115 Federal St. (Winthrop Square)

Status
Not open for further replies.
As far as parking goes, remember the site is small so the floors won't have a huge amount of square ft.. It wouldn't surprise me if a few existing buildings had more total sq ft.
 
cityrecord said:
I have to ask: Do people think that the Winthrop Square tower will attract new businesses or industry to Boston? It certainly sounds to me like the desire for a tall building is simply to provide an ego boost to those who feel the measure of a city is in its skyline.
Click to expand...

I don't know how much of an impact the building will have on attracting new businesses or industry to Boston in terms of seeing the building and wanting to occupy it, or seeing the building and thinking "Wow! Boston is great, let's move our HQ there!"

I think what the building does is show other developers that Boston isn't afraid to build not only big, but modern. Whether or not the city sticks to this ideology is another story all together.

Let's face it, the city has a really big perception (reality) of being too conservative architecturally and also being a hard city to get things done with regards to development.

You can make note of the Hancock and Federal Reserve Buildings being "bold buildings" but those were built in the 60's and 70's respectively. So what you're saying is that if a city does something bold once or twice, that the city can stay on a status quo forever and still be "bold"? I don't agree.

I'm not one to build just for height either. I want something that's going to scream Boston when people see it or hear the name. Something that's not going to be massive and out of place even though it's going to trump all the other buildings in the city. If you build something right (which is rare in Boston) it can add to the city rather than detract or blend in to the point where instead of being part of the city, it's completely forgettable.

Let's see the renderings and the details of this project before we bash it, because if it's done the right way it could be something that really adds to the city on a few levels.
 
The Hancock and Reserve may be good from a distance but are also good examples of how not to create streetscape. Designing an attractive tower is the easy part.
 
Please, not Moshe Safdie, not Moshe Safdie, not Moshe Safdie...

Here's what it should look like:
tribune_loos1.jpg
 
BostonSkyGuy said:
cityrecord said:
I have to ask: Do people think that the Winthrop Square tower will attract new businesses or industry to Boston? It certainly sounds to me like the desire for a tall building is simply to provide an ego boost to those who feel the measure of a city is in its skyline.
Click to expand...

I think what the building does is show other developers that Boston isn't afraid to build not only big, but modern. Whether or not the city sticks to this ideology is another story all together.

Let's face it, the city has a really big perception (reality) of being too conservative architecturally and also being a hard city to get things done with regards to development.

You can make note of the Hancock and Federal Reserve Buildings being "bold buildings" but those were built in the 60's and 70's respectively. So what you're saying is that if a city does something bold once or twice, that the city can stay on a status quo forever and still be "bold"? I don't agree.

I'm not one to build just for height either. I want something that's going to scream Boston when people see it or hear the name. Something that's not going to be massive and out of place even though it's going to trump all the other buildings in the city. If you build something right (which is rare in Boston) it can add to the city rather than detract or blend in to the point where instead of being part of the city, it's completely forgettable.

Let's see the renderings and the details of this project before we bash it, because if it's done the right way it could be something that really adds to the city on a few levels.
Click to expand...

Again, I really don't care one way or another if the thing is built or not. But the claim that Boston needs to build a tower to prove that Boston isn't too architecturally conservative is a 1000 foot tall answer to a specious criticism of the city and gets right back to my point about insecurity. Developers know they can build in Boston and they do it all the time. If the tower can be built without completely screwing up traffic then fine, build it. It's the "Boston needs to prove something to the world" argument that I can do without.
 
cityrecord said:
It's the "Boston needs to prove something to the world" argument that I can do without.
Click to expand...

I'm not for this project due to the fact that I'll have a new shiny building to brag about to friends in others cities or anything like that.

I guess it's just the fact that assuming it's going to be a state of the art design and not screw up the area (traffic, etc.) that it will add to Boston rather than be an eyesore.

Boston doesn't have a whole lot of "new" landmarks, it would be nice to see a modern skyscraper (besides the Hancock) mixed into a city with such great history.

