Boston 2050

[DZH22]

I can't wait until the skyline view looks like this! I should mention there are a bunch of 200 foot precast blocks off to the right...

http://i424.photobucket.com/albums/pp322/DZH22/Buzzzzzzz/Raa/IMG_5940.jpg


Also, we got a great new park in the North End!

http://i424.photobucket.com/albums/pp322/DZH22/Buzzzzzzz/Raa/IMG_5266.jpg


It all just makes me so angry sometimes!!!

[Boston02124]

ha ha !

[Beton Brut]

Will RoboMumbles be Mayor?

[BostonUrbEx]

LOL

Lovely new park, by the way. Those corn stalks cast an awful shadow, though... I think we should thin them out a bit, there's just too many.

[DZH22]

Ok, I know it seems kind of stupid, but let's look at the cold hard numbers.

Boston's Top 10 (from emporis)
1. John Hancock Tower 790' 1976
2. Prudential Center 750' 1964
3. Federal Reserve 614' 1977
4. One Boston Place 601' 1970
5. One International Place 600' 1987
6. 100 Federal (BOA) 591' 1971
7. One Financial 590' 1983
8. 111 Huntington 554' 2002
9. Two International Place 538' 1992
10. One Post Office Square 525' 1981

So basically, the top 4 have been the same for 33 years, the top 7 the same for 23. I am amazed that 111 Huntington was built at all, but besides that and some lower high-rise height density, the skyline really has barely changed since I was a kid (I am now 28).

I have been on these sites for a decade, and have seen some pretty good projects come and go. Boylston Square, gone. South Station Tower, well it's been about 15 years with multiple revisions/height reductions, and no sign of a tower! Tommy's Tower is too tall and not really feasible at the moment anyways (need to keep that garage going!) Chiofaro and Menino don't get along, although most of those proposals really looked like garbage, something great can and should (and won't) be built on this site. What about the South Bay Development proposals? They seem to have just disappeared. The Copley Place Tower would be incredible (and barely 3rd tallest!) but I highly expect it to be cut down 5-10 floors, and then probably not built.

Obviously, Menino's policies have proven to have stalled taller skyscrapers in Boston, but what of the lasting damage with people crying about shadows and protecting parks? There is such a culture of fear to let something new and great be built in Boston. I used to sit on my friend's balcony and point out where all the new towers would be in 5-10 years. Of course, none of those are actually there. I am reduced to excitement over 300 footers because I expect nothing more.

So, truly, does anybody think any of these major projects are going to get off the ground? I love the density, but I really expected more. For those of you who look outside of Boston, the skyline is really falling behind in stature to both American and worldly cities. When people here want to build, it takes so long and by the time they CAN build, the window of opportunity is closed (not to mention many of these developers seem to be flat out extorted by the neighborhoods). I remember a proposal for a beautiful ~30 story apartment tower on the greenway, and it was shot down for "looking too iconic". It all makes me want to barf. Is there any reason I should still be optimistic about skyscrapers in this city?

[czsz]

Who gives a shit about the skyline? There are plenty of massive projects in Boston - the Greenway, the Seaport - but they're urban planning-related, not architectural. And they're doing active harm to the city, not merely being insufficient.

[unterbau]

a bunch of drama queens in here

[KentXie]

I see truth here, not drama. If you want to see a real drama queen, go find a NIMBY will ya.

[DZH22]

Who gives a shit about the skyline? There are plenty of massive projects in Boston - the Greenway, the Seaport - but they're urban planning-related, not architectural. And they're doing active harm to the city, not merely being insufficient.

The biggest problem with the greenway is that they refuse to let anything new and nice be built on it, (everything they backed has failed on its own, everything that COULD be built gets shot down, nothing but a 200 foot precast box allowed please!) so there are too many "dead zones" where there is no reason for people to stop or be drawn to that area of the park. The Seaport, well, what was there before? It's a whole new area of development, hampered by the FAA, and continues to show how messed up this city is when those large blocks keep being built no problem.

The skyline... well, this is like the first impression of the city. You see it well before you see the parks, or the seaport low/midrises, etc. I'm not on this site because I love the politics of it, or think we need more parks. I'm here because I love skyscrapers, and originally I saw all the projects and thought "wow Boston is going to look amazing in a few years!" Of course, all the big/semi-big ones are either canceled or delayed indefinitely. So, why are we holding up all these towers from 30-40 years ago on pedestals? As long as nothing is allowed to pass any of these and create new peaks, the city will continue to age from afar.

Here's some examples of cities getting great new towers...
Austin - the Austonian, 683 feet, almost completely finished, new tallest
Cincinnati - Queen City Square, 689 feet, outside basically done, new tallest
Calgary - The Bow, ~770, new tallest... EAP, 697, 3rd tallest
Mobile (Alabama!!!) - RSA Battlehouse Tower, built in 2007, 745', new tallest
Charlotte - Duke Energy Center, 764(+?), finishing up, new 2nd tallest
Oklahoma City - Devon Energy, 850'! U/C new tallest by 350'!
Philadelphia - Comcast Center, 975' 2008, new tallest

Let's go overseas a bit...
Perth, Australia - BHP Billiton Tower, UC, 768', new tallest
Brisbane, AU - Soleil, 797', Infinity Tower, 774', both UC, will be new 1/2

What about old historic cities?
London (I think we could argue that London has more history than Boston) - Heron Tower, finishing up, 650+ to roof, 750 to spire, new tallest in "the city"
also UC, The Shard, 1017', new tallest! The Pinnacle, 945', 2nd tallest after Shard!
Madrid - Just built 4 buildings in the 700-800' range
Moscow - Huge new business area, struggling with financing but incredibly ambitious with plenty of 1000'+ footers
Santiago, Chile - just built by far it's new tallest, Torre Titanium at 636(?) and currently building an even larger building, Costanera Center, 984' (300 meters = supertall)

I haven't even mentioned that about 15-20 Chinese cities are currently building 1000+ footers (check skyscrapercity for this one), or that even Vietnam is building huge (here's a real good one in Saigon http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=446673&page=34) I haven't mentioned the complete craziness of Dubai (terribly planned city) or other mideast counterparts, such as Doha, Abu Dhabi, or even Kuwait City (finishing up a 1350', I'm not kidding).

I guess I just want some of the excitement for my own. The city looks almost exactly like it did 20 years ago, and even 30 years ago would still be instantly recognizable today. So yeah, I do want Boston to build something bigger, so I'll have something new to point at one day and be excited about, instead of saying "you see that little guy peeking up over there? it's new". In 2050, when we are talking about the JHT as the "oldest reigning tallest of any major American city"... maybe then it will finally sink in.

[mass88]

DZH22, Boston has a better skyline than Charlotte, Cincinnati, Oklahoma City and Austin. Charlotte's skyline is essentially 5 or 6 tall buildings and then nothing but flat. Philadelphia has the best skyline of the American cities you mentioned.

I too agree that a skyline is important. But this is Boston, nothing of significance will get built.

111 Huntington is an awesome building and I would say is the best piece of development the city has seen in many years.

[JSic]

Who gives a shit about the skyline?
Me.

[statler]

I too agree that a skyline is important.

Paris and Prague prove this to be untrue.

[Beton Brut]

Paris and Prague prove this to be untrue.

Indeed, but do we have a large-scale "ancient" building to compete with Notre Dame (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/NotreDameDeParis.jpg), Sacre Coeur (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Sacre_Coeur_2009-02-28.JPG), or St. Vitus (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/PragueCathedral03.jpg).

I see where you're coming from, statler. I love tall buildings, but I love quality even more. We could remove about a third of what passes for a skyscraper in Boston and not be missing anything of genuine architectural value.

[KentXie]

Paris and Prague prove this to be untrue.

If you're going to provide examples in one way, why don't I provide examples the other way.

New York City and Hong Kong proved this to be true.

[DZH22]

Paris and Prague prove this to be untrue.

Actually, Paris has redone an older building in La Defense and made it into its new tallest (just a few feet shorter than the JHT). Check it out http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=456927&page=16
They also have plans for larger towers in that area, maybe even 1000'+.

[DZH22]

DZH22, Boston has a better skyline than Charlotte, Cincinnati, Oklahoma City and Austin. Charlotte's skyline is essentially 5 or 6 tall buildings and then nothing but flat. Philadelphia has the best skyline of the American cities you mentioned.

I too agree that a skyline is important. But this is Boston, nothing of significance will get built.

111 Huntington is an awesome building and I would say is the best piece of development the city has seen in many years.

Of course Boston has a better skyline than most of these cities! It's much older, much bigger, and its "bones" have been in place for a long time. The point is, it's not going to be better forever if it never builds with height again. Try matching up Boston's and Charlotte's 3 tallest. Charlotte goes 3 for 3! I always thought the best way to describe our skyline is "Boston has heft". However, slowly but surely, Boston is being caught from behind or lapped by cities it was on par with a decade ago (Toronto only had about 9 500 footers, Melbourne was close to even, look at them now). Trust me, I spend wayyyy too much time on all these sites, I know what's going on. I even spend tons of time on the diagrams, just comparing different cities' numbers of 500' buildings, 400', 300'... (not to mention taller or even as low as 200') and what I am seeing is that Boston ain't "keeping up with the Joneses", that's for sure!

[JSic]

New York City and Hong Kong proved this to be true.
LOL, exactly. I challenge anyone to suggest that NYC would be just as great without its overpowering skyline. Not that Boston has to be anything close to NYC in this regard, but even so, having tall, bold towers is an asset for any major city.

[statler]

La Defense =/= Paris.

When most people think of Paris, what they love about Paris, they are not thinking about La Defense.

New York, Chicago and Hong Kong (as well as a host of other cities) prove that skylines can be impressive but they don't prove they are important to be great cities (unless you want to argue that Paris and Prague aren't great cities). New York could (would?) still be a great city sans it's skyline.

[Marley]

Whatever isn't controlled by the nimby's is halted by the FAA. I think we need to accept that Boston is never going to be a city with great height and focus on the density. A whole bunch of 300 footers wouldn't be so bad if they're dense as hell. That and a vastly improved subway system would make Boston a city that would shit all over any of these domestic competitors and a lot of international ones too.

[kennedy]

I'm on Team Skyscrapers. There needs to be vertical density, so that when viewed from afar, the city seems larger. Many cities are perceived as being a lot larger than Boston, simply because there are fewer gaps in height. No one on this board would argue that skyline is superior to street-level density (I don't think), but it's certainly important from a visitor's perspective. Most people don't judge cities by their population densities, they judge them by the number and size of their skyscrapers - so if Boston wants to build up it's public perception, it needs skyscrapers and glamour projects. If Boston is going to grow, it needs skyscrapers - because Americans have very different attitudes towards cities than Parisians.

[statler]

5000 demerit points for the use of the term Team Skyscrapers.

To clarify, I'm not anti-skyscraper, but I just don't think they are vital to the makings of a great city.

[BostonUrbEx]

What's wrong with this?:

http://www.ronsaari.com/stockImages/boston/bostonSkyline.jpg

One thing. Heights? They are good enough, no? But there's holes where there COULD be buildings but are NOT. Height won't do anything to fill in gaps.

Does anything here actually violate any height restrictions besides those God awful Harbor Towers? Build at DTX, build at GC, built right up to (and in some places: on) the Greenway, and build on the Pike. Fill in everything you can and it will look great.

[kennedy]

Maybe irrelevant, but that picture looked really stretched out.


What, Stat, you're not a fan of Vampire and Werewolves and terrible writing, oh my?!

[TheRifleman]

What's wrong with this?:

http://www.ronsaari.com/stockImages/boston/bostonSkyline.jpg

One thing. Heights? They are good enough, no? But there's holes where there COULD be buildings but are NOT. Height won't do anything to fill in gaps.

Does anything here actually violate any height restrictions besides those God awful Harbor Towers? Build at DTX, build at GC, built right up to (and in some places: on) the Greenway, and build on the Pike. Fill in everything you can and it will look great.

Agree 100% right.........Fill in everything you can and it will look great

[Ronwell Pudding]

Skyscrapers are a function of the demand for office or residential space within the city. They both create and store wealth. They are not vital to making a great city, however they do represent the value that cities have as centers for business and opportunity. Therefore they are important if not vital components of a successful city.

Sufficient demand could produce a 1000 foot skyscraper in Boston's downtown core. Over the past 20 years wealth has spread horizontally across Boston's cityscape, capturing neighborhoods like the South End, Seaport, South Boston, Jamaica Plain and Fenway. This had made Boston a successful city worthy of national and international acclaim. It remains to be seen whether or not future growth will create the conditions that will lead to the construction of taller skyscrapers.

[Ronwell Pudding]

One way to try and forecast the demand for new skyscrapers is to look at the industry mix within the City. You can find the largest employers within the city of Boston here.

http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/pdf/ResearchPublications//pdr509.pdf

Currently the health care, insurance, finance and education industries dominate Boston. Most health care and educational institutions have no need for large office towers. The hope lies with the insurance (see Prudential Tower) and finance (see Federal Reserve Tower, Exchange Place etc.) industries. Look at Charlotte, why does it have such tall towers? It is major banking center. If these industries decide to expand their operations within the City of Boston, then you could see newer, larger skyscrapers.

Another way to forecast the demand for skyscrapers is to look at population growth. A large jump in Boston?s populations could fuel new demand for downtown high rise living. This link shows population growth by metro area from 1990-2000.

http://www.censusscope.org/us/metro_rank_popl_growth.html

Boston is all the way down at 229. Another good report on Boston?s future can be found here.

http://www.massbenchmarks.org/regions/boston.htm

Residential demand has peaked in the city center do to the availability of high end jobs and services. But the region as a whole is not growing at a fast enough rate to supply the area with a large scale residential towers.

A third way of anticipating the demand for new skyscrapers is assessing the impact of local politics. It is clear that Mayor Menino has been unable to build enough consensus to push his plans for taller buildings through to completion. Furthermore the political history of Boston?s built environment is one of destruction and regret (see West End and Government Center) along with bungling and incompetence (see Big Dig). This leaves little political will for large scale improvements and it promotes a vigorous defense of the city?s historical character. This can be stifling and stultifying for new growth. Boston has never been a place for tall buildings, see the height restrictions during much of the early 20th century building boom. It is also not a place for innovate architecture. Rather it tends to favor conservative styles that blend in with the surroundings.

Finally, you have to examine the cityscape itself. Boston?s downtown core is largely built out. There is very little room for new construction. Most if not all new buildings would have to be build upon existing structures. This leads to clashes with historic preservation groups. Furthermore given the tremendous availability of historic housing and neighborhoods, residential growth has spread out horizontally rather than vertically. There are plenty of fantastic neighborhoods within the city and its suburbs to settle leading to a lessening of demand for new high rise condos.

One last point deals with Boston?s image. Is Boston a striving city, trying to define a brand for itself that it can project to others? No it is not. The City has a well established brand that connects to its historic architecture, living history and quality of life, not its skyscrapers. It simply doesn?t need tall buildings to fulfill the role of herald to the world.

Personally I?d like to see one taller structure rise out of Boston?s downtown to give the skyline a better proportion. Boston?s skyline is great for the breadth and length, from downtown to the Back Bay. But its buildings are largely subpar. Living in Chicago now I don?t feel the need to defend Boston?s skyscrapers anymore. Most lack all sense of grace and proportion. Chicago is full of gorgeous architecture that I marvel at constantly. But it built its legacy upon that fact. It is part of the cities image and aura. Boston will see tall buildings for sure. Political will might change. One hotheaded developer can build a great building. In the end I thought I?d just give my 2 cents.

[Shepard]

If only Boston could learn a thing or two from its more world-class academic sister city...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Cambridge_Skyline.jpg

Just like Hong Kong!

[Pierce]

What's wrong with this?:

http://www.ronsaari.com/stockImages/boston/bostonSkyline.jpg

One thing. Heights? They are good enough, no? But there's holes where there COULD be buildings but are NOT. Height won't do anything to fill in gaps.

So true-- roads and sidewalks are outdated 20th century novelties, just public parks in sheep's clothing. Lets fill those gaps! I dream of a city of without room for windows, just party walls as far as the eye can see.

[Pierce]

LOL, exactly. I challenge anyone to suggest that NYC would be just as great without its overpowering skyline. Not that Boston has to be anything close to NYC in this regard, but even so, having tall, bold towers is an asset for any major city.

Midtown and Wall Street sell on postcards and in tourist albums but ask anyone who has spent significant time in New York which parts of the city are indispensable to it being "world class" and i don't thik you won't see much of a correlation to height.

The more I hear the "skyline" argument on archboston the more retarded it sounds

[czsz]

Good lord, Boston needs a larger skyline to be perceived as a larger and more important city?

Most people think Boston is far larger than it is. Show Boston's skyline to someone with no clue what the city's population is, and they'll venture a figure in the millions. The city is large enough to have 50+ story buildings, multiple skylines (how many other American cities can boast this?), and skyscrapers stretching into neighborhoods beyond the central Financial District cluster. It looks infinitely larger than it does on, say, a list of the US' largest cities by city proper population, or even by walking or driving through the tiny built up core (i.e., wherever the density of Central Boston doesn't collapse into a semi-suburban morass of taxpayers and triple-deckers).

