archBOSTON.org

Go Back   archBOSTON.org > Boston's Built Environment > Development Projects

Development Projects New urban and/or architectural developments in Boston metro.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-07-2013, 01:40 PM   #41
choo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,270
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high

^ I agree with all the buildings in that list except for the Federal Reserve. Something about the way that building just dominates that space and its uniqueness. Also the clout of it being the FED. I love that building and doesn't deserve to be lumped with One Boston, Beacon or PO Square.
choo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 01:41 PM   #42
AmericanFolkLegend
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,117
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high

Quote:
... And ... one confession: 500 Boylston is fine in my book (cringes in anticipation). I thank our lucky stars that we don't have a Kensington (or Federal Reserve Building, or One Boston Place, or First National Bank, One Financial Center, One Post Office Square, One Beacon Street ... you get the picture) in its place.
+1
AmericanFolkLegend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 01:41 PM   #43
cca
Senior Member
 
cca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,270
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high

Quote:
Originally Posted by choo View Post
^ I agree with all the buildings in that list except for the Federal Reserve. Something about the way that building just dominates that space and its uniqueness. Also the clout of it being the FED. I love that building and doesn't deserve to be lumped with One Boston, Beacon or PO Square.
I second this opinion. It does not have to be beautiful ... if it's badass.

cca
cca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 05:43 PM   #44
DBM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 564
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high

Quote:
Originally Posted by Equilibria View Post
Fidelity selling the site isn't the same as moving away. They may just be divesting themselves of responsibility for the site to give themselves flexibility and consolidate costs. I wouldn't be so sure that their offices won't stay on-site, just in a taller building.

For comparison, State Street doesn't own One Lincoln, even with their name on top.
i don't get the comparisons to 1 Lincoln. Yes the primary tenant has a marquee on top. But john Hynes iii built the tower on spec, in a torrid economy, and hit a home run when state street decided to lease most of the building. The variables at play with 82 Devonshire couldn't be more different--other than this very nominal similarity that people have fixated on. Plus, the state street signage at 1 Lincoln is uniquely effective because the building is the southeastern most skyscraper in downtown.
DBM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 01:10 PM   #45
HalcyonEra
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 327
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high

Quote:
Originally Posted by datadyne007 View Post
This thread is an absolute disaster.
True. But it's the Fidelity factor. They drive people crazy for whatever reason. I think many people feel they should have done more in terms of their presence here, given their size. Plenty of lesser firms sport high profile glitzy towers in other cities.
HalcyonEra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 01:55 PM   #46
DBM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 564
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high

Quote:
Originally Posted by HalcyonEra View Post
True. But it's the Fidelity factor. They drive people crazy for whatever reason. I think many people feel they should have done more in terms of their presence here, given their size. Plenty of lesser firms sport high profile glitzy towers in other cities.
Of course, "high profile glitzy" is absolute anathema to Ned Johnson & clan, what with their Yankee outlook/background. And when you say, "should have done more"--what, the tens of millions of dollars he plowed into the Peabody Essex Museum and similar philanthropic ventures isn't enough? Just because someone's Yankee tastes seem quaint and out-of-date doesn't mean that, objectively, they've done major things for society/community. The value of the Peabody Essex Museum to the North Shore's regional economy, and downtown Salem in particular, is simply incalculable. Plus, all the cool model ships!
DBM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 08:37 PM   #47
PaulC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,617
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high

I've always hoped that a high rise tower would be added to this building. I also hope that the center section of the McCormack Federal Building in Post Office square gets replaced by a hight rise art decooc tower.
PaulC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2013, 12:47 PM   #48
HalcyonEra
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 327
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high

Quote:
Originally Posted by dirtywater View Post
Fidelity considered building a tower in the 1980's but, I believe, dropped the idea on its own before there was much of a battle with Exchange Place or anyone else. Exchange Place (or some of the tenants led by Goodwin Procter) fought against 75 State Street resulting in a shorter, squatter building than what was originally proposed and what the BRA was prepared to approve.
Wouldn't these same issues still be present now even if some of the players have changed? Goodwin Proctor is still there, right?
HalcyonEra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2013, 04:26 PM   #49
TallIsGood
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 282
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high

Quote:
Originally Posted by HalcyonEra View Post
Wouldn't these same issues still be present now even if some of the players have changed? Goodwin Proctor is still there, right?
Yes, Goodwin is still there but they are moving to Fan Pier.

See: http://fanpierboston.net/2012/fan-pier-goodwin-procter/

I hope things have changed, its a great place for a slender tower as you come up Congress Street from North Station to Post Office Square.
TallIsGood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2013, 04:48 PM   #50
kz1000ps
Senior Member
 
kz1000ps's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: man hat tan
Posts: 7,525
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high

Quote:
Originally Posted by bblancha View Post
Hey, you are welcome.

