South Station Tower | South Station Air Rights | Downtown

DZH22 said:
Chrysler counts its stick though, so not exactly apples to apples. Notice that the Hancock's roof goes above the last "normal" floors of Chrysler and into the crown. Chrysler's significant spire ends up being 194' above the Hancock's antenna and 139' above the Pru's. Honestly, a building like this would fit in quite well if the city ever gets a new tallest (not holding my breath).

View attachment 65761
Click to expand...
I’m waiting for the next evolution of these Robert Stern neo art deco towers in nyc to start including spires. Id love to see them try a few, especially something like a 40 wall street with the copper crown. Itd be nice to get a couple in Boston to break up our boxy skyline. One or two around north station would be nice. The liberty mutual hq kind of faded into the background, but something of that level of quality would be timeless.
 
stick n move said:
I’m waiting for the next evolution of these Robert Stern neo art deco towers in nyc to start including spires. Id love to see them try a few, especially something like a 40 wall street with the copper crown. Itd be nice to get a couple in Boston to break up our boxy skyline. One or two around north station would be nice. The liberty mutual hq kind of faded into the background, but something of that level of quality would be timeless.
Click to expand...

My hope was always one over North Station and one over South Station for landmarking orientation and general beauty. To me, it just made so much sense
 

shmessy said:
My hope was always one over North Station and one over South Station for landmarking orientation and general beauty. To me, it just made so much sense
Click to expand...
Shmessy, I agree, and it was such a disappointment when the spire on the SST was eliminated. I swear some of my favorite buildings in town are the Old Hancock (once beautifully lit, sadly no longer), the Custom House, 111 Huntington , the New England Life Building, and the United Shoe Machinery Building because of their spires and tops. I wish Boston wasn’t so timid with showing itself off! Throw some color and spires into the skyline mix! Have fun with lighting!
 
Last edited:
shmessy said:
My hope was always one over North Station and one over South Station for landmarking orientation and general beauty. To me, it just made so much sense
Click to expand...
There is still room for lit up art deco towers with spires near South Station south of Kneeland St between Lincoln St and Atlantic Av, and at North Station in the big parking lot between Nashua St and the train platforms. Maybe the next cycle of tower construction will make that happen.
 
One issue holding back potential buildings with spires is Boston's height limit because of the airport. Downtown's limit is 700 feet, which means a building with a 150-foot spire will top out at 550 feet. That's not economically feasible when a developer is trying to maximize profit. Plus the spire wouldn't have the same effect if it's only reaching as high as the taller actual buildings around it. That's not to say that you can't make nice art deco buildings without a spire; it just means spires have those monetary and physical constraints.
 
SMCYB said:
One issue holding back potential buildings with spires is Boston's height limit because of the airport. Downtown's limit is 700 feet, which means a building with a 150-foot spire will top out at 550 feet. That's not economically feasible when a developer is trying to maximize profit. Plus the spire wouldn't have the same effect if it's only reaching as high as the taller actual buildings around it. That's not to say that you can't make nice art deco buildings without a spire; it just means spires have those monetary and physical constraints.
Click to expand...
Is it possible that Boston could have a tower over 800 feet anywhere? I don't know too much about height restrictions in the city, I'm just starting to learn about them.
 
Last edited:
SirNirch said:
Is it possible that Boston could have a tower over 800 feet anywhere? I don't know too much about height restrictions in the city, I'm just starting to learn about them.
Click to expand...
Yes, it would be possible to build a tower that tall in Back Bay or the West End if you were able to get a zoning variance. But it's not likely to happen anytime soon, especially considering the current state of the economy.

A tower of that size wouldn't be allowed in the Financial District because of FAA limits due to Logan Airport, however.
 
themissinglink said:
Yes, it would be possible to build a tower that tall in Back Bay or the West End if you were able to get a zoning variance. But it's not likely to happen anytime soon, especially considering the current state of the economy.

A tower of that size wouldn't be allowed in the Financial District because of FAA limits due to Logan Airport, however.
Click to expand...
I kind of figured but I wanted to ask given that I do know 200 Clarendon is very close to 800. I want to see a tower break that mark in the city. Maybe not anytime soon like you said, but maybe one day.
 
The Pru is 920' to the tip of the antenna. I think it's idiotic that purely decorative spires are included when calculating a tower's height, but actual functional spires aren't. If anything, I think the fact that the Pru's "spire" actually does serve a purpose makes it *more* legitimate for inclusion in overall height. These rules are exceedingly arbitrary.

So, as far as I'm concerned we already have a tower that's well over 800' -- well over 900', even. And -- anecdotal though it may be -- whenever friends visit from out of town they invariably refer to the Prudential as the tallest in Boston.

