115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

[meddlepal]

Yes, the old buildings should be. But some are arguing that even a blighted garage site Downtown is inappropriate to build. Aside from the shadows garbage, Winthrop Square is probably the most prime spot to build tall in the whole city.

I'm just raising the question why it has to be tall enough to cast shadows on the Common at all. It being 600 ft and casting no shadow because it's the same height as everything else seems like a perfectly fine solution.

[odurandina]

so, we can't build an iconic + tall tower in Downtown Boston (MT notwithstanding) on a site perfectly suited for it, because we're too desperate for a few dollars – despite that 1 build site does not a real estate market make, sales, or tax revenue $$$.

(Boston) is infested with nimby bastards, and insane activists that pressured the BPDA into going for a compromised tower plan and the 2nd worst crap turd design of the lot. They said, "let's do something great here," ...and it ends with the .gov caving to the Ghost of Kressel.... all because we couldn't attract more than 1 player deemed trustworthy enough to deliver.

the render below should have been built 825', complete with it's slender shadow sweeping over the Common/PG in the fall/winter/spring months.

[stick n move]

Go away please. Move to nyc. You havent been on here long enough to remember when it was exciting to get 2 30 story towers in a year. Boston is what it is and you either appreciate it for that or live angry. Were getting tons of quality developments all over the city at unprecendented rates. This will still go through and its a quality design. Relax and learn to appreciate why millions of people love this city despite our skyline. Yea I get discouraged at a lot of the decisions the city makes, but Im also a person who posts on an architecture forum. This is a great city learn to enjoy it.

[odurandina]

and i didn't suggest we that we can or should build in Back Bay as/like my cluster of 21 towers render.

this post was a misrepresentation of what i said;
http://www.archboston.org/community/...postcount=2030

i posted that render (implicitly) for fun. i've never made a call like that.

i suggested a few posts later we could build up to 5 or 6 at >180m, and 5 or 6 at >200m.

Here's the post where i clarified that position....

Originally Posted by odurandina

i do believe Back Bay can handle about 5~6 >200m towers, and about 5~6 >180m towers to go along with all the 90-110m low highrises currently permitted or proposed, and still keep it's charm and unique character. But that's about it. That's a good practical limit... To pay for Back Bay Station, they should have shot for 180m/600' on one of the towers.

11-12 tall towers would be austere for residents behind Mass Ave and Huntington, but not to the point of untenable... The underbuilding of height in Back Bay has gone on far too long. Would building at such scale be Bold? yes. Outrageous, perhaps. Doable, absolutely.

I believe it could be done by going back 1 row (on step up height) on Mass Ave and Huntington. Would that be easy? no. Would it be possible politically? That's a high number. It's subject to debate. But cities build. i can envision something like this happening someday.

[chrisbrat]

Originally Posted by odurandina

so, we can't build an iconic + tall tower in Downtown Boston (MT notwithstanding) on a site perfectly suited for it, because we're too desperate for a few dollars – despite that 1 build site does not a real estate market make, sales, or tax revenue $$$.

(Boston) is infested with nimby bastards, and insane activists that pressured the BPDA into going for a compromised tower plan and the 2nd worst crap turd design of the lot. They said, "let's do something great here," ...and it ends with the .gov caving to the Ghost of Kressel.... all because we couldn't attract more than 1 player deemed trustworthy enough to deliver.

the render below should have been built 825', complete with it's slender shadow sweeping over the Common/PG in the fall/winter/spring months.

wow. just... wow

[chrisbrat]

Originally Posted by stick n move

Go away please. Move to nyc. You havent been on here long enough to remember when it was exciting to get 2 30 story towers in a year. Boston is what it is and you either appreciate it for that or live angry. Were getting tons of quality developments all over the city at unprecendented rates. This will still go through and its a quality design. Relax and learn to appreciate why millions of people love this city despite our skyline. Yea I get discouraged at a lot of the decisions the city makes, but Im also a person who posts on an architecture forum. This is a great city learn to enjoy it.

i want to buy you a beer

[type001]

I said it before and I will keep saying it. I hate you Odurandia.

[dotdude78]

Originally Posted by odurandina

so, we can't build an iconic + tall tower in Downtown Boston (MT notwithstanding) on a site perfectly suited for it, because we're too desperate for a few dollars – despite that 1 build site does not a real estate market make, sales, or tax revenue $$$.

(Boston) is infested with nimby bastards, and insane activists that pressured the BPDA into going for a compromised tower plan and the 2nd worst crap turd design of the lot. They said, "let's do something great here," ...and it ends with the .gov caving to the Ghost of Kressel.... all because we couldn't attract more than 1 player deemed trustworthy enough to deliver.

the render below should have been built 825', complete with it's slender shadow sweeping over the Common/PG in the fall/winter/spring months.

Totally agree.

And people on here whining "Boston is what it is - accept it!" are the types of people who would be fine if every tower in Boston just looked like 1 Beacon or 1 Federal.

[F-Line to Dudley]

Did statler switch the reply button from the Preznit thread to dump into this thread just to fuck with us this morning? I thought that was where board members went to pelt each other with Nerf bats and add new names to Ignore lists?

[fattony]

Originally Posted by meddlepal

Let's build over Beacon Hill, The Common, The Public Garden and the Fens while we're at it. It's all about the $$$ right?

Originally Posted by tysmith95

Money is a great primary reason to do something. 150 million could build a state of the art new school in Dorchester. Heck 150 million dollars could buy you a 1/10th of a mile of trolley tracks for the green line. Imagine the possibilities.

