That is true up to an extent, and the irony here is that in the case pictured here, more height is actually better, because it highlights the building’s grace and form… without the two towers, Dorado would be a pile. I think it’s unfortunate that all across Boston we are so fixated on height rather than form we get nothing but these fat low rises and the reality is that that heavy urban feeling all of the NIMBYs are fighting is actually worse rather than better with triple the heights but elegant design.
However, Central Park and the Arnold Arboretum are not the same. The other reasons buildings like Dorado work is because Central Park is in the middle of Manhattan, and buildings like Dorado are in dialogue with the heights of buildings the city is famous for. The context of JP is quite different, and the Arboretum was not designed to be urban, nor a city park. It’s a botanical garden, which means natural is ideal, right down to the fact that shade actually will change the light exposure of plants. But aside from that, the Arboretum is a gem and it’s nice the way it is. There are too many people on this forum who are just so virulently in favor of height and density at any cost that they’ll support it anywhere. As I said already, this is the unfortunate consequence of overly restrictive zoning that makes every opportunity for increased density a fight to the death… but that doesn’t mean that any density, anywhere is a good idea. And as far as disrupting the Arboretum, this couldn’t be worse: it is right adjacent to the entrance, and it’s a big, ugly blob. Put crap like this at Forest Hills, which, in fact, is where an actual proper tower would go nicely and make sense.
Rude. And misguided,
Again, “housing crisis” does not justify any density, anywhere, all the time, and it gets pretty tiresome on this forum hearing zealotry like this which just tramples over any appreciation for context in favor of “more, more, more!” The Arboretum is NOT Central Park and this is NOT in an urban part of JP. Towers along the rest of the Olmsted parks is one thing—here, I think you actually do have an opportunity cultivate that urban grace exemplified by the Dorado (even the Jamaica tower, as bland as it is, contributes a little of this merely by its height). As for the specific impacts on the Arbo, building close to Centre St would make more sense, yes, but it’s still a dumb project because it’s gonna have a driveway with heavy, frequent use precisely at a major intersection. Can all of that be surmounted, in an ideal world? Yeah, probably, but it’s just not a great place for a project like this.
Again, misguided logic. The preservation and care of sight lines and views and the overall context in which scenic locations, landmarks, and other important places are situated is a core aspect of intelligent urban design and government function. All successful urban locales pay due attention to these principles. You also don’t have towers looming over Green Park in London, and you never will, because people there recognize that it’s not just about the park but about the dialogue between park and city. If you want to hack away every individual component and pretend that it exists in complete isolation from its surroundings, well, you’re certainly living in the right place, which is 21st century United States. But that’s the opposite of the contextual approaches necessary for good urban design. Build a skyscraper next to Yosemite would be the logical next step, and I don’t think there needs be any explanation of how this would be a bad idea. And no, to those who want to violently cry out “but the Arboretum is in the CITY!!!” are wrong, too; this is not the city and the grace of what the Arboretum IS—a place of relative quiet and seclusion—should absolutely be preserved.