not cutting edge in this sense, the visual interest is enhanced by the use of glass with visible structural elements from bottom to top.

I think that it will be a breathtaking addition to the Boston skyline, if it is constructed. I don't know whether it will be, or in what ways the design will be modified if it is, but I certainly hope that it is built - and built in a manner that retains the essence of the proposed design.

[Lrfox]

^^^

You have expressed my feelings a lot more clearly than i could have in text. nice post.

[vanshnookenraggen]

I just hope this doesn't turn into some rehash of the Freedom tower where the original design (Libeskind) was changed by a different firm (Childs) and what we end up with is a tall piece of shit that is devoid of any symbolism or grace of the original design.

[Lrfox]

Yeah, although i didn't like how the top of the Freedom Tower's original design was pretty much a skeleton. The new one does contain some sort of symbolism however; the height from ground to spire is 1776 feet. Corny symbolism, but symbolism nonetheless.

Either way, i hope its minor changes and not something major or a complete redesign. It comes back to an old concept: It may not be Iconic or beloved now, but give it time (see: John Hancock Tower or Prudential Center).

[JSic]

I can't wait to see the view from the top of this building. Its so much taller than anything else in town that's its ridiculous (in a good way! :D :shock: ).

[TheBostonBoy]

The view from the top of The Pru was astonishing, so I agree that the view from Trans National Place would be breathtaking. I bet you could see Mt. Washington all the way over here in NH from it...It's gonna be sick.
But also like besides that, you never really get like that view down back bay. Most of the views you will see are Back Bay looking towards downtown...With a 1000 foot observation in downtown, I think we are gonna start seeing a lot of pictures with The Back Bay/ The South End/ Fenway IMO
It's gonna be pretty sick :D

[BostonSkyGuy]

What does it take to be considered "cutting edge"? Contrary to assertions in this thread, this building is very cutting edge.

Agreed that the features of the building make it "cutting edge". Sustainability, being the largest green building in the world is very intriguing to me and something I really like about the project. The elevator and the park at the top will be nice additions as well.

However the design of the building itself leaves much to be desired in my opinion. I'm not calling for anything crazy, I'd like to see the current design tweeked a bit is all. I understand that it might not be feesable to change the design and keep all the features intact. Either way, I hope it gets built. I'd love to see the views from the top and the park is something I'd be a regular visitor to. I also think that a building like this might spur on more large towers or at least prove that a large tower isn't the worst thing that could happen in Boston.

[lexicon506]

The elevator and the park at the top will be nice additions as well.

Unfortunately, it sounds like Belkin is gonna scrap the external elevator to maximize the views (see the Greater Boston video posted in the old thread). That's too bad, rising 1,000 feet above Boston in a glass elevator would've been amazing.

[InTheHood]

I continue to be amazed at how much ink this puppy is generating on this Board. Wake me when they sign up the anchor tenants necessary to fund it.

Not that I wish the project ill, even if the tall box rates a tall yawn. I really do hope the proponents are successful in cobbling together the dollars. Otherwise, we'll have to endure at least 80 pages of whining about NIMBYs when the banks decide that there are a couple dozen smaller buildings that are a much better bet than Tommy's dream.

[KentXie]

http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Original_Graphic/2007/05/25/1180145581_3533.jpg

Is it just me or does the Trans-National Place's spire looks higher than 1200ft? I tried stacking both International Place and Federal Reserve Bank Tower on each other and I found out that both did not reach the height of the spire. I also noticed that in the 3-d diagrams they had, TNP looks about 1100ft+ to the roof. I tried comparing it against other towers and it looks significantly a lot taller than 2 times the height of the First National Bank of Boston (maybe it was made to look taller to emphasize the tower or maybe its the angling). Though the official height has not been revealed (1000ft is the minimum height), I believe that it might actually be taller than that.

[tmac9wr]

From the rendering in the picture in the post above and the pictures shown in the Boston Globe magazine, it almost looks like it's a revised rendering. If you look at the previous renderings compared with these ones, the roof looks a bit taller and the spire a bit shorter. I wonder if the "solution" to the lack of office space is to keep the total height the same, but make the building part a bit taller (thus compromising the spire height). Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but I haven't been reading any of the other posts, I've been away for a week or so, came back to see the renderings in the Globe, got drunk, then made this post....so excuse me if this is a repeat.

[KentXie]

Here's a diagram I made to compare with our sister cities of Philly and SF and their new tallests.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y226/DarkFenxmon/Diagram.png

[KentXie]

Sigh...too bad I didn't get this earlier. I have to redo the diagram. The news isnt exactly that great but the interesting thing is that apparently, Gateway Center is slated to be completed by 2011 and that Trans National Place is either 1145 ft to the roof or to the spire.

In the shadow of the future?
Trans National Place tower up for review
Christopher Loh, cloh@bostonnow.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Print ? Email ? Comment ? Add to del.icio.us ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Projected as the tallest building in New England, the proposed Trans National Place tower, slated for completion in 2011, could cast a shadow over the Boston Public Garden.

At 80 floors and 1.3 million square feet of office space, the 1,000-foot tower would be located at 133 Federal St. and is set to enter its official review phase this summer.

According to the Friends of the Boston Public Garden, the tower would cast a 15-minute shadow over the park every morning.

Project officials are unsure of the predictions and said they are performing a "comprehensive series of studies."

Backed by Trans National Properties of Boston, the project will include 40,000 square feet of retail space and 31,000 square feet of public space. Trans National Properties owner Steve Belkin said the tower incorporates "innovative world-class sustainable design."

In 2011, Boston's skyline will feature three new skyscrapers. Here are Boston's projected top-five tallest buildings in 2011:

1. Trans National Place: 1,145 feet
2. South Bay Tower: 777 feet
3. Hancock Place: 771 feet
4. Prudential Tower: 732 feet
5. South Station Tower: 604 feet


Published on Wed, Jun 6, 2007

http://www.bostonnow.com/news/local/2007/06/04/trans_national/

[czsz]

Brings a new meaning to the phrase "if you don't like the weather in New England, wait a few minutes".

I guess the Friends of the Public Garden aren't hardy enough to brave a quarter-hour sun-blockage early in the morning.

[econ_tim]

1. Trans National Place: 1,145 feet
2. South Bay Tower: 777 feet
3. Hancock Place: 771 feet
4. Prudential Tower: 732 feet
5. South Station Tower: 604 feet


Why would the article even list the "South Bay Tower" (aka Gateway Center)?

[JimboJones]

I don't know if the article is accurate.

Scotty Van Voorhis always talks about how the tower will cast a shadow on the COMMON, not the public garden.

I think it's impossible that the tower would cast a shadow on the public garden.

Did the reporter get it wrong?

[stellarfun]

Brings a new meaning to the phrase "if you don't like the weather in New England, wait a few minutes".

I guess the Friends of the Public Garden aren't hardy enough to brave a quarter-hour sun-blockage early in the morning.
The shadow would be cast on the Common, not on the Public Garden. The recent law prohibits new buildings from casting shadows on the Public Garden, but only limits the extent of additional shadows on the Common.

Unfortunately, the recent law did not provide for the demolition of Tremont on the Common.

[tmac9wr]

I don't know if the article is accurate.

Scotty Van Voorhis always talks about how the tower will cast a shadow on the COMMON, not the public garden.

I think it's impossible that the tower would cast a shadow on the public garden.

Did the reporter get it wrong?

I don't think it's accurate either. All the heights of the already-built buildings are incorrect. John Hancock is 790 ft., not 771. The Pru is 750 ft., not 732. Also what happened to the previous measurements of 1,087 ft. to the roof, 1,270 ft. to the spire? Looking at the picture from the cover of the Boston Globe Magazine, there's no way the roof of the building is only 1,000 ft. tall, which makes me think that the roof has to be 1,045 ft. tall.

[TheBostonBoy]

ya, it looks way taller than 1145, it most definitely is 1200 at least...and also how come it lists South Bay Tower? I thought that was just a like a vision or proposed...Has that building been approved or even review yet?? Because i haven't heard anything about that building since like March. Just curious

[castevens]

Not only that, but this person expects it to be done by 2011....

[statler]

Say what you will about her. At least she is doing something.
As opposed to us who sit and bitch anonymously on an obscure website. :?

Reader demands transparency, justice

Paul McMorrow?s Winthrop Square story (?Yoon-a-Tard,? Daily Dig blog, 5.10.07) was right on the money (so to speak). Any councilors who would bury a public hearing to allow the BRA to abscond with public assets, just so they can cut a deal for their favorite causes, cause two harms: They undermine the council?s role in city budget allocation, and worse, they legitimize the mayoral practice of funneling city-owned land to the BRA in order to fund it with public money off-budget to evade public accountability.

They are also naive to think that they can actually force the BRA to part with its money. Hayward Place and Yawkey Way are two recent examples where such promises were broken. The Yoon memo already reveals the seeds of default, referring to getting ?excess revenue??obviously the loophole-in-waiting for the BRA when the time comes to pay up. Whoever has ?excess revenue?? I?d like to see that agreement!

The follow-up story, ?Taking a Bath? (5.16.07), is a bit confused.

Menino was not, all this time, looking for public-housing money, and then he cleverly found Winthrop as a creative source; he was indeed merely cooking up ways to hand the parcel and all its proceeds to the BRA. Months ago, to emerging criticism, he mumbled something about seeing that the money would go to ?worthy causes,? even if it?s in BRA hands. The BHA is just the worthy cause that came in handy to silence Yoon, an affordable-houser (although I doubt the BHA was high on the list of priorities in his recent constituent e-survey), when he proposed a public council hearing. It?s only Menino?s desire for secrecy that gave Yoon the ?opportunity? for this illusory triumph.

And the city official who credited the Finance Commission and the city council with preventing the BRA?s collection of the $2.5 million a year is wrong. Menino has already signed the agreement giving the garage (and maybe also the land) leasing rights to the BRA. The BRA is going to bid the garage out in June and will collect the money (assuming the decrepit garage isn?t a safety hazard) as soon as it comes in. I assume he?ll do the same with the land leasing rights, which are worth far more for the land (valued at $100 million or more), although Yoon is focused on the garage.

Most important, this is not a chance for the mayor to ?leverage public assets? to get something done?he didn?t need leverage to get that money. It was his. I mean ours, the city?s. He gave it away to the BRA (as he gave away Hayward Place, worth $23 million, and City Hall Plaza, worth $400 million) unlawfully and unethically. Now, as a cover-up, he?s pretending to be a hero and get it (or the ?excess? part of it) back to help poor people. That?s all it?s about. And Yoon, who thinks he discovered some great new fountain of money, actually gave it all up; but meanwhile, he can get a lot of credit for helping/forcing the mayor to help poor people.

The question is: Will the taxpayers, carrying a crushing?and rising?property tax burden, let their elected officials get away with this corrupt boondoggle while the mayor looks to tax their meals and parking?

Shirley Kressel

Link (http://www.weeklydig.com/news_opinions/articles/letters_923)

[KentXie]

I made a diagram based on the 1145ft version to the roof stated earlier (don't know whether or not that it is 1145ft to the spire or the roof or whether the height is accuate). Using paint and a calculator, I came to an estimate for the total height of the tower including the spire which comes up to around 1319 ft. The spire adds about 174 feet in addition to the the tower itself.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y226/DarkFenxmon/Heightdiagram.jpg

I divided 1145ft by 514 (the amount of pixels I got up to the roof) and got about 2.23 ft per pixel. Then I multiplied it by 78 (the amount of pixels from the roof to tip of spire) and got about 174 ft. Thus the total is about 1319ft. However I have my doubts on that and I'm pretty sure the spire will be shorten or that 1145 will be the total height of the tower including the spires. I doubt NIMBYs will allow a 1300ft tower to be built anyways but here's to wishful thinking.

Also if I replace 1145ft with 1000ft the final height will be 1151 feet so I won't be surprise if the 1145ft stated before is the total height.

[statler]

Old news, new info..

Down Payment Process Eased for Developer of Skyscraper
May 21, 2007
By Thomas Grillo

Mayor Thomas M. Menino is backing away from a timetable that requires a developer to make a substantial down payment for a city-owned parking facility.

Trans National Properties, or TNP, had been facing a June deadline for a payment of up to $20 million to the city of Boston for the Winthrop Square Garage, the proposed site of a 1,000-foot tower.

But the mayor now says the date is ?changeable? and he expects the city will operate the lot for at least two years before it is sold to make way for the skyscraper.

?We are not selling the garage now,? Menino told Banker & Tradesman. ?Why would the developer pay us any money if he?s not going to run it??

The terms of a Request for Proposals issued last year calls for a 1 percent payment upon a developer?s tentative designation to build the tower and another 25 percent upon the completion of the public review process ? but no later than June 30. The city estimates the value of the garage at between $70 million and $100 million.

At issue is the $1 billion, 80-story tower that TNP?s Steven B. Belkin hopes to build in Boston?s Financial District. Dubbed ?Tommy?s Tower? by Boston?s two daily newspapers, Menino wants to transform the crumbling parking garage into the city?s tallest building, with 1.5 million square feet of office and retail space as well as an acre of public space.

In November, Boston-based TNP was the sole respondent to the Boston Redevelopment Authority?s RFP for the project at 115 Winthrop Square. In a carefully worded press release in January, the BRA recommended to the city of Boston the ?tentative designation? of TNP as the developer of the site.

Paul McCann, the BRA?s acting director, said the payment schedule is triggered by the designation, which he insists has not happened.

?We have not tentatively designated anyone, so you can?t expect someone to put up between $10 million and $20 million when we haven?t taken that step yet,? said McCann. ?I?m sure the developer will perform all the requirements when the first trigger happens. We drafted the RFP kit nearly two years ago and figured that the June date would allow plenty of time, but there?s all kinds of issues that have to be resolved. The June 30 date is an impossibility.?

The Boston Finance Commission, or FinCom, an independent agency that monitors the city?s finances, has raised questions about the deal. Jeffrey W. Conley, executive director, said while the dates in the RFP were ?ambitious,? the city is not allowed to change them.

?The BRA has to comply with the public bidding law, Chapter 30B. They can?t change the terms,? Conley said. ?No one made them set those terms. They put it out to bid; let?s stick with the plan. Belkin?s the only bidder and he agreed to pay the 25 percent no later than June 30. It?s that simple. It?s in the city?s best interest to keep to those dates.?

Belkin declined to comment.

?All Wrong?
Last month, FinCom released a highly critical report on the BRA?s disposition of the Winthrop Square Garage. FinCom said the proceeds from the sale of the garage and future revenues from the operation of the facility should go to the city of Boston and not the BRA, an independent agency with its own budget.

The report said the city?s handling of a similar parking lot deal on lower Washington Street cost taxpayers millions and warned the same thing could happen again.

While the city owns the garage, it has been operated by First Federal Parking Corp. Under the terms of the lease dating back to the 1950s, the city receives $76,875, a modest amount, the FinCom report said, given that the garage produces about $2.5 million annually. The lease is set to expire on June 30 and the BRA has yet to issue an RFP for an operator.

Conley said he fears that the BRA?s sale of the Winthrop Square Garage will mirror mistakes made on Hayward Place, a city-owned surface parking lot in Downtown Crossing. The BRA took that property by eminent domain in 2001 and later sold the lot to Millennium Partners-Boston for $23 million.

Millennium made a down payment to the BRA of $13 million. The other $10 million has not been paid. For the first two years of the lease, Millennium made annual payments of $537,000 to the city. Now, the company operates the parking lot, but the city receives none of the proceeds. In addition, because the BRA owns the parcel, Millennium is not required to pay any real estate taxes.

Last fall, the BRA approved Hayward Place at the site, a $200 million mixed-use development that will include 277 housing units as well as create 19,000 square feet of ground-floor retail space and below-grade parking. But plans are stalled for the 155-foot-high building and construction may not commence until 2013.

But BRA officials insist that they will not make the same mistakes. Within weeks of FinCom?s report, Menino said he planned to use revenues from the Winthrop Square Garage to meet the needs of the city?s public housing developments and fund the Boston Housing Police for the next two years.

But Conley remains skeptical. The proceeds of the sale of the Hayward Place Garage were supposed to fund a new school in Chinatown, but construction is not in the planning stages, he said.

?It?s Hayward Place all over again,? Conley said of the Winthrop Square Garage proposal.

Jack McCarthy, a spokesman for the Massachusetts Office of the Inspector General, said communities typically are held to the dates in RFPs, but there are exceptions. If there were a violation of the state?s bidding law, the office could recommend that action be taken by the Massachusetts attorney general.

?As a rule, cities and towns can?t change the advertised dates,? McCarthy said. ?But there can be extenuating circumstances that might allow it.?

Menino denied any wrongdoing. ?FinCom?s got it all wrong again,? he said.

[KentXie]

Well that should be correct since the the tower's completion date is set to 2011. It shouldn't take 4 years to build it.

[JimboJones]

I can't find the other posts about this - somewhere on our forum is a different about this ... I dunno.

So, one of the issues about the Winthrop Street Garage is that the current operator only gives the city several thousands dollars a year, even though it takes in over $2.5 million, annually (correct my figures, if necessary).

This ran on Boston.com in mid-June:

Seven parking management companies responded to the Boston Redevelopment Authority's request for bids to operate the aging city-owned Winthrop Square parking garage, site of a proposed 85-story skyscraper by businessman Steve Belkin, owner of Trans National Properties. A BRA spokeswoman said an operator would be selected by July 1 and would share revenue with the city under a one-year contract, with options to renew for three more years while Belkin develops plans. Mayor Thomas M. Menino has said he would use the revenue to support the Boston Housing Authority, which the city says is underfunded by the federal government. The Boston Municipal Research Bureau last week called for a public process to determine how proceeds from the increased parking fees and money from the sale of the garage will be spent. (Thomas C. Palmer Jr.)

This ran on Boston.com on 7/2 (although not in the Globe, apparently):

The city of Boston has selected Network Parking Co. Ltd. as the new parking facility operator for the Winthrop Square garage.

In downtown Boston, businessman Steve Belkin, owner of Trans
National Properties, is proposing to build a tall skyscraper on the site.

Last month, the Boston Redevelopment Authority, the city's planning agency, said that seven companies had bid to operate the garage.

The new lease with Network Parking will be for one year, with the
option to extend on a year-to-year basis for no more than three additional
years, but with a written 60-day cancellation clause, the city said.

Network Parking is an affiliate of Forest City Enterprises Inc., a real estate company headquartered in Cleveland, the city said.

No word on the amount the new operator will be paying to the city.

This should deflect a bit of the criticism, although it still doesn't address the fact that Belkin has been able to lock up development rights, without putting up any money, disregarding the deadlines imposed in last year's RFP.

[type001]

I work at 133 Federal St, and I was just talking to the some of the maintennace crew guys here who were doing some work on our floor. They work for TransNational (and are very nice guys too). Officially, everybody in the building is vacating by early spring 2008.

This building is being demolished in 2008.

Some companies have already left actually, and we will be relocating somewhere else on Federal St before the spring. According to one of the gentlemen, "Everything is going according to plan". Also, they speak very highly of their boss Mr. Belkin as well.

[KentXie]

^^Please don't tell me you are joking. This is really exciting. However, if the building is already being set for demolition, does it mean that the tower is approved?

[tmac9wr]

Awesome news!

[type001]

Yeah, it definitely made my day as well. Apperently Steve Belkin is in here a lot too, but I am pretty sure that I have never seen him.

[type001]

However, if the building is already being set for demolition, does it mean that the tower is approved?

The specific word "Approved" never came out of the gentleman's mouth. But he definitely said that "everything is going according plan." All of the tenants in the building know why it is that they are leaving as does the crew (obviously).

Although I was only about 15 when the old telephone building was demolished to make way for one of my favorites 125 High Street, the tower must have been approved by the time demolition occured.

[stellarfun]

Buildings can be demolished and the land converted to a parking lot. This often makes economic sense, particularly if you don't want to get into short-term leases or having to buyout longer leases, and you want to markedly reduce your property taxes even for a year or two.

[TheBostonBoy]

Ya, let's just hope that the demolition is for Trans National Place and it is because it is approved! We'll just have to wait for official word in the papers or whatever.

[ablarc]

San Francisco?s Supertall Revealed.

3 competing entries for Boston?s West Coast sister city...

1. Rogers, with Ratner. 82 stories, 1225 ft.

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/transbay/010.jpg

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

2. Pelli, 1200 ft.

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

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/transbay/033.jpg

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/transbay/036.jpg

3. SOM, 1375 ft. (!)

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

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/transbay/050.jpg

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/transbay/090.jpg

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/transbay/100.jpg
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom.



Langniappe: Pelli in Hong Kong (photos by Meerkat, Wired New York).

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/transbay/140.jpg

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/transbay/180.jpg

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/transbay/200.jpg

[czsz]

Huh...is Pelli going for an identical second act?

[Beton Brut]

The Rodgers/Ratner proposal is interesting. The red-orange on the facade and spires references both the Golden Gate and Sutro Tower (http://www.jimprice.com/sutro/tower1.jpg).

Pelli's proposal is a retread of IFC in HK. Slick, but boring.

I'd like to see more of the SOM design. I looks like it's trying to one-up Thom Mayne's new Federal Building (http://architecturalboston.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=855) by extruding its grammar into the clouds.

We'd be lucky to get any of these in Boston.

[kz1000ps]

Huh...is Pelli going for an identical second act?

Third act -- don't forget about Goldman Sach's tower in Jersey City, and for that I find Pelli's SF proposal inexcusable. And this is coming from someone who's a fan of the guy's work.

I like SOM's design the best. It's very hip yet I think it would age well, plus the terminal looks great (reminiscent of Calatrava's WTC station before cost-cutting set in, i.e. less glass/more wall). Rogers' tower doesn't work well as a skyline-defining element, but it's got plenty of great ideas, and with some refinement I think it could be the best of the three, although I'm not crazy about that canary yellow terminal.

[stellarfun]

I've put some more info and links on the San Francisco tower in the Architecture and Urban Planning forum.

For those who want to applaud or hiss the competitors in the San Francisco tower, you can get a copy of the comment card here:

http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransBay/uploadedFiles/Project/tjpa_comment_card.pdf

and send it here:
D&DComment@transbaycenter.org

You must comment before September 17, 2007.

Comments from the public will be forwarded to the TJPA Board with the Jury?s recommendation at the September 20, 2007 Board Meeting.
[TJPA is Transbay Joint Powers Authority and substitutes in San Francisco for Mayor Menino.]

[theculprit]

that's great for San Fran, but what is the status of Trans National? It seems like everything has been awfully quiet.

[vanshnookenraggen]

This is the time for all the technical stuff that isn't that exciting.

[TheBostonBoy]

Ya, I haven't heard any news on this for a while. In fact, their hasn't been any news on any major projects for a while! What is up with that? I have been freaking out lately because I keep coming on here, and all I see is Somerville Soccer Stadium or Hyne's Renovation lol and I am just like LAME.
What is up with all the good stuff like Nashua Street Residences, Columbus Center, South Station Tower, etc. I hope we get some good news and pictures on a lot of these projects soon! Or else I'll die :shock: lol

[czsz]

It's August; the big players in Boston are all laying on the beach down the Cape.

[rayray07]

I totally agree with you BostonBoy. I need more exciting news

[Equilibria]

Does anybody else think the Rogers/Ratner tower looks like something out of Middle Earth in certain renderings? I half expect to see the evil eye hovering in the crown...

I like the Pelli the best, but that's ignoring the repetition issue. Honestly, none of these really caught my eye.

[BostonSkyGuy]

I totally agree with you BostonBoy. I need more exciting news

It's Boston, after awhile you realize it doesn't matter if it's August or October--nothing "exciting" happens.

I look at Boston this way: It's the girl at the bar who is really good looking and you approach her, she's very flirty and you get good vibes from her. You start buying her drinks, and the night progresses and as it gets closer and closer to "last call" you realize she's just a tease who never planned to do anything past flirt.

In short: Lots of "exciting" stuff gets talked about but you rarely see shit happen.

[lexicon506]

How long can it possibly take for CBT to update the design?? All they had to do was fatten it a little....ok, I now it's a bit more complicated, but still, I'm getting kind of anxious to see what they come up with. Actually I'm kind of scared, since I doubt CBT can do anything better than Renzo Piano can.
Note to Belkin: Release some renderings so the angry public can busy themselves arguing over them during all this time devoted to so-called technical stuff!!!

[TheBostonBoy]

Does anybody else think the Rogers/Ratner tower looks like something out of Middle Earth in certain renderings? I half expect to see the evil eye hovering in the crown...

Haha, I completely agree. I am just expecting to see a bunch of orc's filing out of it to ravage the streets of San Francisco. Lol But I still like the design, especially the red on the building.


I look at Boston this way: It's the girl at the bar who is really good looking and you approach her, she's very flirty and you get good vibes from her. You start buying her drinks, and the night progresses and as it gets closer and closer to "last call" you realize she's just a tease who never planned to do anything past flirt.

AWESOME analogy hahah
But i don't know I think their are going to be some exciting things happening soon. And it'd be awesome to see pictures of some of the stuff being built right now like 45 Province, and W Hotel, and the others.

[stellarfun]

I put several more renderings of the three competing San Francisco Transbay tower designs plus a critique from the San Francisco Chronicle's urban design columnist in the Architecture and Urban Planning forum. The columnist, John King, prefers the Rogers design.

[stellarfun]

From an article on financing big buildings in today's Herald
Travel and credit card magnate Steve Belkin, who has proposed a 1,000-foot, skyline-topping tower in the Financial District, is also far from being ready to break ground, with a long city review process ahead.

[tmac9wr]

Does anybody else think the Rogers/Ratner tower looks like something out of Middle Earth in certain renderings? I half expect to see the evil eye hovering in the crown...

I like the Pelli the best, but that's ignoring the repetition issue. Honestly, none of these really caught my eye.

Yea I agree with the Middle Earth comment, maybe for the grand-opening of the tower they could have a Saroman look-alike stand at the top of the tower wearing a white robe screaming spells.

As for the tower, it'd be nice to hear some kind of news, other than "still has a long city review process ahead". That could meaning anything, from 3 months to 3 years...either way, it'll be nice to see some cold-hard facts come out soon.

[callahan]

Why is it that San Francisco got multiple proposals/renderings and Boston got one?

[budman3]

Why is it that San Francisco got multiple proposals/renderings and Boston got one?

Belkin owned the adjoining lot, had been looking to get in on the Winthrop Square garage for years, and thusly had the upper hand from the get go. He was the most vocal about it and could probably do the best work given that he was the next door neighbor. From everything I've heard, it was his project for the taking, even though Mayor Menino still probably would've rathered more options.

[callahan]

So, you're saying that Belkin allowed only one architect, to submit proposals? Why, then, did they advertise for architects to submit renderings? It's odd.

Personally, I don't think this thing will even get built, at least not for many years.

[vanshnookenraggen]

My feeling is that it was:
A) The site was economically unfeasible UNLESS you just happened to own the adjacent parcels. Look at how large a footprint TransBay has vs TransNational.

B) It was rigged from the start by Belkin and Menino.

Both hold the same amount of water in my eyes.

[stellarfun]

I posted some additional renderings of the competing San Francisco tower designs in the architecture and urban planning forum.

[budman3]

So, you're saying that Belkin allowed only one architect, to submit proposals? Why, then, did they advertise for architects to submit renderings? It's odd.

Personally, I don't think this thing will even get built, at least not for many years.
What? Belkin scooped up Piano to design his "entry" and submitted it. It's not about architects vieing for the spot, its about investors and people who have the wherewithal to build these projects submitting their proposals. Belkin was the only guy who realistically could make a feasible proposal, I mean he's the neighbor and he can extend the footprint and he basically makes anyone else look stupid for even bothering an entry into this "contest" Menino had, and he chose Piano to design his project. Other investors or other builders would've had other designs by other architects I'm sure, but this was Belkins prize for the taking. It's about the builders and the money men, not the architects.

[nm88]

I have been away from this site for some time and have returned recently to find the site (and our city) somewhat changed since I last checked in. Some things, however, don't change no matter the passage of time -- among them: building in Boston remains arduous and challenging; or local leaders apparently remain mentally challenged; and still there remains a small (maybe large, certainly vocal) group among us who would challenge everyone to think taller, as in REALLY TALLER!!

I can't stay silent any longer about the transition this city is about to experience because of two buildings. I mean, of course, Piano's building for Belkin, and the Pelli building for Hines. To us Locals, Wintrop Square and South Station.

Both buildings will permanently alter a perfectly fine, if not exactly perfect, mid-rise sky-line with inappropriate structures. My taste is not more refined or better than anyone else's, but I'll go on the record nonetheless before I elaborate. Pelli's idea is attractive from Dewey Square, and an ungainly and homely monster from the water. Piano's is just (IMHO) plain boring, wrong-headed in every way except for the wishes of a developer.

Boston is special because of its low-rise elements, indeed in too many instances to count the space between buildings is far more valuable and important than the buildings themselves. Think about it! What has been built in the last 50 years that stands out in our minds as essentially Boston. The Zakim, maybe. Hancock, yes. Fanueiul Hall, certainly. Rowes Wharf, some might argue. Not much else. Not really. International Place? Gimme a break! You get my point.

We are a low-rise city and we are special for it. We are not a second tier wanna-be city looking for our place on the pecking order -- we are not Houston, Atlanta, Phoenix, San Diego, Newark, New Haven, the list goes on and on -- we are what they all would love to be. Authentic. Historic. Unmatched. We have what they would love to have! A specific identity. There is no other city in this country like Boston. With all its failings, and there are many, we are unique.

And yet, some among us would have us chase the same tired needy adolescent wet dream that our second-tier brethren seek with such reckless desire. BUILD SOMETHING CUTTING EDGE AND REALLY TALL! That will show everyone and finally put us on the map.

Let the lesser burgs chase childhood dreams, after all they are younger. Let us adults plan and act like adults. We have a lovely city whose skyline should not be rendered by Atlanta and Houston-like erections! We should not be building things that could just as easily be located in Atlanta. I mean, have any of you been to Atlanta?? Would you really want to call Houston home?

We have a mayor looking for a legacy. We have developers looking for a buck. We have a populace that may be simply worn out -- truth is, we're building just about everywhere just about all the time, can you blame them?

For those of us not too worn out to pay attention -- let's not harm Boston. Don't we want to stay unique?

[Joe_Schmoe]

I agree that this site sometimes veers towards height for height's sake and construction for construction's sake. Personally I'd prefer a shitty project not be done if a better one would be done later on. But I don't have a problem with a 1000 footer in Winthrop Sq though (although I really don't like the current design and have argued against it here) as the financial district is already full of high rises, it would be replacing a parking garage, and would look great at this location (if the design were better). But I definately don't think high rises are appropriate everywhere, i.e., residential areas.

[vanshnookenraggen]

So... why can't we have towers downtown AND low rises elsewhere? We aren't pushing for towers everywhere, just where they belong. I love Boston for its scale diversity.

You do bring up a good point, one new tower won't change anything really. It will be a nice landmark but given the design all I see it being is a 21st century Prudential Tower.

[atlantaden]

We should not be building things that could just as easily be located in Atlanta. I mean, have any of you been to Atlanta??

I live in Atlanta and, yes, there is no comparison between Boston and Atlanta. Atlanta does has a beautiful skyline, especially at night, but Boston has the low rise/urban fabric/street life that Atlanta, and most cities, would kill for along with a unique skyline all it's own (though identifiable to mostly the local population). However, if we're making comparisons about cities and skylines, then I will point to San Francisco..a city that rivals Boston in it's low rise urbanity and street life but has managed to produce a beautiful and unique skyline (identifiable nationwide if not worldwide) all it's own as well.

[nm88]

Atlantaden, my apologies. I did not mean to besmirch your hometown, merely to make a distinction, if a clumsy one.

I persist, unconvinced -- 1000' in Boston is a mistake. Look at the sample images someone constructed earlier in this topic. This structure doesn't fit well from any angle and looms ominously from every angle. Do we really to start making allowances where we never have before? Shadows on the Common? Call me old-fashioned, I say no. Once we cross a line we can never go back.

[BostonSkyGuy]

I persist, unconvinced -- 1000' in Boston is a mistake.

Really? The same thing was said about the Hancock Tower in the mid-70's and I think that building seems to be working out just fine, wouldn't you agree?


Look at the sample images someone constructed earlier in this topic. This structure doesn't fit well from any angle and looms ominously from every angle.

The reason the structure looks awkward and "ominous" is really easy to point out: The BRA/NIMBY's/The Building Process kills any building that isn't a 500-foot box. If you had a few 700-footers downtown, this building wouldn't stick out like a sore thumb.

At some point there is going to have to be a building that breaks away from the norm in Boston or else we're going to be stuck in the same trend for decades. Everyone talks about the great street scape in Boston and I agree 100%. These newer cities can't compare because they don't have the history of progression that truly great cities have. I'm not willing to forgo the future to live in the past. It's not going to kill the traditon of Boston to have a handful of large buildings. It's not like the designs of these buildings are earth shattering and "out there" either, they're just larger than what we're all normally used to around here.


Do we really to start making allowances where we never have before? Shadows on the Common? Call me old-fashioned, I say no. Once we cross a line we can never go back.

Please. I now realize what your intentions were/are in this thread. Shadows on the Common? Give me a break. If you want to live in the 1600-1800's go work at King Richard's Fare or Plymouth Plantation and leave the rest of us who seek to make Boston a better overall city, to see what happens without blasting every project that is different.

[nm88]

I don't believe I blasted every project that appears different. I mentioned only two buildings.

Yes, I would prefer not to have shadows on the Common. Why is that a bad thing? However, shadows is not my hidden agenda, I assure you. I have no agenda. Posting here is a diversion for me, nothing else.

Re: The Hancock building -- you're absolutely correct, it was greeted as an interloper when it first arrived by many and since then feelings and times have changed. As I stated in my post the Hancock is an identifiable piece of Boston. And yes, I think it is working out...from about the 4th floor up. (Small point. Like most Bostonians, I'm fond of the Hancock. Some of the prettiest pictures of Boston include it.)

However, Henry Cobb accomplished something that Piano has not come close to in my mind. He made something that was too big and really didn't fit appear to actually fit. And he did it next to an irreplaceable landmark. How's that for a challenge?

If your argument is that Piano's building will fit as soon as we have more towers of equal height, I simply don't know how to respond to that.

In this city it is not months or even years between towers, it is decades, it is generations. I fear this will be a sore thumb for a long, long time. To say that it doesn't stick out is to ignore the obvious.

I have nothing against tall buildings. Hell, I've even grown fond of the Prudential. Go figure. Would I change it or lose it if I could? Don't know. Maybe.

My argument, perhaps poorly stated, is that one or two 1000' buildings does not make Boston 21st Century. This is the mistake 2nd tier cities make. We are 21st C, and we got there long before much of the rest of the country and buildings had nothing to do with it, our population takes credit. Our people and our 3 remaining (dominant?) industries -- education, medicine and finance pushed us forward.

I would add that these industries prove that we don't live in the past, but they, like many of us, simply honor it.

It is disappointing (and has been for years) that our BRA and local development community are not as resourceful as some of our industry. It seems to me our politicians and builders may be the ones living in the past.

But then that's the oldest story of all, money trumps everything.

[KentXie]

^^ The thing is putting the Winthrop Tower in Boston will attract more companies and business into Boston and possibly lower the cost of office space in Boston. This is a line I'm willing to cross not too mention, I wouldn't want to cross back. Why? Because then more towers in the 600-900ft level may have a chance to be built, thus the Winthrop tower will not stick out alone. Hopefully, with the construction of these new highrises, Boston will start to grow in population more drastically and bring into the city a new wave of people.

[KentXie]

We are a low-rise city and we are special for it. We are not a second tier wanna-be city looking for our place on the pecking order -- we are not Houston, Atlanta, Phoenix, San Diego, Newark, New Haven, the list goes on and on -- we are what they all would love to be. Authentic. Historic. Unmatched. We have what they would love to have! A specific identity. There is no other city in this country like Boston. With all its failings, and there are many, we are unique.
This is the a thought a NIMBY will think. I'm sorry but why doesn't Boston want to be a second tier city? Doesn't a city strive to be more and more important instead of staying static? We can do both an preserve history as we normally do. But we need to move ahead. I don't want to live in a city that doesn't grow. Nobody strives to be second place. People try to be first and the first thing to do that is change. We are not special for being a low-rise city because then you can include Baltimore, Phoenix, and Louisville for being a low-rise city. Plus Baltimore is nearly the same as Boston. We are actually falling behind many other city.

[vanshnookenraggen]

^^ The thing is putting the Winthrop Tower in Boston will attract more companies and business into Boston and possibly lower the cost of office space in Boston. This is a line I'm willing to cross not too mention, I wouldn't want to cross back. Why? Because then more towers in the 600-900ft level may have a chance to be built, thus the Winthrop tower will not stick out alone. Hopefully, with the construction of these new highrises, Boston will start to grow in population more drastically and bring into the city a new wave of people.

I'm sorry DarkFenX, but I think you are being WAY TOO optimistic. A few tall buildings won't save the city. Imagine if the same time and energy (not to mention monies) were going into expanding the T or to finding ways to encourage new businesses, or to lowering the costs of living in the city, or even cleaning up our parks and streets. All those, even just one, would have a better impact than a 1,000 foot tower.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see it built, but don't for a minute think this is the cure to the cities ills.

We are a low-rise city and we are special for it. We are not a second tier wanna-be city looking for our place on the pecking order -- we are not Houston, Atlanta, Phoenix, San Diego, Newark, New Haven, the list goes on and on -- we are what they all would love to be. Authentic. Historic. Unmatched. We have what they would love to have! A specific identity. There is no other city in this country like Boston. With all its failings, and there are many, we are unique.
This is the a thought a NIMBY will think. I'm sorry but why doesn't Boston want to be a second tier city? Doesn't a city strive to be more and more important instead of staying static? We can do both an preserve history as we normally do. But we need to move ahead. I don't want to live in a city that doesn't grow. Nobody strives to be second place. People try to be first and the first thing to do that is change. We are not special for being a low-rise city because then you can include Baltimore, Phoenix, and Louisville for being a low-rise city. Plus Baltimore is nearly the same as Boston. We are actually falling behind many other city.

I wouldn't call him a NIMBY, more of a realist. Boston is a low rise city. Look at pictures from even the early 1960's and you will see two "skyscrapers", the old Hancock and the Customs Tower, that is it. Walk through the North End, Beacon Hill, Back Bay, Roxbury, Dorchester, and Brighton and tell me this isn't a low rise city.

I can tell you from personal experience that while the high rise has made New York what it is, I would never want Boston to become a high rise city. And I want to further explain that. The most beloved neighborhoods in New York are TriBeCa, Soho, the Villages (East, West, Greenwich), Chelsea, Park Slope, Carol Gardens, and a few more. All of these are low rise. Places like Kips Bay, the Upper West Side, Yorkville, East Harlem, etc are much higher (rise) and lack any real charm. There is no humanity there, but there is in a low rise city where people feel connected to buildings.

Now I'm not saying Boston shouldn't have tall buildings but we shouldn't destroy who we are just because someone else did it. Boston is NOT New York, never was and never will be, and we shouldn't strive to be New York.

[JimboJones]

Can we put all the high-rises on the waterfront, and make it look like Miami or Vancouver? PLEEEEEEEZE?

(Yes, I know there are height limits due to the airport.)

[KentXie]

We are a low-rise city and we are special for it. We are not a second tier wanna-be city looking for our place on the pecking order -- we are not Houston, Atlanta, Phoenix, San Diego, Newark, New Haven, the list goes on and on -- we are what they all would love to be. Authentic. Historic. Unmatched. We have what they would love to have! A specific identity. There is no other city in this country like Boston. With all its failings, and there are many, we are unique.
This is the a thought a NIMBY will think. I'm sorry but why doesn't Boston want to be a second tier city? Doesn't a city strive to be more and more important instead of staying static? We can do both an preserve history as we normally do. But we need to move ahead. I don't want to live in a city that doesn't grow. Nobody strives to be second place. People try to be first and the first thing to do that is change. We are not special for being a low-rise city because then you can include Baltimore, Phoenix, and Louisville for being a low-rise city. Plus Baltimore is nearly the same as Boston. We are actually falling behind many other city.

I wouldn't call him a NIMBY, more of a realist. Boston is a low rise city. Look at pictures from even the early 1960's and you will see two "skyscrapers", the old Hancock and the Customs Tower, that is it. Walk through the North End, Beacon Hill, Back Bay, Roxbury, Dorchester, and Brighton and tell me this isn't a low rise city.

I can tell you from personal experience that while the high rise has made New York what it is, I would never want Boston to become a high rise city. And I want to further explain that. The most beloved neighborhoods in New York are TriBeCa, Soho, the Villages (East, West, Greenwich), Chelsea, Park Slope, Carol Gardens, and a few more. All of these are low rise. Places like Kips Bay, the Upper West Side, Yorkville, East Harlem, etc are much higher (rise) and lack any real charm. There is no humanity there, but there is in a low rise city where people feel connected to buildings.

Now I'm not saying Boston shouldn't have tall buildings but we shouldn't destroy who we are just because someone else did it. Boston is NOT New York, never was and never will be, and we shouldn't strive to be New York.
I never said Boston wasn't a low-rise city. However, i meant to say that nm's view is that of a city that has become stagnant, like Pittsburgh. And I'm not saying Boston should become NYC. It's impossible for a city like Boston and its narrow street to be able to support the extra traffic load. What I am saying is Boston needs to change, needs to take bigger risk in order to achieve more. Boston should look SF as an example. A dense city smaller than Boston in size yet larger in population has achieved notoriety in a state full of well known city such as LA SD and the likes. SF is willing to take risk, so should we.

[nm88]

I won't beat a dead horse. A city is more than its buildings. 1000' towers do not necessarily move a city, its commerce, its well-being, forward. Does a signature tall building attract business? Yes, it can. Are there other ways to attract business? Yes, there are. Can a signature building become a landmark and an emblem of a city. Yes, it can.

My point is Boston does not need that definition, so why play that game? Artful, well-placed, thoughtful tall buildings, fine. Ego statements to show we are keeping up with the Jones, not so fine. That seems plain enough.

I believe our moderator said it perfectly, our best places are our low-rise places. What people yearn for, recall fondly, enjoy themselves most at are Fenway Park, The Back Back, Haymarket, North End, South End. No one I know says, "Man, I just can't wait to go to that International Place."

Tall buildings are best appreciated from a distance, or the penthouse, which most of us never step foot into. Fenway Park you enjoy with 33,000 other Bostonians, beer in hand, up close and personal. Cities are to be lived in, not just viewed from a distance.

