archBOSTON.org

Go Back   archBOSTON.org > Outside Of Boston Metro > General Architecture & Urban Planning

General Architecture & Urban Planning All things architectural or urban in general, or withinin cities outside of Boston & Greater New England.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-19-2016, 03:08 PM   #21
DZH22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,372
Re: Future Skylines/Developments of the US

Quote:
Originally Posted by KentXie View Post
I mean the almost the exact same thing can be said about Boston. Had 0 tower over 496ft and no building over 400 ft for nearly 20 years and then boom, built the tallest tower outside of NYC. It's easy to cast stones when you don't look at yourself.

First of all, Devon is 1.688 times taller than the next tallest, whereas the Pru was 1.512 times taller for Boston.

However, more importantly is to look at the city surrounding the towers. OKC has open space as far as the eye can see. It's a huge building surrounded by parking lots and wasteland. They had no need to go that tall. 2 more economical towers (or hell, a whole complex) would have made more sense. Outside of a few square blocks that city is probably less urban than Worcester. They don't need to build up. They need to fill in. Boston was already dense as hell and it necessitated verticality.

The Boston you showed was totally built up. On the other hand, OKC doesn't need more towers. It needs an actual city!!! The fact that you compare the 2 is frankly ludicrous. Ultra dense, filled-in Boston finally going vertical, vs stagnant OKC going huge out of vanity.

Oklahoma City by stevesheriw, on Flickr

Oklahoma City by stevesheriw, on Flickr
DZH22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2016, 03:15 PM   #22
stick n move
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Dorchester
Posts: 4,168
Re: Future Skylines/Developments of the US

What would be the point of building two other than one? Just to not disrespect their peers? The skyline is kind of lopsided but the tower is amazing and makes a bold statement. I think thats what you want from a world headquarters. It would have cost a lot more to build two, and it was actually necessary to have them all in one building. Its my own opinion but they got a great tower and its their city they can do whatever they want. The fact that were talking about okc right now means it was a success. They could have built 2-3 average towers and it still would have been boring little okc. Instead they made a statement with one of the better modern towers in recent memory and it put them on the map, whereas before they werent even close.
stick n move is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2016, 03:49 PM   #23
DZH22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,372
Re: Future Skylines/Developments of the US

Quote:
Originally Posted by stick n move View Post
What would be the point of building two other than one?
The point is when a city has a trillion parking lots and "wasteland" parcels, it should encourage filling those in rather than having one giant dick-waving tower surrounded by nothing.
DZH22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2016, 06:05 PM   #24
stick n move
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Dorchester
Posts: 4,168
Re: Future Skylines/Developments of the US

Now they have a crown to encourage those other lots to fill in to create a great city/skyline, where before it would have just been a shitty skyline that keeps staying shitty. I see your point but I just agree to disagree. Boston could have built 2 25 story Pru's and the skyline would look like shit today. NYC could have built 3 empire state buildings and all that infill would have looked like a huge blob of concrete. This city is neither one of those and never will be, but a couple good projects in the right places over the years will look good. This was a dick waving contest in a way, but the need was there to consolidate into one tower. I dont see it on the same coin as Dubai building a 2800 ft residential for absolutely no reason other than because they can. This at least puts a world headquarters into one tower and looked good at the same time. It had a purpose. Having one tower absolutely dominate looks good in certain cases, imo this is one of them.

Taipei 101 is similar, although with way more infill, but the overpowering effect it has on the skyline is pretty unique. I think Devon Tower also looks good, but I do understand your point. You have to admit that the tower alone is very good. Its also filled completely unlike Dubai and these other cities that also have a ton of land and still go to ridiculous heights just because. Im not saying OKC now has a great skyline or is a major city, I just think the tower looks good and I appreciate good architecture.


Last edited by stick n move; 08-19-2016 at 06:25 PM.
stick n move is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2016, 12:02 AM   #25
KentXie
Senior Member
 
KentXie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Fenway
Posts: 3,697
Re: Future Skylines/Developments of the US

Quote:
Originally Posted by DZH22 View Post
The point is when a city has a trillion parking lots and "wasteland" parcels, it should encourage filling those in rather than having one giant dick-waving tower surrounded by nothing.
It's not dick-waving. It's makes more business sense for a company to consolidate everything into one building. And it is not ludicrous; the Pru owned a large slice of property where they could have easily built two shorter towers than a 750ft one. This isn't simcity. A company isn't going to adhere to rules that they have to build several short towers because one person in the city that doesn't even work for the company is complaining because it would look out of place.
KentXie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2016, 09:39 AM   #26
Justin7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,397
Re: Devon

Quote:
Originally Posted by stick n move View Post
You have to admit that the tower alone is very good.
I think it is ugly during the day and super-ugly at night. These things are subjective.

The city would have been better served by a pair of smaller towers and one less parking lot, but don't blame the company for wanting to be under one roof.
__________________
"You cannot take in a whole Boston street with a single glance of the eye and then lose your interest because you have thus taken the edge off future discovery; on the contrary, every step reveals some portion of a building which you could not see before, some change in your vista, and some suggestion of pleasant variety yet to come, which not only keeps your interest alive but heightens it and persuades you to go on."
Justin7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2016, 09:51 AM   #27
Justin7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,397
Re: Future Skylines/Developments of the US

Quote:
Originally Posted by stick n move View Post
On another note I cant remember their names, but Phillys skyline would have been incredible if those twin towers were like the Philly version of NY twins and the roof heights were like 1400 and they dominated downtown. I wouldn't be the same image either that nobody wants to see anymore like if Boston put twins by winthrop because our waterfront skylines are similar. It would be unique here and would have looked amazing.
Liberty Place. Best thing built in the 80s?

Comcast is putting up a new tower now. Spire will be the tallest thing on the skyline.



There's also an FMC tower nearly topped out, but it's off the side a bit.
__________________
"You cannot take in a whole Boston street with a single glance of the eye and then lose your interest because you have thus taken the edge off future discovery; on the contrary, every step reveals some portion of a building which you could not see before, some change in your vista, and some suggestion of pleasant variety yet to come, which not only keeps your interest alive but heightens it and persuades you to go on."
Justin7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2016, 08:03 PM   #28
stick n move
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Dorchester
Posts: 4,168
Re: Future Skylines/Developments of the US

LA




stick n move is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2016, 10:48 PM   #29
stick n move
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Dorchester
Posts: 4,168
Re: Future Skylines/Developments of the US

San Francisco






1st and mission





181 fremont





stick n move is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2016, 01:51 PM   #30
stick n move
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Dorchester
Posts: 4,168
Re: Future Skylines/Developments of the US

Philly.











stick n move is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2016, 01:56 PM   #31
stick n move
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Dorchester
Posts: 4,168
Re: Future Skylines/Developments of the US

NYC.

520 park ave. Boston needs something like this IMO. Liberty mutual style, but tall and downtown.




stick n move is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2016, 07:21 PM   #32
tysmith95
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: North Shore
Posts: 2,068
Re: Future Skylines/Developments of the US

^That looks amazing. Architecture of today is much better than architecture during the 2nd half of the 20th century.

Well the NYC and SF proposals are amazing. The Philly proposal is ok.
tysmith95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2016, 11:45 AM   #33
stick n move
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Dorchester
Posts: 4,168
Re: Future Skylines/Developments of the US

Hudson Yards.







stick n move is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2016, 05:29 AM   #34
stick n move
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Dorchester
Posts: 4,168
Re: Future Skylines/Developments of the US

Theres some pretty amazing future skyline pictures here of nyc, la, philly.
http://www.yimbyforums.com/t/thomas-...renders/2973/3






Last edited by vanshnookenraggen; 10-03-2016 at 04:31 PM. Reason: Please resize images before posting.
stick n move is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2016, 02:24 AM   #35
stick n move
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Dorchester
Posts: 4,168
Re: Future Skylines/Developments of the US

Quote:
Originally Posted by tysmith95 View Post
^That looks amazing. Architecture of today is much better than architecture during the 2nd half of the 20th century.

Well the NYC and SF proposals are amazing. The Philly proposal is ok.
I do like the Philly tower but its weird to me that we have two cities now in the US getting their new tallest by way of spires. LA and Philadelphia are both buildings towers that have shorter roof heights than their tallest but are taller because of a spire. It looks weird and half assed in my opinion. Both towers look good, but the effect on their skylines is awkward.





They should both have the letters "almost" lit up on the roofs at night.
stick n move is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2016, 07:56 AM   #36
odurandina
Senior Member
 
odurandina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 3,467
Re: Future Skylines/Developments of the US

^^The new supertall in Philadelphia looks hideous. In other words, i'd take it in a New York minute in (Cambridge). And an inferior city will have 7 or 8 buildings taller than anything in Boston, within a few years.
odurandina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2016, 09:16 AM   #37
KentXie
Senior Member
 
KentXie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Fenway
Posts: 3,697
Re: Future Skylines/Developments of the US

Quote:
Originally Posted by odurandina View Post
^^The new supertall in Philadelphia looks hideous. In other words, i'd take it in a New York minute in (Cambridge). And an inferior city will have 7 or 8 buildings taller than anything in Boston, within a few years.
It looks exactly like the office portion going up at the TD Garden.
KentXie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2016, 04:26 PM   #38
dshoost88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,393
Re: Future Skylines/Developments of the US

Miami

miami2585 by olivier, on Flickr

miami1472 by olivier, on Flickr





Foster + Partners-designed towers just announced today
dshoost88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2016, 10:31 AM   #39
KentXie
Senior Member
 
KentXie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Fenway
Posts: 3,697
Re: Future Skylines/Developments of the US

Amazing how quickly they are densifying. Starting to look more dense than Boston's skyline, even a smalle resemblance to Chicago.
KentXie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2016, 06:10 PM   #40
tysmith95
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: North Shore
Posts: 2,068
Re: Future Skylines/Developments of the US





Aston Martin (the car company) is proposing a 66 story residential high rise in Miami. I'm serious.
tysmith95 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
Roxbury Developments czsz Development Projects 291 07-16-2018 05:23 PM
Dorchester Developments Boston02124 Development Projects 785 07-05-2018 09:22 AM
MA Casino Developments TheRifleman Development Projects 2271 09-14-2016 10:29 AM
JP Developments Pierce Development Projects 19 07-25-2010 06:49 PM
How are these developments still happening? palindrome General Architecture & Urban Planning 1 11-13-2009 03:38 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:17 PM.


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