MassDOT Pike Parcels 12 - 15 | Boylston St. and Mass. Ave | Back Bay

Please amuse me by explaining how two four hundred foot buildings is worse than a 283 ft and a 583,ft building (ignoring crowns). Please. Amuse me. I'm waiting.
 
i rather think we should consider getting rid of the shorter tower – and just go for about 875' on the taller tower. And do a plaza a la Breakfast at Tiffany's. It's not that short towers are better. It's that tall towers in the core of a City aren't really bad.

Now, we could build a pair of your 400' towers at the Midtown Hotel. That would be a perfect stepup. Your idea leaves the a City of Boston's stature too barren of density - and the Mass Pike undecked.
 
odurandina said:
I'm glad you stopped by. You know, i must admit; last April i had begun to have my doubts. Shirley Kressel had been banished, 1 Bromfield, and 2 Charlesgate West came about, then SST, and now this.

But then, the grounds beneath the Back Bay volcano began to stir. What a difference a few months makes.

No Copley Tower. No end in sight for the 115 Federal St saga. 1 Bromfield in danger of fading to become a distant memory..... Yeah, you remember. You remember how in the fall of 2015, i had begun posting in just about every Globe article that we were just about done planning and permitting tall highrises in Boston; like, as in as near as makes no difference, none. And they way i came across. What an ass. And now look at what's happened. People like Galer, and Ryan and anyone else who votes against a perfectly reasonable proposal for not even massive height exactly where it should be: right next to two other skyscrapers in a big American urban core that barely has any tall buildings.

Yes, cross this off the list. And by doing that, you've canceled the advanced decking plans for the unification of these 2 parcels + that 1/2 parcel thing. Now nothing is getting decked. Not an inch. The developer can now walk away from the project and consider doing some apartments in Hyde Park.

That leaves us with
115 Winthrop Square 725'
1 Bromfield St 709'
Harbor Garage Tower 600'

Except if, Parcel 15 is gone, by applying your Boston no-go-for-height logic (near anything that trumps height) 1 Bromfield is also a goner. Then, i eagerly await anyone who can suggest any parcel where we can build even a 600' tower. If this holds out to be true, do i still get slain for saying, 'we're just about done building seriously tall shit....' ??

Or for just being the first turdwagon to say it?
Click to expand...

Weve built more than any other time in our history. MT, 1 dalt u/c, 115 fed, and sst coming soon to fill the height need. Then gcg and td garden. Wheres the fire? These other parcels will come back up next cycle if they do not get build this cycle. The plots arent going anywhere and were like 1-2 years from throwing a shit ton of height into the sky and our 2nd tallest building in the cit is u/c.
 
The problem isn't the present. It's the future: our past is prologue nightmare for any hopes of filling in our last parcels with density. We are about to become the only city in the United States that can't build a building taller than 390'. if you think that's a typo, stop and consider that our future is resting on these parcels....

Proposed;
1. 115 Federal St 725'
2. Parcel 15 615'
3. Harbor Garage 600'
4. 109-153 Lincoln St (will be shadow law restricted at ~450-500')

not in my lifetime or yours, FAA heights/

1. Sheraton North Tower + Lobby; Boston's tallest build site; ~990'
2. Lord and Taylor; ~965'
3. 65 Martha Rd 900'
4. a site near the Garden Garage project 860'
5-7. 3 small parcels in the West End near Mass General; 825-850'
8. low section of the O'Neill Fed Bldg; 825'
9. State Services Ctr 810'
10. Suffolk Court (it needs to go) 775'
11. 1-3 Center Plaza 760-775'
12. low section JFK Fed Bldg 735-760'
13. Boston City Hall 725-735'
14. 1 Bromfield St 710' (pushed back to theoretical status)
15. The south end of Christian Science Park; ~515'
16. The Midtown Hotel; 500~510' Christ Scientist says 'when Hell freezes over.'

btw, what is never mentioned is there's also a tacit shadow law for Copley Square. The Comm Ave mall is also protected in Back Bay from additional shadows. Losing Copley Tower is a terrible blow.
 
Last edited:
I'm a pragmatist. I really don't have a lot of values beyond "what will work". Nobody is proposing 800+ (dev included) so fantasizing about it is worthless. The back bay isn't gonna buy into a 600 ft tower. Get her done at 2x 400 and call it a win.
 
Does by not building parcel 15 now at a short height not leave a greater possibility for it to go tall next cycle when people are used to 1 dslton and we have even less space?
 
somethingrandom said:
I may be alone with this opinion, but I think these towers are a miss. I love the location, the idea, the density, and the height - but the design is doing nothing for me. The smaller tower looks like they put little effort into it (not unlike 30 Dalton) and for such a potentially prominent corner, it should have some redeeming qualities besides the podium.

The taller tower is a bizarre combination of other buildings that I do not think come together cohesively. The idea of a twisting tower is interesting and could be executed well, but this seems to half ass it and kind of twists but also doesn't really want to call attention to itself and therefore does not commit to the full potential. The crown is the same as Millennium Tower (sloped with the highest point in one corner), which seems uninspired. The second photo from the Bisnow article also shows random vertical lines in the facade (seems to be a reference to 1 Dalton), but they aren't cohesive to the front of the structure. The second photo also looks to have a slanted facade change (could be related to the twist?) that looks like the back is attempting to be some weird geometric shape that, again, seems to have nothing to do with the front of the tower. And the balcony placement in the second photo is awful.

Again, I may be alone in this opinion, but I think this site deserves something more interesting than a random collection of other buildings' features.
Click to expand...

An actual discussion of design, perhaps starting with this input from somethingrandom, seems merited here. Another thread devolving into bickering over height that is not being and will not be proposed on this parcel seems fruitless to me. So please: design and architecture discussion, at the currently proposed height. I can barely read a lot of this forum anymore because it's just the same tired points about height.

My personal take is that the proposal for Parcel 15 looks good from one side-- the Boylston side. The back side does appear somewhat un-thought out. I think a good redesign would try to bring the strong horizontal and vertical elements and the twist from the front and continue them to the back. Perhaps thinking of it as "the back" is part of the reason as to why the design is so lacking there.
 
The tower's design is fair game. Overall, it's very good. Be just as great if it was a slender, perfectly rectangular shape with an onyx curtain wall. The base of the tower will be INCREDIBLE compared to what we will have if this doesn't get built at [just about] this denstiy; (a hole). That's right. Friends, cities are compromises. Why do people forget that. Boston will never be unlivable or have too many towers. We never get there with the land assets we have. We get maybe 3~4% denser if we do these good things.
 
Last edited:
I'm curious to know what these people who oppose every cool project in Boston look like...where do they live? For how long? Are they old? Wealthy? Anyone have any idea?

I'm tired of assuming it's a bunch of old people that live in the west end.
 
617 said:
I'm curious to know what these people who oppose every cool project in Boston look like...where do they live? For how long? Are they old? Wealthy? Anyone have any idea?

I'm tired of assuming it's a bunch of old people that live in the west end.
Click to expand...

Well, based on the cut and paste letters about the Winthrop Place Garage project, they live along Beacon Street and Commonwealth Avenue, around the Common and Public Garden or close by. I would suggest that at least makes them wealthy.
 
JeffDowntown said:
Well, based on the cut and paste letters about the Winthrop Place Garage project, they live along Beacon Street and Commonwealth Avenue, around the Common and Public Garden or close by. I would suggest that at least makes them wealthy.
Click to expand...

Do these people have some sort of financial gain/benefit of the projects not getting built? I'm just trying to understand their motives...

Do they think suppressing the luxury condo market will keep their condo values higher?

I just refuse to believe this is only about shadows, aesthetics, or preservation. A few people might care about those things, but there has to be something larger and more potent (e.g., financial self interest) uniting these folks. They are able to launch massive cut/paste letter campaigns...these are not just a few passionate gardeners...
 
617 said:
I'm curious to know what these people who oppose every cool project in Boston look like...where do they live? For how long? Are they old? Wealthy? Anyone have any idea?

I'm tired of assuming it's a bunch of old people that live in the west end.
Click to expand...

Here's one of them. This individual was rallying the opposition at both 115 Fed and 1000 Boylston. I say this not based on observing firsthand (I wasn't there), but based on quotes and tweets.

(scroll down to see the comments tweeted about this project)

https://twitter.com/hollley?lang=en
 
odurandina said:
The problem isn't the present. It's the future: our past is prologue nightmare for any hopes of filling in our last parcels with density. We are about to become the only city in the United States that can't build a building taller than 390'. if you think that's a typo, stop and consider that our future is resting on these parcels....

Proposed;
1. 115 Federal St 725'
2. Parcel 15 615'
3. Harbor Garage 600'
4. 109-153 Lincoln St (will be shadow law restricted at ~450-500')

not in my lifetime or yours, FAA heights/

1. Sheraton North Tower + Lobby; Boston's tallest build site; ~990'
2. Lord and Taylor; ~965'
3. 65 Martha Rd 900'
4. a site near the Garden Garage project 860'
5-7. 3 small parcels in the West End near Mass General; 825-850'
8. low section of the O'Neill Fed Bldg; 825'
9. State Services Ctr 810'
10. Suffolk Court (it needs to go) 775'
11. 1-3 Center Plaza 760-775'
12. low section JFK Fed Bldg 735-760'13. Boston City Hall 725-735'
14. 1 Bromfield St 710' (pushed back to theoretical status)
15. The south end of Christian Science Park; ~515'
16. The Midtown Hotel; 500~510' Christ Scientist says 'when Hell freezes over.'

btw, what is never mentioned is there's also a tacit shadow law for Copley Square. The Comm Ave mall is also protected in Back Bay from additional shadows. Losing Copley Tower is a terrible blow.
Click to expand...