Originally Posted by meddlepal

... pure $ value is not a good primary reason either unless the city is absolutely desperate for money (it isn't.)

I'll chime in with my support for the money aspect, because this isn't just about the benefits to the developer and the tenants. First of all, this isn't a proposal to build in Beacon Hill, the Common, the Garden, nor the Fens. Let's not build strawmen. The question at hand ought to be whether the benefits of the tower (to society) outweigh the costs of the tower (to society).

The benefits are enhancement of the public realm in Winthrop square, whatever amenities of the tower are open to the public, payment of $153 million to the city for the opportunity to build, and then annual property tax revenue of probably $1-10 million in perpetuity. That is either new revenue if the city needs new revenue or it is a tax break for all existing taxpayers. Those are tangible benefits to the public at large, not to the developers and not to the tenants.

The costs include, among other things I'm sure, this shadow business. The public loses 30 minutes per day more potential sunshine on the Common than the current law allows (currently allowed 60 minutes). As you pointed out, it could be mitigated with redesign. A reduction to the area of the building will come with reduction in the public benefits including property tax revenue and likely public realm improvements/amenities.

So - is the 30 minutes of potential sunshine on summer mornings worth more or less than the $153 million, plus on going revenue, and other public benefits? Is reducing the excess shadow time to zero likely worth the forgone public benefits (which have not yet been quantified)?

[JeffDowntown]

^ actually fall, winter, spring mornings -- low sun angle days.

[fattony]

Originally Posted by JeffDowntown

^ actually fall, winter, spring mornings -- low sun angle days.

The lower the sun, the smaller the area of the Common the shadow will clip. I'm pretty sure the >60min violation days have to be summer time when the shadow stretching west is very long.

If you are right that the longer dwelling shadows in winter are the violation, they are necessarily on a small corner near the State House, not stretching to the Comm Ave Mall as the Globe article ludicrously suggested.

[KentXie]

Originally Posted by meddlepal

I'm just raising the question why it has to be tall enough to cast shadows on the Common at all. It being 600 ft and casting no shadow because it's the same height as everything else seems like a perfectly fine solution.

I would be absolutely okay with compromising if no shadow new shadows at 9:00 am in the winter wasn't an absolutely stupid reason. If the FAA required it to be lower, fine. If the shadow was an all day event, fine. But this is a stupid reason.

[JeffDowntown]

Originally Posted by fattony

The lower the sun, the smaller the area of the Common the shadow will clip. I'm pretty sure the >60min violation days have to be summer time when the shadow stretching west is very long.

If you are right that the longer dwelling shadows in winter are the violation, they are necessarily on a small corner near the State House, not stretching to the Comm Ave Mall as the Globe article ludicrously suggested.

OK, I cannot be sure, but I thought that the 90 minute duration happened at lower sun angle.

The long extensions happen at the higher sun angle summer days, but for shorter duration (the sun rapidly rises out of the angle to reach the Common, Public Garden, etc.)

So I believe that the protesters are actually conflating two issues. Reach and duration, which do not happen together, IMHO.

[GW]

Originally Posted by dotdude78

Totally agree.

And people on here whining "Boston is what it is - accept it!" are the types of people who would be fine if every tower in Boston just looked like 1 Beacon or 1 Federal.

Yeah, except none of the people you are referring to believe that. Not one. And they're not the ones whining. Take this garbage somewhere else.

[FK4]

Originally Posted by F-Line to Dudley

Did statler switch the reply button from the Preznit thread to dump into this thread just to fuck with us this morning? I thought that was where board members went to pelt each other with Nerf bats and add new names to Ignore lists?

Haha.. at least a few reasonable people left among all the idiots.

[stellarfun]

Don't want to clutter this thread with more stories about the leaning tower in San Francisco. See general architecture forum for the latest. But the news today from San Francisco ought not be welcome news in MP offices.

[DZH22]

Was just thinking, any time of day where the sun is low enough to cast such a large shadow means the sun is probably at one of those blinding angles that are miserable anyway. It's not like we are missing out on a nice overhead sun at the park. If anything, it's "eye relief" to be able to hide in this shadow.

I'd rather allow a huge tower than be eye-level with a blazing fireball for an extra half hour. Once I realized that, visually, this is the most unpleasant (sometimes even painful) time of day for the sun to be visible, it makes this potential roadblock seem even more ridiculous.

The authorities around here can't seem to get out of their own way regarding development. So many projects end up delayed or canceled, because we have a never-ending supply of frivolous bs that is given too much credence. Why are we so concerned about losing a small, shifting stretch of HORIZONTAL sun around 7 in the morning?

Option A: Be blinded, lose out on $150 million up front and upwards of $10 million per year thereafter.
Option B: Keep eyesight, fill vacant lot in heart of financial district, increase tax intake, improve city.

I just don't get it. The system is designed to either underwhelm (for a major city) or flat-out fail.

I leave you with an awesome shot at what's going on in San Francisco. If even they can do it, we can do it. The excuses are getting old. We have 2016 demand, but a 1990 mindset.

20161022_Parents_DSCF1043.jpg by David Anhalt, on Flickr

[kmp1284]

Originally Posted by DZH22

I leave you with an awesome shot at what's going on in San Francisco. If even they can do it, we can do it. The excuses are getting old. We have 2016 demand, but a 1990 mindset.

Don't be silly.

[stellarfun]

San Francisco has an anti-shadow ordinance with much greater effect on buildings proximate to parks than anything developers in Boston have to deal with. Enacted by the voters in the 1980s, I believe its Proposition K. Its good that Massachusetts doesn't govern itself by ballot initiative.