High Spine

Eh. That could mean destroying Bay Village, which is far more valuable to Boston's urban soul than any skyscraper.
Not necessary to do that. Instead, the corridor between Stuart Street and Boylston Street could have the skyscrapers. But then, of course, will be the concern about shadows on the Public Garden and the Common.
 
Eh. That could mean destroying Bay Village, which is far more valuable to Boston's urban soul than any skyscraper.
Three ways to do it, only one destroys Bay Village. Besides that option, there is the option of destroying the section of Chinatown across the Pike from Bay Village. That's obviously also a non-starter, but someday, maybe we'll get some more air rights projects and a tower might end up straddling the trench. That's a version of the extended high spine I could get behind.
 
Three ways to do it, only one destroys Bay Village. Besides that option, there is the option of destroying the section of Chinatown across the Pike from Bay Village. That's obviously also a non-starter, but someday, maybe we'll get some more air rights projects and a tower might end up straddling the trench. That's a version of the extended high spine I could get behind.
Sounds like you are advocating for Columbus Center being revived. (Although a corner of the terra firma needed for the tower was purposefully turned into Frieda Garcia Park, corner of Stanhope and Clarendon, to prevent that tower from ever being proposed again.)
 
I'd still like to see the low stretch in the middle (red rectangle) filled in with some skycrapers.

View attachment 70735
I generally agree with you and also generally like skysrapers (nice ones...), but I disagree on this point.

Boston's skyline doesn't have much in the way of serious height and likely never will, but it does have an aesthetically appealing and fairly unique/distinctive "flow" and that area you highlighted is a big part of that: The peak represented by the cluster of 1 Dalton through to the old Hancock suddenly "dipping" drastically low before gradually rising again at the CBD is a skyline silhouette as sine-wave or scooted EQ/"smiley face EQ" arrangement. Polycentric skyline as my HS teacher used to say.

I know of very few urban skylines with such distinctive up/down/up visual narratives. You could argue that Midtown and Lower Manhattan achieve the same impact, but it feels blunted when compared to this stretch of Boston by virtue of the overwhelming numbers of tall buildings, period. Atlanta has 4 or 5 skylines, but they don't "play" with one another at all -- they're unrelated islands. Same goes with Houston (downtown and uptown).

Austin may come closest with the Downtown and Domain/Uptown areas. London, I suppose, but Canary Wharf is quite far from the traditional city center (for skyscrapers).

Anyway -- that "gap" that Boston has in the Back Bay as it approaches the CBD is pretty singular. I know that even as a kid I could always tell when footage from a show or movie was in Boston the minute I saw that silhouette.
 
I generally agree with you and also generally like skysrapers (nice ones...), but I disagree on this point.

Boston's skyline doesn't have much in the way of serious height and likely never will, but it does have an aesthetically appealing and fairly unique/distinctive "flow" and that area you highlighted is a big part of that: The peak represented by the cluster of 1 Dalton through to the old Hancock suddenly "dipping" drastically low before gradually rising again at the CBD is a skyline silhouette as sine-wave or scooted EQ/"smiley face EQ" arrangement. Polycentric skyline as my HS teacher used to say.

I know of very few urban skylines with such distinctive up/down/up visual narratives. You could argue that Midtown and Lower Manhattan achieve the same impact, but it feels blunted when compared to this stretch of Boston by virtue of the overwhelming numbers of tall buildings, period. Atlanta has 4 or 5 skylines, but they don't "play" with one another at all -- they're unrelated islands. Same goes with Houston (downtown and uptown).

Austin may come closest with the Downtown and Domain/Uptown areas. London, I suppose, but Canary Wharf is quite far from the traditional city center (for skyscrapers).

Anyway -- that "gap" that Boston has in the Back Bay as it approaches the CBD is pretty singular. I know that even as a kid I could always tell when footage from a show or movie was in Boston the minute I saw that silhouette.
Good points. Also, like I say, the placing of skyscrapers near the south side of the Public Garden and the south and east sides of the Common could produce unacceptable shadows. It's probably best to leave that part of town as mid-rise.
 
I generally agree with you and also generally like skysrapers (nice ones...), but I disagree on this point.

