Boston02124
Senior Member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 6,934
- Reaction score
- 7,068
20191130_145201 by J Sinclair, on Flickr
20191130_152702 by J Sinclair, on Flickr
20191130_195648 by J Sinclair, on Flickr
20191130_145822 by J Sinclair, on Flickr
20191130_150056 by J Sinclair, on Flickr
20191130_145409 by J Sinclair, on Flickr
20191128_134304 by J Sinclair, on Flickr
20191128_134309 by J Sinclair, on Flickr
20191128_134431 by J Sinclair, on Flickr
20191128_134439 by J Sinclair, on FlickrAgreed. Not height for heights sake, but would be much more visually appealing driving in from the north if they had used that full 659'. I'm surprised that right on top of the 2nd biggest transit hub in new england they apparently didn't think they could sell/rent more units?? Or was there another reason they didn't build to fully approved height?Poof.... some angles are unflattering.
The Residential tower quite needs the additional 163' removed from the approved design (put back).
Agreed. Not height for heights sake, but would be much more visually appealing driving in from the north if they had used that full 659'. I'm surprised that right on top of the 2nd biggest transit hub in new england they apparently didn't think they could sell/rent more units?? Or was there another reason they didn't build to fully approved height?
IMG_8310 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
IMG_8311 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
IMG_8321 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
IMG_8527 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
IMG_8528 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
IMG_8529 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
IMG_8534 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
IMG_8536 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
IMG_8541 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
IMG_8555 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
IMG_8540 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
IMG_8557 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
IMG_8577 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr