Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

DZH22 said:
actual demand
Click to expand...

Yes, why don't we explore that elusive reality a bit further?

For five consecutive quarters, the central Boston office market has been bleeding tenants as a logical consequence of the pandemic and the work-from-home phenomenon creating a fundamental shift in the market/demand/how we work.

Although the overall Boston office market apparently has stablized per that Globe story, the damage has already been done in the sense that vacancy rates are now at the highest levels seen since 2010-2012, in the aftermath of the 2007-2009 recession.

Meanwhile, on the horizon are 2.5 million more sq.-ft. of office space to flood the market, the combination of One PO Sq. coming back on-line, Winthrop Center, South Station Tower, and One Congress. Even if those 2.5 million sq.-ft. get 100% absorbed the moment they hit the market, where does that still leave things?

Point being: where's the actual demand for any future office towers in Boston?

I think for a very long time, given all of the above, any new towers in the city will be driven by residential, not office, demand. But of course I may be mistaken.

P.S. for someone who's allegedly an ardent free-market fundamentalist, you seem awful anxious for an invasive government intervention--an authoritarian imposition?--to stretch our skyline vertically.... ;)
 
I think the point is more about the relative importance of building height.

I like a tall building as much as the next person and think they’re really cool. Same for spectacular skylines.

On a scale of 1-10 however as to the importance of height for a city to be a spectacular, fun and world class place? It’s pretty low on that totem pole. Just ask Tulsa, OK.

That being said, I fully support some taller buildings in Boston, absolutely. But it’s not for really important reasons- just that I think it would be fun. Like getting one of those mega-Ferris Wheels on the Esplanade.

The people who obsess about it as if it were an actual criteria for a great city evidently have a different opinion.
 
Last edited:
Boston is uniquely walkable. Our pedestrian experience is the best in all America.

Tall buildings rarely enhance street-level experience. Usually, in fact, they create a vacuum, a jumbo block that diminishes street complexity and reduces, not enhances, the pedestrian experience.

The complexity of our blocks is a Boston hallmark.

A skyline – viewed from outside the city - has nothing to do with the real value of a city, and arguing that it does misses the point.

I like construction porn as much as the next guy, but I worry more about protecting what we have than creating a dubious skyline that may diminish it.
 
Height variation in a skyline is what really makes it pop in my opinion. The fact that Boston constantly "buzz cuts" alot in each neighborhood is what annoys me on skyline perspective. The Seaport is prime example. Ok so there is a FAA height limit here and I get that but the fact that every building in that neighborhood went to the same limit ruined the skyline there and even makes the neighborhood feel stale from the ground when looking up(the whole almost every building is all glass doesn't help either.)

Boston can and is great because we have an opportunity to mix old with new here and we should continue to build and grow that way. No one would want the same retail business in every building to be the same as such height shouldnt be all the same either. We don't need a bunch of super talls. It would kill the skyline if we did but a few here and there at different heights could really help the "buzz cut" effect I'm worried we are going to create if we keep chopping heights on every project.
 
nm88 said:
Boston is uniquely walkable. Our pedestrian experience is the best in all America.

Tall buildings rarely enhance street-level experience. Usually, in fact, they create a vacuum, a jumbo block that diminishes street complexity and reduces, not enhances, the pedestrian experience.

The complexity of our blocks is a Boston hallmark.

A skyline – viewed from outside the city - has nothing to do with the real value of a city, and arguing that it does misses the point.

I like construction porn as much as the next guy, but I worry more about protecting what we have than creating a dubious skyline that may diminish it.
Click to expand...
I can't believe someone finally stated what you did! I've been quietly arguing the same matter for years, but somehow the skyline view of Boston, which I also like, dominates in any discussion. And now that that distant view is increasingly a seen as a jumble of boxes of very different colors and styles, I wonder if we've already lost what is unique to Boston. Thankfully the view from Cambridge still allows one to see the Golden Dome kind of dominating Beacon Hill.
 
51624175886_95813ae17e_b.jpg
 
nm88 said:
Boston is uniquely walkable. Our pedestrian experience is the best in all America.

Tall buildings rarely enhance street-level experience. Usually, in fact, they create a vacuum, a jumbo block that diminishes street complexity and reduces, not enhances, the pedestrian experience.

The complexity of our blocks is a Boston hallmark.

A skyline – viewed from outside the city - has nothing to do with the real value of a city, and arguing that it does misses the point.

I like construction porn as much as the next guy, but I worry more about protecting what we have than creating a dubious skyline that may diminish it.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. I'd rather see the entire city look like the North End than Kuala Lumpur.

Speaking of Kuala Lumpur, I currently live in the city and it's full of super tall buildings - just Google pictures of the skyline!

They're even in the process of building the world's second tallest tower! But man, it's impossible to find a place in the city to take a leisurely walk around. Unlike their rivals to the south, Singapore, KL has decided to destroy all of the older, but more charming buildings, that made the city interesting and somewhat walkable. Now the city is full of beautiful and tall buildings that are walled off at street level so there's no joy in walking around town. Give me Paris, with their midrise buildings that seem to go on forever, any day over what has happened here.
 
Last edited:
Looks like this one is just a few more floors away from really starting to show up on the skyline.
 
1. Who said it has to be an office tower, when obviously residential (or mixed use) are in the most demand? The demand IS there or we wouldn't be building everything else nonstop.
2. Why do people act like adding a couple tall buildings to Boston will suddenly make Boston less walkable, or similar to Dallas or something? I mean, isn't Boston already Boston? I'm talking about enhancing Boston, not changing it into these other cities.
3. Speaking about preservation, wouldn't facadectomies with additional height be totally preferable to what we HAVE been getting in a lot of spots, like losing the Dainty Dot, or Times Building, or that one in Kenmore, or the upcoming Shreve Crump and Lowe?

Let's go back to #2 some more. Seriously, Boston is Boston. If 1 person here can explain why making the Hurley building 700'+ instead of 400' would somehow make our city more like Dallas and lose all its charm, I'll eat my hat. Seriously, I'll buy a hat, and post a youtube video of me eating the whole thing. Because 90% of the answers to me are complete non sequiters. Boston IS Boston. I'm talking about a couple taller buildings to enhance the existing city of BOSTON. Nothing requires demoing the rowhouses, or creating more parking lots, or anything that would possibly make Boston less of a city than it is today. I would like Boston, in its current form, to add a handful of taller buildings in places that are either currently parking lots, or those spots screaming for redevelopment like the Hurley, certain parking garages, etc, and also as a way to prevent future demolitions of historic structures by instead turning to facadectomies + height.

Everything else is just twisting what I am saying, or putting words in my mouth that aren't there. If I wanted Dallas I'd move to Dallas. I just want Boston to build some buildings today that would blow my mind like the Custom House would have done in 1915, Pru in 1964, and Hancock in 1976 once they finally fixed the Plywood Palace fiasco. Again, EVERYTHING ELSE IS ALREADY THERE. Why do I have to be in favor of getting rid of any of Boston's charm in order to accommodate those few larger buildings that will give it a 21st century pop? I say over and over that Boston is already better than most/all other cities, and I don't want to change any of what makes it great. I never asked for that. Certain people love to somehow quote me out of context, or act like I'm in favor of a bunch of things which I am not. Honestly, how dare you. I'm frankly offended by those who would put words in my mouth, or extrapolate anything I did say into so many things that I didn't. I already agree with most of you who think you are "opposing" what I have to say, except for the narrow piece of wanting to add a few taller buildings into the mix to stimulate my visual appetite.

By the way since I have been following this stuff, I can think of 4 specific projects that have "stirred the masses" in terms of witnessing random people on the ground pointing, discussing, gaping at, etc. Those are Millennium Tower (so many people actually thought this was going tallest in the city by their conversations), 1 Dalton (as one random passerby called it, the "perfect building"), the Hub on Causeway (mainly for the whole spectacle, especially having those active podiums but also adding height where there was nothing), and State Street (multiple people have commented, but best thing I saw was a family with kids staring up and one of the kids saying "this is going to be awesome!!!!!"). The large projects stir the imagination, while the others are more utilitarian than anything. Random people like tall buildings. Random people gravitate towards tall buildings. I haven't witnessed this type of buzz around the hundreds of other projects I have followed through the years. Best of all, these 4 projects replaced a 5 year hole in the ground, a virtually unused/unusable pocket park, a huge deadening parking lot, and part of a parking garage.

One last time, please review point #2 above. What the heck are you all even talking about? Will a 900' tower turn us into Dubai, placing us in an inhospitable desert? Will an 800' tower turn us into Dallas and spell the end of one of our historic neighborhoods? I mean, this whole thing is frankly bizarre. It's a complete non sequitur. Boston is already Boston; we're in the refining while preserving stage. That's it.

So again, WITH ALL ELSE BEING EXACTLY THE SAME, why settle for Building A below when we could feasibly get Building B?

1635094772396.png


1635094779940.png
 
Post above^ 👍👍👍👍👍

Exactly. Boston with some height mixed in is the goal not parking lots with single towers. Boston has the walkable best Street scapes and adding height here and there would blow us up to the top because of the 2. It's not an either or situation. It's what can make this great city keep improving.
 
MrDee12345 said:
I agree with you. I'd rather see the entire city look like the North End than Kuala Lumpur.

Speaking of Kuala Lumpur, I currently live in the city and it's full of super tall buildings - just Google pictures of the skyline!

They're even in the process of building the world's second tallest tower! But man, it's impossible to find a place in the city to take a leisurely walk around. Unlike their rivals to the south, Singapore, KL has decided to destroy all of the older, but more charming buildings, that made the city interesting and somewhat walkable. Now the city is full of beautiful and tall buildings that are walled off at street level so there's no joy in walking around town. Give me Paris, with their midrise buildings that seem to go no forever, any day over what has happened here.
Click to expand...

Never thought I'd see someone else living in APAC on this forum! I've been to KL seven times over the past decade, and it's hands-down my least favorite major city in Pacific Asia outside of China. It's nothing like other regional powerhouses: the pedestrian walking experience is akin to Tampa's, public transit is a joke, towers-in-the-park everywhere. I rag on Singapore for being too Disney and a bit milquetoast, but I'll take a business week in SG over KL every single time.
 
Re: prior sports team flag discussion: I see the Patriots flag flying in the 3rd pic but not the Red Sox one. Does that confirm the flags are only flown for teams actively playing? Or at least that the prior absence of the Patriots flag has nothing to do with the fact that team does not play in Boston? This is very important stuff. :)
 
DZH22 said

> I'll eat my hat. Seriously, I'll buy a hat, and post a youtube video of me eating the whole thing

I'll be the first to subscribe to that channel if that motivates you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DBM
citydweller said:
what is amazing to me is that this tower is more than 50% complete yet it's still nondescript in the skyline.
Click to expand...

I am challenged to think of a less amazing phenomenon.

Nearly a dozen towers less than 300 yards from Winthrop Center, being 500+ feet, still eclipse it in height--1 Federal, 100 Federal, 1 PO Sq, 100 Summer, MTower, One Boston Place, 28 State, 1 Lincoln, One Beacon, 60 State, 53 State.

If you can't see a structure from the vast majority of vantage points because it is obscured by taller objects, how can it be anything other than "nondescript"?
 
PT1987 said:
How many floors are they putting up per week at this point?
Click to expand...

As I recall, for MTower--same developer, same general contractor, same construction style--they achieved 1 floor per week pretty consistently, one they rose to the portion with uniform floor dimensions [i.e., above the podium]. No reason to think it's not the same pace now at Winthrop Center, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top