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 09-27-2017, 10:01 AM   #3421
stick n move
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Dorchester
Posts: 4,289
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

I remember hearing about this site being able to get a waiver so it can go taller-before the shadow boxers came out and shit in everyones cheereos. Again this isnt just any ol parcel in little ol Boston. This is THE site. If you cave here downtown is forever stumpy in its core and any height will have to be somewhere off on the side of downtown basically throwing what great scale and symmetry that is possible into the toilet.....Forever.
stick n move is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2017, 10:39 AM   #3422
odurandina
Senior Member
 
odurandina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 3,604
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

i don't think there's a need for any parcels to go taller than the JHT, or that Boston needs to get a 'new tallest.' in fact, i believe there's only 1 parcel in the entire City where it would be (realistically) possible to go higher (65 Martha Road). And i would be thrilled to see the max-FAA achieved at at least 1 site in the West End. But, that would be extremely difficult to achieve from the point of view of nimby pushback.

The Back Bay is done for that scale of height. At least for what will be at least many decades.

But i'm all for building up maybe in the range of 550~650' on a number of parcels. Examples: the 3 TD Garden sites planned or u/c for 485-500', several parcels near Mass General/Charles River Park, Christian Science Garage, half of Mass Ave between Boylston and Huntington Ave, 2 or 3 parcels on Ipswich St/Lansdowne in addition to 2 Charlegate W, and a few sites west of Brookline Ave over by Fenway Park.

i'm a Fenway-forever advocate. But i could give a rats ass about the sanctity of the air extending beyond a few hundred feat from the Ballpark, and the desires of John Henry or other Back Bay millionaire nimby's. It's a God-dammed baseball stadium–not Valhalla.
odurandina is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2017, 12:12 PM   #3423
KentXie
Senior Member
 
KentXie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Fenway
Posts: 3,722
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Tokyo's tallest building is 838 ft. Shit they must be a really unimportant city.
KentXie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2017, 12:19 PM   #3424
DZH22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,477
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Quote:
Originally Posted by KentXie View Post
Tokyo's tallest building is 838 ft. Shit they must be a really unimportant city.
Tokyo Skytree is over 2000'. Is that suddenly invisible?

EDIT: I forgot about the Tokyo Tower. It's taller than the Eiffel Tower. Still there too, since 1958.

Tokyo also sits in a major earthquake zone, but does what it can. The buildings there are absolutely massive. Poorly proportioned, but MASSIVE.

Last edited by DZH22; 09-27-2017 at 12:31 PM.
DZH22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2017, 12:58 PM   #3425
Money
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Waltham
Posts: 163
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Why are we arguing this point with DZ? He cannot be reasoned with in any way shape or form when it comes to the topic of height and its importance. There is absolutely no benefit to having the "debate".

Let him complain. Meanwhile, the rest of us can enjoy our world-class city.
Money is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2017, 01:02 PM   #3426
HenryAlan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Rozzie Square
Posts: 1,691
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Quote:
Originally Posted by DZH22 View Post
Within a couple of years it's likely that Boston will have the most 500'+ buildings and most 700'+ buildings out of any city in the entire WORLD that doesn't have an 800'+ building. We are supposedly a Top 10 financial powerhouse on the planet, yet soon 20 cities in our own country will have a taller building. By 2020, I will be able to say with conviction that there is no city on Earth more deserving of a new tallest than Boston.
Maybe another way of looking at this is to say that having the tallest buildings is not what makes a city great.
HenryAlan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2017, 01:06 PM   #3427
AmericanFolkLegend
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,115
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin7 View Post
Because the height of a city's buildings does not determine its importance/status/desirability/livability/etcetcetc. so Boston's lack of "tall" buildings is irrelevant. You seem to recognize this on some level (hell, you just wrote it out), but then there is a disconnect somewhere.
THIS.
DZ you seem to be viewing everything through the context of greater height = greater importance (or success, or viability or something). I don't think OKC is a good comparison to Boston. London, Dublin, Paris, Munich, Montreal, Washington DC are all better comparisons. And they all have relatively modest skylines.
AmericanFolkLegend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2017, 01:09 PM   #3428
tysmith95
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: North Shore
Posts: 2,094
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

London has only one building over 800 feet. What a small economically depressed and unimportant city. Denver and OKC are much more important because they have better skylines!!
tysmith95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2017, 01:13 PM   #3429
KentXie
Senior Member
 
KentXie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Fenway
Posts: 3,722
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Quote:
Originally Posted by DZH22 View Post
Tokyo Skytree is over 2000'. Is that suddenly invisible?

EDIT: I forgot about the Tokyo Tower. It's taller than the Eiffel Tower. Still there too, since 1958.

Tokyo also sits in a major earthquake zone, but does what it can. The buildings there are absolutely massive. Poorly proportioned, but MASSIVE.
Sorry to tell you but the Tokyo Skytree and Tokyo Tower are towers, not skyscrapers. Or do you want me to start including the lattice towers littered around Boston? In that case, I don't know why you're complaining about short towers in Boston because we have supertalls here such as the WHDH-TV tower.

Btw, SF also sits on a major earthquake zone and it has a supertall. Maybe, just maybe Tokyo doesn't care about having supertall towers.
KentXie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2017, 01:35 PM   #3430
DZH22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,477
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Quote:
Originally Posted by tysmith95 View Post
London has only one building over 800 feet. What a small economically depressed and unimportant city. Denver and OKC are much more important because they have better skylines!!
London has a 1000' building completed and a 900'+ under construction (over halfway up). London is actually booming beyond belief and in a couple of years we won't be saying any of that.

Nobody here has given me a good reason why Boston should automatically never build taller than the Hancock again. I have at least brought up data of my own for why we should. I compare to other cities because other cities all over the country and the world are jumping on the height train. It doesn't mean they are better cities. What it does mean is they decided they want to have "nicer things" in their city.

It's like our sports teams. Having winning or losing sports teams doesn't automatically make you a better or worse city. But it's still a source of pride for the city. Just because it isn't NECESSARY and therefore falls under "wants" as opposed to "needs" doesn't mean we can't want something very very badly.

Basically, I think a fancy new tallest tower in Boston could be an immense source of pride in this city, similar to the Hancock is now. Not one of you has said why it wouldn't be. You just write me off with "Boston doesn't NEED it" and that's true. But that's not an argument against it. I use real data that forces me to actually think and gather information, and it shows that one city after another after another is deciding to build new tallest buildings. The thing is, most of these cities don't have the type of land crunch in their downtowns that we have in Boston. It actually makes sense for Boston to build tall, and instead we get projects chopped down that literally sit right on top of major rail lines! (ie North Station)

I want something to happen. Your general apathy is not an argument against that happening. I defend my opinion. Many of you attack it without any real defense of your own. Just because you don't NEED something it doesn't automatically mean you shouldn't want it or get it. Outside of NYC and maybe San Francisco, not a single one of these other cities building tall NEEDS to be. But they thought it would look good, be a new icon for their city, a new source of pride, and had the guts to achieve something that we can't here in Boston.

Honestly, it's really sad how many people here are willing to settle for mediocrity. Like oh, the city's already good, so why do anything to improve the aesthetics at its most visible points?

Also, my frustrations at this point are pretty well founded. How many major projects have failed to materialize over the last 10-15 years? I know we are finally getting some nice (and BIG) stuff, but is there any city that moves slower than here? That 1000'+ building in Denver is aiming to break ground next fall. So in Denver it takes 1 year to get going on a 1000'+ giant, but in Boston it takes 5 years just to approve something half that size or smaller, and by then most of those never get built. Then we wonder why there is a housing crisis, or why the roads are clogged when the only things being built with regularity are the 5 over 1's in poor transit areas.

So because Boston built great things 100 years ago, we are supposed to sit on our hands for the rest of our lives and marinate in self satisfaction? I don't get it. Everybody here has either been beat down too long and jaded, or are too young to realize just how much stuff fails to happen after the "process" guts it of both its impact and feasibility. The defeatist attitudes all over this board are appalling. Well, I am just getting started. This matters to me. Find a cause that matters to you and stop telling me how I should think and feel. If you want to argue with me that's fine, but you better bring real data and real examples. Remember, it's already 2017. According to many of the sci-fi movies we grew up with, the future is NOW. I want to be as proud of the present and the future as I am of the past.

