City pushing megatowers: BRA chief briefs execs on change

[Mike]

City pushing megatowers: BRA chief briefs execs on change
By Brett Arends
Boston Herald Business Columnist
Thursday, September 28, 2006


Goodbye Beantown ... hello Bean-hattan?

Downtown Boston could be on the brink of a new era of New York-style skyscraper construction following a policy shift by Mayor Thomas M. Menino.

Seven months after he grabbed headlines with proposals for a 1,000-foot tower in the Financial District, the mayor tells me he is looking at proposals for similar major skyscrapers in the neighborhood.

And that could mark the biggest change in policy toward the Hub?s skyline in more than two decades.

?Height is appropriate at certain places in the city, and we will take these case by case,? the mayor said. ?Some will move forward, and some won?t. We?re just looking at this, and entertaining ideas.?

We spoke after I learned that Mark Maloney, chairman of the Boston Redevelopment Authority, had disclosed the new policy at a private downtown luncheon with Boston executives earlier this week.

According to some present, Maloney essentially told attendees that if companies wanted their own 1,000-foot tower, ?Just ask us. Maybe we?ll say no, but maybe we won?t.?

The city is trying to be friendlier to the big employers that have chosen to stay here, he explained.

It was in February that the mayor unveiled plans to build the tallest building in New England, a skyscraper that could rise 80 stories in the Financial District?s historic Winthrop Square.

Menino says that, soon afterwards, other property developers then approached him to see if they could build higher on their plots as well.

What is astonishing is that this new development comes just five years after 9/11. People at the time thought the terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers would mark the end of the new super-skyscraper.

Perhaps even more astonishing: that the development could happen in Boston.

?It is fascinating that height is back on the table in Boston,? says David Luberoff, executive director of Harvard?s Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston. ?It was really off the table for more than 20 years. There was really a conscious decision in the city in the ?80s that there was a limit to height.?

What happened?

Boston is fighting to keep businesses from moving to cheaper locations in North Carolina and elsewhere.

And office rents have been recovering steadily for two years.

Some experts say as little as 5 percent of the best space is still vacant.
?What it shows is that office space in the city is a hot item right now,? Menino says.

New buildings would help ?create some more vitality? in the city, he added.

But are more skyscrapers a good thing for Boston?

Hub conservationist Henry Lee, of the Friends of the Boston Public Gardens, said the city?s new enthusiasm for high rises ?is a cause of some concern.?

While he agreed that the city needed to grow, he urged the mayor to keep new skyscrapers to appropriate places. The tallest buildings cast long shadows and create wind tunnels, he observed.

Lee also urged the mayor to preserve Boston?s distinctive character. ?We certainly could build ourselves into becoming another ordinary city, and lose the historic distinction that we have,? he said.

Amen to that. Cities don?t have to choose between 1960s construction eyesores and turning themselves into museums. The Hancock Tower is one of the most beautiful skyscrapers in the world.

If the mayor is looking for a prime site that should be knocked down, and redeveloped into something tall and elegant, he could start with the ugly building he has his office in.



Link

[vanshnookenraggen]

If done correctly I think a few more large towers would look good in Boston.

But I still think Bostonians are still too skiddish after what has been built since the 1960's. A strange lot, they are. I think it will be a good 10 to 20 years before this generation of NIBMY's starts to die off and we get some new blood that won't be affraid to take some risks.

Edit: One place in Boston that might actually need this kind of space is Longwood. And how built out is the Back Bay? Other than the Financial District, where are you gonna build a tower like this that doesn't dwarf its surroundings? Kendal Sq maybe but that is in Cambridge.

I actually think a few towers would be good in Dudley Sq, not 80 story ones, but tall enough to define the place. But I guess people there are happy with the sore that it is.

The Hancock Tower is one of the most beautiful skyscrapers in the world.

Oh how times have changed.

[Waldorf]

New York style skyscraper? I think what is being proposed is the norm around the world, not just New York. Stupid Herald.

[JSic]

Has there been any recent news on the St. Anthony's tower? That's another ideal spot for a super-tall.

In addition to height, Boston's skyline needs spires!

[Ron Newman]

Perhaps a huge cross on top of that one?

[snarl71]

"According to some present, Maloney essentially told attendees that if companies wanted their own 1,000-foot tower, ?Just ask us. Maybe we?ll say no, but maybe we won?t.?