Boston's skyline doesn't have much in the way of serious height and likely never will, but it does have an aesthetically appealing and fairly unique/distinctive "flow" and that area you highlighted is a big part of that: The peak represented by the cluster of 1 Dalton through to the old Hancock suddenly "dipping" drastically low before gradually rising again at the CBD is a skyline silhouette as sine-wave or scooted EQ/"smiley face EQ" arrangement. Polycentric skyline as my HS teacher used to say.

I know of very few urban skylines with such distinctive up/down/up visual narratives. You could argue that Midtown and Lower Manhattan achieve the same impact, but it feels blunted when compared to this stretch of Boston by virtue of the overwhelming numbers of tall buildings, period. Atlanta has 4 or 5 skylines, but they don't "play" with one another at all -- they're unrelated islands. Same goes with Houston (downtown and uptown).

Austin may come closest with the Downtown and Domain/Uptown areas. London, I suppose, but Canary Wharf is quite far from the traditional city center (for skyscrapers).

Anyway -- that "gap" that Boston has in the Back Bay as it approaches the CBD is pretty singular. I know that even as a kid I could always tell when footage from a show or movie was in Boston the minute I saw that silhouette.
I always thought it was really cool how both boston and nyc similarly have two separate skylines along their length but for two completely different reasons.

In that same vein I also always thought it was cool how both boston and san francisco have a short artificial channel directly to the right of their downtowns with very similar newly constructed low rise architecture both built on filled in mud flats. Its kind of like boston shares two of its more distinct features with its two most similar cities in the us.
 
I'd love to see a render of the Back Bay skyline with Copley Place Tower, Columbus Center, and 1000 Boylston included. Those unbuilt towers, combined with the Pru, the Hancock, 111 Huntington Ave, Lyra, and Raffles, would be one hell of a skyline.
 
I'd love to see a render of the Back Bay skyline with Copley Place Tower, Columbus Center, and 1000 Boylston included. Those unbuilt towers, combined with the Pru, the Hancock, 111 Huntington Ave, Lyra, and Raffles, would be one hell of a skyline.
We have a thread that had this in it. Most of the links are broken now unfortunately due to photobucket dying but this page has some pretty similar massing models to what youre looking for.


Photobucket screwed up so much good stuff on this site the capping the pike thread also had some crazy intricate new street layouts done by one of our users that are gone now too unfortunately.
 
Photobucket screwed up so much good stuff on this site the capping the pike thread also had some crazy intricate new street layouts done by one of our users that are gone now too unfortunately.
I still have this one that was posted on aB from davem showing an ingenious concept for capping the Mass Pike:

1771628401346.png
 
It's kind of sad to come to this website now and not see any new development projects in Boston. I remember when there were dozens of new office and housing projects.
It is sad. A lot of smallish 5 over 1 apartment and condo developments are being covered, but not many major developments. Also at a standstill are transit and roadway developments, although Rutherford Ave and William Reid overpass (Memorial Drive at BU Bridge) are in a somewhat active planning/preliminary design stage, but the grounding of the McGrath overpass removal project, the I-90 Allston interchange/throat area project, and the Red-Blue Connector subway are all hung up in some kind of bureaucratic netherworld.
But eventually the cycle will flip and there will be more development, but probably not until the current national regime is replaced in 2029.
 
It is sad. A lot of smallish 5 over 1 apartment and condo developments are being covered, but not many major developments. Also at a standstill are transit and roadway developments, although Rutherford Ave and William Reid overpass (Memorial Drive at BU Bridge) are in a somewhat active planning/preliminary design stage, but the grounding of the McGrath overpass removal project, the I-90 Allston interchange/throat area project, and the Red-Blue Connector subway are all hung up in some kind of bureaucratic netherworld.
But eventually the cycle will flip and there will be more development, but probably not until the current national regime is replaced in 2029.
I'd add that new housing development seems to be stalled due to Wu's policies/requirements as well.
 
This would be a great thread to share where we would think the next skyscrapers should be.

Here's mine:

I have no clue what this building is, but it's disappointing to have the only commercial space nearly out of sight.
 
This would be a great thread to share where we would think the next skyscrapers should be.

Here's mine:

I have no clue what this building is, but it's disappointing to have the only commercial space nearly out of sight.

