115 Federal St. (Winthrop Square)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just the beginning of a long list of complaints about this building. Shadows move and grow longer and shorter through the day and year. A slim building would have little impact, but this person wants no shadow impact ever and has the law to back him up. A really tall building won't prevent Boston from stopping its slow slide toward obscurity, but the will to get it done might.
 
An obscure state law bars any new tower built in Boston from casting shadows over beloved Boston Common.
It may sound like one of those made-in-Massachusetts rules that is just too goofy to be taken seriously.
But the 1990 shadow law has forced more than one would-be tower developer to knock precious stories off the top and undertake other radical redesigns.
Click to expand...

So do the Millenium Towers not cast shadows on the Common, or were they somehow grandfathered?

Also, I'd love to see Tremont on the Common torn down and replaced with about four smaller buildings of various heights, but that will never happen.
 
I actually saw the article this morning on the red line, because someone left his/her Herald on the seat. Of course this was front page news, and that's why I picked it up to read. The article had these dramatized images of people screaming at the foot of the yet-to-be-built tower, which was made to look kind of like the JHC in Chicago.

So I would just like to tell the Herald staff to keep up the great work. That includes you Van-Soarhies! You're doing a stellar tabloid job. And kudos for writing material that makes me want to move to NYC. Let's jeer at all signs of potential progress for one of the most important cities in the world.

OK sorry for the rant, back on topic here... So maybe I'm a little slow, but I thought that the Common's natural shadow enemy were all of the trees that already EXIST IN THE COMMON. And I'm pretty sure that the leaves haven't fallen off of the trees on September 12 yet. I guess there weren't enough laws made in 1990, so they had to choose this stupid one. And give me a freakin' break about the PO Sq argument. The last I checked 1 Federal, 100 Federal, and 1 PO Sq were pretty tall. Hey Scott, have you ever been to Bryant Park in NYC? Didn't think so.

And lastly (sorry for the lengthy reply), I have to comment on Van-Soarhies comment:

"...to let builders go as high as 80 stories, dwarfing even the majestic, 60-story Hancock tower."

Dude, if you 35 years younger you would be writing articles to prevent the JHT from going up, so don't even go there. Save terms like "majestic" for people like us who appreciate progress and beauty.
 
Thats the dumbest law Ive ever heard of.

I guess that explains my question of why there arent huge towers around the common, like in central park. Its prime real estate.

Real estate currently limited to such tall wonders as

IMG_5118.jpg


The fact that the law is so recent (historically) is even sadder
 
At 843 acres, Central Park is about 18 times the size of the Boston Common so towers are appropriate there. For perspective, the Back Bay in Boston is 570 acres and the original size of the Boston peninsula was about 800 acres.

Towers around Boston Common are a very bad idea, in my book.
 
The tower in question would be a good ten blocks or so from Boston Common.
 
JSic said:
The tower in question would be a good ten blocks or so from Boston Common.
Click to expand...

Yes, which is why I said around not near the Common, in response to a poster who was upset that there aren't towers around Boston Common like those which surround Central Park in Manhattan. See the post immediately above my initial comment.

I don't care one way or another about building a tower at Winthrop Square except that it seems like particularly poor way to deal with insecurity about Boston's image. I'm unimpressed by those who advocate building tall buildings simply to build tall buildings.
 
Yes, which is why I said around not near the Common, in response to a poster who was upset that there aren't towers around Boston Common like those which surround Central Park in Manhattan. See the post immediately above my initial comment.
Click to expand...
The idea of what constitutes "towers" is subjective. I also would not want to see Manhattan-esque towers around the Common (in fact, Tremont on the Common is way too big itself) but slim "towers" in the 20-story range are appropriate (think the 2 residential towers next to TOTC, I forget their names at the moment...)

I don't care one way or another about building a tower at Winthrop Square except that it seems like particularly poor way to deal with insecurity about Boston's image. I'm unimpressed by those who advocate building tall buildings simply to build tall buildings.
Click to expand...
Height is one part of it. A sleek, modern design that can serve as a message of sorts that Boston can build bold structures and be forward-looking is another part of it.
 
JSic said:
I don't care one way or another about building a tower at Winthrop Square except that it seems like particularly poor way to deal with insecurity about Boston's image. I'm unimpressed by those who advocate building tall buildings simply to build tall buildings.
Click to expand...
Height is one part of it. A sleek, modern design that can serve as a message of sorts that Boston can build bold structures and be forward-looking is another part of it.
Click to expand...

The Federal Reserve Building and the Hancock Tower have already proved that Boston can do bold structures. I doubt that building a tower at Winthrop Square will have much of an effect on the overall perception of the city. Put it along the high spine and it might have a chance to be an iconic building, but at Winthrop Square? Not a chance.

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.
 