If more growth in Boston were concentrated in skyscrapers, less would be able to fill in gaps - not the gaps you see in the skyline from afar, which actually make the city appear larger (because it appears that there are multiple major commercial districts) - but the gaps at street level. Kendall Square is banal and hideous, but most of it would still consist of parking lots if its office space had been clustered into a few 500 foot buildings.

Washington might be a better example than Paris or Prague. It's one of the country's fastest-growing metro economies, with practically zero recognizable skyline beyond the monuments at its core. Even the neighboring suburbs fail to muster anything like La Defense; the tallest buildings are barely much bigger than anything built at the Seaport.

[BarbaricManchurian]

^^that "semi-suburban morass of taxpayers and triple-deckers" is still denser than all but 2 major US cities

[BarbaricManchurian]

Seriously, discussion here is so academic at times that it ignores reality and conjures up idealized visions of what exists elsewhere, when it really isn't the case

[GW2500]

Some cities build 600 ft plus sky scrapers to compensate for the fact thtat they arnt urban. When a city like Boston, London, Paris, San Fran does it it just further solidifies it's place as a city in the post affordable Steele age. And it's frustrating that Boston hasn't cracked 600ft in soon to be 40 years. But then DC is awsomely urban at 14 stories.

[KentXie]

La Defense =/= Paris.

When most people think of Paris, what they love about Paris, they are not thinking about La Defense.

New York, Chicago and Hong Kong (as well as a host of other cities) prove that skylines can be impressive but they don't prove they are important to be great cities (unless you want to argue that Paris and Prague aren't great cities). New York could (would?) still be a great city sans it's skyline.

Hahaha, wrong. NYC would not be great without its skyline. Heck without the skyscrapers, NYC population would be probably 1/8 of what it is today.

[statler]

So "greatness" of a city is basically a dick measuring contest. Gotcha.

[KentXie]

If only Boston could learn a thing or two from its more world-class academic sister city...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Cambridge_Skyline.jpg

Just like Hong Kong!

I'm surprise my picture is still on wikipedia. This shot was back in 2006 I think.

[DZH22]

Quick word on Cambridge. 1-2 400 footers in/around Kendall would make that skyline seem so much larger. I really want to go to the MIT people and say "Hey, Harvard told me they were planning a 450 footer to have the signature building in Cambridge" and vice versa. Obviously ridiculous but is there a height limit over there? Could these be built in Cambridge?

I was in Boston today and I have to say at street level it really is an unbelievable city. I actually believe they should make a new GTA out of it, because the map/architecture/density/terrain is pretty mind-boggling. I definitely agree that many of the smaller projects make the city as a whole feel so much bigger from street level. I think Boston is probably my favorite urban city I have been to from a pedestrian's perspective. (including NYC, Chicago, Philly, Toronto, London, Montreal... actually big fan of Montreal too) The infill is all very good. Does this mean we should just stop building tall forever? Isn't there a limited amount of space to build, especially in the downtown? Why is it ok for some great proposals to be stopped dead in their tracks just because many smaller ones were able to trickle through? I don't think it's childish to expect a big city to build a tall building once in awhile, especially when it's beneficial to the city and the developer is actually able to build it. Any major proposal in Boston always gets attacked from all angles, put through the grinder far more than seems reasonable, often extorted, and delayed to the point of infeasibility. Why do we defend this, and decry any new attempts at greatness in our city? I think the worst argument I have ever heard is against a little extra shade in our parks. If you don't think there should be tall buildings around you, then go move to the suburbs.

Even European cities are finding areas to build taller buildings. Seriously, there's a place for them. It's called the city. It saves space, attracts companies, thus more jobs, more taxes, more vitality instead of protecting garages or Mass Pike gashes or a park from a 15 minute shadow in December.

I mean, to those of you who are trying to shit all over the concept of skyscrapers, I ask you, please present to me your argument why you believe Boston should never build tall (600+) again. To think that in 2050, from 5 miles out the city is going to look essentially the same... Well I'm sorry, but that just doesn't sit well with me.

[statler]

Who is shitting all over the concept on skyscrapers in this thread?

The argument is whether or not they are necessary in order for a city to be a great city.

[DZH22]

Actually, the argument is whether or not we will see skyscrapers built in Boston again that rival/surpass in height those built 20-40 years ago. Will anything that big make it out of the ground in the foreseeable future? The people who run Boston, and an absurdly vocal minority of its residents, seem to be completely against any new large buildings being built here. Even if they don't outwardly say it, too many forces go out of their way to hinder large developments in the city of Boston. I took it to the extreme by forecasting out 40 years, but with the current attitude, will anything of this height ever be built in our city again?

[kennedy]

I thought we were arguing over the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?

Stat, I think that in order for a city to be great, it needs to be perceived by the general public as great. And I think that for the general public, skyscraper dick measuring is a common metric of greatness. At least, in terms of first impressions.

[kz1000ps]

I thought we were arguing over the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?

African or European?

PS this thread makes my head hurt.

[GW2500]

Bottom line, in exclusive regards to sky scrapers, we have 2 legit ones and they're closing in on 40 years old. I'd love to see a few more. Because basically the skyline hasn't changed much since I was a kid, I just turned 30, and just from a sky line perspective, that's kind of stagnant.

[AmericanFolkLegend]

Hahaha, wrong. NYC would not be great without its skyline. Heck without the skyscrapers, NYC population would be probably 1/8 of what it is today.

That's kind of an aggressive estimate. Before most of those skyscrapers were built (1920 census), NYC's population was 2/3rds what it is today. Density doesn't have to be vertical (though I tend to agree with most people on this board that it should be both vertical and horizontal).

[gooseberry]

Skyscrapers have nothing to do with how great a city is. I don't care if another skyscraper ever gets built in Boston. Skyscrapers can be nice to look at from a distance, but it's what is happening at street level that counts. Is La Defense the best neighborhood in Paris? Ya, don't think so.