My nomination for next skyscraper(s) is the large plot of land plus some air-rights at North Station (outlined in red below). The Spaulding building and the Suffolk County Jail could go and provide even more room, The new development could span over Nashua Street and the adjacent commuter rail platforms, as shown:

1771705192396.png
 
It's kind of sad to come to this website now and not see any new development projects in Boston. I remember when there were dozens of new office and housing projects.
It is very sad. Lots of "culprits" -- Wu, bio-tech boom ending, overall economy (in particular soaring interest rates, high material costs due to tariffs and the fatass ding-dong in the WH), increased city affordability requirements, market correction, etc. -- I hear and read compelling arguments for any/all being the primary reason behind the lag, but... yeah, agreed. As much as I regret the missed opportunities (looking at you Copley Place Tower, although there are others), I do appreciate what we managed to get between, say, 2007 and 2025. Would be nice if things turned around sooner than later.
 
The new Downtown zoning is our last beacon of hope, surely there's gotta be some negotiations going on right now. But until biotech or office demand miraculously recovers, we need to push for more housing/hotels aside from additional green space. We need to copy and paste One Dalton where they're needed!
 
It's kind of sad to come to this website now and not see any new development projects in Boston. I remember when there were dozens of new office and housing projects.
It is on one hand, but on the other hand we just hit the end of what a 15 year boom? The longest in bostons history. I was looking through the future skyline thread and at user made renders from like 2016 and looking at those skyline renders almost every building has now been built. Air rights projects, south station tower, winthrop center, govt center garage, north station. We got 5 towers over 600 feet, the big 3 have been completed sst, winthrop, and 1 dalton. The seaport has been filled up massively, theres a 450 footer u/c in kendall sq, union square got a tower, even fenway got a 368’ tower. Suffolk downs is finally under construction, northpoint is half built out, assembly has doubled in size, brighton even now has its own little skyline at new balance.

It does suck that its slowed down now, but these things come in cycles. I remember when we were excited to get the clarendon back in the day because nothing was happening. The thing that to me is a bit unfortunate is we built all these towers, offices, labs, but nowhere enough housing. The dozens of towers were fun to watch over the last decade but at this point I honestly dont care if we ever get a big office tower ever again. What I care about is building as much housing in as many neighborhoods as possible. Theres been a lot of housing approved, and its still getting built though its slowed, but hopefully we can stay at a steady but reduced pace through the market slowdown until conditions improve.
 
I was looking through the future skyline thread and at user made renders from like 2016 and looking at those skyline renders almost every building has now been built....

Completely didn't happen:
Copley Square Tower
One Bromfield
Aquarium Garage
Parcel 15? (originally proposed mid 600's, then mid 500's, then cancelled)

Notably cut down:
North Station Residential
Winthrop Square Tower

That's 4 600 footers that were completely unbuilt, another that got cut down under 500', then Winthrop that was cut from 700's into 600's. Basically half of the high-impact towers didn't happen or were cut down.

Mission Hill had 400'+ proposed, but cut down to like 6 stories. Fenway/Kendall has a trio of unbuilt 300 footers, including the air rights project over the pike. Kendall had hopes for 500'+ that aren't going to materialize. North Point is the most disappointing result in the history of the Boston area.

Overall we got about half of what we should have from a skyline perspective. I do agree that it's a miracle and a revelation, especially because of how used to disappointment we've been for so long, but while it could have been so much worse it also could have been quite a bit better.
 
Completely didn't happen:
Copley Square Tower
One Bromfield
Aquarium Garage
Parcel 15? (originally proposed mid 600's, then mid 500's, then cancelled)

Notably cut down:
North Station Residential
Winthrop Square Tower

That's 4 600 footers that were completely unbuilt, another that got cut down under 500', then Winthrop that was cut from 700's into 600's. Basically half of the high-impact towers didn't happen or were cut down.

Mission Hill had 400'+ proposed, but cut down to like 6 stories. Fenway/Kendall has a trio of unbuilt 300 footers, including the air rights project over the pike. Kendall had hopes for 500'+ that aren't going to materialize. North Point is the most disappointing result in the history of the Boston area.

Overall we got about half of what we should have from a skyline perspective. I do agree that it's a miracle and a revelation, especially because of how used to disappointment we've been for so long, but while it could have been so much worse it also could have been quite a bit better.
Yea as I said most were built. Didnt say built to their theoretical maximum rendered height, but built nonetheless. Sst, 115 fed, one congress, one dalton, millennium tower, hub on causeway, north station tower, 40 trinity, parcel 13 all got built. A couple important ones like copley and parcel 15 did not. Aquarium was never serious. Cambridges tallest is u/c. Pretty successful cycle.
 

Back
Top