If I sound like a NIMBY (I can't imagine why), so be it -- though I don't live near Winthrop Square or The Common. I simply wish the best for our city. Playing a height game, height for the sake of height, seems beneath us.

[kz1000ps]

In this city it is not months or even years between towers, it is decades, it is generations. I fear this will be a sore thumb for a long, long time. To say that it doesn't stick out is to ignore the obvious.

In line with his thoughts, think of the Pru when it was originally built.. that thing was THE definition of "sore thumb" for the first ten years of its life.

http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/1443/boston1962pruxm8.jpg

..And the Hancock coming along just ten years later has proven to be the abberation.. it's now been some 33 years (over a generation!) since anything has risen to make those two fit into the skyline any more.

Not to say I'm against TNP -- I want to see that decrepit garage and (to a lesser extent) the little office building gone as much as the next pro-development blowhard -- but that doesn't stop me from recognizing that, as planned, it will stick out an awful lot, and it will be a long time before some other buildings come along to make it fit in.

But the above is just an aesthetic concern. The whole "Boston needs to take a risk" is probably true, but I'm not convinced it needs to take the form of an 1100-foot tower.

And the thought that "TNP will attract more companies and business into Boston and possibly lower the cost of office space in Boston" is pure speculation.. vacancies may be low and rents high at this moment, but for all we know TNP could come online to a market the exact opposite from today's (think of how fast things went downhill from 2002 to early '04), and instead of luring new companies to town it cannibalizes the market. We simply can't make predictions like that right now.

So let's not start putting out eggs all in one basket just yet.. otherwise, I might burst out singing the Monorail Song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbi8tFe769U) :wink:

[BarbaricManchurian]

I won't beat a dead horse. A city is more than its buildings. 1000' towers do not necessarily move a city, its commerce, its well-being, forward. Does a signature tall building attract business? Yes, it can. Are there other ways to attract business? Yes, there are. Can a signature building become a landmark and an emblem of a city. Yes, it can.

My point is Boston does not need that definition, so why play that game? Artful, well-placed, thoughtful tall buildings, fine. Ego statements to show we are keeping up with the Jones, not so fine. That seems plain enough.

I believe our moderator said it perfectly, our best places are our low-rise places. What people yearn for, recall fondly, enjoy themselves most at are Fenway Park, The Back Back, Haymarket, North End, South End. No one I know says, "Man, I just can't wait to go to that International Place."

Tall buildings are best appreciated from a distance, or the penthouse, which most of us never step foot into. Fenway Park you enjoy with 33,000 other Bostonians, beer in hand, up close and personal. Cities are to be lived in, not just viewed from a distance.

If I sound like a NIMBY (I can't imagine why), so be it -- though I don't live near Winthrop Square or The Common. I simply wish the best for our city. Playing a height game, height for the sake of height, seems beneath us.

This tower won't be in a low rise area so what are you complaining about? Plus the tower looks way better than any other tower in downtown. And the best parks are a plot of nature in the middle of a super dense city, such as Central Park and Victoria Park in Hong Kong. But Boston Common, you can't build anything around it because of the shadow law, but if there were super high rises all around it, more people will use it, and it will be more neccesary. Right now it's a trashy park for tourists in the middle of the city. What I'm saying is that the Common would be more of an urban than suburban park if the area around it was more dense and that would only happen if they repeal the shadow law. Heck, I don't know why it was even passed, why would the legislature even pass this crap? It doesn't make any less shadows on the Common and just restricts development. And no one says they want to go to International Place? It's because it's an OFFICE TOWER, you work there, not eat there and stuff. Plus many people don't even know what it is because there are a lot of towers and people can't memorize all the names. Boston is going backwards, it's losing in a globalized world, it has the slowest bereaucracy in the world, and nothing new happens in it. It's not a happening town, and it's best to go to a place where at least new things happen once in a while. And Boston needs this tower; if NIMBYS block this and block supply and demand, no new towers will be built ever because developers don't want to build and Boston will become a meuseum relic town in 50 years. That's what I don't want, I want Boston to move forward, and building this tower is a way to move forward.

[vanshnookenraggen]

Playing a height game, height for the sake of height, seems beneath us.

If Boston was improving itself in education, safety, transportation, commercial, etc AND then wanted to build a 1,000 ft tower just to cap it all off I'd be elated but the idea that a 1,000 ft tower will change anything other than ego is laughable.

But, I do have an ego, so I'm all for it. It just won't change anything.

[KentXie]

And the thought that "TNP will attract more companies and business into Boston and possibly lower the cost of office space in Boston" is pure speculation.. vacancies may be low and rents high at this moment, but for all we know TNP could come online to a market the exact opposite from today's (think of how fast things went downhill from 2002 to early '04), and instead of luring new companies to town it cannibalizes the market. We simply can't make predictions like that right now.
That's exaclty why Boston needs to take a risk. Look here, according to what you said, the possibilty that the office market will sink like a rock can happen in 2 years. Every office tower being under construction probably won't open its door in 2-3 years and thus are subjected to a possible downhill slide in the office market. However, we must take advantage of this while we can. If we keep building towers when the office market is good and have it finish when it is bad, then we will never grow. Build it when the signs of the office market is starting to go up and have it finish when the office market is peaking can help retain the business that decided to move to Boston and have them stay here. Too long has many Boston based companies move out of Boston to find a better location.

[nico]

^I couldn't agree more concerning Winthrop Sq.
But the S. Station doesn't seem so out of place.

[KentXie]

I won't beat a dead horse. A city is more than its buildings. 1000' towers do not necessarily move a city, its commerce, its well-being, forward. Does a signature tall building attract business? Yes, it can. Are there other ways to attract business? Yes, there are. Can a signature building become a landmark and an emblem of a city. Yes, it can.

My point is Boston does not need that definition, so why play that game? Artful, well-placed, thoughtful tall buildings, fine. Ego statements to show we are keeping up with the Jones, not so fine. That seems plain enough.

I believe our moderator said it perfectly, our best places are our low-rise places. What people yearn for, recall fondly, enjoy themselves most at are Fenway Park, The Back Back, Haymarket, North End, South End. No one I know says, "Man, I just can't wait to go to that International Place."

Tall buildings are best appreciated from a distance, or the penthouse, which most of us never step foot into. Fenway Park you enjoy with 33,000 other Bostonians, beer in hand, up close and personal. Cities are to be lived in, not just viewed from a distance.

If I sound like a NIMBY (I can't imagine why), so be it -- though I don't live near Winthrop Square or The Common. I simply wish the best for our city. Playing a height game, height for the sake of height, seems beneath us.

This tower won't be in a low rise area so what are you complaining about? Plus the tower looks way better than any other tower in downtown. And the best parks are a plot of nature in the middle of a super dense city, such as Central Park and Victoria Park in Hong Kong. But Boston Common, you can't build anything around it because of the shadow law, but if there were super high rises all around it, more people will use it, and it will be more neccesary. Right now it's a trashy park for tourists in the middle of the city. What I'm saying is that the Common would be more of an urban than suburban park if the area around it was more dense and that would only happen if they repeal the shadow law. Heck, I don't know why it was even passed, why would the legislature even pass this crap? It doesn't make any less shadows on the Common and just restricts development. And no one says they want to go to International Place? It's because it's an OFFICE TOWER, you work there, not eat there and stuff. Plus many people don't even know what it is because there are a lot of towers and people can't memorize all the names. Boston is going backwards, it's losing in a globalized world, it has the slowest bereaucracy in the world, and nothing new happens in it. It's not a happening town, and it's best to go to a place where at least new things happen once in a while. And Boston needs this tower; if NIMBYS block this and block supply and demand, no new towers will be built ever because developers don't want to build and Boston will become a meuseum relic town in 50 years. That's what I don't want, I want Boston to move forward, and building this tower is a way to move forward.
Exactly my point. This tower is in the densest part of the Financial District surrounded by a bunch of skyscrapers. It's not like we are randomly placing this in a low rise neighborhood. It will not affect nor destroy a low rise neighborhood.

[BarbaricManchurian]

Also, if you say it's going to stick out like a sore thumb, if we didn't have this ridiculously slow bureaucracy and massive amount of NIMBYs, other towers will go up quickly and it won't stick out within 5 years.

[KentXie]

Playing a height game, height for the sake of height, seems beneath us.

If Boston was improving itself in education, safety, transportation, commercial, etc AND then wanted to build a 1,000 ft tower just to cap it all off I'd be elated but the idea that a 1,000 ft tower will change anything other than ego is laughable.

But, I do have an ego, so I'm all for it. It just won't change anything.
Your right, 1 tower won't. But with the amount of project going on and having TNP at its centerpiece, it can attract more people and thus probably more fund into Boston. However, with all that is spent on the Big Dig and such, i doubt we can afford any improvement in education, safety, and transportation.

[kz1000ps]

Too long has many Boston based companies move out of Boston to find a better location.

But is that because of a lack of space? No. This is just how the dice have rolled between the last (1997-2004) boom/bust cycle and now. The previous boom (late '80s) left Boston overbuilt for many years afterwards (much of the 1990s), and did this make companies come streaming in for all those years? I wouldn't say so.

To bring it back to Winthrop Sq, I think the location is perfect for the tower, but I just don't see a need for a tower of this size right now, expecially when the entity stroking its ego isn't a company (e.g. Prudential, John Hancock) that could occupy a huge block of space, but a mayor, who at most could rent a couple thousand square feet in the new building.

[KentXie]

I posted an article earlier that I can't seem to find but i remember seeing about 5 companies or looking for a large swath of office space that might be able to fill Winthrop now that Russia Wharf is no longer available. Possibly more will come.

[kz1000ps]

Also, if you say it's going to stick out like a sore thumb, if we didn't have this ridiculously slow bureaucracy and massive amount of NIMBYs, other towers will go up quickly and it won't stick out within 5 years.

Yes and no. Yes in that I agree there's too much red tape. No in that more towers will make it less of a sore thumb. My earlier point is that Boston's office market doesn't DEMAND towers over roughly 600 feet in height, and that it'll be quite some time before developers really have to push up and over that barrier, thus probably leaving TNP a sore thumb for several decades. But I admit that a much worse fate could befall the city...

[KentXie]

Well Boston didn't have the demand to build 2 700+ft towers back in the late 60's and mid 70's (and both weren't even in the Financial District) but were built anyways and it turned out great. Winthrop could be the same.

[BarbaricManchurian]

Yes and no. Yes in that I agree there's too much red tape. No in that more towers will make it less of a sore thumb. My earlier point is that Boston's office market doesn't DEMAND towers over roughly 600 feet in height, and that it'll be quite some time before developers really have to push up and over that barrier.

Well if we had faster bereaucracy then the time until developers really have to push up and over 600 feet will be accelerated. And there will probably be someone else with a big ego proposing a 1,500 ft tower within 20 years, so TNP won't stick out as a sore thumb anymore and the new tower will.

[KentXie]

Yes and no. Yes in that I agree there's too much red tape. No in that more towers will make it less of a sore thumb. My earlier point is that Boston's office market doesn't DEMAND towers over roughly 600 feet in height, and that it'll be quite some time before developers really have to push up and over that barrier.

Well if we had faster bereaucracy then the time until developers really have to push up and over 600 feet will be accelerated. And there will probably be someone else with a big ego proposing a 1,500 ft tower within 20 years, so TNP won't stick out as a sore thumb anymore and the new tower will.
Doubt the FAA will aprove it and even then I doubt Boston will grow quickly enough for a 1500ft tower to be built with a 1000ft tower already there. However 1000 ft seems legit now with the high demand for office.

[BarbaricManchurian]

And what's so bad about it sticking out like a sore thumb? The Prudential and Hancock buildings stick out WAY more because it's mostly low rise around it, while downtown is already high rise and this is only 1.5x higher then the buildings around it.

[tmac9wr]

I understand what nm is getting at when talking about how much this thing is going to stick out, because there's no question that it absolutely will. As kz mentioned, this building isn't being built because of the overwhelming demand for office space, but at the request of the Mayor and his ego. However, I still think this building is much more than all that and will be beneficial to the city. As DarkfenX mentioned, it will help lower rates of rent in the city (although we're not that desperate for space), and possibly lure new companies to the city.

Aside from that possibility, nm mentioned that there's no point in dropping to the level of other cities that are building big, b/c we are a special city. I think what you may be overlooking is that this is a special building. It would be the greenest building on the planet (right?). Collecting rainwater from the roof, solar panels on the spine to help power the building, heliostats (or just plain ol' mirrors) to keep the streets below full of sunlight. More than an acre of new parkland including a rooftop garden at over 1,000 feet high! How is this not progressive?

You're right, nobody who visits Boston says "I can't wait to go to International Place!", but I'd be willing to bet the house that they'd say "I can't wait to go to Winthrop Square Tower! They've got a park on the roof overlooking the entire city!? I've never heard of anything like that!" Along with all those things there's also a restaurant/bar on the floor below the garden and retail at the bottom of the tower...don't kid yourself into thinking that this wouldn't be a destination.

Sure this thing will stick out like a sore thumb, but at least it's a good looking building. If it were some piece of trash tower that looked terrible, I could understand, but I think it's a really attractive building. Concerning shadows on the common, they would last for 15 minutes very early in the morning and would only appear at certain times of the year....I think we can manage that for an iconic tower.

As for South Station Tower, it won't stick out at all...it's slightly taller than the other buildings in downtown so I wouldn't worry about that.

[BostonObserver]

[quote=nm88]Plus Baltimore is nearly the same as Boston. We are actually falling behind many other city.

There are only a few cities in the US doing better than Boston. Baltimore is defiantly not one of them.

Forty stories has always been a barrier because above that the economics of building change. The Pru and Hancock are exceptions because they were ego driven.

There are still many places in Boston to build high and I think people will protect the low rise section of the city.

[BostonSkyGuy]

I'm curious why everyone thinks the people that are for this tower being built, are so because they want to see Boston move into the 21st century. No one on this board is naive enough to think that if you build one 1,000'+ building that Boston immediately jumps into NYC territory in terms of global impact. What it does is that it proves the city can take intiative and get something done and that maybe the culture of the city can change to where larger buildings won't be shot down just because of the height.

It's no secret this city needs to change the building process. It's one of the 2 million things Deval Patrick said he'd change, but hasn't gotten around to. I don't want to be NYC either, I don't want to be a high-rise city and I don't think Boston is a total low-rise city either. I'd like a mix of old and new because that's what made Boston great for so long. It hasn't rested on its laurels, it's always strived to become better while not forgetting the history that got it to where it is today. I'm not against progression for the sake of progression like some of you are. I'm against being stagnant because we're already one of the top cities in the country and the world. That would be like the Patriots winning their first Super Bowl and then thinking "we've already won a Super Bowl, why bother to work hard in the off-season to repeat, let's just take it easy." It's a dumb mentality to believe that once you are leading in something you shouldn't keep doing what got you there PLUS more in order to be the best you can be.



If Boston was improving itself in education, safety, transportation, commercial, etc AND then wanted to build a 1,000 ft tower just to cap it all off I'd be elated but the idea that a 1,000 ft tower will change anything other than ego is laughable.


I don't understand why people (and I think it's been you repeatedly) keep bringing up this point. One has nothing to do with another. If anything turning Winthrop Sq. into TNP will make the city more money than it currently makes from the space and it can (and should) use it in the above areas that you listed.

The city isn't taking away from transportation, education or safety to build this building. Let's not make the mistake of thinking that in order to get this building done, any of those areas are going to neglected.

[KentXie]

Plus Baltimore is nearly the same as Boston. We are actually falling behind many other city.

There are only a few cities in the US doing better than Boston. Baltimore is defiantly not one of them.

Forty stories has always been a barrier because above that the economics of building change. The Pru and Hancock are exceptions because they were ego driven.

There are still many places in Boston to build high and I think people will protect the low rise section of the city.
I didn't say Baltimore is doing better than Boston. I said Baltimore is like Boston in the way that it is also a low rise city thus Boston is not all the unique in that aspect.

[TC]

Really good conversation here.However, the reason why Boston needs to build taller is fairly simple.

The Downtown Boston Office market absorbs 1,000,000 sf of new office space every year. In order to continue that pace (or increase) Boston needs to build new office buildings. With the space limitations of downtown Boston the only way to continue and ensure future growth is to build vertically.

[justin]

Here are a few pictures of another city that tried to prove it's world-class by building a 1,000-footer:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Ryugyong_Hotel_-_May_2005.JPG/459px-Ryugyong_Hotel_-_May_2005.JPG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/NK_Sportpalast2-cropped.png

http://www.ryugyonghotel.com/photos/ryugyong-hotel-tower-5.jpg

nm88, the obvious needed stating here and thank you for doing it: if Tommy's Tower gets built, Boston will be forever stuck with a bad design. The greenery is all well and good, but it doesn't make this uninspired pile any better looking.

I'm all for taking risks, but thought-out and purposeful ones, not risk for the sake of risk as some here are all to quick to propose.

Will Boston prove its manhood by getting a huge prosthetic dick?

justin

[BostonSkyGuy]

^Agreed.

Also to make another thing clear, I don't want Boston to start throwing up buildings like Dubai. What I want is for them to build taller in the spaces they have now, so that instead of throwing up clusters of 400-500 footers and then in say 30 years realizing they are out of buildable space.

Then what we all love about Boston could be in jeopardy. Streetscapes, low-rise lined streets, etc. could all be demolished to build larger buildings because of lack of space. I see this becoming an actual problem in years to come. If you can't build tall on spaces that are ideal for that type of project, what's going to happen when there is a NEED in terms of space to build tall?

[kennedy]

^Agreed.

Also to make another thing clear, I don't want Boston to start throwing up buildings like Dubai. What I want is for them to build taller in the spaces they have now, so that instead of throwing up clusters of 400-500 footers and then in say 30 years realizing they are out of buildable space.

Then what we all love about Boston could be in jeopardy. Streetscapes, low-rise lined streets, etc. could all be demolished to build larger buildings because of lack of space. I see this becoming an actual problem in years to come. If you can't build tall on spaces that are ideal for that type of project, what's going to happen when there is a NEED in terms of space to build tall?

That's a very good argument, and it would make a point to the public, which in turn could change the decision of NIMBYs and the BRA. Just the though of, "Oh, so you're to say in 30 or so years, my house could be taken by imminent domain if we don't build tall on the land we have now?"

A lot of people will react to that.

[KentXie]

Here are a few pictures of another city that tried to prove it's world-class by building a 1,000-footer:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Ryugyong_Hotel_-_May_2005.JPG/459px-Ryugyong_Hotel_-_May_2005.JPG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/NK_Sportpalast2-cropped.png

http://www.ryugyonghotel.com/photos/ryugyong-hotel-tower-5.jpg

nm88, the obvious needed stating here and thank you for doing it: if Tommy's Tower gets built, Boston will be forever stuck with a bad design. The greenery is all well and good, but it doesn't make this uninspired pile any better looking.

I'm all for taking risks, but thought-out and purposeful ones, not risk for the sake of risk as some here are all to quick to propose.

Will Boston prove its manhood by getting a huge prosthetic dick?

justin
This is a bad example. Why? This building is entirely a hotel. However, where in the world do you need a 1000ft+ hotel. Who can fill so much space especially one thats in North Korea. The Winthrop tower is an office tower and thus does not face this type of problem. Plus you are talking about a building that is being built in a city and country that can barely provide electricity to it city let alone build a supertall. Boston is in a different environment where such building is quite if not absolutely possible.

[mj]

IMO, part of the problem with TransNational Place is the design...I do not find it very inspiring (and for that matter, it is too similar to the new NYTimes building in NYC). If Boston is going to have a 1000 ft. building at all, it should be a true landmark building unique to the City...like the Transamerica Building in SF or the Empire State in NYC. I personally do not care for the modern, over-the-top designs that are being proposed in many cities looking to create new, modern signature buildings (like those currently proposed in SF). But I do feel that something like an elegant glass tower built in the shape of a lighthouse would work well in Boston since it would be modern in design but yet pay tribute to Boston's rich maritime history. Though I am not an architect, I am sure this building could be built with a rooftop park and other green elements while also meeting office space needs. Just a thought.

[six]

No disrespect intended , but a LIGHTHOUSE is a fucking ridiculous idea. Will there be fog horns going off every half hour like the old radio station WJIB. Better yet maybe the gorton's fisherman can hang off the top and yell,"Dar she blows!" A lighthouse.........that's funny! :lol:

[mj]

None taken...just thinking that such a design would also provide a nice complement to the Boston Museum's proposed ship design (if the museum does move forward).

[shiz02130]

One of the old designs for the SST resembled a lighthouse. While we're fantasizing, another place where a tower with a beacon could be situated would be on top of Beacon Hill. There is a vacant lot right on the summit (near the relatively new Suffolk dorm) that I can't believe hasn't been developed yet.

[vanshnookenraggen]

I think a 1,000 ft lighthouse would kick ass.

[TheBostonBoy]

^Ya, I do too. I mean it is a wild idea, but it is still extremely creative and unique, which it seems like everyone on this forum and in Boston want for the new 1000 footer.

One of the old designs for the SST resembled a lighthouse. While we're fantasizing, another place where a tower with a beacon could be situated would be on top of Beacon Hill. There is a vacant lot right on the summit (near the relatively new Suffolk dorm) that I can't believe hasn't been developed yet.

What street is this exactly located on?

[shiz02130]

It is on Ashburton Place. The advantage of putting an iconic tower here is that its height would be accentuated by its position on top of a hill. Here is a pic of the location. You can also see the Suffolk dorm under construction (the crane) on Somerset Street:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Ashburton+Place,+Boston,+MA+02108,+USA&sll=42.358808,-71.062194&sspn=0.001538,0.002486&ie=UTF8&ll=42.358611,-71.062175&spn=0.001538,0.002486&t=h&z=19&om=1

[ablarc]

^ Interesting find. At first I thought you were being ironic.

[LeTaureau]

I feel that building a lighthouse tower is a terrible idea. Yet another example of the fact that Boston cannot get over its past. Its time to look to the future. Boston needs fresh ideas, not stale ones.

[KentXie]

Hell if they are willing to build a 1000ft lighthouse (which they aren't), they should build a 1000ft glass obelisk that resembles the Bunker Hill Monument.

[TheBostonBoy]

It is on Ashburton Place. The advantage of putting an iconic tower here is that its height would be accentuated by its position on top of a hill. Here is a pic of the location. You can also see the Suffolk dorm under construction (the crane) on Somerset Street:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Ashburton+Place,+Boston,+MA+02108,+USA&sll=42.358808,-71.062194&sspn=0.001538,0.002486&ie=UTF8&ll=42.358611,-71.062175&spn=0.001538,0.002486&t=h&z=19&om=1

O wow, thanks. I never really noticed that. That would be a great place to build a slim 350 footer or something.

[kennedy]

Beacon Hill would be a great place for a 300-500 footer, like a glass obelisk that reflected the Bunker Hill Monument, not that the LPZ Bridge doesn't already. It would just be difficult to blend with the neighborhood. All the brownstone-ish lowrises. And that building that looks like affordable housing across the street.

[vanshnookenraggen]

Beacon Hill would be a great place for a 300-500 footer

... no.

[Boston02124]

I was just at the BRA and saw the newest version,much better design but still a box,think 1 Federal but with a spire in the corner,but no longer stuck on the side but coming out of the corner of the roof,also the building went straight to the ground, gone is the open plaza!

[Equilibria]

The soonest you could get us the renderings would of course be just great, but you knew that...

[Boston02124]

yeah wish I had my camera,maybe tomorrow's paper,s will have something?

[LeTaureau]

I shudder to think there is resemblance to One Federal.

[castevens]

you could have picked any building in the world that looks like a box. any particular reason you picked 1 federal?

[Boston02124]

Just my 1st impression! the top of the building looked that way ,kinda of a twin to the new times building in NYC but with a flat surface and spire in the corner of the roof , No roof garden, all though there were people on the top(observation deck?) It no longer looked like the Pru,I did,nt want to stare at the meeting going on at the time so just my 1st impression![/img]

[castevens]

well i guess that's good news considering that I want to vomit when I see 1 Federal.

[TheBostonBoy]

Someone get some pictures of this thing!

[lexicon506]

I knew this building was going down when CBT and Belkin took creative control. No more plaza or rooftop garden or external elevators (and probably no more reflectors)? I don't care if the design is better or worse, it sounds like CBT took away everything that I liked about the building in the name of being cheap. Now I'm really hoping it doesn't get built.

[ledjes]

No need to despair yet, Lexicon. I can tell you that the roof garden still exists, the light reflectors still exist, the glass covered plaza still exists...the only thing not currently in the scope is external elevators.

[tmac9wr]

That's so disappointing that they removed the external elevators...can someone please get down to the BRA and take some pics?! What about the height? Any official changes that you saw? I'm reserving judgment until we get some pics of it...this thing better not suck.

[castevens]

At this point, I'm ready to settle for quantity over quality.....

Christ, people, either make up good buildings or get out of the business of creating buildings.

[czsz]

Part of the problem is that it is a business. Or, at least, only a business. The greatest skyscraper designs have always been motivated by concerns other than maximizing economic efficiency.

[castevens]

touche. And true, at that.

[Boston02124]

The tower itself looked thinner and the spire shorter,very sleek and looked like a sliver colored glass skin with a transparent lighted top,like a said I did,nt want to gawk

[tmac9wr]

I woulda gawked like crazy....were you there during some sort of meeting/presentation?

[statler]

Do you have an image host? If not, I recommend flickr (http://www.flickr.com).

Once your pics are hosted it's as simple as this:

[img]http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1362/1061292104_5abee191ae_m.jpg[/img]

[Boston02124]

Thanks I,ll give that a try!

[statler]

No problem, glad I could help. Can't wait to see your pics!

One more tip:
This ' is an apostrophe. This , is a comma. They are two distinct punctuation marks with separate functions. They are generally not considered to be interchangeable. :)

[nico]

you,re shittin, me

[Boston02124]

thanks for the spelling tip!

[statler]

Grammar, actually. :) :wink:

[vanshnookenraggen]

It's not like that is a valid excuse in this day and age when we have the internet. Damn kids.

[TheBostonBoy]

Boston02124 is like the new me! He says lol constantly, although I hardly say it anymore. It only happens when you join, after that you get used to the way the forum is run and the format of how to type so you cut down on the bad habits which Boston0214 has exhibited! LOL :lol:

Anyways, it is about freaken time we heard SOME news about TNP. It may not be the most exciting or favorable news, but whatever, still news nonetheless. And that is a relief that they are not disposing of the rooftop garden, light reflector plates, and the glass plaza, but the external elevators will be missed for sure. But we definitely gotta get some pictures of this in here! Someone get on that! (I would, but I don't live in Boston :( )

[briv]

Imagine riding 1100 ft in an exterior glass elevator? What a ride that would be. Incomparable. The destination would be an anti-climax. I'd take that ride over the rooftop garden and surface plaza any day. Thats not to say theyre not good features of the design, because they certainly are. But too bad about the elevators.

[atlantaden]

The ride up/down those outside glass elevators would have instantly become one of Boston's "must do" attractions, though, if done right, the rooftop garden will, even without the glass elevators, be a huge destination for residents and tourists. It is hugely disappointing though, that the outside elevators were scrapped.

[kz1000ps]

I've taken thousands of pic's along the way(I'm new to this computer stuff so when I figure out how to upload them I look forward to sharing them)

:shock:

It will be a great day for ArchBoston once you figure things out. I can't wait!

[type001]

Boston02124, welcome to the forum! It's great having another Boston enthusiast join us.

If it helps you out, you could always email your pics to one of us, and we would be happy to upload the photos for you. My email address is type001@comcast.net, and I would be happy to help.

[whighlander]

I too have many pix including some from the Greenway last weekend

But I don't have a host that I can use for my avocations

My pix tend to be MB in size so that will result in only a few per e-mailing

the best thing would be an ftp capability for the archboston site

Totally off topic -- is there anything on the Cummings Properties new structure in Woburn?

Westy

[tocoto]

photobucket.com and other sites offer free hosting.

[vanshnookenraggen]

I cannot recommend Flickr enough. They basic accounts are free and the premium accounts are cheap for a whole lotta space.

[ChitchIII]

Friday, September 28, 2007
Belkin's super tower behind scheduleBoston Business Journal - by Michelle Hillman Journal staff

Belkin: Design updates slow tower plan
View Larger The proposed 1,000-foot Financial District tower proposed by entrepreneur Steve Belkin is behind schedule -- at least in part because he is redesigning the building to increase its square footage by 200,000 square feet to 1.7 million.

The tower is being designed by CBT/Childs Bertman Tseckares Architects Inc. of Boston after the lead architect, world-renowned Renzo Piano, dropped off the team in March. Belkin has not discussed the reasons for the split publicly, but Piano has said he was asked to increase the width of the skinny, 80-story tower he designed.

There are at least three design schemes being considered, including 76-, 77- and 79-story versions, according to a source who asked not to be named because the plans have not been finalized or made public. The Boston Redevelopment Authority's director of planning, Kairos Shen, recently confirmed the tower is expanding.

"Now it's grown to 1.7 million square feet," said Shen, addressing a crowd at a meeting of the Associated General Contractors of Massachusetts last week.




http://boston.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2007/10/01/story4.html?t=printable

[JSic]

Whoa, for once Boston is scaling UP rather than down! :shock:

[Benhamin]

This is great news! Can't wait for the official redesign.

[shiz02130]

But if it hasn't gotten any taller, chances are it's scaling OUT rather than UP.

[kz1000ps]

^ right. Assuming CBT spreads the extra 200,000 s.f. equally and doesn't just put it in some fat base, then that means each floor plate will have to increase from 140 foot square to about 150, which is by no means the end of the world (I think that might actually look better). But I don't trust CBT to do the right thing.. we'll see.

[type001]

Boston02124, have you had any luck getting those images uploaded?

[tmac9wr]

I was able to fly up for the weekend due to fall break from school, and decided to stop into the BRA. I went to the model room to see the revised version of Winthrop Sq...but when I went into the model room, it seemed to be the same design as before. Can anyone confirm whether this is the original version or is the revised version just that similar to the original? Here's some pics I took with my cell phone camera...so please excuse the lack of quality.

Downtown Model
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v633/tmac9wr/WinthropSqModel.jpg

Downtown Model
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v633/tmac9wr/WinthropSqModel2.jpg

Downtown Model
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v633/tmac9wr/WinthropSqModel3.jpg

A shot of the base interior
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v633/tmac9wr/WinthropSqModel4.jpg

An angle I don't remember seeing before with the Zakim in the foreground
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v633/tmac9wr/WinthropSqModel5.jpg

Another shot of the base interior
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v633/tmac9wr/WinthropSqModel6.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v633/tmac9wr/WinthropSqModel7.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v633/tmac9wr/WinthropSqModel8.jpg

This was enclosed in a big white box, preventing people to see it but there was a small crack near the bottom that I managed to sneak a peek through, which explains why it's cut off on the sides.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v633/tmac9wr/WinthropSqModel9.jpg

A section of the base
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v633/tmac9wr/WinthropSqModel10.jpg

Exterior shot of the base
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v633/tmac9wr/WinthropSqModel11.jpg

[vanshnookenraggen]

I actually really like that last pic. Thanks.

[Lrfox]

In that last pic- does it seem as if it flares out a bit towards the bottom? Maybe it's just the camera angle and the fact that i am blind, but it looks like that model has a flare-out similar to the Solow Building in NYC at the bottom.

thanks for the photos though.

[tmac9wr]

Are you guys talking about the model pic or the exterior base rendering? I ended up adding a couple other pics off my phone and didn't realize anyone had responded.

[pharmerdave]

The second and third photos show the South Station Tower as well. It looks alot wider than I remember from previous renderings.

[shiz02130]

Both the wooden model and the more detailed one (why did they put it in that box? It was on a table by the wall when I was last in the map room) are of the original design. So neither show any changes from what we've already seen before.

Thanks for the pics!

[type001]

Thanks a million for those pics! I think it looks pretty good.

SST, 1 Franklin, and Russia Warf look really good in the second pic.

[JSic]

The Filenes building is in there too, as is 45 Province Street.

[TheBostonBoy]

Ya, it looks great. I love how they incorporated all those other future buildings (SST, Filenes, etc) into the model! awesome

[type001]

I work at 133 Federal, and we just got the official word this past Friday that our last day is September 12, 2007. About half of the companies have already vacated the building. The grounds crew who works for Steve Belkin say that the building should be coming down in September shortly after we leave.

[awood91]

do you mean september 2008? because september 2007 has already happened :)

[statler]

Wow. So this is really happening.
Thank God I'm not a betting man, or else I would have lost a lot of money.

[Cojapo]

This will get built? I'll believe it when I see pilings driven into the ground and steel going up! Plus the NIMBYS complained that this would cast a shadow on the commons for about 15 minutes at the beginning of the day. God knows they will put up a fight.

[type001]

hehe, 2008 of course :-)

According to grounds crew, this thing is getting built and things are moving in the process. I totally understand any skepticism about this getting built (it is Boston after all), but the shadow-casting issue is nothing more than the typical Scott VanSoarhies tabloid article (Scott, if you do read any of this, you're a douche and you know it). Sure, there are some useless NIMBYs that will complain, but that argument will never fly. Alnd don't the Millenium Towers cast shadows already? They're 2 500 ft towers right on the Common.

[TheBostonBoy]

Wow, this is great news! So I guess I can assume that Belkin made those payments in time, correct?
I wish their were some articles about this, I haven't heard much besides type001 posts. Why aren't they giving this more attention? I am surprised.

[castevens]

They're 2 500 ft towers right on the Common.

That's what always gets me when people quote the "shadow" rule.

[Mike]

The Millennium Place towers were originally proposed before the shawdow law was passed.


I really don't think NIMBYs will get in the way of this project, mostly because they're aren't enough of them in that part of town.


The only thing I'm still a little concerned about is the FAA.

[castevens]

Wow, I can't believe the shadow law was that recent. I would have figured it was one of those joke laws from the 1600's that the NIMBY's were using as an excuse for small buildings

[type001]

I think the shadow law was passed in 1990 or 1991 (which is still instane).

[nm88]

I realize I am a monirity of one, but this tower is not worthy of Boston, nor is it a very good example of Mr. Piano's considerable talents. Shadows are the least of it. This generic tower could just as easily exist in any other city, distinquished only for its height and its star architect. If we are intent on reconceiving our skyline (the merits of which completely escapes me), shouldn't it be done with great care or not at all. A mayor's intention to create a thousand foot personal legacy seems, lets call it what it is, adolescent. Height for height's sake? Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, Denver (it's a long list) -- that's their idea of urban planning and city building. We are Boston, and though we certainly have more than our share of knuckleheads in positions of power, should we be altering our city according to their whims?

[Lrfox]

I realize I am a monirity of one, but this tower is not worthy of Boston, nor is it a very good example of Mr. Piano's considerable talents. Shadows are the least of it. This generic tower could just as easily exist in any other city, distinquished only for its height and its star architect. If we are intent on reconceiving our skyline (the merits of which completely escapes me), shouldn't it be done with great care or not at all. A mayor's intention to create a thousand foot personal legacy seems, lets call it what it is, adolescent. Height for height's sake? Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, Denver (it's a long list) -- that's their idea of urban planning and city building. We are Boston, and though we certainly have more than our share of knuckleheads in positions of power, should we be altering our city according to their whims?

I guess the visual appearance isn't exactly groundbreaking; at first glance, it's little more than a glass box with a spire tacked onto the side. However, it's what's on the inside that makes this building innovative. It has all sorts of environmentally friendly "Green" features including (but certainly not limited to) rainwater collection plates that allow the building to reduce it's dependency on city water.

Then you have the ground level park and the elevated lobby that's designed so sunlight will hit the ground at all hours of the day. Furthermore, the indoor garden on the top will be fantastic. I think that looks alone are not what will define this buildings place in Boston's history.

Great buildings have a tendency to be a window into what defines their generation. When you think of the Empire State Building, you are brought back into an era of zepplins, art deco, races to build the tallest building, etc. when you visit a Newport guilded-age mansion, you're reminded of the Vanderbuilts, or the Carnagie fortunes; excess, and grand times. Hell, I am not old enough to know what it was like during the construction of the Hancock Tower, but I bet there were doubts when you looked up and saw plywood patching windows like some massive hurricane preparation.

I guess that if this building is done the way it is in the renderings, It'll be innovative now; and in the future it will be a window into a time when people were starting to become environmentally aware and forced to take more advanced measures to preserve and not waste.

I can picture telling my grand kids 40 years from now about how that building was built with special measures to conserve energy, water consumption, and produce a green oasis while at the same time create new office and mixed use space. This building is anything but generic, even if the first glance tells you otherwise.

[kz1000ps]

I question how many of these high-minded designs will make it into the real thing. Piano's gone and there'll be the inevitable cost overruns, so it wouldn't surprise me one bit if this thing gets dumbed down a ton. Hell, CBT's probably doing it as we speak.

[Suffolk 83]

Fox, great argument... I agree wholeheartedly. To nm88, how does one building "alter our city"?

[nm88]

First of all, my apologies for misspellling in previous posting.

Mr. Lrfox: All due respect, I don't really care for "groundbreaking" -- like genius and fabulous, the term is overused to the point of being meaningless. One person's groundbreaking is another's mistake. I would prefer the more modest (and realistic) terms useful, engaging and welcoming. TNP seems to be known of these as far as I can tell. (And be suspicious of anyone who claims a 1000 foot buiding is "green.")

I agree with KZ, many of the "groundbreaking" elements of TNP are sales incentives, and now that the creative mind behind this design has departed we are left to the vision of a developer, a salesman. Be assured, he will endlessly exclaim the virtues of height and the "groundbreaking" details of a garden on the roof, etc., etc. The gullible will be awed.

Suffolk83: How does it alter our city? Look at the pictures and the renderings. From where, from what prospective, are they taken? Mostly, the vantage point is a great distance away, many blocks in some cases, impossible aerial shots in others. Why? Because that's how you engage a building like this -- either from a great distance, or the penthouse. One is impersonal and the other is for the rarified few.

In some cities this works, New York most of all. Boston is not New York. We should not try to imitate others, especially our lessers (not NY, but many others).

Look at our skyline: Like it or not, it has a certain, what do we call it, symmetry? Maybe too low-rise for many of you, but it makes some (dare I say) visual sense. TNP blows that up. For those of you who argue that this rending of our slyline will be remedied when the next 1000 footer is built -- this is Boston, don't forget, it may be 20 years before we see another behemoth built.

Forgive me if I rant, but this city, in spite of its many shortcomings, is far more interesting and unique than many give it credit for. Building tall simply to build tall is a race to the bottom. We are better than that.

[justin]

Lrfox, I think that the fact that the main virtue you found in this building has nothing to do with its appearance speaks volumes, well, of its appearance.

nm88, you're in a minority of at least 2. Here's hoping that this doesn't get built.

justin

[vanshnookenraggen]

Look at our skyline: Like it or not, it has a certain, what do we call it, symmetry? Maybe too low-rise for many of you, but it makes some (dare I say) visual sense. TNP blows that up. For those of you who argue that this rending of our slyline will be remedied when the next 1000 footer is built -- this is Boston, don't forget, it may be 20 years before we see another behemoth built.

I would not say that it blows up the skyline but rather it creates a landmark for downtown, much like the John Hancock and Pru do for the Back Bay. It will allow you to orient yourself if you are wandering and get lost in the North End.

Take the Citigroup Tower in Long Island City, Queens.
http://www.northeastroads.com/new_york999/jackson_av_eb_at_47th_rd.jpg

It isn't a remarkable building, some might say it is ugly, but it is one of the greatest landmarks in Queens. Where ever you are in western Queens you can see it and it allows you to orient yourself to where you are and where the city is (or where the major transportation hub in western Queens is).

This is the same idea that churches and water towers used when they were the tallest structures in a village or town. If you look at the downtown skyline you just see a mass of flat topped buildings, each more boxy and bland than the next. But if you look towards Charlestown you can clearly see the Bunker Hill Monument and know that if you travel in that direction you will get to Charlestown. Once in Charlestown you don't need it but you will need other landmarks to point you in the right direction out of Charlestown. Likewise, if you are lost in the Fenway or South End, just look for the Pru to get you into the center of things.

Think about any strong neighborhood in Boston and you will ultimately think about it's landmark(s); Old North Church -> North End, Pru -> Back Bay, Citgo Sign -> Kenmore Sq, State House - > Beacon Hill, Federal Crt House -> South Boston Waterfront. A landmark should help define a neighborhood. Where is the center of the South End? Roxbury, Dorchester, Roslindale? These places exists in a much more ambiguous sense because they don't have as easily identifiable landmarks (visually, and still I'm sure this will stir up some argument, but you should at least get the gist of it).

Downtown once had a great landmark, the Customs Tower. Due to height restrictions and a federal government loop hole, the Customs Tower was the only skyscraper Boston had well into the middle of the 20th Century. "Progress" changed that and now it is only visible from the water, and even then it is obscured by the background noise of the other office towers downtown. This tower is needed to point people downtown, and this is just as much a factor as ego was in the decision to build a 1,000 ft tower in Boston. This is the only place a 1,000 ft tower should go because it is the only place something that high is needed.

[KentXie]

Look at our skyline: Like it or not, it has a certain, what do we call it, symmetry? Maybe too low-rise for many of you, but it makes some (dare I say) visual sense. TNP blows that up. For those of you who argue that this rending of our slyline will be remedied when the next 1000 footer is built -- this is Boston, don't forget, it may be 20 years before we see another behemoth built.

This I have to disagree greatly. Yes currently, downtown Boston is symmetrical and that a 1000 foot tower is a lot higher than the surrounding towers. However, this is not the first time it has happened in Boston. Remember the Prudential and John Hancock Tower? Both of these were built in pretty much close proximity to a residential neighborhood. Both of these towers are about 33% taller than the next tallest tower, the Custom House at the time. Sure these towers may have blow up the skyline but in the end, we can't imagine the city without it. This is the same exact case for TNP. Plus the TNP is only 21% taller than the John Hancock. Even the Custom House was the same. Thanks to its Federal Building status, the Custom House was more than two times taller than the next tallest building, the Ames Building. The Custom House was sticking like a middle finger right in the center of the city. The next building to even come near its height came a few decades later. The point is, if a city is always about being symmetrical, then the city will never build anything tall and this is especially the case in Boston.

