115 Federal St. (Winthrop Square)

Status
Not open for further replies.
jama said:
I thought you were supposed to fight fire with fire. A huge building like this would look way too out of character if it was gaudy and crazy. I first thought it was a bit too conservative, but now I think Piano's idea is right - less is more.
Click to expand...

His quote was kind of off, but I agree with him. I think the building is a little too conservative, and too much like the surrounding buildings of downtown. Sure it's glass and bigger, with a spire on the side but the basic concept of a box with a flat roof is still there.

When the mayor first announced this building, he claimed something along the lines of it being a symbol of Boston, almost an iconic structure. Seeing the rendering doesn't inflict a feeling of either of those to me.

I agree with you Jama that something earth shattering and gaudy would be the wrong thing in this situation. If you look at even 111 Huntington it's not a crazy design, it's pretty simple actually but the difference of a crown really makes that building stick out. They couldn't do something like that with this building? I can't imagine that there's going to be a lighting scheme on this one where the top lights up, and if there is it's probably not going to be anything special.

I guess my point is, if we don't start making progress with these new buildings in terms of differing styles because they "don't fit in" downtown, we're never going to have differing in styles. Every time something unique goes in, the next time someone decides to build something a little more unique and so on, etc. it won't be such a crazy sight. That's just the way I see it, I'm sure people will disagree.
 
Here is a quick & dirty photoshop of what I was thinking of:

e1ad316ddc3a2dd6282879e3d01d6bfb.jpg


Although now that I look at it, I don't know it that would really be any better. :?
 
Sorry statler, but can you say Citicorp Building? :D
 
I find it somewhat amusing that people seem to be coming to such firm judgments about this building on the basis of short newspaper articles and a couple of renderings. When you see and learn more, I think most members of this Board will be extremely excited about this project. Each of you will have to judge for yourself, of course, but I suggest that you hold off on formulating any strong opinions until you are able to learn more about the project.

As for the project, it may be a "box" with a flat-top roof, but it is nothing like the boxes in downtown today. As currently conceived, the skin is entirely glass, with a second layer of glass that is separated from the main surface on each face of the building, but does not connect at the corners with the second layer of glass on the adjoining face. Not only will this look cool, it is functional: it is designed to capture wind and dissipate wind impacts at the base of the tower.

And it is not only a box with a flat-top roof. The box and the flat-top roof are both interrupted by the long "spire" that runs along one entire side of the building. This element is not really a spire at all (until the top); it is a functional part of the building, with more mass than is apparent from the rendering contained in the newspaper, containing the core of the building, including elevator service. The spire that rises at the upper levels and beyond this core is also functional; it will be mounted with reflective panels to direct sunlight into the park at the base of the tower. Speaking of which, the pedestrian experience at the base of the tower could be extraordinary.

The flat-top roof is also a necessary element of the functional use of the building - in this case the roof. The public park on the top of the building requires a flat top (more or less). Since the desire is to keep this open to the sky with unobstructed views in all directions, including up, a crown or hat becomes impossible. You could sacrifice this amenity for something glitzy at the top, but I for one would not want to. The roof-top park should become one of Boston's best and most-prized public amenities.

This is a very cutting edge building. I don't know if it will ever be built, but I hope, and am hopeful, that it will be. If it is, we will be very fortunate to have it grace our City. And no, I am not involved with this project in any way.
 
I remember reading on this forum that Menino (spelling?) said that other builders could step forward and ask for additional height allowances, possibly also up to 1,000 feet like 115 Winthrop, and the city just might say yes. So, if that is the case, don't worry about the design of this building, because others may follow, and I'm sure it would be easier for the second or third in line to have more outstanding designs. Let's face it, when something out of the ordinary (whether that be height or any other factor) comes into play, it becomes way easier to get it accomplished if it is as normal as possible in other aspects (design, for example). but when having buildings this tall in Boston is a commonplace thing, expect more visionary design to pop up in the future. something this big and crazy would never fly, anywhere, because people are too resistant to change, and need to take baby steps.
 
Taking odds

What are the odds that the first thing to go is the spire?

Either it will be deemed "too-costly" or something. I don't expect it to be in the final design. Just my opinion.
 
well I believe the spire is how the building will hit 1,000 feet. without it, menino won't be getting what he asked for. it would eb more costly to replace the height gained by the spire by adding floors. I say it stays.
 
It looks to me like it's easily 1,000' to the roof ... the pregnant building is almost 600' and the Winthrop Square tower must have 400' on it looking at the rendering. The spire would bring it up to 1200' I think.



WinthropSquare.jpg
 
Mike said:
It looks to me like it's easily 1,000' to the roof ... the pregnant building is almost 600' and the Winthrop Square tower must have 400' on it looking at the rendering. The spire would bring it up to 1200' I think.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I would agree. I think the building itself looks a little over 1,000' and the spire looks at least another 100'-150'.
 
dirtywater said:
I find it somewhat amusing that people seem to be coming to such firm judgments about this building on the basis of short newspaper articles and a couple of renderings.
Click to expand...