Another fucking list!

I've said this before and I'll say it again but just because it can be done, that doesn't mean it should be done. This is nothing more than childish wankery and I think that's putting it nicely. Almost no one who actually lives in or has any appreciation for Boston wants this kind of stuff built. If it's strictly tall buildings you're after, move to New York(or Philthadelphia).
 
kmp1284 said:
Another fucking list!
Almost no one who actually lives in or has any appreciation for Boston wants this kind of stuff built. If it's strictly tall buildings you're after, move to New York(or Philthadelphia).
Click to expand...

What do we who live and work in Boston what exactly? To live in a city frozen in time?

cca
 
kmp1284 said:
Almost no one who actually lives in or has any appreciation for Boston wants this kind of stuff built.
Click to expand...

Not true at all. I'm not a fan of O's listing-all-the-possibilities approach, and I don't want Boston to become New York, but I would very much like to see several of the proposals built. And yes I live/own in Boston. I work in Cambridge (if that's close enough). I'm not going to re-explain why I think building more towers is very good for Boston as I've already done so on several other threads.

Please don't generalize all forum members to be a certain way.

cca said:
What do we who live and work in Boston what exactly? To live in a city frozen in time?
Click to expand...

+1,
As I've mentioned before, I work with snotty nosed 21-yr-old students. You would be disgusted if you heard some of the things they say about our city - archaic, nothing gets done, a bunch of townies, "maybe someday it will have a real skyline"...Like it or not, smart, good people (e.g., exactly the kind of intelligent motivated outsiders who we'd love to see choose to live here, bring their fresh views, and change our city for the better) base their judgement on superficial views of our city. They are not correct, but they think they are, and they choose not to live here because of it. Its OK for Boston to do a little bit of outsider perception management once in a while...I am convinced we don't have the lose the old world charm in exchange for it.
 
I'm not generalizing forum members but rather the city's population at large.

And yes, Boston is frozen in time sadly and it's going to take a lot more than a few tall buildings to change that.
 
kmp1284 said:
I'm not generalizing forum members but rather the city's population at large.
Click to expand...

Well then maybe you are correct - many/most of the already-haves in boston don't want this stuff built.

And maybe I too am correct: many of the smart, talented people who would benefit this city if they moved here would want to see these things built.

Who are we building Boston for, the already haves?

kmp1284 said:
... it's going to take a lot more than a few tall buildings to change that.
Click to expand...

...one brick at a time
 
kmp1284 said:
Another fucking list!

I've said this before and I'll say it again but just because it can be done, that doesn't mean it should be done.
Click to expand...

Jane, you ignorant slut.

In what universe did i say that the parcels on the list should be developed?

The present day has provided permitting for a nice collection of highrises. Unfortunately, one that would fill a nice hole in Back Bay is already shelved. if and when the rest of them might happen is anyone's guess.

People have given some pushback about separating the permitted projects of the present with the future.

i gave the list with 4 parcels that will likely be developed for height [over 390'] within a few years. There are a few parcels that may be developed up to 390'. i don't care about those.

and the 2nd list came with qualifyers.

1. it's very close to the complete grocery list for the 'where.'

2. They will not likely be developed in my lifetime or yours....

i did not imply which of those should be developed for significant height. i stated exactly the opposite. implicit in 'not likely in my lifetime or yours....' is that they would be ignite such an intense firestorm, as to have unpropitious political implications.

Some of those parcels are often mentioned on this board. i'm often guilty of participation despite that based on current realities, they will not be developed.

*with the 1 possible exception being 1 Bromfield.
 
Last edited:
This may possibly be grossly over simplified (and perhaps too obvious), but I think the height issue for me boils down to sprawl vs. no sprawl.

Low rise construction = lower density in the core
Lower density = increased sprawl away from core
Increased sprawl = increased infrastructure vs. a higher density core
Increased infrastructure = more taxpayer money now, and in the future (we already have a state budget deficit, so how, exactly do we pay to create and more importantly maintain this shit?)

Not to mention all the other fantabulous issues (e.g., traffic, health, environmental, social/community, etc.) that come with sprawl.

We were a city of firsts, but now were a city of supertall wankers and NIMBYs who are afraid of change. We need smart progress. We should be increasing density (perhaps not via supertalls, but we definitely need to build taller to keep up with growth and keep costs down). To help accommodate increasing density while preserving the cultural aesthetics of the city, we should be focusing on extremely high-quality adaptive reuse (and we already have some decent examples). We should be at the forefront of design. We should be changing zoning laws to define locations for growth and preservation. We should be improving our infrastructure (cough...MBTA...cough) to support higher density. I don't feel like we are doing any of this well at all. Even for projects that have been recently completed like MT, it's been a giant clusterfuck for one reason or another (the hole)...we need to be thinking about the public good (and not just that of a respective neighborhood in the city). The decisions we make here have regional implications...not really sure where I was going with this...I just needed to rant. Anyway, I've gotta get back to work...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top