Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

skyscraper creep is irrational hysteria from a few cranes and good infill.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

115 Winthrop Square Public Meeting

when; Jan 05, 2017, 6:30–8:30 PM

Contact; Christopher Tracy, Christopher.Tracy@Boston.gov

Phone; 617.918.4259

Location:
101 Federal Street
29th Floor
Boston, MA 02110

Description: BPDA staff have decided to reschedule the Second Public Meeting (originally scheduled for December 19) to after the holiday season. This meeting will now take place on Thursday, January 5 at 6:30 PM at 101 Federal Street, 29th Floor. The public comment period is also being extended, based on community request, until January 16, 2017.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

BussesAin'tTrains said:
Also, is the Globe Metro section a blog now? What was that writing?
Click to expand...

That was Shirley Leung -- an opinion writer. I don't dislike her as many people do, but she does have a way about her.

More importantly, I'm interested in why the content for this piece was floated to her by, what looks like, the millenium people themselves. Was it meant to help?
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

stick n move said:
Uh oh. Good and bad here.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2017/01/04/tower-project-might-cast-shadow-development-city/EgQiywpv5dapqWOVSzQXfM/story.html
Click to expand...

Millennium’s proposal, according to the developer’s analysis, would be out of compliance on average about 36 minutes a day over the course of a year on the Common and on average about five minutes a day over the course of a year on the Garden.

That doesn’t sound like a big deal until you talk to park advocates. The state shadow laws were passed to protect the horticulture in public parks.

“You can correct for water with irrigation. You can correct for nutrients with fertilizer,” said Liz Vizza, executive director of the Friends of the Public Garden. “You cannot correct when you lose light.”

But to Vizza, the laws are not just about the tulips, but the ability of thousands of people to enjoy the civic right of sunshine.

“It’s important for us to realize it’s as much about the humans as it is about the horticulture,” she said.
Click to expand...

Evidently Liz has never heard of the term WEATHER -- I guarantee that there are plenty of years when the amount of sunlight at any place in Boston is reduced from the average by much more than the impact of the Winthrop square Tower shadow on the Common [approx 220 hours] or the Public Garden [approx 30 hours] out of 4380 hours of possible sunshine.

I like what the Friends have done to clean-up and improve the Common and Public Garden -- but Liz should stick to watering the Tulips and leave shadows to someone who can multiply
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

whighlander said:
Evidently Liz has never heard of the term WEATHER -- I guarantee that there are plenty of years when the amount of sunlight at any place in Boston is reduced from the average by much more than the impact of the Winthrop square Tower shadow on the Common [approx 220 hours] or the Public Garden [approx 30 hours] out of 4380 hours of possible sunshine.

I like what the Friends have done to clean-up and improve the Common and Public Garden -- but Liz should stick to watering the Tulips and leave shadows to someone who can multiply
Click to expand...

Respectfully, FOPG are among few guardians of what some consider intrinsic elements of character in Boston. They do so largely as volunteers and philanthropists.

Should we count Millennium and BPDA among Boston's guardians? BPDA didn't see fit to discuss the shadow law until after the RFP process. Had there been no shadow law, BPDA would've been agnostic about WS impacts on the Boston Common and Garden.

And before anyone plays the shopworn NIMBY card here, FOPG seemingly supports a viable 400' compromise. https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion...hrop-square/lOKlmhOg1KBOErWx1VffNP/story.html
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Sicilian said:
Respectfully, FOPG are among few guardians of what some consider intrinsic elements of character in Boston. They do so largely as volunteers and philanthropists.

Should we count Millennium and BPDA among Boston's guardians? BPDA didn't see fit to discuss the shadow law until after the RFP process. Had there been no shadow law, BPDA would've been agnostic about WS impacts on the Boston Common and Garden.

And before anyone plays the shopworn NIMBY card here, FOPG seemingly supports a viable 400' compromise. https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion...hrop-square/lOKlmhOg1KBOErWx1VffNP/story.html
Click to expand...

400' ????? Why bother!
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

If it wasn't so pathetic and sad it would be amusing that some of the most vocal cheerleaders of this are boobs from the burbs.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Civic right to sunshine is just a stupid phrase. I have no qualms saying that, particularly in the case we're talking about here.

Also, a 400' compromise is not a compromise. It's almost a 50% reduction in height. Based on 36 minutes a day of not being in compliance.

How much out of compliance? Any inch over the limit is out of compliance, and that is how the start and finish of the time frame would be. A little to start, a peak at average minute 18 let's say, and then it tapers again.

That doesn't sound like something that should require halving the building. I'm sure some more thoughtful design could limit that time frame and it's impacts even more without sacrificing so much of the building.

I'm not debating groups like this don't do good work, but they extrapolate small impacts into cataclysms a bit too often. It starts being a crying wolf things when they blow things out of proportion.

I read comments occasionally on the Globe (when I feel like my day is just going too well up until that point), and see these civic right to sunshine comments. They've gotten a little smarter and talk about people freezing walking through the park in the winter versus the summer, since people are looking for shade then. But, if you are not dressed for the temperature on your way to and from work, and count on the warmth of the sun to get you there and back.... you is big fool person.

It is not as much about people as it is horticulture. People are mobile, plants are not. If the plants are in a place that the new amount of shadows will kill them (doubtful) they cannot move on their own. People can walk around the new shadow during the time it's there.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Winthrop square is in the heart of the financial district. It deserves height, density, and a centerpiece tower befitting an internationally innovative and relevant city like Boston. I have seen the shadow simulations, and I'm sorry, I'm against the FOPG on this one. Preservation must coexist with healthy, reasonable growth. This isn't 171 Tremont, where their case was made. The '90's era shadow laws are overly conservative and need to be revised, with specific areas of the city in mind that will be earmarked development-allowable. I agree with their concern that we need to reasonably bound future growth with preservation in mind; I disagree with their assertions that this tower should be considered a violation of sanely re-written rules. The city played typical politics: there's more leverage with $130m check in hand. Otherwise we would just be speculating what this is worth to the city. The FOPG should take their $28m from this transaction and continue doing great work keeping the garden and common beautiful.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

bigpicture7 said:
Winthrop square is in the heart of the financial district. It deserves height, density, and a centerpiece tower befitting an internationally innovative and relevant city like Boston. I have seen the shadow simulations, and I'm sorry, I'm against the FOPG on this one. Preservation must coexist with healthy, reasonable growth. This isn't 171 Tremont, where their case was made. The '90's era shadow laws are overly conservative and need to be revised, with specific areas of the city in mind that will be development-allowable. I agree with their concern that we need to reasonably bound future growth with preservation in mind; I disagree with their assertions that this tower should be considered a violation.
Click to expand...

I always think about how much Knightsbridge, Chelsea, South Kensington and the West End suck when I realize how few tall buildings there are. Notting Hill has none. Utter trash!!! Sad.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Out of compliance is out of compliance. Take it up with the state legislature if you don't like the law.

I'm sorry that four hundred years of Boston history is getting in the way of your fetish for a 700' tall building.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

^I am not saying it shouldn't be taken up with the state legislature. I am saying the legislature should reconsider and revise the law.

Some of us do not have a universal fetish with 700' buildings. There are many places in the city where I would not want to see them built. I view each neighborhood as its own, but this is the heart of the financial district.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

SeamusMcFly said:
Based on 36 minutes a day of not being in compliance.
Click to expand...

I don't expect you to waiver. But to be clear since you're echoing Millennium's latest numbers...

36 minutes is stated as "average" measure of shadow over the course of a year. As I understand that methodology was introduced only today in Leung's column.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

I'll gladly take an extra shadow (SHADE!!!!!) on the Common or Garden at 7 AM in late August/early Sep (as these studies show).

Shadow studies in general are so deceiving. Shadows are constantly in motion, temporary creations. A shadow that happens to be cast at 7:05 on August 24 ends up being plastered all over media as the end of sunlight forever in Boston.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

bigpicture7 said:
^I am not saying it shouldn't be taken up with the state legislature. I am saying the legislature should reconsider and revise the law.

Some of us do not have a universal fetish with 700' buildings. There are many places in the city where I would not want to see them built. I view each neighborhood as its own, but this is the heart of the financial district.
Click to expand...

The problem with viewing each neighborhood in a vacuum is that you completely ignore the negative impact of something in one neighborhood on another.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

What about all those pesky trees in the common that cast shadows? A lot of the "new shadow" area already would have shadows from the trees when the sun angle is low.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

How did millenium tower skirt this law? Using the term law loosely here
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

kmp1284 said:
I always think about how much Knightsbridge, Chelsea, South Kensington and the West End suck when I realize how few tall buildings there are. Notting Hill has none. Utter trash!!! Sad.
Click to expand...

"The City" has taller buildings than Boston, and Canary Wharf is on par. So what's your point? London has far more history than Boston, and is being flooded with large towers, and not just in those 2 main areas either. Regardless, you aren't comparing apples to apples.

kmp1284 said:
If it wasn't so pathetic and sad it would be amusing that some of the most vocal cheerleaders of this are boobs from the burbs.
Click to expand...

Wow that's pretty rich, coming from a total boob who lives on another continent separated by an ocean. You are in London yet can't help yourself from criticizing people who still work in and identify with Boston. If you were 3200 miles closer you'd still be 70 miles away, substantially further than everybody you rag on. Going by this post, you are maybe the most pathetic and sad forum member on the history of the internet.

JohnAKeith said:
I'm sorry that four hundred years of Boston history is getting in the way of your fetish for a 700' tall building.
Click to expand...

No new towers! No new growth! Blame it on the Paul Revere House!

But really, 400 years of blah blah blah now means we cannot redevelop a dilapidated garage in the heart of downtown? Here's a disclaimer: *No historic structures will be injured in the making of this tower.*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top