The city is trying to be friendlier to the big employers that have chosen to stay here, he explained."


I wouldn't exactly call that "pushing megatowers" as the article's title claims. That would imply that the city is aggressively seeking deals to build big.

It sounds to me like they will just be more open minded torward the possibility of taller towers if developers propose them. Big difference.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Ron Newman

Perhaps a huge cross on top of that one?

YES! A Celtic cross :wink:

EDIT:

But I still think Bostonians are still too skiddish after what has been built since the 1960's.

The Modernists are completely to blame.

[IMAngry]

Is Henry Lee like, 95 years old, or what?

[tommym96]

all for it

[quadratdackel]

Originally Posted by vanshnookenraggen

Edit: One place in Boston that might actually need this kind of space is Longwood. And how built out is the Back Bay? Other than the Financial District, where are you gonna build a tower like this that doesn't dwarf its surroundings? Kendal Sq maybe but that is in Cambridge.

The issue with Longwood is transit. It's adjacent to the Green line and has the LMA shuttle from Ruggles/Orange Line, but that's only enough for its current build out + a little more. Remember, traffic congestion there is a matter of life or death for ambulance patients. I know they're supposed to be building out the Yawkey commuter rail stop, but that's only on the Worcester line.

Back Bay has a little room to build and better transit access (closer to Orange Line + more commuter rail branches). Most spots are already getting built out (The Clarendon, 32 flrs; Mandarin Oriental, 11 flrs) or proposed (Prudential Ctr/Exeter St Apartment Tower, 20-30 flrs (my guess); Copley Place, 20-30 flrs; Columbus Center, 7-35 flrs). Any of these would benefit from a culture of taller towers.

I agree that it's time for Boston to "grow up". The two things needed for this to happen are this culture change that the BRA seems to support and certainly developers support, and better transit. The North South Rail Link, for example, would be a huge help for Longwood and even Back Bay, because then all of a sudden, people coming from the north could get their much more easily. Alternatively, a new subway line could open up huge sections for dense development- possibly even South Bay.

Still, there are plenty of un- or under- utilized parcels in good locations. Lots of architecturally unremarkable 1-3 story buildings scattered around. Surface lots where they shouldn't be. etc. Put 30-story buildings on those and we'll have plenty of floor space to lease/rent/etc. Make it mixed use and it might not even tax the transit system that much.

hmm, that was a really rambling post...

[vanshnookenraggen]

Originally Posted by quadratdackel

Still, there are plenty of un- or under- utilized parcels in good locations. Lots of architecturally unremarkable 1-3 story buildings scattered around. Surface lots where they shouldn't be.

See, thats the issue. I would much rather see a bunch of 3-5 story buildings built to fill in the street lines and empty lots in Dorchester, Roxbury, Allson, Charleston, etc. than see one or two new towers go up downtown.

[Ron Newman]

Chinatown, the Bulfinch Triangle, and even the North End/Waterfront still have small scattered parking lots that could usefully be filled in. Heck, there's even a parking lot on Newbury Street.

Boylston Street in the Fenway has lots of potential for better, denser development.

Charlestown has huge open spaces surrounding Bunker Hill Community College.

The South Bay Shopping Center's entire surface parking lot should be replaced by a new garage, freeing up mucho space for better use.

[tocoto]

I'd love to see a tower actually being built instead of all the talk we've had for the last couple fo years.

[ablarc]

At least the talk now sounds better.

[Ron Newman]

If someone builds one, could you please put Tower Records on the first floor? We miss it.

[quadratdackel]

Originally Posted by vanshnookenraggen

See, thats the issue. I would much rather see a bunch of 3-5 story buildings built to fill in the street lines and empty lots in Dorchester, Roxbury, Allson, Charleston, etc. than see one or two new towers go up downtown.

I'm really baffled why this doesn't happen. Would they not be profitable? I doubt that given how expensive this town is. Is it neighborhood opposition? Is the bureaucracy really that thick?

Personally, I don't think it should be a choice between downtown highrises and neighborhood lowrises. We should build both as long as there's demand for both. Large companies need large buildings, and from the sound of things there are large companies who would move into new highrise office buildings. Highrise residential buildings sort of compete with lowrise residential buildings, but still I think we can build both.