How Tall Are Boston's Buildings and Should They Be Taller?

fattony said:
I've got news for you - that is part of the economics of development. We live in a society.
Click to expand...

fattony, I agree with you 100% on 99% of your posts, but you have to admit that political forces and economic forces are not the same thing.

There are plenty of things in life that "make economic sense" but are not given regulatory or political approval. They are not one in the same.

bigpicture7 said:
Your post logically makes sense, and until I started working with university seniors, would have completely agreed with your logic. But what you outline naively assumes that all students are motivated by the same rational economic considerations. Some do, sure, but that's not how the mind of all 22y.o.'s work.

I cannot count the number of times I have engaged with students who have "already made up their mind" that they "need to get out of Boston" or "want to experience NYC" before they even know what their exact job prospects / salary options are. That is what 22 y.o.'s do, especially those who have no loan debt / have a sense they should go explore.
Click to expand...

I totally agree that a city's "culture" is indeed a major consideration when someone is deciding where to live, and this consideration is relevant even outside of employment prospects. I do not agree that building height plays any significant role in that "culture" consideration, however, for just about anybody.

All employment opportunities being equal, some grads are going to want to live in NY, some are going to want to live in TX, some are going to want to live in Boston, etc. But plopping a few taller office buildings down in Boston won't change that cultural distinction. Nobody is going to think -- consciously or unconsciously -- "well, I wanted to move to Manhattan, but because Boston now has a building taller than the Hancock I'll stay." Things like bars, restaurants, weather, ease-of-transportation, etc. do WAY more to shape "culture" to a college grad than building height. It's also hard to understate the importance of a city's dating market; that is a HUGE consideration of twenty-somethings, especially as young (and especially educated) people are increasingly finding partners later in life.
 
Last edited:
Guys, I'll stand down and leave it at this: people make inferences about how "big" a city is and "how much it has going on" from the appearance of its skyline.

If you don't agree, fine.
 
A city will always be both forest and trees.

No one is saying to give up on trees. This isn't an either/or game.
 
bigpicture7 said:
Let me flip this around: if there were just one well-designed 900 footer, would the holier-than-thou architectural I-love-Paris crowd really have their dreams killed?
Click to expand...

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make him "holier-than-thou."

bigpicture7 said:
And how hard is it to admit that one punctuating tower would not destroy any of the other urban aesthetics that some folks on aB prefer?
Click to expand...

I'd say this is a straw man, but you actually seem to believe it. I have not seen this sentiment on aB. I think any push back you see here is more about people tiring of the height obsession and constant height related posts. It has nothing to do with people being against a tall building or a fear that it will ruin the preferred urban aesthetics as you put it.

bigpicture7 said:
This isn't an either/or game.
Click to expand...

And again, no one here is saying it is. I think the vast majority here would be happy (or at the very least ambivalent) about a new tallest building in Boston. It's just that many of us believe there are more important things.
 
Justin7, we have more in common than just the number at the end of our alias. I agree with most of your sentiments on aB. The height-obsessed postings from a specific person(s) about every single parcel are absolutely exhausting and substantially detract from aB. For 95/100 parcels we discuss on here, height (e.g, can we go taller??) barely has a place in a reasonable discourse about the project. This is honestly how I feel.
 
This appears to be the report for Parcel 15

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/externa...hArchives&orderCol=7&orderMode=desc&pageNum=1

appears to vary between 535' and 553'

(Triangle roof, 20' antenna)? coord, site elev, structure, total

42° 20' 49.03" N 71° 05' 10.50" W 20 553 573

42° 20' 49.98" N 71° 05' 10.84" W 20 553 573

42° 20' 50.96" N 71° 05' 10.85" W 20 553 573

42° 20' 50.64" N 71° 05' 11.81" W 20 553 573

42° 20' 49.41" N 71° 05' 09.76" W 20 553 573

42° 20' 49.03" N 71° 05' 11.18" W 20 553 573

42° 20' 50.87" N 71° 05' 10.30" W 20 553 573

42° 20' 50.51" N 71° 05' 11.65" W 20 535 555
 
Last edited:
Great stuff--Thank you!!!

Needs a re-edit to sync the audio w/ the slides.

Otherwise, can't consume enough of this stuff..... :)
 
once again in shanghai and it's certainly an interesting place to visit -- and not just for the architecture (tall or otherwise) -- but after another week here i am 100% convinced that, while there's no question that this place "does tall" both well and in volume, i 100% prefer walking around and living in boston. the same occurs to me whenever i'm in NYC. the over-the-top height fetishists either have never been to many areas where tall and supertall buildings are everywhere, or if they truly prefer that aesthetic, it might make their lives more enjoyable/less stressful to move to such a city. i enjoy traveling and getting to know other spots, but very few have tempted me to relocate from boston (and never because they have a 1,000-footer or whatever).
 
chrisbrat said:
once again in shanghai and it's certainly an interesting place to visit -- and not just for the architecture (tall or otherwise) -- but after another week here i am 100% convinced that, while there's no question that this place "does tall" both well and in volume, i 100% prefer walking around and living in boston. the same occurs to me whenever i'm in NYC. the over-the-top height fetishists either have never been to many areas where tall and supertall buildings are everywhere, or if they truly prefer that aesthetic, it might make their lives more enjoyable/less stressful to move to such a city. i enjoy traveling and getting to know other spots, but very few have tempted me to relocate from boston (and never because they have a 1,000-footer or whatever).
Click to expand...
Great perspective, and I definitely agree. When I think of the cities I have most enjoyed visiting or living in, almost every one is predominately a street level city (even though there may be some towers). That list would include Paris, Boston, Prague, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Amsterdam. These are fantastic cities that do not live and die by the skyline, even though some do have pretty good skylines (ie SF and Boston).
 
Boston will NEVER be like NYC or Shanghai. It will never have 1/20th the volume of the towers, and the amazing street level already exists here. Height makes sense in remaining areas and particularly by T Stations. (unless you want to continue to see more far-flung development in poor-transit areas) As many posters here are finding out, height also does a lot to visually stitch the city together and make certain areas feel more urban. In particular, the Bulfinch tower and Hub on Causeway towers have brought a sense of place and make that whole area feel more like an extension of downtown rather than a fragmented wasteland. This even extends out to the Greenway and makes the area between Faneuil Hall and the North End feel more like you're still within the city.

Plus, Boston's biggest strength in my book are the infinite juxtapositions between the old and the new. More towers (without eliminating any of the historic urban fabric) are only improving the experience.

Honestly, I always find these comments very odd. The city is 400 years old and shouldn't be compared to brand new cities, or cities that developed completely differently, or cities that are like 10 times the size of Boston. A few new larger towers will not turn Boston into NYC or Shanghai or any of these other places. Boston will remain Boston. On the other hand, every time we cut down projects we need to satisfy the demand (so much demand!) somewhere else. So we either sprawl, or we end up destroying buildings like the Dainty Dot or the one in Fenway or so many others that could have at least been partially retained with a facadectomy and taller towers to pay for that treatment.

So to all you "anti-height fetishists" I would argue that you are much more responsible for destroying the historic urban fabric of Boston, and for us having the worst traffic in the country, than the pro-height crowd could ever be. You know who you are and you should be ashamed of yourselves.
 
I think this is escalating needlessly... Maybe avoid terms like "fetishist" when describing people. All it does is raise the temperature. Ultimately @chrisbrat and @DZH22 aren't saying anything super different about what makes Boston great.

I also don't think that there are many people who are specifically advocating for less height. It's more people getting frustrated by the contention of height-fans that adding a few floors (or deleting a few floors) is what will make all the difference for Boston.
 
my apologies if what i posted seemed antagonistic. honestly not my intent in the least. i meant what i wrote more in a "hey, yknow what -- boston is pretty damn great and i absolutely love it" perspective. im sorry if i offended.

and fwiw i'd love to see a well designed and executed supertall somewhere in the city. DZH22 -- your pix are amongst the main reasons i came here in the first place and continue to visit. if you felt i was attacking you all i can say is: my bad.
 
DZH22 said:
So to all you "anti-height fetishists" I would argue that you are much more responsible for destroying the historic urban fabric of Boston, and for us having the worst traffic in the country, than the pro-height crowd could ever be. You know who you are and you should be ashamed of yourselves.
Click to expand...

I don't think anybody is anti-height per se, it's just not the top priority for all of us. We can clearly have much higher density throughout Boston whether or not we have towers (think North End for guidance). My goal is density coupled with great street activation. Boston has historically done well with this in the core, less well in the outer neighborhoods. Before we throw up our hands in despair that we aren't going tall enough, let's build better low rise density throughout the entire city. Certainly towers should be allowed, but the real push in my mind should be for hundreds of 5-10 floor buildings uniformly located throughout, or at a minimum all along the MBTA backbone.
 
chrisbrat said:
and fwiw i'd love to see a well designed and executed supertall somewhere in the city. DZH22 -- your pix are amongst the main reasons i came here in the first place and continue to visit. if you felt i was attacking you all i can say is: my bad.
Click to expand...

You're not among the "anti-height fetishists" I was railing at. But I hate hearing that. Like oh, because I think there should be height in appropriate places downtown it's automatically a "fetish" and not just A. something I like, and more importantly B. SOMETHING THAT MAKES SENSE! What does not make sense is demolishing historic urban core buildings, or building large footprint landscrapers away from transit (adding to congestion), or cutting down no-brainer projects right on transit that lead to the prior 2 points happening. (like the Hub so thoroughly chopping the residential component, or that now failed air rights project at the corner of Mass Ave and Boylston chopping height and density to the point of making the project unfeasible)

However, again, I don't really understand the comparison to Shanghai. How would a few taller buildings possibly convert Boston from the Boston we see today to the Shanghai we see today? I mean, couldn't the argument just be that they don't do the street level as well as we do, without it having ANYTHING to do with having or not having taller buildings?

Also, I have brought this up before, but in a city with a layout as utterly confusing as Boston's, taller buildings really do help with navigation. Now you can point to Avalon NS and the Hub on Causeway and say "the Garden and North Station are right by those towers" whereas before it was much more difficult to actually get a sense of where the heck it was in relation to the rest of the city. The same thing can be said of Fenway, which now has some (somewhat) tall buildings that define the area. The Pierce, while far from a stunner, does its job in basically bridging the gap between Fenway and Longwood. I have had a much easier time not getting lost in that area with some taller landmarks to help me keep my bearings.

Lastly, yes, I do like tall buildings. That's the main reason I am here. Am I not allowed to like something? Am I not allowed to think that aesthetically, the city looks better, particularly with new taller buildings eclipsing the boxy 70's/80's towers? Do I have to only be excited that another coffee shop or CVS is opening and can't just enjoy another tower added to the motley collection of buildings that make up our city? Sometmes I feel like I am under attack here because I enjoy something. Some of you really are turds in the proverbial punchbowl. (not you chrisbrat, but at least tell me what Shanghai has to do with Boston)
 
Last edited:
Just to add, I think the resentment towards "height fetishists" is really towards members that make a big nonsensical hoopla. For example, I remember some members obsessing over the developers not adding an antennae onto One Dalton to put it over 800 ft even though the antennae adds no value aesthetically or physically (i.e. more housing) whatsoever. Also, some members come off very disingenuous, disguising their obsession to add height onto everything in the name of "adding affordable housing" to city when in truth, they would vehemently support a tower if all the units were sold to wealthy foreign investors, just because the tower is tall. It's hijacking a very real problem for a personal agenda.

Those who really are vouching for tall towers to alleviate the housing crunch and traffic problems, they are not the problem. Those that aren't, yeah you're not fighting to improve the city of Boston and you're very much part of the problem.
 
Last edited:
DZH22 said:
(not you chrisbrat, but at least tell me what Shanghai has to do with Boston)
Click to expand...
it has nothing directly to do with boston and, yes, there are plenty (many!) of factors that make it radically different from our town aside from tall towers. i was really only trying to say that, while in one of the world's "premier" cities for supertalls and talls -- there are a lot here and they are, on balance, pretty exciting and interesting buildings -- i'm repeatedly struck by how much i prefer boston, despite our relative lack of such buildings. as noted in my original blurb, i feel similarly when im in NYC or other places with tons of skyscrapers relative to my city.

for the record, i am also a fan of tall towers and would like to see a few more well-done examples sprouting up in boston.

my post (i suppose. really didn't put a ton of thought into it beyond the above explanation) was at least partially in reaction to some (well... for the most part just one) AB members who, while actively participating in a boston architecture forum, seem to almost dislike boston simply b/c of the fact we don't have a 1,000-footer. it may be irrational, but i really love boston and i get tired and even a little bent out of shape when certain folks incessently act like we're some ugly backwater with nothing to recommend it simply because we don't have a billion tall towers.
 
chrisbrat said:
it has nothing directly to do with boston and, yes, there are plenty (many!) of factors that make it radically different from our town aside from tall towers. i was really only trying to say that, while in one of the world's "premier" cities for supertalls and talls -- there are a lot here and they are, on balance, pretty exciting and interesting buildings -- i'm repeatedly struck by how much i prefer boston, despite our relative lack of such buildings. as noted in my original blurb, i feel similarly when im in NYC or other places with tons of skyscrapers relative to my city.
Click to expand...

Think about this: You can prefer Boston already, and then prefer it even more with a couple interesting taller buildings added to it. It's not the either/or proposition so many on this board often make it out to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top