115 Federal St. (Winthrop Square)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mayor's skyscraper call met with tepid reaction
Boston Business Journal - February 24, 2006
by Michelle Hillman
Journal Staff

A new tower in the Financial District is a grand idea in principle, say many real estate observers, but the current reality in the commercial market will produce few takers for Mayor Thomas Menino's invitation to build the city's tallest building.

The suggested height of the tower -- about 70 to 80 stories -- is problematic, and the location is not ideal, say industry critics. Moreover, the demand for office space is predicted to level off, according to the Boston-based real estate research firm Property & Portfolio Research Inc.


"Frankly, it is not really clear to me where the demand would come from to fill a tower, especially of that size," said Paul Briggs, senior real estate economist at the firm. "I don't see how, economically, it works. I think for the mayor to come out and say the city needs more office space -- it really shows he is out of touch with the (real estate market)."

Although last year the office market improved -- ending with 1.5 million square feet of positive absorption in Boston -- the next few years ahead may be stagnant, in part because many deals have executed early, said Briggs. The firm predicts a slowdown in markets like Boston, where demand for space has outpaced job growth. In Boston, the market may see its absorption rate cut by 1 million square feet, Briggs says.

The tower itself would likely produce more than 1 million square feet. While 500,000-square-foot office buildings like Russia Wharf are on the drawing board, they present less risk than a 1 million-square-foot development, said Briggs. In order to fill a new building, tenants would have to be poached from existing buildings.

While a handful of developers may be eager to reshape the Boston skyline, others point out that the site itself is challenged and the market is not yet ready for such a bold statement.

"I think there are a lot of questions about the potential size of this," said David Begelfer, chief executive officer of the Massachusetts Chapter of the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties.

The tower would be built where a city-owned parking garage currently stands at 115 Federal St. -- sandwiched between 75-101 Federal St. and 133 Federal St. overlooking Winthrop Square and the Financial District. Detractors say the building would not have a view for the first 30 stories and would not match the Winthrop Square and Arch Street corridors that border Downtown Crossing. Some, including architect Roger Shepley, whose office is in Winthrop Square, believe a park or cultural use would be more appropriate.

Few developers are willing to move forward with speculative office development, despite recent gains the office market has made in reducing vacancy. According to Spaulding & Slye's fall 2005 office tower report, Boston's vacancy rate in towers in the Financial District was 10.5 percent and a healthy 7.9 percent in the Back Bay. Those figures do not include tower space available for sublease, which brings the rate to 14.9 percent and 16.6 percent respectively.

Aside from location and market conditions, cost is a consideration.

The tower would cost about $500 million to develop with the land costs estimated to be about 10 percent to 15 percent of the total development cost, said John B. Hynes III, managing partner of the New Jersey-based The Gale Co. Hynes has said he's interested in the site and would propose 750,000 square feet of office and about 500,000 square feet of other uses -- residential, say, or a hotel. In order to justify cost of construction, Hynes estimated rents would average about $60 per square foot for office space. Finding capital in 2007 to build a tower would be a challenge, he said.

Though some developers aren't willing to move forward, some believe it is the right time for the mayor to get the word out now since the tower wouldn't come online for three to five years.

"It's early because demand is just beginning to swing in the right direction," said John Drew, who has a site set aside in South Boston for the future 450,000-square-foot office tower called World Trade Center South. "It's a good time for the mayor to start talking."

http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2006/02/27/story7.html
 
That's not the article that I read about Hynes and Winthrop Square, but it's the same idea. I'm still searching for the original one I had read
 
And for those of you wondering what I was talking about in terms of Hynes and the scaffolding collapse:
John Hynes was driving his BMW the opposite direction of the Honda, west on Boylston Street, when the platform and scaffolding started to tumble.

"You could see it coming down and then I started rolling forward. It started to hit my car, and then I sped up," said Hynes, a Boston resident and grandson of the former Boston Mayor John Hynes.

The debis damaged the roof of his car and smashed his rear windshield. Hynes, however, was not injured.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...e_dead_in_boston_scaffolding_collapse/?page=2
 
Well, if it does happen (I have my doubts) I'd love to see design proposals by Santiago Calatrava or Renzo Piano.
 
callahan said:
Well, if it does happen (I have my doubts) I'd love to see design proposals by Santiago Calatrava or Renzo Piano.
Actually i hope we dont get Santiago. i'm not really into the whole twisty skyscraper designs.
 
To be honest with you, I don't really care. As long as it's halfway good looking and 1000 feet tall, I will love it. Because it will open the floodgates for more tall buildings. Maybe not AS tall, but tall![/list]
 
DarkFenX said:
callahan said:
Well, if it does happen (I have my doubts) I'd love to see design proposals by Santiago Calatrava or Renzo Piano.
Actually i hope we dont get Santiago. i'm not really into the whole twisty skyscraper designs.
I agree. It would have to be more sedate than some od his others. But he's the sort of architect who would make a statement,
 
remember, the entire point of this tower is to make a statement. "Boston is a major city that can handle growth, modernism, and bigger buildings"
 
I'd agree against Calatrava. His designs are unique and very singular, and for the most part attractive, but for this location, I'd want something that resembles more a typical building-tower than a self-contained sculpture that does its best to separate itself from the rest of the skyline. Not contextual per se, but not isolationist either.

Given the awkward layout of the site, I'm imagining a building that acknowledges all angular irregularities at the base, and as it goes up, starts to resolve those wierd edges more and more with each setback (assuming there are a couple of 'em), so that by the time your eyes reach the top, it's something of a classic symmetrical crown...I don't care what time period you ape for inspiration, just something grand and with a lasting impression.

Seeming how developers and builders alike love their 90-degree angles, I realize the improbability of something with so many weird angles getting built, let alone it getting designed by an architect so capable of creating a coherent whole, but I can certainly wish..
 
What are some other buildings around the world yinz think would (or wouldn't) work well here?
 
Nashville's whopper of a proposal, Signature Tower, and at 1,047 ft, it'd be a near-perfect fit for us.

SigModel1.jpg
 
What a bore. I hope we get something rather less conventional. Why not this:
GLASS.184.2.650.jpg


justin
 
^ Meh. I want something that will bring a graceful and natural peak to the skyline, not something that draws your attention to it and nothing else. While I like 80 South St, whose future existence is looking less and less likely with each passing day unfortunately, something so jarring as that will only serve to make the rest of the skyline invisible to the casual looker. Some might say that's a good thing. I don't.

I agree that Nashville's tower breaks almost no new ground in any design respects. But you know what, that form is a sure-fire crowd pleaser, time and time again. Nothing wrong with that.

Whatever it is, it should be able to stand out on its own merits AND be able to mesh with the skyline, bringing it to a logical, un-awkward summit.
 
justin said:
What a bore. I hope we get something rather less conventional. Why not this:
GLASS.184.2.650.jpg


justin
I love this building. The close up renderings of each cube are incredible!
 
That is going to be quite the place. I wonder what names will reside in each cube
 
I don't know about u guys but that is about the ugliest skyscraper design i have ever seen.
 
I find it interesting that such a tall building would have only a handful of units.
 
Yeah, I don't know whether it is straight ugly, or if it is so interesting that it might be good looking. But there is no doubt it is different, and really cool looking. I think it will be interesting enough to warrant it not being considered "ugly." Like the twin towers. They were hideous, but because of their unmatched height, they were interesting.
 
The Nashville tower looks too much like the Empire State Building. As for the other building in NYC near the Brooklyn Bridge, I just don't like it. An off-set/varied height dual spired building at Winthrop Square may look rather appealing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top