Keeping it real.
In all seriousness, what do you expect? The Pru and Hancock were built by rival companies whose egos were not to be outmatched. Take those two away and what we're left with is what's actually profitable to build, and that is 300-600 footers. That hasn't changed in 50 years. What has changed is that skyscrapers no longer hold the iconic power that they once did in the eyes of the public or of CEOs; and Boston has lost many of its boosterish hometown companies, which is sad but not surprising given the macroeconomic trends at work today. So again I ask, what do you expect?
__________________
Politicians, ugly buildings and whores all get respectable if they last long enough.
kz1000ps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2013, 06:59 PM   #51
meddlepal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,132
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high

Some of you guys are raging horn-dogs for tall towers. kz1000ps sort of nailed it, but I also think the office is on a decline and I think within 50 years the office will be be nearing its end. Work from home is going to become a lot popular due to commute time and costs as well as leaps in automation and communication technologies.

Similarly Boston doesn't have the wealth of a city like NYC or Chicago to support tons of tall residential towers.

The death of the skyscraper is coming.
meddlepal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2013, 08:29 PM   #52
type001
Senior Member
 
type001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,435
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high

Quote:
Originally Posted by meddlepal View Post
Some of you guys are raging horn-dogs for tall towers. kz1000ps sort of nailed it, but I also think the office is on a decline and I think within 50 years the office will be be nearing its end. Work from home is going to become a lot popular due to commute time and costs as well as leaps in automation and communication technologies.

Similarly Boston doesn't have the wealth of a city like NYC or Chicago to support tons of tall residential towers.

The death of the skyscraper is coming.
This has been a popular topic lately at work. Demand for new tall buildings is diminishing. Boston is growing smart.

I think for NYC and Chicago, it's more about style and atitude. Vancouver and Honululu are doused in residential towers but San Fran, LA, Philly, and DC aren't either just to give a few examples.
type001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2013, 10:45 PM   #53
czsz
Senior Member
 
czsz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: brooklyn
Posts: 6,052
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high

Given the economic realities of office space, the future of skyscrapers is residential. If Melbourne's skyline can be dominated by tall residential buildings, and Vancouver's "doused" with them, I don't know why Boston's can't. The reason you haven't seen this in SF or DC are NIMBYs and the height limit, respectively. Philly's still not in an economic place to support a tower boom, and LA still has a somewhat anti-urban ethos.
czsz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2013, 06:09 AM   #54
BussesAin'tTrains
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Union Sq, Somerville
Posts: 3,415
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high

^ I would lump Boston in with SF and DC in that analysis.
BussesAin'tTrains is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2013, 08:32 AM   #55
underground
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: North End
Posts: 2,386
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high

I don't know about the death of the office. Maybe "the death of the office as we know it," but no matter how advanced technology gets and how easy it makes working from home, proximity will always have a huge advantage to it in time, cost, and simplicity.

Still, I agree that towers today serve fetishists more than they serve any other purpose. We need more density, but Boston has a ton more spots to infill before going up makes sense.
underground is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 11:02 AM   #56
czsz
Senior Member
 
czsz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: brooklyn
Posts: 6,052
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high

Quote:
Originally Posted by BussesAin'tTrains View Post
^ I would lump Boston in with SF and DC in that analysis.
I think both SF and Boston could eventually go the Melbourne route though and see supertall residential buildings within the tiny cores their NIMBYs have allotted for highrise construction, though. Melbourne is around the same size and less economically important than either, so I'm not sure why this couldn't happen.

DC is another story because it actually has height-suppressing laws (and to the extent that the suburbs don't, there's still not enough market pressure to make real towers happen).
czsz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 12:16 PM   #57
kz1000ps
Senior Member
 
kz1000ps's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: man hat tan
Posts: 7,525
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high

So why do you focus on Boston? You never answered my question earlier: WHAT DO YOU EXPECT?
__________________
Politicians, ugly buildings and whores all get respectable if they last long enough.
kz1000ps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 04:45 PM   #58
mdd
Senior Member
 
mdd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 654
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high

He expects Dubai, DUH.
mdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 05:33 PM   #59
rdeastcl
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 82
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high

Thank you bblancha for the thought provoking educated analysis on the topic.
rdeastcl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 06:32 PM   #60
BostonObserver
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 472
Re: Fidelity's HQ may go high

Quote:
Originally Posted by bblancha View Post
people who love towers should focus on another city
In that case, see ya!
BostonObserver is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lane Reduction on Mass Pike Kahta Transit and Infrastructure 44 09-04-2014 07:29 PM
Additional lane on the Southeast Expressway Kahta Transit and Infrastructure 168 01-08-2013 08:48 PM
Downtown Jersey City - Paulus Hook - Liberty Harbor - Historic Downtown Nexis4jersey General 4 10-17-2012 06:35 PM
new HOV lane on 93 PaulC Transit and Infrastructure 28 03-16-2011 11:17 PM
Bus/ bike lane from Waltham to 495 GW2500 Transit and Infrastructure 5 06-06-2010 10:22 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.