odurandina
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2015
- Messages
- 5,328
- Reaction score
- 265
What's left to build near the range of 150m or taller in Boston?
If you don't like this topic.... or the people who pontificate about more tall a/r towers being added into the mix in Boston, Cambridge, etc.... or believe we should just keep building endless cube-shaped things... Or if you just can't offer friendly feedback about where it might be appropriate to build tall – then this thread probably isn't for you.
But for those wise AB voices who make a good case for the occasional low to moderate skyscraper, or for those who raise the issue of height more often than they should... If you're one of those types, this thread is for you.
When completed, the 44 story 485'/148m Garden Garage tower and the 495'/150m TD Garden resident tower will be tall, and incredible new additions to Boston. They will allow a great number of people to experience the greatest city in the world within walking distance of scores of historical landmarks, the Common, Public Garden, Esplanade, Greenway, etc, and ever-improving Waterfront.
Towers at this height look very impressive at a short distance, but also make a considerable impression from a greater distance.
The political and economic challenges for building to this height have only been met a few dozen times. It is with that in mind, that i've chosen this height as the bar.
Please contribute your ideas for;
1. Where can you make a reasonable case for building ___ height.
2. Please make a case for building it within a few years.
.......
The BCDC recently stated; "Boston could use a better mix of a/r."
With all the great infill and mid rise we've done, in addition to what is now under construction, i think we should go a bit more toward the other direction for a while. A few (high~very high) a/r towers would extend the city skyward, offer a superb architectural balance, and better present the wider buildings from the '60s/70s. i love 1 Bromfield and Accordia (past tense) for those reasons. i would love to see 2 Charlesgate W go narrower and taller. Height shouldn't always be shunned as an imaginary barrier to good urbanism.
To begin, i thought i'd take a piece of a city blessed with a strong mix of tall a/r, '70s fatty, and midrise....... distort it, shorten it, splice it, etc to offer (unapologetically) what i'd like to see more of in Boston....
If you don't like this topic.... or the people who pontificate about more tall a/r towers being added into the mix in Boston, Cambridge, etc.... or believe we should just keep building endless cube-shaped things... Or if you just can't offer friendly feedback about where it might be appropriate to build tall – then this thread probably isn't for you.
But for those wise AB voices who make a good case for the occasional low to moderate skyscraper, or for those who raise the issue of height more often than they should... If you're one of those types, this thread is for you.
When completed, the 44 story 485'/148m Garden Garage tower and the 495'/150m TD Garden resident tower will be tall, and incredible new additions to Boston. They will allow a great number of people to experience the greatest city in the world within walking distance of scores of historical landmarks, the Common, Public Garden, Esplanade, Greenway, etc, and ever-improving Waterfront.
Towers at this height look very impressive at a short distance, but also make a considerable impression from a greater distance.
The political and economic challenges for building to this height have only been met a few dozen times. It is with that in mind, that i've chosen this height as the bar.
Please contribute your ideas for;
1. Where can you make a reasonable case for building ___ height.
2. Please make a case for building it within a few years.
.......
The BCDC recently stated; "Boston could use a better mix of a/r."
With all the great infill and mid rise we've done, in addition to what is now under construction, i think we should go a bit more toward the other direction for a while. A few (high~very high) a/r towers would extend the city skyward, offer a superb architectural balance, and better present the wider buildings from the '60s/70s. i love 1 Bromfield and Accordia (past tense) for those reasons. i would love to see 2 Charlesgate W go narrower and taller. Height shouldn't always be shunned as an imaginary barrier to good urbanism.
To begin, i thought i'd take a piece of a city blessed with a strong mix of tall a/r, '70s fatty, and midrise....... distort it, shorten it, splice it, etc to offer (unapologetically) what i'd like to see more of in Boston....
Last edited: