Right, sometimes you need to kickstart the development of valuable brownfield land (eg the Seaport, or where there's old industrial sites near transit) but that should be the exception not the rule.
BUT, towers are already permitted here. No nonsense NIMBY lawsuits and process delays that assuredly helped kill One Kenmore. Hotel prices are still astronomical in Boston
The McCormack building could be used to move state and local offices, allowing complete redevevelopment of a lot of the monstrosities around gov't center....
You're missing the point: design review made it *worse* than what the developers wanted to build, not that the final design is awful. If you go to the thread here on ArchBoston, you will see a wide variety of more interesting designs that were initially proposed, then watered down in design...
Design review destroys good design and reduces it to the lowest common denominator. There's a great case study on this very forum for the newish building at Dartmouth and Newbury.
The reason you need the big assemblages is the thicket of zoning rules involving setbacks, heights (relaxed), lot coverage, etc. Cut these back, you can do smaller projects easier!