1000'

Status
Not open for further replies.
Then tear down some ugly buildings. About 3/4 are dismal eyesores. Like everything built in the 70's and 80's.
 
trail8 said:
Then tear down some ugly buildings. About 3/4 are dismal eyesores. Like everything built in the 70's and 80's.
Click to expand...



I agree with you there.

Unfortunately that probably can't happen.
 
trail8 said:
You like the boring plateau called Boston? Why?
Click to expand...

What him and Ron Newman are saying is that while a tall skyline may be pretty to look at, it doesn't make a city better.

The "boring plateau" may be a boring sight, but Boston's skyline is still beautiful and the city is considered to be one of the best in the country.
 
Boston still looks like it did in 1985. I agree, it's a beautiful city, but it needs punctuation.
 
Boston has to play to its strengths. Height is not its strength for various reasons. Most of us know what differentiates our city from others and if we are going to build tall...we must build around, and be congnizant of, these strengths.
 
If Boston had a modern tall icon, other than the dated looking Hancock, it's strengths would be tenfold. Boston needs more dimension. At times, it looks like a pile of bricks.
 
trail8 said:
Boston still looks like it did in 1985.
Click to expand...

Gee, I see a lot of things that look different from 1985, mostly (though not entirely) for the better:

No elevated Central Artery in downtown Boston and Charlestown
No elevated Green Line on Canal, Causeway, and Lowell streets
No elevated Orange Line on Washington Street; relocated to Southwest Corridor
Ugly I-93 bridge replaced by Zakim Bridge
South Station restored and reopened
Prudential Center arcade enclosed into mall and greatly extended
111 Huntington Ave.
Mandarin Oriental Hotel
Hynes Auditorium expanded into Convention Center
New Convention Center in Southie
Old Boston Garden replaced by New Boston Garden
Fenway Park fixed up, new seating on Green Monster, other improvements
Rowes Wharf
International Place
500 Boylston Street
New England Life building lower floors repurposed as retail
Custom House turned into Marriott hotel
Hotel Commonwealth replaces beloved retail/restaurant/club row ;-(
Charles Street Jail turned into Liberty Hotel
New Charles Street T station replacing decrepit one
Opera House and Majestic theatres restored and reopened
Paramount Theatre facade restored (interior to follow soon)
Filene's destroyed ;-(
Suffolk Law School building
Various additions to BU, Northeastern U, Emerson, Longwood Medical Area
Fan Pier Courthouse
 
tmac9wr said:
The development at the Gov't Center garage may be taller than the Hancock. If you look at the renderings of the Cook & Fox design, it towers over downtown and could easily break the 800 ft. barrier.

Height would be great downtown, but we don't necessarily need something over 1,000. Anything that will break the table-top of skyscrapers will be find with me. If we could get 1 or 2 850-900 ft. towers, our skyline would look amazing. Just look at Philadelphia.
Click to expand...

I actually really like Boston’s skyline, especially the fact that it has two. Although some more height would definitely be great (hopefully breaking 1000’ one day), I really dig the density. I live in Philly, which is great and has a decent skyline, but it’s kind of thin in terms of density. Most of the tall buildings run down one street, Market Street, forming kind of a narrow wall. If you walk a block to either side, you’ll find that most of the buildings are 2 - 4 stories. It’s really just a taller Back Bay skyline with even shorter outlying buildings (our row houses are actually one or two floors shorter than Boston’s). We do have some pretty great buildings so it makes the skyline seem more impressive than it actually is. Which I guess is tmac’s point.

It’s too bad Logan kind of restricts the height in Boston’s financial district. That would be the ideal spot for some buildings reaching 1000’. What is the limit again? 800’? There’s still a lot of room around Fort Point Channel and the land the Herald is selling. That’s got to be far enough away from the airport.
 
Holograph highrises: No vacancy issues. No FAA. No zoning. No shadows.
 
Trail, my friend, I agree that Boston could definitely use "punctuation" on it's skyline, but not now. Any great city never had height to begin with, they had density, which is ten times more important that height. Once we've finished filling in all the cracks in the skyline, then we can worry about height. You see, one cannot build tall just for whim, there has to be reason. Boston still has plenty of space to fill in with mid-rises and semi-high-rises, before we can think about building a supertall. I would suggest that you view some of ablarc's photo essays-they certainly opened my eyes to 'correct' urbanism. There's a bunch of them scattered around the site.

And, how dare you call the Hancock dated! That and the Custom House are the two greatest structures ever built in Boston!

Van, I believe this certainly deserves to be moved to the "Design a Better Boston" subforum.
 
tobyjug said:
Holograph highrises: No vacancy issues. No FAA. No zoning. No shadows.
Click to expand...

And then when we're sick of the current trend in architectural style, we can change it to whatever we please.

NYC already has the upper hand, they did the spotlights at Ground Zero to represent the Twin Towers. Primitive, yet effective.
 
Speer beat them to it with his "Cathedral of Light" at one of the Nuremburg Rallies in the mid-30's.
 
tobyjug said:
Oh, Ron. Your glass is always half empty. How about a Space Needle, CN Tower, or that red and white Eifel Tower thing in Tokyo that Mothra or Godzilla keeps knocking over? Then you wouldn't have that office space problem!
Click to expand...

I think something like the CN Tower or Space Needle would be great in Boston. How about a giant bean? Or a 1000' pole with a hub cap at the top?
 
Sorry to be so conservative, but I think you have gone one step too far with that hub cap idea.
 
Well then, I officially retract my proposal. At least you liked the bean!
 
I'm actually working in the Hancock as I type this (I guess this counts as working, right?), and I still love the way it looks everytime I see it.

Kennedy, I don't think we necessarily have to fill in all the cracks before we build a supertall. If we build in an area will (almost) no cracks, then why not go big? The site of TNP would have been perfect for this.

I agree 100% that great cities weren't built around height, they were built around density. I just recently graduated from Clemson University in South Carolina. We would go to Atlanta every once in awhile, and everytime I was underwhelmed by it. Atlanta has a very impressive skyline, but when you're walking in the streets, it's basically just a gigantic suburban office park. Parking lots everywhere and empty streets. I went there for a Celtics-Hawks game last year and the only people in the city were people going to the game. Three years ago I went to see a college football game between Florida and Arkansas in the SEC Conference Championship...when we took MARTA (Atlanta's mass transit system), there was no one on the train that wasn't wearing a Gators or Razorbacks shirt. On our way to the Georgia Dome we were surrounded by skyscrapersr with huge parking lots surrounding them.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to flame Atlanta because it's a beautiful city in its own right and I have had a great time everytime I've gone there. It's similar to many other cities in the US that have impressive skylines but then nothing going on in the streets. I've heard Dallas, Houston and (downtown) LA are the same way.
 
Yes, the Hancock is looking old. How dare you think it looks current. I still love it, but come on, get over it and challenge the skyline.
 
What is old about it, beyond it's physical age? Is old bad? No. Is new good? No. Everything about the Hancock, except for the faulty windows that fell out ages ago, and how the economy has lowered it's occupancy, is what it was meant to be, and works perfectly for where it is. And hey, if we can't fill our tallest, how will we fill something even taller?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top