To me, that's what architecture is all about. Different ideas and shapes and sizes coming together in one place. I'm excited for the chance to see this mix in and become a new landmark in the city. If you aren't, I can respect that.
 
111 Huntington, the Zakim Bridge, and the ICA are prominent 'new' Boston landmarks I suppose the Convention Center is, too. I'm hard-pressed to think of any more.

Across the river is Frank Gehry's Stata Center.
 
13 Express Interest in City?s Tallest Building
By Beverly Ford
From globest.com

Boston
BOSTON-Ten local developers and three from out-of-state have responded to a Boston Redevelopment Authority request for proposals to redevelop a city-owned parking garage in the heart of Downtown Crossing into the tallest skyscraper in the city.
Among the players jockeying for a shot at building the 1,000-foot tall project is Chicago-based Equity Office Properties Trust, which owns a high-rise office tower next door to the 115 Federal St. garage; the Abbey Group, of Boston, which is currently preparing to break ground on a 32-story condo tower on Province Street; Beacon Capital Partners, of Boston, which recently put the 60-story Hancock Tower on the market; and locally based Boston Properties, owner of the Prudential Center.

Also on the list of potential developers are local brokers Meredith & Grew, Pappas Properties, MDA Partners LLC, the Beal Cos., Hines, Northland Investments, of Newton and Boston-based Gale International, according to a list of RFP respondents provided by the BRA. Tishman Speyer/Travelers US, of New York and NII Architects of Oakland, CA, have also expressed interest in the project.

The BRA will review the proposals before selecting a plan.
 
Mike said:
Tower plan draws players: Belkin creating crack project team

Head of the TransNational credit-card and travel empire and owner of the Atlanta Hawks... The Weston business executive
Click to expand...

What? The owner of the Atlanta Hawks lives in Weston? That's pretty strange.

My two cents: I'm hoping this building will make Boston comfortable with building taller in general, and will help open up the development situation in general so we don't become a museum city that only the rich can afford to live in. I'll enjoy looking at the building from the Common, even when it's blocking the sun. It won't block the sun for long (exactly how long would make for an interesting math/physics problem) because it will be a skinny building.
 
quadratdackel said:
I'm hoping this building will make Boston comfortable with building taller in general, and will help open up the development situation in general so we don't become a museum city that only the rich can afford to live in.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

I'll enjoy looking at the building from the Common, even when it's blocking the sun. It won't block the sun for long (exactly how long would make for an interesting math/physics problem) because it will be a skinny building.
Click to expand...
Direct sunshine is overrated anyway. Who needs it round the clock?
 
That's an urban myth

It will never shadow the Common.

I mean, be serious.
 
BostonSkyGuy got me off my arse, and made me finish the banner for Emporis. I hadn't touched the file in months, but I completed the rest of it in about 2 hours :)

new.jpg
 
template2copy.jpg


The above is the "original" that I started with tonight (the file that I last touched in July).

I replaced all buildings on it with closer shots, added lights to the top of the Zakim and JHT, and added Rowes Wharf, the statehouse to the right, MGH to the right, and Landmark Center to the left....
 
And THANKS!, of course, to bowesst for the images of most of the buildings!!
 
A million times better CS. I really like it, thanks for the hard work you put into it.
 
Like BostonSkyGuy said, it really is a million times better. Whereas the old one was a mess, this one is incredibly realistic. My only suggestion would be to possibly make the Hancock, Pru, and possibly 111 Hunt. a bit bigger just so that people realize those are the big cheese of Boston's skyline. I understand you're going for realism as far as the perspective goes, but I figured I'd throw it out there.
 
I am editing it right now, but I've already submitted the other one. I'm not entirely sure how to submit a cityscape, so I may still have time...

Lemme see what I can do
 
They haven't changed it yet, I submitted it a while ago with 7 submissions since then that have already been approved. I wonder if they don't know how to change the cityscapes (btw, I would have been informed if it was rejected...and it still says "pending image" in the database fwiw)

I filled out an inquiry, with no response...we'll see what happens
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top