[stellarfun]

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/09/21/ba_transbay21-interior_ph3.jpg
Pelli and Hines won the Transbay competition.
See:
http://archrecord.construction.com/news/daily/archives/070921transbay.asp
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/21/BAO7S9J2H.DTL

Not that I favored the Hines/Pelli design, but that building will be more groundbreaking with regard to plazas and being environmentally green than anything Trans National could hope to be.

The Pelli Flash file on the project is a big file, download-wise.
http://www.pcparch.com/flash.cfm

[JSic]

The signifigance of this building is that its very tall. It pushes the envelope and creates a new standard for downtown. So, subsequently, we may get other (nicer) super-talls in other spots (City Hall Plaza, Friar Arch site, Gateway Center, etc.) in the future.

[Suffolk 83]

This changes the appearance of the city. It does not change the city itself. Fanuiel Hall isn't going to blow up, the north end isn't going to fall in the harbor, Newbury St isn't going to open a Wal-Mart, and Sox fans won't desert their team. This sky is falling mentality is exactly the attitude that hinders progress. Who cares about symmetry?
The Sears Tower didn't make Chicago's skyline symmetrical, neither did the WTC in NY. The fact is that although the WTC was ugly by alot of people's standards, even in 1975, they were still extremely popular because of their height. People will love this for that reason alone.
I think this building is important. It sends a message that the city isn't stagnant. I believe the height barrier is a glass ceiling that needs to be broken, and the economic impact is huge both symbolically and in real terms.

[unterbau]

I have to disagree with this idea that somehow breaking this 1000 foot barrier means we're going to show the world that Boston is still economically vibrant... There are many more meaningful ways to show this to the world, such as creating meaningful lo-rise sustainable developments which would show that Boston is smart enough to move on from the "whose is bigger" competition.

[Suffolk 83]

I never said it's a who's bigger competition, Boston will never win that. Aren't there meaningful low-rise developments going on now? Haven't there been several in the last few years? If not what exactly does "meaningful low-rise sustainable developments" mean?
Bottom line is TNP would create large amounts of class A office space that could allow a large company to occupy one building and either stay here in Boston or come to Boston. I thought I remembered hearing something about a company that was going to move out of International place because they needed 200,000 sq ft and IP couldn't give them that, and when they looked at other options for that much class A office space, there were only one or two options?

[statler]

^^That's a fair point.

I've never really cared to much for the height for height sake argument but if we assume the following is true:
a. large corporations require large amounts of continuous Class A office space
b. having large corporations move into the city is good for Boston

Then we have to accept that these type of towers are good for the city.

I just wish they would make them look nicer.

[unterbau]

I never said it's a who's bigger competition, Boston will never win that. Aren't there meaningful low-rise developments going on now? Haven't there been several in the last few years? If not what exactly does "meaningful low-rise sustainable developments" mean?
Bottom line is TNP would create large amounts of class A office space that could allow a large company to occupy one building and either stay here in Boston or come to Boston. I thought I remembered hearing something about a company that was going to move out of International place because they needed 200,000 sq ft and IP couldn't give them that, and when they looked at other options for that much class A office space, there were only one or two options?

You did say that the height was a "glass ceiling" that had to be broken, though. Why does this height matter so much? I'm not talking about having the tallest in the world, or even in the US, but what is so important about having supertall towers here at all? The South Station tower will add to the Boston supply of office space (that simply can't be in that much demand, or they would've been able to build the original plan). I don't see any reason why this tower shouldn't be built, but the height should be the least important part of the plan...

[JSic]

^Well, there's something to be said for aesthetics. Boston doesn't have to be NYC or Chicago but compared to other cities its size, Boston's downtown skyline is pretty bland and "flat"; it could use a few "spikes" to break things up.

PS - height DOES matter. Someone below said that this building is "unworthy" of Boston. Huh? Are the 60's-70's building block towers we already have "worthy" of Boston? This building will easily be one of our top 5 towers on its height alone. And, quite frankly, it isn't THAT unnattractive.

[BarbaricManchurian]

(And be suspicious of anyone who claims a 1000 foot buiding is "green.")

A 1000 foot building is a lot more green then lowrise buildings, it's efficient land use, something that's "green". Miami has a development boundary, as well as Las Vegas, that's why they have skyscraper booms and a lot of highrises. I know Boston can't have one because the edges of the metropolitan area blend into the next city (Portland Maine, Providence, and NYC) but we should reduce the NIMBY attitude that blocks the city from moving forward and developing, like any other city. And Houston and Phoenix don't seem to be in a race for height, Phoenix is just building a 525 ft tower, not exactly "high".

Height does matter! We need supertall buildings, I don't get the opposition to height, even on this forum. Everywhere else embraces supertall buildings, but it seems like Boston is the only major city in the U.S. that opposes them even when one is right on their doorstep. Usually the city will wholeheartedly embrace the skyscraper as a means for further urbanity and economic development, with little or no resistance. Get rid of the shadows law! I've never heard anything as rediculous as that, plus shadows don't really have much negative effect on the Common and the Public Garden. They'll still be tourist hotspots, shadows or not.

[LeTaureau]

I really can't see the economic impact of finishing this building as a positive for Boston. There is already plenty of class A office space in the pipeline that will come to market much faster than this building ever would. In my opinion, this is too much space for the market to absorb at once. If anything, this building could be finished at the bottom of the next office space cycle, or it should wait for the next cycle after that.

I can already see the headlines "Belkin Finishes Giant Empty Box, Goes Broke"

[statler]

^^
If you build it they will come?

[Cojapo]

Why not build it? I am sure that once this is built, there will not be a problem filing it up. It will Boston's premiere office tower, in the heart of CBD. People do travel to cities to see skylines, highrises and architecture. I am not saying that we will see a huge increase of people coming to Boston just for this, but it will be a destination for some. And it will be a sense of pride. Just like the Zakim is photographed and admired, this will be too. And maybe it will spur more growth. I would rather see a dense cluster of highrises, then spread out mid-rises. This, with Filene's and SST, and possibly what is developed on the Aquarium garage will only help Boston by drawing in businesses, tourism and help overall health of the city.

[lexicon506]

All I can say is I'm ready for CBT to release those new renderings! It's been over a year!!

[LeTaureau]

Tall buildings do not make a city. Look at Charlotte. Tall buildings, empty streets.

Do you really think that 1000 foot plus buildings matter to the average person? I was at Pub trivia last Wednesday when the following question came up: Which American city west of the Mississippi has the tallest building. I salivated at this question, and the answer is obviously Las Vegas, and I was the only one who got it correct in the whole bar. Most probably guessed Houston or LA. And do you think that anybody could name the thousand foot buildings in those cities?

[Ron Newman]

My guess would have been San Francisco, or perhaps Seattle if the Space Needle can be considered a building. (Can it?)

I doubt that I can name more than a handful of very-tall buildings anywhere in the US:

Boston has the Pru and the Hancock, as well as the earlier Custom House and Old Hancock.

NYC has the Chrysler and Empire State and used to have the World Trade Center towers, but it has lots of other less-famous towers whose names I don't know.

Chicago has the John Hancock and the Sears Tower, and again lots of others whose names I don't know. You could throw in Tribune Tower and the Wrigley Building while you're at it.

Cleveland has the Terminal Tower.

Pittsburgh has the Cathedral of Learning.

San Francisco has the Transamerica Pyramid, notable for its unusual shape.

Los Angeles has .... I'm sure a whole bunch, but I can't name or picture even one.

[castevens]

Los Angeles has .... I'm sure a whole bunch, but I can't name or picture even one.

LA always to me had a very small downtown area. Obviously the city is huge, but in terms of skyscrapers over 20 stories, I always found it confined to very few blocks -- with only the one cylindrical building sticking up above the rest.

A quick search on Emporis shows LA having 2 buildings larger in size than the Hancock in Boston... and 29 Buildings over 135 meters (arbitrary number) compared to Boston having 24 over that same number.

I'm merely expressing amazement that such a "large" city population wise is really not much larger than Boston in terms of size and amount of skyscrapers -- I don't want to turn this into Boston vs. LA, as I know there are many, many, many differences.

[BarbaricManchurian]

Tall buildings do not make a city. Look at Charlotte. Tall buildings, empty streets.

Do you really think that 1000 foot plus buildings matter to the average person? I was at Pub trivia last Wednesday when the following question came up: Which American city west of the Mississippi has the tallest building. I salivated at this question, and the answer is obviously Las Vegas, and I was the only one who got it correct in the whole bar. Most probably guessed Houston or LA. And do you think that anybody could name the thousand foot buildings in those cities?

Tall buildings don't make a city, but they do help a lot. Residential towers are the best for a city though, bringing lots of people to a certain area. Office towers only bring people in during the day.

[LeTaureau]

^Right.

And you're able to recall those buildings not because they are tall, but because architecturally they stand out. Whether they be iconic, historic art deco, modernist monoliths, pyramids, etc. Ultimately, I think that good or unique design leads to successful landmarks, not height.

IMO, Trans National Place is not very unique or very good design.

[LeTaureau]

Tall buildings don't make a city, but they do help a lot. Residential towers are the best for a city though, bringing lots of people to a certain area. Office towers only bring people in during the day.


That is true, but listen to this quote by Rousseau:

"Houses make a town, but citizens make a city"

[Ron Newman]

LA has multiple skyscraper districts, though. The most famous tall LA building I can think of is Capitol Records, in Hollywood. Again it's the unusual shape that makes it memorable, not the height.

[BarbaricManchurian]

That is true, but listen to this quote by Rousseau:

"Houses make a town, but citizens make a city"

And making a big house (skyscraper) in the middle of the city brings thousands of CITIZENS to make the city, which means skyscrapers, preferably residentials, are the best way to make the city vibrant with citizens.

[Ron Newman]

If you separate people from the street by long elevator rides (and waits for elevators), aren't they less likely to spend lots of time in the street? I can't picture a district of towers being as 'neighborly' as one of brick walk-ups.

[Ron Newman]

And if you're right about Las Vegas having the tallest building west of the Mississippi, then Wikipedia's list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_the_United_States) is wrong. Wikipedia's list of top 104 tallest buildings in the US has none in Las Vegas, but:

Houston - 10
Los Angeles - 8
Dallas - 5
Minneapolis - 3 [are they actually west of the Mississippi? Not sure]
Seattle - 3
San Francisco - 2
Denver - 2

[LeTaureau]

I guess Wikipedia doesn't include the Stratosphere Hotel?

[BarbaricManchurian]

Las Vegas has the tall 1,149 ft Stratosphere tower but it doesn't qualify as a building since its an observatory tower (with an restaurant and a roller coaster!). Las Vegas is building the 1,064 Crown Las Vegas twin towers and many many 700 footers so it will have the tallest hotel in the US.

[unterbau]

Upon rereading the "Boston Won't get a Pian (http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/apr2007/id20070410_205253.htm?chan=innovation_architecture _top+stories)o" article, I noticed that they mention Piano being peeved regarding "degree to which the altered design is being attributed to him". Does anyone know if this refers to the renderings that were released? This could be one of the reasons that the design is so underwhelming...

[itchy]

A quick search on Emporis shows LA having 2 buildings larger in size than the Hancock in Boston... and 29 Buildings over 135 meters (arbitrary number) compared to Boston having 24 over that same number.

According to today's WSJ, LA's US Bank tower is the tallest building west of the Mississippi: "the iconic U.S. Bank Tower, the tallest building west of the Mississippi..." (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119786229242133093.html?mod=hps_us_inside_today)

As for the larger debate at hand, I always felt a swell of pride as a kid when I drove toward Boston along the Mass Pike, Storrow Drive, 93, the Southeast Expressway, or any other of the roads leading into the city, and saw the city's glimmering skyscrapers up ahead. I still do.

It's a feeling that tells you you're from somewhere, from a major metropolis, and that the city has something special to it. Granted, Charlotte may have a few half-baked skyscrapers, but that doesn't cheapen tall buildings for Boston: given the history that Boston oozes with, the presence of modern buildings is a reminder that the city looks forward (hopefully!) as well as backward.

But why even debate how tall buildings will "change" Boston? Even when my father was a kid in Boston there were skyscrapers in the form of the old Hancock Building. Skyscrapers have been around for 40+ years; they're a long-established part of Boston, and they aren't going away.

The city's historic quarters are lovely -- but they're hardly predominant, and the vast swathes of ugliness in Boston (basically any "outskirt," from the North Station/Zakim Bridge area, to the BU area, to South Station and the Seaport) would be prime for supertall development.

The question is what sort of buildings gets built. And aside from a few nice ones downtown and the classic beauty of the Hancock and Prudential, Boston could use some pointers in building tall towers. The Federal Reserve building, One Financial Place, One Federal Place, The First National Bank Building -- all unfortunate, hulking masses.

TransNational -- Piano's design, anyway -- really isn't bad. It's a fairly elegant, thin building, and it would represent a step in the right direction in terms of both office space and environmental planning (as a rule tall, dense development is much better for the environment than shorter sprawl -- New Yorkers have 1/4 the carbon footprint of the average American).

So let's inspire us all with a sense of pride, human accomplishment and beauty -- and let's show people all that can be found in Boston. Build tall and build well.

[tocoto]

I see TNP primarily as a symbolic statement of civic pride and belief in the future rather than as a piece of architecture or a single building. It's a symbol of the city growing and moving forward, retaining its prominence as a major city rather than decaying. When you look at most other major northern cities like Buffalo, Baltimore, Cleveland, Detroit, Philly even NYC to some degree it's pretty clear that degeneration of infrastructure and loss of prominence are a real threat with all the competition from the large and rapidly growing sunbelt cities. A building like TNP is only a symbol of determination, but its important on a larger scale than simple architecture or aesthetics.

[Lrfox]

Well stated, tocoto and itchy. I really don't see what's so bad about TNP. It's innovative, it's attractive, and yes, it's tall. The Bank of America building in Charlotte (Charlotte's tallest)is beautiful in my opinion, it's got a lot of fantastic details that go unnoticed until you look into them. First, the 60 floors are to represent each of the years that Queen Charlotte ruled, and the Crown on top is symbolic of her tiara. The lobby contains one of the world's largest frescoes. It's a fantastic building that seemingly fits any city, but really doesn't upon further investigation. The problem is that it doesn't blend into the neighborhood well and Charlotte isn't a pedestrian city, so the building serves no purpose other than looking good from afar.