I think with all the build up, and the way Menino went on about this building--we all expected something with a little more "WOW" factor.


When you see and learn more, I think most members of this Board will be extremely excited about this project. Each of you will have to judge for yourself, of course, but I suggest that you hold off on formulating any strong opinions until you are able to learn more about the project.
Click to expand...

That's probably fair, and I admit that I have been pretty harsh in my first few opinions and feelings about the building.

As for the project, it may be a "box" with a flat-top roof, but it is nothing like the boxes in downtown today. As currently conceived, the skin is entirely glass, with a second layer of glass that is separated from the main surface on each face of the building, but does not connect at the corners with the second layer of glass on the adjoining face. Not only will this look cool, it is functional: it is designed to capture wind and dissipate wind impacts at the base of the tower.
Click to expand...

The glass looks good, even from the distant and small renderings shown. I think that's one of my favorite parts about it, the color of the glass doesn't seem to be generic, it's a shade of blue you don't see on many other buildings. Am I looking at this right, or is it just because of the rendering? As for the glass being a wind "blocker", that's a great function to add with asthetics.

And it is not only a box with a flat-top roof. The box and the flat-top roof are both interrupted by the long "spire" that runs along one entire side of the building. This element is not really a spire at all (until the top); it is a functional part of the building, with more mass than is apparent from the rendering contained in the newspaper, containing the core of the building, including elevator service. The spire that rises at the upper levels and beyond this core is also functional; it will be mounted with reflective panels to direct sunlight into the park at the base of the tower.
Click to expand...


As for the spire containing an elevator and beaming light to the park, that's great. I figured on the elevator part, but the light beaming makes me look at it a different way. I'm not crazy about it running on the side of the building still, but at least I understand (fully) why that's the case.


Speaking of which, the pedestrian experience at the base of the tower could be extraordinary.
Click to expand...

Well that's the thing. I think it has to have an incorporated street level and something on the ground floor to draw people. The location of this project allows it to really infuse more life into downtown and a struggling downtown crossing. If this is the case, where people will flock to this building for the "experience" that's obviously another plus.

The flat-top roof is also a necessary element of the functional use of the building - in this case the roof. The public park on the top of the building requires a flat top (more or less). Since the desire is to keep this open to the sky with unobstructed views in all directions, including up, a crown or hat becomes impossible. You could sacrifice this amenity for something glitzy at the top, but I for one would not want to. The roof-top park should become one of Boston's best and most-prized public amenities.
Click to expand...

That's fair. I understand giving up the crown or hat has to happen in order to have a park at the top. I'm not going to base an opinion on the park until I read more/see more about it, or even until if (or when) it's built. I think the idea of a public park on top of a skyscraper is great. I know a lot of other people on this board might disagree, but I think it could change the way people look at buildings in the future and even for the present I'm intrigued as to how this is going to look.

This is a very cutting edge building. I don't know if it will ever be built, but I hope, and am hopeful, that it will be. If it is, we will be very fortunate to have it grace our City. And no, I am not involved with this project in any way.
Click to expand...

The more I read, the more you're right. I jumped off the bridge too early with this project, and I apologize. I think the intial reaction was just more of a "that's it?" based on the renderings. I expected to be knocked off my seat when I saw it, and that didn't happen. Saying all that, now knowing some of the features of the building beyond asthetics, I'm pleased. I think all these details and features really do add up to something, regardless if I'm 100% into the look of the building.

I'm not sure I believe that you're not involved with this project, but that doesn't matter. If you are, thank you for the information. I think a lot of us judged too quickly and I'm glad you cleared things up and gave insight to some of the inner workings of the building.
 
I for one can't wait to go out to a postage-stamp-sized park 1000' up in the middle of February. I'm worried, though, that it might be too crowded, but then again they'll probably be charging an arm and a leg to get to that public amenity, as they do for most of skyscraper observatories, at least until the homeland security situation makes them close it altogether, like Hancock.

People here seem to think that the only options in skyscraper design are brown boxes or kitsch-fests like the Gund on State St. Look outside Boston: the Gherkin, Commerzbank, Lloyd's, Bank of China, Bank of Shanghai, Hearst... are all structurally interesting and uniquely shaped skyscraper which are anything but gaudy. An elegant but relatively subdued building like the NYT tower works in NYC which already has a baseline of interesting and well-proportioned scrapers. In Boston, we need something that will break the mold, and the Piano design sadly doesn't.

I'm not worried, though. I will happily bet a moderate amount of money on this thing never getting built.

justin
 
Mike said:
It looks to me like it's easily 1,000' to the roof ... the pregnant building is almost 600' and the Winthrop Square tower must have 400' on it looking at the rendering. The spire would bring it up to 1200' I think.



WinthropSquare.jpg
Click to expand...

I did some calculations before, and if everything is to scale (and if I calculated correctly) the roof of the building is almost exactly 1,000 ft. (about 997 ft.) and the spire was about 1,175 ft. (1,173 ft.).
 
Does anyone else think the rendering has the building in the wrong location in the skyline. I would have expected it to be partially blocked by the pregnant building from this angle?
 