[AmericanFolkLegend]

Good point Gooseberry. And you could certainly argue that the best neighborhoods in NYC are not Downtown or Midtown. But height doesn't hurt either.

[TheRifleman]

Not sure if this post goes here.

http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/news/getting_real/?p=288#comment-628

The perils facing Boston?s Innovation District
With a good amount of fanfare, the city of Boston announced in July that it was rebranding one of its neighborhoods as the Innovation District. The area is approximately 1,000 acres in size and is located adjacent to Boston?s financial district and the South Boston neighborhood, facing the Boston Harbor.

The strategy and core principles behind the District are outlined on its website but basically it whittles down to the idea that people who live and work together can (and will) create great things. It supposes a high-density neighborhood full of offices and creative spaces, where people live in communal housing, sharing friends and social, emotional, and financial ties, and where there are plenty of shops, stores, and restaurants, and adequate public transportation nearby, alleviating the need for individually-owned automobiles.

The Innovation District neighborhood is made up of at least two, and maybe as many as four, distinct areas - the Seaport District, which is currently a mass of parking lots interspersed with a couple of office buildings; the Boston Marine Park, owned by the Boston Redevelopment Authority; the Fort Point Channel and A Street redevelopment area, home to several mid-rise office buildings (including headquarters of Thomson Reuters), a couple of condominium buildings, the US Post Office Annex, and empty space awaiting a turn in the economy; and the area around the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center, where a major expansion has been proposed and where several new hotels may be built.

I was originally pretty skeptical about the whole thing. It just seems as if it was just lipstick on a pig. Or, just a name-change in search of an idea.

But, that?s just me being cynical and whiny. It took awhile, but I?ve bought into it. I want it to succeed.

However, there are so many issues, things that could keep it from happening.

* Fearing change - I?ve been to several community meetings where proposals for projects in the District have been discussed. Almost universally, the plans are met with varying levels of rejection from a disparate group of people - mostly, ?neighbors?. I say ?neighbors? in quotations because many of those who express concerns live far from where the projects will take place. I feel that the South Boston neighborhood is too far from the Innovation District to be affected by any new developments, yet some people there feel their opinions should take priority over anyone else?s.

Members of the Fort Point Channel neighborhood association have been adamant in their belief that any new development be primarily residential, at least until an equilibrium with commercial office space is achieved. (And, by residential, I mean condominiums, not apartments - there?s been a reluctance on some residents? parts to embrace plans to build an apartment complex on A Street near Melcher Street). And, the Boston Harbor Association, although its intentions are good, is wayyy too involved in the decision-making that goes on in this part of the city. Who asked you?

* Competing with private developers - Anytime the city is competing against private developers, it?s a bad thing, in my opinion. The Mayor proposed a 1,000-foot skyscraper several years back on land currently a city-owned parking lot. How many 1,000-foot skyscrapers can the city handle? There is finite demand for office space. I don?t think that private landowners should have to compete for tenants with public entities. The Boston Redevelopment Authority owns the Boston Marine Park. Will it build first? (It?s already put two parcels out to bid.) Will doing so keep other developers from being able to build because they won?t see the financial benefit of doing so? Will it be able to offer deals that private developers can?t, because it isn?t required to make a profit and because it doesn?t pay property taxes?

There is over 32 million square feet of projects already approved for construction in the city (entire city, and includes commercial and residential), according to the BRA. Why would private developers build in the Innovation District vs. in the financial district or in Back Bay, especially if the BRA is already permitting construction on its own land?

* Over-planning - The Mayor says ?Everybody expects us to build high-rise condominiums, offices, and retail in the South Boston waterfront; that?s anywhere America [but] don?t want to be that location of anywhere America? while city planners swear they don?t want the neighborhood to become ?a hipster playground for the techno elite?, a quote from the Boston Globe.

So what, then?

Do good neighborhoods happen by accident or are they planned? If you look at Back Bay, it was all planned. If you look at the South End, however, its rebirth was almost by accident, not design. The planners of the Innovation District are in danger of going too far in designing its function. It should offer guidelines but not specifics.

How do you keep this area from becoming high-end? By forcing developers to build moderate-income housing? What world would it be if artificial limits were set on what the market would allow? The highest and best use of much of the Boston Proper neighborhoods appears to be residential - high-end residential. Why mess with capitalism and simple economics? There?s plenty of cheap housing in Allston and Brighton and West Roxbury and Roslindale and Roxbury and Dorchester and South Boston and Hyde Park and Mission Hill. Why force things? And who decides who gets the discounted housing and why them vs. other groups?

* Playing favorites - I may be the only person in Boston who doesn?t believe the Mayor plays favorites. I say he doesn?t, but only because I haven?t seen these things or heard, first-hand. I read all the time about how the Mayor and Don Chiofaro are ?enemies? and how the Mayor is buddies with Joe Fallon, but how would I know? I?ve never met any of them.

But, assuming these rumors are true, then it doesn?t bode well for the District. Will the Mayor let his pals do whatever they want while fixing the game against those who have crossed him in the past?

* Losing faith - Yeah, yeah, yeah. Everyone complains about how that area has never filled its potential. I agree - in my 20-years+ of living here I?ve heard of at least three different proposals for the site. It?s to be expected that people are cynical. Yet, it doesn?t mean that things won?t improve. Yes, we missed yet another opportunity to redevelop the Seaport District because the economy crashed and burned in 2007-2009, but there is still real potential to make things happen, now. You have some big names involved - Joe Fallon, John Hynes, and John Drew (and, until last year, Edward Fish and Bob Kraft). Presumably, they?re thinking long-term and are willing to put in the time (and money) necessary to make the District a vibrant and healthy neighborhood (and, it?s a requirement if they plan on making returns on their investments).