TNP looks good from afar (at least in the renderings we've seen, my opinion is subject to change with the release of new renderings), has all sorts of environmental features, and i think the raised lobby (with escalators AND elevators, which every skyscraper has, so i don't see how this will keep people off the streets) and ground level park is revolutionary as is the rooftop garden. It'll be a new centerpiece in the already established financial district and will be a new destination there for people who normally would have no reason to stay in the financial district (much like people visit the Pru for the observatory or Top of the Hub). It'd be nice to see people there on Saturday and Sunday. The park on the bottom will be a nice alternative to P.O. Square which can get crowded on nicer days.

Most importantly, it'll be a step forward in eliminating the "plateau" that is the Financial District. Maybe you don't like TNP, but it opens the door for the 700-900 foot range of skyscrapers which could offer some really nice new buildings in the near and distant future which would create a whole new scale for the financial district.

I have a hard time seeing the problem with this building. Maybe i'm just caught up in the glitz and glamor of Boston having a supertall, but i don't think it's bad at all. I think the doors this will open up are good ones.

For the record, buildings like Stratosphere, CN Tower, and Space Needle don't fit into the "tallest" categories because they are "freestanding structures." Tall buildings are measured in 3 categories: height to tip of spire, height to roof, and height to highest inhabitable floor." Freestanding structures are measured differently, more on par with radio and tv antennas. The tallest building west of the Mississippi is the Library (U.S. Bank) Tower in L.A.

[nm88]

It's funny, all this talk about tall buildings makes me realize that my favorite places in my favorite cities are out exterior. I find I like the spaces, the outside rooms, that buildings create. Give me almost any block of the North End any day. Give me the parks of the South End. Hell, call me crazy, give me half the streets in low-rent Southie, growing less low-rent by the year unfortunately.

I'll take SoHo or the Village over mid-town day or night, weekday or (esp.) weekend. I'll take Golden Gate Park, or the Richmond District, or the Marina over SF's financial district. I'd take the Paseo Del Rio and Alamo Park over downtown San Antonio. And anyplace -- anyplace -- in Paris except Montparnasse and Le Defense.

It's not usually the buildings that entice me, it's the places they create, places where people tend to congregate. I dare say (though I'm no expert), when it comes to tourists, visitors to our fair town find the low-rise sections of our city (older and people-scaled) more interesting than The Pru, The Hancock, or Int'l Place. Belkin's building will prove novel and interesting for a short time, and then it will simply be what it is, another tall building, a variation on a theme that we've all seen in one fashion or another.

Tall buildings are fine, guys, don't get me wrong. But interesting elevators and escalators? Can we get real about this? Tourists, conventioneers and out-of-town visitors all want to do the same things us residents want to do -- drink with our friends, have a nice meal at a restaurant, see a ball game, catch a show, do a little sight-seeing and shopping. The only people "Jones-ing" about skyscrapers are those being paid to do so, and us odd ducks.

[vanshnookenraggen]

You know building TNP won't change the character of the North End, the parks of the South End, or the streets on Southie. If anything it will let you see Boston from a new vantage point, that being the observation deck. I would think that would make someone appreciate the city more, and from a different vantage point.

All your points are valid and I must say I agree entirely, but I don't see what any of them have to do with a skyscraper.

[castevens]

It's fine if the outskirts of a city are your favorite part, but there's no outskirts if there's no "inskirts." And I like that we're making the "inskirts" better.

[whighlander]

Boston has always had a skyline compete with spikes -- particularly from the harbor
It's just that as time proceeds the new skyline is higher on an average and so the spikes had to get not just higher but proportionately higher to be noticed.

I've got a print of a view of Boston from the harbor in 1853 -- from oil painting at the MFA by Fitz Henry or Fitz Henry Lane (born Nathaniel Rogers Lane). At this time the average city skyline is only about 3 or 4 stories {e.g. Bulfinch style warehouses} punctuated by several spires of prominent churches that tower over the average skyline {e.g. Old North {tallest until 1810} and Park Street {tallest until 1867}}.

Take a look at a photograph of Boston from the harbor made about 50 years later -- and the average downtown skyline is now 8 to 10 stories thanks to elevators and steel {and the Great Boston Fire that did the urban clearing} ? there is the 13 story Ames building {58m} but there are only a few church spires and bell towers that are taller than the 1853 view {exclusively in the BackBay's new development district ? most specifically the 72m tall Church of the Covenant on Newbury St}}.

In the 1915, with the Peabody & Stearns? addition to the old granite customs house {that was on the water in the 1853 view} there finally was an office building {151 m} taller than the church spires of 1853 and even the Church of the Covenant.

By about 1930 there are a handful of art deco towers in the financial district that are lower but comparable to the customs house tower {e.g. USM {24 story} , US Post Office 105m}}. Notably nothing is taller than the late 1800?s churches in the BackBay.

After the extended depressed period {depression + WWII + a few years -- 1947} we see the old Hancock tower finally nearly eclipse the Custom's House Tower {shorter by 1 foot} and its in the BackBay ? downtown the New England Telephone building {90m} is massive but still one hundred feet shorter than the Customs House Tower

Nearly another two decades will then pass before the Pru {1964 228m} definitively breeched the unofficial Customs House limit. In the next decade while the downtown skyline is rapidly surging {e.g. JFK {118m}, One Beacon {154m}} {One Boston Place {1970 183m}-- but note nothing even comes close to challenging the Pru for supremacy in the Back Bay until after the Hancock is built {and the windows stop falling {1976 241m}. Downtown tops out at 180+m {e.g. First National Bank {180m} International Place {183m} Federal Reserve Bank {187m} and One Financial Center {180m} and a few others of similar height}.

Now once again we have an opportunity to redefine the skyline -- and in particular to build new fangled mixed-use structures -- just like those {in function} that used to dominate the downtown in the Lane painting {e.g. downstairs shop, midlevel office, top floors rooms for rent}. However, the new ones can start at 200m and go on up.

So Let's build TNP and then we can decide how to build the next one that will be bigger and better -- perhaps at the location of the old Gov't Center Garage or the wasted space that is Boston City Hall.

Westy

[unterbau]

As if Piano leaving the TNP project weren't a big enough slap in the face, look how nice his new project for Brooklyn looks: http://img110.mytextgraphics.com/photolava/2008/01/25/299711citytechtower-49aernv4z.jpeg
http://img109.mytextgraphics.com/photolava/2008/01/25/200711citytechtowertwo-49aes0awg.jpeg

Source: http://curbed.com/archives/2007/11/27/piano_plays_brooklyn_with_downtown_tower.php

[czsz]

That design for Brooklyn isn't being built either.

[unterbau]

Hmmm, well then, carry on

[type001]

Source: http://curbed.com/archives/2007/11/2...town_tower.php (http://curbed.com/archives/2007/11/27/piano_plays_brooklyn_with_downtown_tower.php)

The comments are priceless!

Why is that all interesting architects dumb down their designs when they come to New York. This thing looks like a rejected Hudson Yards Proposal. Boxy, glassy, yawn.

I guess this is a shared mentality between NorthEastern cities. Although I think that is sounds way more overdramatic when a New Yorker says it.

He recycled the spire and the podium from the NY Times building.

Yep, pretty much. What is Piano's obsession with spires anyways? Maybe he has been spening a lot of time over at Skyscrapercity where everyone moans about buildings that DON'T have spires.

[Lrfox]

Am I alone in saying that i think the original rendering for TNP is much better looking than that Brooklyn rendering?

[type001]

Am I alone in saying that i think the original rendering for TNP is much better looking than that Brooklyn rendering?

No, I agree with you. That building is going to look a lot worse when (or if) it gets built. And I have a feeling that it would like much less desirable from other angles.

[unterbau]

The comments are priceless!

Why is that all interesting architects dumb down their designs when they come to New York. This thing looks like a rejected Hudson Yards Proposal. Boxy, glassy, yawn.

I guess this is a shared mentality between NorthEastern cities. Although I think that is sounds way more overdramatic when a New Yorker says it.

He recycled the spire and the podium from the NY Times building.

Yep, pretty much. What is Piano's obsession with spires anyways? Maybe he has been spening a lot of time over at Skyscrapercity where everyone moans about buildings that DON'T have spires.
The best is: Looks like an upright harmonica! Neat.

I can see certain elements that are similar to the NYT tower, but it's really worlds away from it - especially with the color. These guys really would've complained if Mies was putting a tower up, I bet...

[mpm617]

The problem with architects like Piano is that they seem unwilling to compromise with the customer (Belkin). If the guy who's actually paying for his services tells him he needs a bigger floor plate to make the numbers work why can't he accomodate that. Instead he walks off the job. Another architect with less of an ego problem could have used the larger floor plate to advantage.

[...create]

Does anyone know when the latest images of the CBT Design will be released?

[awood91]

hey type 001, do you have any more insider information to share with us? im getting restless about this project... :(

[type001]

hey type 001, do you have any more insider information to share with us? im getting restless about this project... :(

There isn't anything too new to report, but that's not necessarilly a bad thing. The grounds' crew manager (who reports directly to Belkin) keeps saying that everything is going according to schedule. September 12th is our last day here, and well over half of this building is already vacant. My company is one of the last to go. Demolition is suppose to take place in Octover/November. So if everything goes according to plan with the design and project dates, this building could potentially start construction in mid 2009.

I hope this puts your relestessness to rest a bit :-)

[statler]

^^ Or we get a new parking lot in the middle of the city.

(Sorry, is my pessimism showing?)

[Cojapo]

I want to believe that this is a go. I really do. But there has been no fighting or issues raised by any Nimby, group or politian. Is this approved, ready to go as soon as everything is vacated? I know the design has changed, no Piano and bigger floor plans. No "Manhattanization of Boston" concerns from anyone? Could it be to good to be true?

[Lrfox]

It sounds too good to be true, but Belkin is a rich and powerful man and he's the right type of person to pull something like this off in Boston; especially with the mayor's blessing. I can't believe we haven't heard from the FAA yet, but from what some of the more knowledgeable members here have said, the height at this location shouldn't interfere with any of the routes.

I think the kicker is going to be the design. We've seen Piano's rendering and no modified design since he left the project (has anyone been to the BRA lately? If so, anything new on this project?). I feel like while the reception of the original rendering was lukewarm at best, it might be one of outrage at the most likely dumbed-down design. The initial rendering was sleek enough to be sexy and not outrageous at the same time. This new, "fatter" tower could take ugly to a new level. Of course, I'm speculating, but what else is there to do at this point? Hope for the best, prepare for the worst, right?

[Riverworks]

I want to believe that this is a go. I really do. But there has been no fighting or issues raised by any Nimby, group or politian. Is this approved, ready to go as soon as everything is vacated? I know the design has changed, no Piano and bigger floor plans. No "Manhattanization of Boston" concerns from anyone? Could it be to good to be true?

Just because we're going through a period when development is bustling in Boston doesn't mean it's "Manhattanization" ... if anything I would think that some sort of Manhattanization is a good thing. Boston is a city in an urban context ... by trying to keep the city as it is we're restricting it from growing ... which could be detrimental in the long run. Since Bostonians have a long history of discipline and order I would say that's why NIMBY's are more hard to please, and as a result, less development is allowed. I just hope the tower passes ... the city needs a new addition to its skyline. My eye needs something new to focus on...

[type001]

... the city needs a new addition to its skyline. My eye needs something new to focus on...

You read my mind. I am yearing for something to break the table top that is the Financial District.

Boston02104, you said you had pictures of the latest renderings. What happened to those?

[kz1000ps]

Just because we're going through a period when development is bustling in Boston doesn't mean it's "Manhattanization"

We're with you on that, Cojapo included. He/she was merely referencing what other people have said on the growing up of the city (hence the quotations). I think every single person on this board rolls their eyes when they hear that phrase.

[BarbaricManchurian]

^^

lol, @ "she"

[kz1000ps]

Hey, just covering my bases..

[Lrfox]

^^

lol, @ "she"

why's that funny? I've said before that I would wager that at least 50% of archboston members are female. My proof was the fact that my girlfriend would NEVER make fun of me for spending a percentage of my daily time here.

When you go out on Thurs, Fri, or Saturday, say, "I post frequently on Archboston.com" to the closest hottie and there's no question you will get laid. It's a guarantee.

[castevens]

I just tried that. It didn't work. Jessica Alba just walked away without responding.

[tommym96]

Couldn't a slight "Manhattanization" of Boston be a sign of growth?

[BarbaricManchurian]

why's that funny? I've said before that I would wager that at least 50% of archboston members are female. My proof was the fact that my girlfriend would NEVER make fun of me for spending a percentage of my daily time here.

When you go out on Thurs, Fri, or Saturday, say, "I post frequently on Archboston.com" to the closest hottie and there's no question you will get laid. It's a guarantee.

OK WHO HERE IS FEMALE??? At most 5 or so infrequent posters. Same with skyscrapercity, where there's around 30 females total.

[Lrfox]

^^I was kidding. I don't know of one.

[kz1000ps]

Alright next time around I'm just gonna go with the all-inclusive "they."

[Cojapo]

Thanks kz.
I am all for the growth, upward and more dense, in Boston. I agree completely that Boston needs a new tower to focus on. I like the height of this project, but not too hot on the renderings. What I don't want to see in Boston are 150m towers sprouting up every where. I am more concerned with a "Houstonization" of Boston than a Manhattanization. A healthy future Boston is one that focuses on attracting developers to the city core. Urban sprawl really takes away from a city vitality. That is why a tower, at this height and this location, would be perfect.

[JimboJones]

Male.

[AdamBC]

Still alot of potential in this site, even if the proposed building isn't built.


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3167/2335880853_5323d4ffa1_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/24786860@N08/2335880853/sizes/o/)

[castevens]

What's even greater about the potential of the site is that the image is taken at the smaller side of the site. In red is the parking garage area, in orange is the building Belkin would also tear down to create Trans National, and in Green is what the camera caught. I'm just representing how truly large that property is

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i52/castevens12/115Federal.jpg

[AdamBC]

Wow. That is pretty impressive analysis.

What is the current over/under on this being built in the near future?

[unterbau]

Still alot of potential in this site, even if the proposed building isn't built.

I suppose even architecture nerds could get behind this:

http://img802.mytextgraphics.com/photolava/2008/03/17/35preview-49v0z3x74.jpeg (http://prudolph.lib.umassd.edu/node/13855)

[Cojapo]

Is that what the expansion idea was before the architect died?
Just tear it down. There are plenty of other contrete hulks in Boston that show this style and period of architecture, which, i.m.o, are nothing special.