What was proposed and what was built.

[AdamBC]

Originally Posted by Ron Newman

It would have been a cool icon, a bit like U of Pittsburgh's Cathedral of Learning.

That's what I thought of as well. Shame it wasn't built.

[datadyne007]

It would have fit in perfectly with the rest of Gotham Boston that was being proposed.

[czsz]

Someone please create a thread detailing Gotham Boston in all its hypothetical and unrealized glory.

[datadyne007]

Originally Posted by czsz

Someone please create a thread detailing Gotham Boston in all its hypothetical and unrealized glory.

... it's pretty much this thread.

[DZH22]

I know this doesn't quite belong here, but I wasn't exactly sure where to put it either. Still worth sharing. http://www.boston.com/business/galle...?p1=News_links

[KentXie]

^That article which Boston.com posts up around every 3 months annoys me because truth be told, the city's skyline hasn't changed since 2003.

[vanshnookenraggen]

It's still interesting to see the changes since the New Boston turned things around.

[czsz]

Originally Posted by KentXie

^That article which Boston.com posts up around every 3 months annoys me because truth be told, the city's skyline hasn't changed since 2003.

More like 1993 (quick glance and you'd barely notice the changes, really).

[datadyne007]

Originally Posted by czsz

More like 1993 (quick glance and you'd barely notice the changes, really).

You just can't discredit 111 Huntington like that. That had a major impact on the skyline. The Pru no longer stands in isolation with that stunning glass tower next to it. Copley Place will soon do an even better job at filling in a critical gap.

[whighlander]

Originally Posted by czsz

More like 1993 (quick glance and you'd barely notice the changes, really).

CZ -- actually the view from Logan on the taxi to the terminal is quite distinctly different -- even since 2008 due the new construction in the SPID

[KentXie]

Originally Posted by datadyne007

You just can't discredit 111 Huntington like that. That had a major impact on the skyline. The Pru no longer stands in isolation with that stunning glass tower next to it. Copley Place will soon do an even better job at filling in a critical gap.

Don't forget Millennium Place I & II + 1 Lincoln Place and 33 Arch St. Those are real additions to the Boston skyline, not the bunch of 250-350 ft of glass boxes that we have been getting recently. The only decent addition we got recently is Atlantic Wharf, due to the fact that it has decent height and it lights up at night.

Oh and 45 Province St. would be there too, even with its dimunutive height had it not be blocked out by tall towers and Beacon Hill.

[datadyne007]

Originally Posted by whighlander

CZ -- actually the view from Logan on the taxi to the terminal is quite distinctly different -- even since 2008 due the new construction in the SPID

Very true. I was fortunate enough to have the window seat on the way home from Deutschland on the right side of the aircraft, so I had that spectacular view of the city as we were approaching. Atlantic Wharf's ridiculously bright crown really helps to establish your bearings as well.

Also, agreed Kent. The date led me to think of 111 first.

[czsz]

Sorry, I just don't see that dramatic an impact on the skyline from either 111 Huntington or the new glass towers downtown. They make nice filler, but they haven't redefined the city the way the towers of the 60s-80s had.

To really change the Financial District needs a centerpiece tower that rises above the 40-story plateau (SST? the ill-fated Winthrop Square tower?) or something that extends the skyline in a new direction (Gov't Center project?) The Back Bay would need something equal to the height of the Pru or Hancock or else something near to it but not in-between (like the Boylston Square tower).

The SPID does nothing for the skyline, really. I know, flightpaths etc., but imagine if the SPID had been built out the way Toronto developed its western waterfront:



A few years ago, none of the towers to the left of the CN Tower existed. That's a real change.

[whighlander]

Originally Posted by czsz

Sorry, I just don't see that dramatic an impact on the skyline from either 111 Huntington or the new glass towers downtown. They make nice filler, but they haven't redefined the city the way the towers of the 60s-80s had.

To really change the Financial District needs a centerpiece tower that rises above the 40-story plateau (SST? the ill-fated Winthrop Square tower?) or something that extends the skyline in a new direction (Gov't Center project?)

The Back Bay would need something equal to the height of the Pru or Hancock or else something near to it but not in-between (like the Boylston Square tower).

The SPID does nothing for the skyline, really. I know, flightpaths etc., but imagine if the SPID had been built out the way Toronto developed its western waterfront:

CZ -- by your logic -- " The Back Bay would need something equal to the height of the Pru or Hancock or else something near to it but not in-between (like the Boylston Square tower). " -- there is only one building in Toronto --the Cz - er CN Tower

[czsz]

My logic is twofold. A dramatic change in skyline can occur:

1. When the length of the skyline is extended
2. When a building within the current cluster grows larger than those already within it

The Toronto extension meets criterion 1, if not criterion 2.

[whighlander]

Originally Posted by czsz

My logic is twofold. A dramatic change in skyline can occur:

1. When the length of the skyline is extended
2. When a building within the current cluster grows larger than those already within it

The Toronto extension meets criterion 1, if not criterion 2.

Cz -- then so does the SPID and Altantic Wharf -- by criteria 1 -- from the airport the skyline has been greatly extended to the south

For that mattter you can make a credible claim that BU extended the skyline to the West when viewed from the Cambridge bank of the Charles

[czsz]

Maybe I should add a corollary to my points that we need to be talking about substantially taller buildings than anything in the SPID for there to really be "skyline" growth. The SPID buildings are like forest brush compared to downtown's trees.

BU I will grant you has had a powerful impact, but it's so far removed from the Back Bay skyline that it doesn't really help "extend" it.

[whighlander]

Originally Posted by czsz

Maybe I should add a corollary to my points that we need to be talking about substantially taller buildings than anything in the SPID for there to really be "skyline" growth. The SPID buildings are like forest brush compared to downtown's trees.

BU I will grant you has had a powerful impact, but it's so far removed from the Back Bay skyline that it doesn't really help "extend" it.

CZ -- when viewed from an airplane taxiing or the cafe on the harbor behind the Hyatt Hotel at Logan -- there is now a continuum of skyline from the Renaissance Hotel to the JFK Building and a bit beyond

One of the problems with his sub-thread is that you can view a Boston Skyline from so many different vantage points --- and different components dominate from each perspective

From the Airport because of proximity (the FAA effect?) the SPID buildings are a major component of the view

[BostonUrbEx]

Originally Posted by Charlie_mta

Proposed in 1962, and what we ended up with.

The 1962 plan for the area included elimination of all train service into North Station, elimination of the Lechmere Green Line viaduct, an elevated highway along the O'Brien Highway, and a full freeway interchange at Leverett Circle. Also, the Orange Line would have crossed the Charles River with a bridge instead of a tunnel.

Oh god, I'm so glad this didn't happen... I like how all these 1960's plans surround interchanges and highways with parkland, though. Because that sounds SO attractive and relaxing.

[czsz]

^ It was supposed to be attractive and relaxing for the drivers.