Actually, now that it comes up, who exactly is claiming that Boston isn't forward-looking? Who are we trying to refute in building this tower? The last I checked, with all the bio-tech, computers, robotics, financial services, and universities, it would be hard to pick a more forward-looking city. Yes, the city might be called architecturally conservative, is that who we are reacting to? This tower seems like an awfully large investment to just refute an aesthetic criticism. Personally, I think that perhaps Boston's greatest flaw is its lack of self-assurance despite the fact that it is clearly one of the greatest cities in the world and envied by almost every city in the country for our quality of life and technical innovations. The best way to prove that we're confident and secure in ourselves is not to create some flashy, attention grabbing monstrosity that screams "look at me" and will be dated in 10 years, but to create something timeless and classy, reserved and dignified. And make it red.
 
The building, in theory, is actually a good idea because its in the Financial District, the market could probably support it, it will pay taxes and put alot of offices and housing in one place where there is appropriate infrastructure. I don't think it will be a tourist attraction because skyscrapers are not the reason people visit Boston or send their children to be educated here. So it comes down to is 1000 ft too tall for that area and I don't think it is and have doubts about the shadows on the Common arguement.

The skyline is part of our city's brand just like the State House, you see it on TV behind some Harvard Prof or lawyer showing where they are, so isn't it okay to make a conscience effort to improve the appearence of the skyline if the building is in the appropriate place? Hasn't the city been doing that already with buildings shorter than the 40 story norm of the 80's?

[Edit] Yes, red would be good... and pointy. :wink:
 
Scott said:
The building, in theory, is actually a good idea because its in the Financial District, the market could probably support it, it will pay taxes and put alot of offices and housing in one place where there is appropriate infrastructure.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure the infrastructure can support it. I'm trying to imagine (a) the parking necessary and (b) all of the cars coming up Lincoln Street and on the surface roads from the CAT and how all of that traffic will be sorted out. This isn't to say that it shouldn't be built, but I'm anxious to see the reports from the traffic engineers. Anyone who has ever driven up Lincoln Street and taken a left onto Summer Street and then tried to get back to the Interstate should be able to see exactly what the problem is.
 
Am I the only pale-skinned Bostonian of European descent who carefully avoids direct sunlight? What is the particular concern about shadows? Will it kill vegetation on the common? Do people tan there?
 
This site is smack in the middle of every transit line. Why does it need parking?
 
Ron Newman said:
This site is smack in the middle of every transit line. Why does it need parking?
Click to expand...

Some people don't live smack dab in the middle of any transit lines. For some people, taking mass transit would take 2-3 hours while driving might take one. While I'm all for mass transit, it doesn't eliminate the need for cars and for parking.
 
Unfortunately new development in Boston brings with it new demand for parking regardless of how well connected it is to public transit.
 
Don't most new office buildings include an underground garage of some sort?
 
Usually, they do. But don't forget that this is a 1,000 foot tower we are talking about, meaning about 70-80 floors. That is a lot of people in one building. That would have to be a pretty big underground parking garage, especially if part of the design is to have a hotel and/or condos involved.
 
Tower plan draws players: Belkin creating crack project team
By Scott Van Voorhis
Boston Herald Business Reporter
Thursday, September 14, 2006


Sports team owner and credit card magnate Steve Belkin is emerging as a force to be reckoned with in the budding competition to build Boston?s tallest skyscraper.

Belkin is assembling a crack development and architectural team that includes one of Boston?s top real estate executives, former Fan Pier project leader Dan O?Connell.

Head of the TransNational credit-card and travel empire and owner of the Atlanta Hawks, Belkin has a key advantage: He owns a Federal Street midrise that abuts the city-owned garage just off Winthrop Square in Boston?s Financial District, where the skyscraper would be built. The Weston business executive has also been interested in building a major tower on the site for years, local real estate executives say.

Belkin recently hired Bovis Construction and local architecture firm CBT. He is also in the hunt for internationally known design firms and is in talks with two big-name architects, Renzo Piano and Somerville-based Moshe Safdie, executives said. Safdie is currently working on the Boston Museum project for the Rose Kennedy Greenway and Piano?s present projects include The New York Times Tower in Manhattan..

?What I have heard in the marketplace is that there is a sense that Steve has the inside track,? said one executive.

The jockeying comes as City Hall?s development arm prepares to take potential bidders today on a tour of the downtown lot and garage proposed for the big tower project. Mayor Thomas M. Menino has called for bids from builders interested in putting up a 1,000-foot skyrise that would be the tallest tower on the Hub?s skyline.

Still, Belkin is hardly the only player to watch in the tower competition.

Chicago-based Equity Office Properties Trust, which owns an office high-rise next door on Federal Street, also holds an inside advantage.
But Equity is also considering selling its adjacent building at 75-101 Federal St.

Other major real estate players that have expressed at least preliminary interest include: Beacon Capital Partners, which is preparing to sell the 60-story Hancock Tower; Boston Properties, owner of the Prudential Center; Texas-based Hines, which has proposed a tower over South Station; and Gale International, headed by influential Boston developer John Hynes.

Robert Epstein, head of the major Boston development firm Abbey Group, has opted not to bid, as he prepares to break ground on a new, 32-story condo tower on Province Street.



Link
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top