One look at the rendring shows that the present skyline is made boring by too many buildings of essentially the same height, not by flat rooflines. Many of the existing buildings do not have flat roofs. The addition of the SST and this building will break up the monotony of height and make a big difference in the skyline because of that. The rendering is without much detail so long discussions about whether it is good desgin are fun but cannot be well informed.
 
AP weighs in...

Boston getting some national press....

Piano tower would give Boston a lift By MARK JEWELL, AP Business Writer
Sun Nov 19, 6:18 PM ET

BOSTON - A Boston businessman's proposal to build a 1,000-foot, 75-story glass-and-steel building that would tower over all others is a bold move in a city that favors colonial era church steeples over skyscrapers.

Steve Belkin's proposed tower would top the city's current tallest building by more than 200 feet and 15 stories, reflecting a resurgence in the downtown commercial real estate market, observers say.

"I think it's going to make a lot of our other buildings look very boring, quite honestly," said Frank Nelson, a Boston-based executive director with the commercial real estate services firm Cushman & Wakefield. "We need it."

The design by renowned Italian architect Renzo Piano emerged last week in response to Mayor Thomas Menino's call in February for private development proposals to replace an aging city-owned parking garage in the heart of the Financial District.

Officials in Boston and other U.S. cities typically seek to rein in developers' wishes to build high above neighboring office buildings, but the sky was the limit for Menino. He encouraged a bold architectural statement to surpass the John Hancock Tower, which for three decades has stood as New England's tallest building at 60 stories and 792 feet.

The Hancock anchors Boston's Back Bay section along with the 42-year-old, 52-story Prudential Tower.

In the nearby Financial District ? home to the likes of Fidelity Investments and State Street Corp. ? most tall buildings top out at around 40 stories. The last time a new Boston building of more 40 stories went up was in 1987, with the completion of the 46-story One International Place.

In a city that has managed to save historic structures such as King's Chapel and the Old Statehouse from overshadowing high-rises, reluctance to build high runs deep. A state law restricts new buildings that would cast a shadow on Boston Common, and past proposals to build 50 stories or higher in the Financial District have failed to secure city approvals.

"We are an old city that is not that tall, so we take a look at each project and make sure it is appropriate," said Susan Elsbree, a spokeswoman for the Boston Redevelopment Authority, the city agency that will review Belkin's proposal.

So when Menino called for a project taller than any the city had seen before, the mayor and others hoped several developers would respond by last Monday's design-submission deadline, leading to a competitive selection process.

But in the end, there was just the proposal from Belkin, the founder of credit card and travel companies, and part owner of two Atlanta pro sports teams, the Hawks and Thrashers.

However, real estate officials say Menino's failure to bring in more than one development proposal is not an indication that the downtown commercial real estate market has failed to break out of a five-year slump.

They say the office building market is starting to catch up with recent booming residential growth in high-rise downtown condominiums. They cite the Boston office market's vacancy rate of 8.2 percent in this year's third quarter ? the lowest in more than four years, according to the commercial real estate firm CB Richard Ellis.

Observers say Belkin was the only developer to come forward because he has an edge over rivals to make the most of the hemmed-in Winthrop Square development site, where the skyscraper would replace the parking garage on Federal Street.

Because Belkin already owns a mid-rise building adjoining the oddly shaped site, he could expand his skyscraper to the space occupied by his existing building, which could be torn down.

"He really had the edge coming in," said David Begelfer, chief executive of the Massachusetts chapter of the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties. "The space issue has made it a much more limited opportunity for other developers."

Belkin wants to call his skyscraper Trans National Place, after his company, Trans National Group.

Piano is a Pritzker Prize-winning architect known for his work on such projects as the Centre Pompidou in Paris and The New York Times Co.'s new headquarters in Times Square.

His Boston design would create 1.3 million square feet of office space, with a mix of retail and restaurant space on lower floors. A 1-acre park would be built at ground level, with more public space on the building's roof.

There is no specific timeline for the project, and the city says its review process could involve more than one stage before the final building design is approved. But real estate industry officials say they're optimistic the project will be built, given the recent rebound in the downtown office space market.

Don't expect Boston to resemble Manhattan's skyline. The site for Belkin's tower is one of the last prime pieces of real estate available for development in the downtown core, and new projects on the city's South Boston waterfront are height-restricted to provide unobstructed flight paths to nearby Logan International Airport.

"I think the site for this new building is so prime that it's the last of the great downtown building sites in Boston," said Nelson, of Cushman Wakefield.
 
^ that story is on the front page of Yahoo News tonight. 8)
 
the first two or so lines i thought i was reading about portsmouth, nh or something. Since when does boston favor church steeples over height? If you ask me, and of course none of you have, but anyway, I say Boston has an excellent mix of old and new, and that's something to be proud of. But never would I say it is a city that favors steeples over skyscrapers.

and even if this is the last developable site in downtown, what about where the pru and hancock currently are? what are the chances of more mega towers popping up in that neighborhood?
 
A lot has happened in the 3 weeks I didnt have my computer :) wow.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top