115 Federal St. (Winthrop Square)

[statler]

Shiz, two words:

You Rock!

 

[Patrick]

thats great that you shared all of this info on AB...this project, even though i am not a bostonian, is exciting to me, much moreso than the other boston high rise development. I have a few questions, though, for anyone who might be able to answer them:

1. has there ever been a tower of this height, or taller, proposed for boston in the past that just never reached fruition? I remember reading something on here before the old board crashed about the boston "spine" that was planned but never completely realized decades ago. were any of those planned buildings 1000 footers?

2. I know menino called for a 1,000 footer, but suppose someone planned an even taller tower for winthrop square...would that fly, or would it prohibitively upset the FAA (pardon the pun)? i mean, is 1,000 the cut-off height or the starting point? suppose someone came in with a 1,200 foot proposal???

3. lastly, I was under the impression that boston had a rather large, double digit, office vacancy rate. first, is my understanding of this correct? second, if it is, why build a new tower of this size? is the plan an "if you build it, they will come" sort of thing?

 

[BostonSkyGuy]

Shiz, that's the post of the year. Thank You VERY much for going to all the trouble to go down there and find out/write all the infomation.

I figured this project was a possibility, I guess I really didn't grasp how big of vision the mayor and city have for the building itself though. To try to emulate or take pieces from those buildings listed and transform them into a new centerpiece for the skyline...it's going to be really intense to see some of the renderings come the end of the year.

 

[BostonSkyGuy]

1. has there ever been a tower of this height, or taller, proposed for boston in the past that just never reached fruition? I remember reading something on here before the old board crashed about the boston "spine" that was planned but never completely realized decades ago. were any of those planned buildings 1000 footers?

I think in the 80's there was one or two that were close to 1,000 feet proposed but as usual nothing came of them. I think that lack of need for office/high rise condo space had as much to do with the idea/proposal being scrapped as "NIMBYS". I could be wrong on this, but I remember something big planned that never went through.

2. I know menino called for a 1,000 footer, but suppose someone planned an even taller tower for winthrop square...would that fly, or would it prohibitively upset the FAA (pardon the pun)? i mean, is 1,000 the cut-off height or the starting point? suppose someone came in with a 1,200 foot proposal???

For the FAA It really depends on the flight paths in the area. I'm sure someone can figure out if and how many flights go towards that general vacinity. I'd be pretty shocked if they went to all this trouble to send out the RFP's without getting in some sort of contact/conversations with the FAA.

As for the height Menino wants? I got the feeling all along that he wants it to be at least 1,000 feet. If someone comes in and proposes something that's 1,200 feet, it's ends up being the best option/design etc. and the FAA approves it--I don't think you'll see much resistance from the Mayor.

That's really why this is making us skyscraper geeks (I use geeks with humor) excited. The possibilites from both a design and height standpoint of this project are endless.

3. lastly, I was under the impression that boston had a rather large, double digit, office vacancy rate. first, is my understanding of this correct? second, if it is, why build a new tower of this size? is the plan an "if you build it, they will come" sort of thing?

I believe it's 10-12% the actual number might be something like 10.9% or 11.5% I've read varying sources. That seems really high, but in reality it's very good. Plus a lot of companies already in Boston are looking to expand. It's tough to find enough space in one building, I think the vacancy rates are almost misleading because they don't tell you how much of a certain building is unoccupied. Get what I'm saying? Like you wouldn't want Patrick Enterprises to be in two different buildings, you'd want all your employees in one centralized area.

It looks like they want this project to be a mixed use building with not only offices but liveable areas and also hotels/restaurants, etc. I think they want it to not only be a cornerstone for the downtown skyline but also a cornerstone for downtown itself. To help infuse more life into the area.

 

[callahan]

I had a feeling that the city wanted to create a "landmark" building. that's why I mentioned possible architects such as Santiago Calatrava or Renzo Piano a few weeks back. It sounds like that's the sort of iconic building they're after. I think it's great. Thanks for that info, Shiz.

By the way, this brings up an interesting point. Most other great cities have icons which people immediately reference when one of the cities is mentioned. Boston really has no iconic architectural structure that is universally known. I wonder why that is.

 

[lexicon506]

Well, there are lots of big cities around the world that don't have an instantly recognizable building. Philly, Atlanta, Montreal, Vancouver, Madrid, Johannesburg, Melbourne, Indianapolis, Houston, Santiago, Jakarta......I could name many more. It's just that some cities get lucky, and hopefully once this project is done, Boston will be one of those lucky cities.

 

[Ron Newman]

I'd say the State House dome, the Custom House Tower, and the John Hancock Tower are all uniquely recognizable as Boston landmarks. The Zakim Bridge may be reaching that category as well.

 

[callahan]

Well, there are lots of big cities around the world that don't have an instantly recognizable building. Philly, Atlanta, Montreal, Vancouver, Madrid, Johannesburg, Melbourne, Indianapolis, Houston, Santiago, Jakarta......I could name many more. It's just that some cities get lucky, and hopefully once this project is done, Boston will be one of those lucky cities.

Of course there are great cities without recognizable iconic structures. And icons don't make a city. But Philly has the Liberty Bell which is widely associated with the city. I suppose The Old North Church is, in theory a structure that's thought of when Boston comes up.

In any case, this building has potential to be what people think of when they think about Boston's architecture.

 

[BostonSkyGuy]

I'd say the State House dome, the Custom House Tower, and the John Hancock Tower are all uniquely recognizable as Boston landmarks. The Zakim Bridge may be reaching that category as well.

In any case, this building has potential to be what people think of when they think about Boston's architecture.

This is another reason that this tower is going to generate so much interest and excitement and probably just not for us skyscraper enthusiasts.

Boston doesn't really have that one structure that you think of when you think of Boston. It's not like the Eiffel Tower or Statue of Liberty, but like previously mentioned there are only a handful of places in the world that do have that instant monument/building/structure that pops into your head when you think of said place.

Instead Boston has a handful of unique buildings/structures like the Custom Tower, Hancock Tower, Old North Church, Bunker Hill Monument and the very new Zakim Bridge. Notice that these span generations, it's not just a bunch of old buildings and it's not just a bunch of new glittering skyscrapers.

This building has a chance to put a further stamp on architecture in Boston. Instead of people appreciating what we have but wanting to see something newer and bigger, when this is built Boston will have such a different array of landmarks both old and new.

For all our gripes about NIMBY's and people worrying too much about forgetting the past while moving onto the future, the city has done a GREAT job of preserving the great buildings built years and years ago while adding (albeit at a slow pace) newer buildings that add to the flavor of the city.

 

[Patrick]

I think the building that houses the federal reserve bank of boston is instantly recognizeable as bostonian in character. I cant think of any other structure anywhere that even closely resembles it. It is, of course, rather plain, though, and it isnt the tallest, so this new structure can take its place. I also think the JH tower is boston's signature building. I own a book on skyscrapers that my girlfriend got me for christmas and one of the sections is entitled monolithic modern towers and the JH is the first picture in that chapter.

oh yes and the Zakim bridge is fantastic, easily my absolute favorite built structure in all of boston. absolutely amazing. It is certainly a landmark for boston because when I was a freshman in college it was pictured on the front and back of my calculus text book and my professor asked how many people knew where it was. the entire class raised their hands and almost half of my school was composed of people who were not from new england...

I loved taking the bus home from burlington to portland, because after we stopped in boston briefly to take on new passengers, we would proceed across the zakim as we exited the city and it would be just at the point where night turns into daybreak and the blue lighting on that bridge at that time of day is PHENOMENAL. anyway, sory for the sidetrack, i know the zakim is an old development and i dont want to infuriate anyone because this is, afterall, the new dev thread.

 

[LeTaureau]

Shiz, thanks for your diligence! This is really exciting news, and I too can't wait for November/December to arrive.

In terms of iconic structures and monuments, its true that plenty of cities don't have them, others have already listed good examples. Winthrop square does have the potential to become an instant landmark for Boston, though I would consider the Customs House Tower and JHT to be locally recognized landmarks.

The Liberty Bell? Haha, the fact that Philly is synonymous with some old bell is pretty sad.

 

[Waldorf]

^ I think of Cheesesteak when I think of Philly. That's all that comes to my mind. I no speak no english.

 

[garbribre]

The Liberty Bell? Haha, the fact that Philly is synonymous with some old bell is pretty sad.

What?!

Just like any city being synonymous with some old building or monument or park, or recreation facility or natural archapelego (sp?). Big deal, right? That makes it all pretty sad, then. Like we are sad for prattling on about useless minutia.

This is a ridiculous discussion. Who cares if Boston gets some wanking tall signature building.

Has my sarcasm gone far enough.
Jeeesh! :evil:

BTW--wasn't the Bell forged by Revere...in the Boston area, or am I confusing it with another bell? Maybe that will make it an important icon for you.

 

[callahan]

Like I said, symbols don't make or break a city. There are plenty of great cities without symbols. But I think it is sort of an interesting discussion as to what becomes a symbolic or an iconic structure. The Golden Gate Bridge is not just another bridge. It's a symbol.

 

[Ron Newman]

I found it fascinating to watch how quickly the Zakim Bridge found its way onto tourist postcards, logos, advertisements, letterheads, and the like.

 

[bowesst]

I found it fascinating to watch how quickly the Zakim Bridge found its way onto tourist postcards, logos, advertisements, letterheads, and the like.

Don't forget every local news graphic.

 

[Patrick]

Like I said, symbols don't make or break a city. There are plenty of great cities without symbols. But I think it is sort of an interesting discussion as to what becomes a symbolic or an iconic structure. The Golden Gate Bridge is not just another bridge. It's a symbol.[/quote]

symbols can be dangerous if they symbolize the wrong things. WTC and capitalism/material imperialism.

 

[bowesst]

^ I think of Cheesesteak when I think of Philly. That's all that comes to my mind. I no speak no english.

Is anyone else sick of those commercials for Philly by Southwest? "Got alot..alot..alot of culture here." :evil:

 

[callahan]

Like I said, symbols don't make or break a city. There are plenty of great cities without symbols. But I think it is sort of an interesting discussion as to what becomes a symbolic or an iconic structure. The Golden Gate Bridge is not just another bridge. It's a symbol.[/quote]

symbols can be dangerous if they symbolize the wrong things. WTC and capitalism/material imperialism.

Yes. Of course. But they can also be great things. I never saw the World Trade center towers as symols of evil. Nor do I see The Space Needle, the Golden Gate Bridge or The John Hancock Tower as evil symbols.

 

[Patrick]

Like I said, symbols don't make or break a city. There are plenty of great cities without symbols. But I think it is sort of an interesting discussion as to what becomes a symbolic or an iconic structure. The Golden Gate Bridge is not just another bridge. It's a symbol.[/quote]

symbols can be dangerous if they symbolize the wrong things. WTC and capitalism/material imperialism.

Yes. Of course. But they can also be great things. I never saw the World Trade center towers as symols of evil. Nor do I see The Space Needle, the Golden Gate Bridge or The John Hancock Tower as evil symbols.

Neither do I, but I was bringing up the fact that some people do. SO it is important to keep in mind what a structure symbolizes. the WTC complex symbolized greed, unfairness and MNCs to those who knocked it down, or so they think.

and a plan to attack the space needle was foiled by the CIA in the last decade. Im sure nothing like this will be the case in boston, but the thought crossed my mind so i shared it.