If you really don't give a damn, don't step up and attack somebody who does.
DZH22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2017, 01:40 PM   #3431
cadetcarl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Boston/Medford
Posts: 229
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Caring about overall building height but not about bike lanes, steakhouses, or all the other stuff that goes on here is tantamount to admitting one doesn't know or care about what actually makes a city attractive, isn't it? If you want to fawn over tall buildings for their own sake, there's skyscraperpage for that.

It strikes me as a strange kind of insecurity to build something just for the sake of putting your city in its "rightful" place in the hierarchy in your mind.
cadetcarl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2017, 01:42 PM   #3432
KentXie
Senior Member
 
KentXie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Fenway
Posts: 3,722
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Quote:
Originally Posted by cadetcarl View Post
Caring about overall building height but not about bike lanes, steakhouses, or all the other stuff that goes on here is tantamount to admitting one doesn't know or care about what actually makes a city attractive, isn't it? If you want to fawn over tall buildings for their own sake, there's skyscraperpage for that.
THIS. I also have problem with how slow the approval process is in Boston and I wish buildings here were taller but I don't rage and insult NIMBYs every single time a tall tower gets shorten. Honestly, it's the constant insulting and acting like you guys are scheming about building tall towers behind NIMBY's back just to piss them off that annoys the crap out of me.
KentXie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2017, 01:43 PM   #3433
DZH22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,477
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Quote:
Originally Posted by KentXie View Post
Sorry to tell you but the Tokyo Skytree and Tokyo Tower are towers, not skyscrapers. Or do you want me to start including the lattice towers littered around Boston? In that case, I don't know why you're complaining about short towers in Boston because we have supertalls here such as the WHDH-TV tower.

Btw, SF also sits on a major earthquake zone and it has a supertall. Maybe, just maybe Tokyo doesn't care about having supertall towers.
We do actually have 1 supertall tower that "counts" although it's in Newton and not really part of the skyline. (although visible from everywhere, along with its 3 buddies that are actually taller) The one that "counts" is the one that flares like a triangle at the bottom. (no wires holding it up)

However, the 2 towers in Tokyo are much more substantial. They can both hold people, and the Skytree in particular is enormous, and not just a lattice shell. It's literally a bigger, newer version of Toronto's CN Tower.

The thing is, even Tokyo is slowly pushing the limits of what it had built in the past. It's new tallest is just that, NEW. It didn't decide that a building erected in 1970 would never be surpassed. It is, in fact, slowly getting taller, and has 2 supertalls proposed, including a 1280'.
DZH22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2017, 01:47 PM   #3434
DZH22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,477
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Quote:
Originally Posted by cadetcarl View Post
Caring about overall building height but not about bike lanes, steakhouses, or all the other stuff that goes on here is tantamount to admitting one doesn't know or care about what actually makes a city attractive, isn't it? If you want to fawn over tall buildings for their own sake, there's skyscraperpage for that.

It strikes me as a strange kind of insecurity to build something just for the sake of putting your city in its "rightful" place in the hierarchy in your mind.
I don't give a crap about bike lanes. Why does this automatically make a city great? I find it to be a loathsome form of transportation, and the vast majority of non bikers agree with me. (just because you won't find them here doesn't make it untrue) Clearly our priorities don't align. But you know what? You are entitled to yours, and I should be entitled to mine as well.
DZH22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2017, 01:56 PM   #3435
tysmith95
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: North Shore
Posts: 2,094
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Quote:
Originally Posted by DZH22 View Post
I don't give a crap about bike lanes. Why does this automatically make a city great? I find it to be a loathsome form of transportation, and the vast majority of non bikers agree with me. (just because you won't find them here doesn't make it untrue) Clearly our priorities don't align. But you know what? You are entitled to yours, and I should be entitled to mine as well.
Ever been to Copenhagen or Amsterdam. Bike Lanes, if done right, are the most efficient method of transportation imho.
tysmith95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2017, 02:03 PM   #3436
DZH22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,477
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Quote:
Originally Posted by tysmith95 View Post
Ever been to Copenhagen or Amsterdam. Bike Lanes, if done right, are the most efficient method of transportation imho.
Nope, but yesterday on the Mass Ave Bridge I witnessed multiple bikes swing into my lane to pass each other, and saw another one riding in the left lane down the middle of the bridge.

Also, a point I have been trying to make is I don't comment on things I don't care about. (or at least, I stopped commenting years ago) I don't care about bicycles. Some of you do, and if that conversation happens to be on a thread I'm interested in, I ignore those posts! If you aren't interested in my opinions, that's fine, but the way that some of you try to silence me is really, dare I say, unamerican.
DZH22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2017, 02:05 PM   #3437
cadetcarl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Boston/Medford
Posts: 229
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Quote:
Originally Posted by DZH22 View Post
I don't give a crap about bike lanes. Why does this automatically make a city great? I find it to be a loathsome form of transportation, and the vast majority of non bikers agree with me. (just because you won't find them here doesn't make it untrue).
I'm not going to waste time trying to defend why forms of mobility other than the car contribute to the quality of a city. You claim to have facts and figures on your side, but reduce urban quality to a single metric as opposed to the many variables that others have pointed out: is it easy to get around? Is it easy to get around if you don't have a car? Is it a good place to live? Are there jobs, are there places to go when you're not working? Are the schools good, if you have children? Is it safe? I like tall buildings as much as any--well, maybe not any--other person who posts here, but to make them the sum of a city's value, to the exclusion of other variables, borders on preposterous.

I'm also troubled by the way you characterize decision-making around this issue. It's not as if Boston is a single entity which looks out at other cities and decides, "I must be taller than that city because I am better." Every project is individual. It's the sum of a site, its needs, the aims of its developer, and the very real limitations imposed by having to be in its specific context. In our case it's the airport, and the quality of the substrate, the depth of bedrock, neighborhood groups (in whom I am also frequently disappointed). The result of this is projects which have undergone a process which yields some of the goals of the developer, some for the city, some for the neighborhood groups, etc. It yields a city with an excellent public realm compared to the nightmares of some other places in this country. It makes Boston beautiful and livable. I don't like NIMBYs or whatever, but if I had to decide, I'd rather this process than unbridled fanaticism for height over everything else.

By the way, there are cities in the world where height and architectural whim dominate the discourse of the public realm. The pictures are nice, but I wouldn't want to breathe the air or try to cross the street there.
cadetcarl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2017, 02:13 PM   #3438
DZH22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,477
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

To cadetcarl, would you agree that the subway/rails is probably the best overall form of transit into and through the city? I wouldn't want to ride a bike in the snow, rain, or much of the other weather we experience here regularly. So, if rails are important, is it good policy to keep chopping down the projects that are built right next to these subway lines? Did the North Station terminus towers really need to be scaled back? Aren't we doing the city a disservice by constantly downsizing the projects in the best served transit areas that we have?

For Kentxie, here's a diagram to illustrate how preposterous it is to disregard the Tokyo Skytree. I agree with you that Tokyo is clearly on the shorter side for such a major world city, but as I said before the current crop of proposals are all raising that bar. Also note that the tallest buildings are mostly on the newer side.

Make sure you check out where the Hancock fits in. It acquits itself well enough in Tokyo terms, for now.

Capture by David Z, on Flickr
DZH22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2018, 11:28 AM   #3439
DDay
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 12
Re: Winthrop Square Garage Being Demolished

Suprised no one has caught this image posted by Catherine Carlock of Biz Journaln-- https://twitter.com/BosBizCatherine/...95768725770240

It has an image of Winthrop Tower that is not one I recognize but doesn't offer many details. Figured I'd share.
DDay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2018, 11:37 AM   #3440
TheRifleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 4,262
Re: Winthrop Square Garage Being Demolished

Quote:
Originally Posted by DDay View Post
Suprised no one has caught this image posted by Catherine Carlock of Biz Journaln-- https://twitter.com/BosBizCatherine/...95768725770240

It has an image of Winthrop Tower that is not one I recognize but doesn't offer many details. Figured I'd share.
I just clicked on Catherine Twitter feed. What do we want to talk about the Shadows or the sexual harassment in real estate:
TheRifleman 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
Winter Garden | 100 Federal St. | Financial District datadyne007 Development Projects 265 Today 03:12 PM
What to do with the Financial District vanshnookenraggen Boston Architecture & Urbanism 33 04-08-2013 07:30 PM
Sad day in the Financial District czsz General 23 03-20-2009 06:45 PM
115 Federal St. (Winthrop Square) castevens Development Projects 807 05-29-2007 05:11 PM
Winthrop Square Tower Poll | Early Reaction Mike Development Projects 3 11-18-2006 05:56 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:59 PM.


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