South Station Tower | South Station Air Rights | Downtown

Poolio said:
And now for the really wacky stuff. I have no idea if any of these were ever serious proposals.
View attachment 64070
Click to expand...
alternative-3-jpg.64070

^This one looks like an early '90s shopping mall exploding
 
JeffDowntown said:
They cannot build a tall res tower in the other locations south of the current tower. You enter FAA 300 ft. restricted airspace just south of the current tower. (In fact it seems they likely fudged the edge of the airspace restriction for the current tower.)
Click to expand...

I checked and you're right that the height limit there is stupidly low. However, there also seems to be some leeway compared to the FAA map. For example, 1 Dalton is squarely in the ~500' range but ended up approximately 756'. So maybe there's some hope to at least exceed 300'.

1750272740343.png
 
DZH22 said:
I checked and you're right that the height limit there is stupidly low. However, there also seems to be some leeway compared to the FAA map. For example, 1 Dalton is squarely in the ~500' range but ended up approximately 756'. So maybe there's some hope to at least exceed 300'.

View attachment 64073
Click to expand...
Yes, there does seem to be some ability to bend the line close to the transition points (like One Dalton). Although the FAA may have already done that for the South Station Tower, and may not be willing to do more.

I believe those mid-height zones are for clear radar coverage on the even tighter runway approach paths.
 
Let's go back... way back... to proposals back when "tear down South Station" was the going concern.

The first serious proposals seem to have been in 1958. Here's a 3,000-car garage (with heliport!) proposed by the city that year:
1750304869328.png


Here are two proposals from 1966:
1750305076029.png


BRA plan from 1967. They claimed the 5,200-space garage could be emptied in 22 minutes. Gridlock? What gridlock?
1750305297800.png


Port Authority plan, also from 1967, by Josep Luis Sert:
1750305422579.png


Suffice to say, what we're getting - the beautiful South Station with the exciting new concourse, a decent bus terminal, minimal parking, and a non-hideous (if slightly boring) tower - is worlds better than what could have been.
 
Here are some photos from when I went through South Station yesterday (6/20). They have the track numbers on the new building now!:
1000027514.jpg
1000027512.jpg


I also was able to get a look through the keyhole to the new section of the bus terminal:
1000027517.jpg


And lastly, the tower itself:
1000027519.jpg


I wonder what's taking the new section of the bus terminal so long to open. The terminal and bus bays look done, and certainly they can block off any other elevators and escalators until they are ready, right?
 
A few more photos from today. 6/21/25.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_8325.JPG
    IMG_8325.JPG
    4.3 MB · Views: 167
  • IMG_8326.JPG
    IMG_8326.JPG
    3.7 MB · Views: 167
  • IMG_8327.JPG
    IMG_8327.JPG
    4.4 MB · Views: 145
  • IMG_8329.JPG
    IMG_8329.JPG
    5 MB · Views: 144
  • IMG_8330.JPG
    IMG_8330.JPG
    4 MB · Views: 139
  • IMG_8332.JPG
    IMG_8332.JPG
    3.8 MB · Views: 138
  • IMG_8333.JPG
    IMG_8333.JPG
    3.7 MB · Views: 145
  • IMG_8334.JPG
    IMG_8334.JPG
    6.1 MB · Views: 146
  • IMG_8336.JPG
    IMG_8336.JPG
    4.4 MB · Views: 139
  • IMG_8335.jpg
    IMG_8335.jpg
    5.6 MB · Views: 169
BeeLine said:
A few more photos from today. 6/21/25.
Click to expand...
They really need to take down all that cra- hanging inside the concourse. It looks messy, it makes the space seem much smaller, it blocks light, and now it blocks the view of the domes they spent so much money building. There are plenty of other ways they can sell ad space without junking it up like that. And speaking of the domes, they should light up the interior facades of the support columns so they don't look so dark from inside the concourse. It would show them off as well.
 
Some more from this morning. 6/22/25
 

Attachments

  • IMG_8408.JPG
    IMG_8408.JPG
    4.2 MB · Views: 201
  • IMG_8409.JPG
    IMG_8409.JPG
    4.3 MB · Views: 198
  • IMG_8411.JPG
    IMG_8411.JPG
    4.8 MB · Views: 186
  • IMG_8412.JPG
    IMG_8412.JPG
    5.8 MB · Views: 167
  • IMG_8413.JPG
    IMG_8413.JPG
    3.8 MB · Views: 161
  • IMG_8414.JPG
    IMG_8414.JPG
    5.2 MB · Views: 162
  • IMG_8415.JPG
    IMG_8415.JPG
    4.7 MB · Views: 157
  • IMG_8416.jpg
    IMG_8416.jpg
    4.7 MB · Views: 218
  • IMG_8419.jpg
    IMG_8419.jpg
    5.1 MB · Views: 211
  • IMG_8427.jpg
    IMG_8427.jpg
    5.6 MB · Views: 154
  • IMG_8437.jpg
    IMG_8437.jpg
    5.1 MB · Views: 180
JeffDowntown said:
Yes, there does seem to be some ability to bend the line close to the transition points (like One Dalton). Although the FAA may have already done that for the South Station Tower, and may not be willing to do more.

I believe those mid-height zones are for clear radar coverage on the even tighter runway approach paths.
Click to expand...
The FAA restrictions are for one-engine out on takeoff and climb. A developer is free to build above those limits, but good luck getting liability insurance. The FAA could declare that the proposed structural height represented a hazard to aviation. No insurance, no financing.. The FAA does not have any zoning authority.

Also, in high temperature conditions -- which can directly affect lift and engine thrust --this might lead to the runway being closed for departures for certain types of aircraft.
 
stellarfun said:
The FAA restrictions are for one-engine out on takeoff and climb. A developer is free to build above those limits, but good luck getting liability insurance. The FAA could declare that the proposed structural height represented a hazard to aviation. No insurance, no financing.. The FAA does not have any zoning authority.

Also, in high temperature conditions -- which can directly affect lift and engine thrust --this might lead to the runway being closed for departures for certain types of aircraft.
Click to expand...
There was also discussion of radar coverage during the Winthrop Center height question. That may be for separate areas of downtown.

Also, while the FAA does not determine Zoning, the Boston Zoning Code does incorporate the FAA Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation (or similar determination) as a requirement for plan approval. This is pretty common in zoning codes.
 
Last edited:
If you look at the skyline from logan none of the new towers appear taller than intl place. The faa map has been designed so no new towers go any higher than whats already there, so in practice it means the further away a building is from downtown the taller it can be until it equals the roof height of intl place when drawing a straight line from logan. Winthrop center had a couple more feet they would have went and that would have put the roof basically dead even with 1ip from this vantage point.

1750776615398.jpeg

Via Bigpicture7

1750776746092.jpeg

Via Java King
 
Last edited:
SMCYB said:
Please give me the pros of keeping it open. (And if you feel like it, the cons.) Keep in mind that there are openings for air flow and ventilation on both sides of the outdoor concourse.
Click to expand...
Sure. For the same reason I don't wish the arches had doors. It's the outdoor part of the station and all aspects that enhance the "outdoors-ish-ness" of it are fun. The notion that walking under that extremely narrow "gap" will somehow ruin a person's outfit or hair or bag or whatever if it's raining or snowing is ridiculous. It's outdoors and you will encounter outdoor-type stuff.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top