Do I think the Pru is a stunner like the JHT or One Congress or 1 Dalton? That's another story...
 
chrisbrat said:
The Pru is 920' to the tip of the antenna. I think it's idiotic that purely decorative spires are included when calculating a tower's height, but actual functional spires aren't. If anything, I think the fact that the Pru's "spire" actually does serve a purpose makes it *more* legitimate for inclusion in overall height. These rules are exceedingly arbitrary.

So, as far as I'm concerned we already have a tower that's well over 800' -- well over 900', even. And -- anecdotal though it may be -- whenever friends visit from out of town they invariably refer to the Prudential as the tallest in Boston.

Do I think the Pru is a stunner like the JHT or One Congress or 1 Dalton? That's another story...
Click to expand...
The building is 749 feet; the structure is 920 feet. Two categories; each accurate.
 
IMG_7151.jpg
IMG_7150.jpg


I took the train the New York over the weekend. While I was there I visited Penn Station's Moynihan Hall, the Oculus, and Grand Central Terminal. I want to say good things about our new train station, but all three New York stations blew away the new South Station concourse by orders of magnitude. This is embarrassing by comparison. The only thing good about it is the three domes. The floor is ugly concrete, the train arrival/departure sign is what you see here (hopefully they install a permanent one, but I saw no signs of that happening), and the place is a wind tunnel. I was standing there on an August day with a temperature of about 75ºF and I was chilly. I can only imagine how cold it will be in the winter, especially on a 34º day with wind and rain. And I'm not talking about the ridiculous gap above the old concourse building; I'm talking about the whole thing. I was hoping to be happy with what I saw, but I was utterly disappointed.

I understand that Boston still has diesel trains, but whomever got paid to design this station with that in mind received waaaaaaay too much money for the small amount of thought they put into it.

I'm sorry to those of you who want to defend it, but I suggest you go visit the three amazing stations in New York and then come back with a fully-formed, objective opinion. :(
 
chrisbrat said:
Sure. Then the Empire State is 1,250 feet and not 1,454 and the Burj Khalifa is 1,919 feet and not 2,717.
Click to expand...

The Empire State Building IS 1250', as the 1454' is to an antenna just like on the Pru. It's always counted as 1250'.
 
SMCYB said:
View attachment 65996View attachment 65997

I took the train the New York over the weekend. While I was there I visited Penn Station's Moynihan Hall, the Oculus, and Grand Central Terminal. I want to say good things about our new train station, but all three New York stations blew away the new South Station concourse by orders of magnitude. This is embarrassing by comparison. The only thing good about it is the three domes. The floor is ugly concrete, the train arrival/departure sign is what you see here (hopefully they install a permanent one, but I saw no signs of that happening), and the place is a wind tunnel. I was standing there on an August day with a temperature of about 75ºF and I was chilly. I can only imagine how cold it will be in the winter, especially on a 34º day with wind and rain. And I'm not talking about the ridiculous gap above the old concourse building; I'm talking about the whole thing. I was hoping to be happy with what I saw, but I was utterly disappointed.

I understand that Boston still has diesel trains, but whomever got paid to design this station with that in mind received waaaaaaay too much money for the small amount of thought they put into it.

I'm sorry to those of you who want to defend it, but I suggest you go visit the three amazing stations in New York and then come back with a fully-formed, objective opinion. :(
Click to expand...
That's a temporary sign. Pretty sure they're gunna hang one here on the other side:
Screenshot 2025-08-20 161104.png


Re: comment about food - they're opening up a renovated Regina opposite the McDonald's soon. SS is ugly but I appreciate some shitty cheap food.
Moynihan is beautiful but bougie (somehow the bar there actually has a decent happy hour). And the food court, while nice, is always crazy loud. They had an actual DJ there last time I was over in the evening and it felt so unnecessary and weird. There's definitely some aggressive indirect anti-loitering practices in place there - the antithesis being SS which attracts some... characters...
 
We've complained at length about S. Station's concourse operator, Ashkenazy Acquisition. Somehow, despite having access to 750M in new funding, Ashkenazy is so disorganized they haven't bothered to pay the $150 for their squarespace subscription in 2 years. Clearly, South Station isn't their priority, and the T and the MBTA need to make like Amtrak and City of Boston did with DC Union & Fanueil to extract it from their hands.
Stlin said:
... You know it's not good when they've forgotten to pay the Squarespace subscription for their official website.

Click to expand...
 
Bananarama said:
Re: comment about food - they're opening up a renovated Regina opposite the McDonald's soon. SS is ugly but I appreciate some shitty cheap food.
Moynihan is beautiful but bougie (somehow the bar there actually has a decent happy hour). And the food court, while nice, is always crazy loud. They had an actual DJ there last time I was over in the evening and it felt so unnecessary and weird. There's definitely some aggressive indirect anti-loitering practices in place there - the antithesis being SS which attracts some... characters...
Click to expand...
I wonder if/when they will reopen the upstairs seating area at South Station. It's been closed since the start of the pandemic, which was already half a decade ago...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top