* Changing of the guard - What happens when Mayor Menino leaves office? Be it 2013 or 2017, his reign will one day end. Will a new mayor want to continue what the current mayor has started or will he/she want a fresh start? The way it is now, planning new buildings will take up to two years, meaning it will be 2012 before any shovels will be put into the ground. This will push up right against the next mayoral election - will developers rush to get started before the next cycle begins or wait it out to see what happens?

Map image courtesy of the Innovation District website

[nm88]

Skyscrapers have nothing to do with how great a city is. I don't care if another skyscraper ever gets built in Boston. Skyscrapers can be nice to look at from a distance, but it's what is happening at street level that counts. Is La Defense the best neighborhood in Paris? Ya, don't think so.

^^ Here, here!! Yes!!

We are Boston!! Comparing us to Charlotte?? Atlanta!!! You gotta be kidding me!!

Those cities would die to be what we are.

[GW2500]

^^ I think every one agrees about all that. This is strickly addressing will Boston build another sizable tower b/c it's been 40 years.

[czsz]

^^^ Thanks for posting that article, Rifleman; IMO, it should go in the Seaport thread.

[Ron Newman]

Please include the author's name when reposting an article like that. This one was written by John Keith.

[BostonUrbEx]

According to this single line I made:

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=118139235135205296914.00048dcb4a69841301a12&t=h&z=13


South Station towers over the platforms would be in no more danger than 111 Huntington.

[Lurker]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgqTS3XcAuI&feature=player_embedded

It's a prolific view of Boston's future!

City Hall Plaza and the Seaport District look amazing!

[czsz]

Some of that sculpture looks a lot like those fog-emitting things on the Greenway.

[SeamusMcFly]

http://i1000.photobucket.com/albums/af127/seamusmcfly1978/DSCI0087-1.jpg?t=1283946046

Somebody else can photoshop Raquel in....

[TheRifleman]

Can anybody pull this article from Banker & Tradesman?

Cornering The Market
A Towering Monopoly
How Boston Properties Is Poised To Rule Boston?s Back Bay ? And Beyond


By Jim Cronin

Banker & Tradesman Staff Writer
Yesterday

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It?s a position that could yield an enormous amount of influence in the neighborhood in coming years, sources told Banker & Tradesman ? and serve as a jumping-off point for future purchases elsewhere in the city.

[JANAM]

Cornering The Market
A Towering Monopoly
How Boston Properties Is Poised To Rule Boston?s Back Bay ? And Beyond


By Jim Cronin

Banker & Tradesman Staff Writer
Yesterday

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After its headline-grabbing acquisition of Boston's John Hancock Tower, Boston Properties has put itself in the driver's seat in the city's famed Back Bay.

The company adds the Hancock to a Back Bay portfolio already containing the Prudential tower and 111 and 101 Huntington Ave. Boston Properties is now, essentially, the only landlord for tenants looking to sign leases in the area's signature properties.

It?s a position that could yield an enormous amount of influence in the neighborhood in coming years, sources told Banker & Tradesman ? and serve as a jumping-off point for future purchases elsewhere in the city.

?It neutralizes the competitor,? said Meg Mainzer-Cohen, president of the Back Bay Association, a local business advocacy group. ?They have the corner on the market. It certainly confirms their investment in Boston, specifically the Back Bay.?

The move comes at a time when commercial landlords are realizing they may not need to be downtown to succeed, industry insiders said. From an employee lifestyle perspective, areas including the Back Bay offer more dining and entertainment options ? and less hassle ? than the Financial District.

?The Back Bay is turning into the No. 1 location for office use if you have the choice,? said John Rosenthal, president of Meredith Management. Meredith is in the process of creating Fenway Center, a five-building, 1.3 million-square-foot, mixed-use development to be located between Beacon Street and Brookline Avenue outside Kenmore Square. ?In the long-term, the Hancock is a great investment. Depending on [Boston Properties?] rent structure, it will affect everyone else in the Back Bay.?



A Target Property

According to Bryan Koop, senior vice president and regional manager for Boston Properties, the Hancock tower has always been on the company?s target property acquisition list, along with several other locations and sites for future development, though he would not specify what sites.

?Our experience has been that when the opportunity to acquire one of those truly ?one of a kind? properties like the John Hancock Tower arises, it attracts capital and tremendous competition,? Koop wrote in an mail to Banker & Tradesman.

As a landlord in a number of urban markets ? including New York City, San Francisco and Boston ? where open, developable land is restricted, the company?s trophy property portfolio becomes exponentially more valuable than it might be in other cities.

?It makes the pre-existing real estate all the more precious,? Mainzer-Cohen said.

Boston Properties paid $289.5 million in cash and took on $640.5 million in debt to acquire the Hancock, for an announced price of $930 million.

The tower?s seller, a partnership between Normandy Real Estate Partners and Five Mile Capital Partners, bought the Hancock for $660 million just last year ? after buying large chunks of mezzanine debt owed by then-owner Broadway Partners. When Broadway defaulted on that debt last January, Normandy and Five Mile scooped up the prize.

Last year?s announced price of $660 million included the same $640 million outstanding mortgage assumed by Boston Properties, plus $20.1 million in mezzanine debt already owned by Normandy and Five Mile.

But Normandy and Five Mile controlled much more mezzanine debt than the $20.1 million they bid with, perhaps as much as several hundred million dollars worth, Banker & Tradesman reported at the time. Factoring in the price paid to acquire a controlling interest in the Hancock?s mezzanine debt would push Normandy/Five Mile?s true purchase price into the $800 million range.

?The Right Buy?

Still, the most recent $930 million price tag, while below the $1.3 billion the tower fetched at the market?s peak in 2006, does illustrate at least a marginal increase in the value of real estate in the city, particularly the Back Bay ? welcome news after several years of price depreciation.

Boston Properties is acquiring the tower at a high point. It is 95 percent occupied, thanks to Normandy?s efforts in inking Bain Capital to an approximately 200,000-square-foot lease earlier this year.

After a relatively dormant period of high-profile commercial sales in recent years, Boston Properties, in particular, seems poised to pick up the pieces.

?It?s a strong statement for the city of Boston,? because it provides a benchmark sale against which to judge future large transactions, something which had been lacking the past few years, said Mark Vaughan, a senior partner specializing in real estate at law firm Riemer & Braunstein. ?This shows that there?s a tremendous amount of capital waiting on the sidelines.?

And since Boston Properties now has the bases loaded in the Back Bay, it would not surprise at least one local commercial real estate titan if they decided to expand further into the downtown area.

John Hynes, CEO and managing partner of Boston Global Investors, part-owners of the stalled Filene?s development in Downtown Crossing and developers of a $35 billion, 100 million-square-foot project near Seoul, South Korea, told Banker & Tradesman he could see Boston Properties purchasing a property downtown, ?if they get the right buy.?

When asked to elaborate, Hynes offered no further comment, and said the company has not approached him about the currently for-sale Filene?s site.

[JohnAKeith]

Hmm. So Jim Cronin and Scott Van Voorhis both write for the Boston Courant and Banker & Tradesman. Do I smell merger?

[TheRifleman]

Biotech conference says it is too big for Hub to host
By Casey Ross
Globe Staff / October 30, 2010
A prestigious international conference on biotechnology has opted not to return to Boston in 2015, citing a lack of hotel rooms and meeting space in the city.

Tweet 7 people Tweeted this..
Yahoo! Buzz ShareThis .Organizers of the BIO conference, which brings together the industry?s top companies and scientists, said it is still coming to Boston in 2012, but that future visits may be impossible unless the city expands its convention center. Organizers chose Philadelphia over Boston for the 2015 event because that city is already expanding its convention facilities.

?Boston just doesn?t have enough exhibit space,?? said Robbi Lycett, vice president of conferences for BIO. The loss of BIO?s future business would be a huge blow to a region that prides itself on being a hub of the life sciences industry and would deprive Boston of millions of dollars in business. BIO?s conferences typically draw 20,000 attendees, who would spend at hotels, restaurants, and tourist attractions.

?If we can?t host the conference, we lose the opportunity to bring the industry?s leaders to our stage,?? said Robert Coughlin, chief executive of the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council, a business association.

The news of BIO?s reservations goes to the heart of a debate over expanding the six-year-old Boston Convention & Exhibition Center. A panel of 25 public officials and business leaders is examining the size and scope of a possible expansion. So far, the panel has floated a plan to nearly double the size of the facility, to more than 1 million square feet, at a cost of nearly $1 billion. The group is expected to release final recommendations early next year.

?BIO?s concerns speak to all the reasons why we?re talking about the need for expansion and additional hotel rooms,?? said James Rooney, executive director of the state agency that operates the convention center. He said the shortage of exhibit space and hotel rooms has already caused the South Boston convention center to turn away or lose out on hosting dozens of events, at a cost of $480 million in projected economic activity.

Skeptics, however, said that by some measures, the convention center still has not met projections for economic activity at its current size, and so does not deserve additional investment. Jim Stergios, director of the Pioneer Institute, a public policy research group, said the convention authority initially projected its business would generate more than 650,000 hotel room stays per year; instead it has produced only around 300,000.

?They?re asking us to just trust them on this when they failed the first time around,?? Stergios said. ?They?ve done a good job managing what they?ve been given, but this was probably something that shouldn?t have been built in the first place.??

Rooney said bookings have fallen short, in part because the size of the center?s main exhibition hall was reduced by 80,000 square feet during construction. ?The Pioneer Institute projected that this would be a white elephant and that Boston could never succeed as a convention city and we have generated over $3 billion in economic activity,?? Rooney said.

Opened in 2004, the convention center has steadily grown, with attendance at events at more than 540,000 last year, up from 200,000 in 2005. But Rooney said the facility is now operating at maximum capacity and cannot host the largest conferences unless it expands.

He said the panel is considering expanding the amount of exhibit space to between 800,000 square feet and 1 million square feet, and building a second large hotel.

Any expansion would need approval and funding from the state Legislature and governor.

Lycett, the BIO conference planner, said Boston?s lack of exhibit space is its biggest problem. Her conference needs about 650,000 square feet for its main floor and an 80,000-square-foot ballroom for keynote speeches and other large events. The Boston facility now offers a 516,000-square-foot exhibit hall and a 40,000-square-foot ballroom.

Another problem is hotel rooms. Boston offers only about 1,700 rooms within walking distance of the convention center, requiring large conferences to shuttle attendees from hotels across the city. When the BIO conference was last in Boston in 2007, it spent $1 million on transportation.

?Attendees don?t like sitting in rush-hour traffic for 40 or 50 minutes to get to a meeting,?? Lycett said.

Casey Ross can be reached at cross@globe.com.


http://www.boston.com/business/healthcare/articles/2010/10/30/biotech_conference_says_it_is_too_big_for_hub_to_h ost/

[Arborway]

Another problem is hotel rooms. Boston offers only about 1,700 rooms within walking distance of the convention center, requiring large conferences to shuttle attendees from hotels across the city. When the BIO conference was last in Boston in 2007, it spent $1 million on transportation.

I love how state spent over $600 million on the Silver Line, and it's not even considered a viable transportation option by convention organizers.

[JohnAKeith]

I was passed out on the couch tonight and started thinking about Boston 2050. It's only 40 years away! I think the common wisdom is that nothing ever changes in Boston but if we look back 50 year from today, 1960, we will all agree that things have changed, DRASTICALLY, in this city.

So, I'm thinking of writing a long article about what the city might look like in 2050. Yeah, you'd hope that the city and the Boston Redevelopment Authority would be doing the same thing but I've never heard or read anything that makes me think they are concerned about anything except what might happen within the next 3-5 years.

Off the top of my head (and this is after sucking up about half a can of alcohol-infused whipped cream), here's the changes I think we might see. (Please don't steal these ideas for your own Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper article.)

* Seaport District turned into a casino / adult-entertainment mecca (unsuccessfully, btw); much of the surface parking spaces turned into multi-level parking garages

* Rose Kennedy Greenway - mostly abandoned, full of homeless people, skid-row similar to the wharf district circa 1920's

* Chiofaro building - 3/4's built, abandoned due to financial crisis of 2015-2030

* Chinatown - intact, successful, insular

* North Station - successful

* North End - sketchy, broken-down, due to anti-development fervor.

* Government Center - redeveloped

* Downtown Crossing - mostly abandoned, no-man's land, except near Chinatown, where colleges have dormitories

* South End - sketchy, broken-down, due to anti-development fervor.

* Commonwealth Ave - turned from condos to apartments due to real estate crash of 2015-2020; each year, a street-long celebration is held similar to New Orleans during Mardi Gras. Prostitution always a threat.

* New Fenway is built to replace Fenway Park. Only after the new ballpark is proposed to people realize that 20-years of land-acquisition by the owners of the team was done with the sole purpose of building a new park just 20-feet from the existing park. Existing park torn down, replaced with surface parking.

* Commonwealth Ave past Kenmore Square - Boston University convinces city to close street to automobile traffic. In its place, a rapid-transit trolley line. One lane of traffic remains on each side, for deliveries and bus traffic. At Packard's Corner, Comm Ave does a turn onto Brighton Ave

* Bowker's Overpass redone, new on-off ramps to Mass Pike and Storrow Drive created

* Mass Turnpike decks built between Washington Street and Southeast Expressway; housing built for Chinatown residents and office towers, too

Anything else?

[KentXie]

^^MassPike is entirely covered by an urban forest. However, it just as dead as the RKG.

Filene's is finally built, by a two story building that resembles the portion that was demolished.

BU builds over the highway with new dorms and facilities.

South Station is connected to North Station with cost overruns.

Charlestown bridge collapses in 2020 and a new bridge is erected in late 2022.

Fan Pier is finally completed in 2035.

Bombardier cars of the Red Line replaced in 2025.

South Bay (over the MassPike) is built in the same style as South Boston in 2045.

Boston annexes Dedham in 2030.

NEU merges with one or more schools of Longwood.

Revolution relocates to Somerville in 2020, the same time as when Assembly Square is completed.

[found5dollar]

you forgot flying cars.

[GW2500]

^^ According to Back to the Future II, we should have them by 2015. Along w/ hover boards

[TheRifleman]

^^ According to Back to the Future II, we should have them by 2015. Along w/ hover boards

2015- we might be back to Diesel. Seems that the Nation is going backwards.

[TheRifleman]

On another negative note. How depressing was Massachusetts elections?

The same gang with the same ideas of no Accountability or Transparency.
Are our voters that uneducated?

[bdurden]

Were the alternatives that much better, or even at level?

[TheRifleman]

Were the alternatives that much better, or even at level?

Probably not, but having the same people in office for 20 years is insanity. We need term limits with fresh ideas. Barney Frank being in office for almost 30 years is a disgrace to the founding fathers.

Insanity
"doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.?

[Pierce]

can we start with the mayor?

At least Frank is articulate, and I buy him as a thinker. I agree with you on term limits, but he would be in the final phase of lifers i'd replace.

[GW2500]

Eh, if the people didn't want a person, they can vote you out, or if bad enough impeach you. Term limits also have draw backs. How concerned are you about fixing up a house you are only going to live in for 4 years.

[Justin7]

We need term limits...

Why do you want to take away my freedom to vote for who I want to vote for?

Don't tread on me, The Rifleman.

[KentXie]

Probably not, but having the same people in office for 20 years is insanity. We need term limits with fresh ideas. Barney Frank being in office for almost 30 years is a disgrace to the founding fathers.

Insanity
"doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.?

There is a reason I wouldn't vote for the Republican alternatives and it's because they think exactly as your quote. No offense to republican backers.

[AmericanFolkLegend]

There is a reason I wouldn't vote for the Republican alternatives and it's because they think exactly as your quote. No offense to republican backers.

Since when are Republicans all about change?

[statler]

Since when are Republicans all about change?
January 1, 2009?

[KentXie]

Since when are Republicans all about change?

Exactly my point.

[TheRifleman]

There is a reason I wouldn't vote for the Republican alternatives and it's because they think exactly as your quote. No offense to republican backers.

We should have term limits for every political position just like the presidency. It does help with fresh ideas. After 20 years of the same bunch running with the same gang it just becomes to lopisided.

Dems or Republicans. Don't you understand it doesn't matter who you vote for these days the same people own both parties
Rothschild quote: "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws."

Scott Brown didn't even have the balls to audit the Fed.

[bdurden]

Probably not, but having the same people in office for 20 years is insanity. We need term limits with fresh ideas. Barney Frank being in office for almost 30 years is a disgrace to the founding fathers.

Insanity
"doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.?

Barney is a disgrace how?

[TheRifleman]

Barney is a disgrace how?


When Barney was promoting FNM and FRE. These companies did not file financials for 3 years with the SEC. Barney & Dodd continued to ignore red flags also acceptted campaign contributions from FNM & FRE Excutives as everybody knew something was wrong when a company stops filing their finanicials. To this day I don't know how Chris Cox the head of the SEC at the time did not boot these companies off the NYSE.

The real issues are the Executives to these companies who reaped millions of dollars in bonus's when the companies never filed financials for 3 years. Blantant fraud under Barney and Dodd who oversaw the finance committee in Washington.

Then bailed them out. The executives should be arrested for Taxpayer fraud.

This is just one case

[Beton Brut]

Some interesting thoughts from one of my heroes (NSFW):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JChUO4TLjnY