I tend to agree with what people are saying here about the preservation of historical buildings and the difficulty to build taller buildings in Boston due to the BRA and Nimby's as opposed to cities like Dallas, Houston, Miami, NYC, Timbuktu, etc.
I think we're forgetting another enemy (and another unique trait of Boston) to skyscrapers in this town- the FAA. Logan Airport is so close to the Financial District and Downtown Boston that heights are very strictly regulated here. South Station Tower was slated to be much taller, but was reduced to typical financial district size due to resistance from the FAA. I'm dreading the thought that this might happen to 115 Winthrop too (if it gets that far). Most other Cities don't have this. Laguardia and JFK in NYC are relatively far from Manhattan, Miami Int'll is distant, same with Atlanta. I can't speak for Houston or Tampa as I've never been to either and am too lazy to pull up a map for the sake of this post.
But for the Most part, Airports are much further away from the downtown areas of the Metro they serve. therefore there is little to no interference with Skyscraper building/ the FAA.
On top of that, Boston faces fierce historical preservation conflict with the building of new towers and i don't see TOO much wrong with that. Why not preserve an old facade? it usually ensures that the area will remain pedestrian friendly, and retain what makes Boston Boston. Also, it can inspire some more creativity on the part of the architect trying to make a building fit instead of trying to make some flashy monstrosity stand out One of my favorite views of the city is standing in front of the Old State House and looking at it with One Boston Place as a backdrop the old and the new. it's fantastic and there aren't too many places where you can see that in the U.S.
That being said, i can't stand the Nimby "preserve everything and eliminate deadly shadows and turn the city into a forest" approach. Some stuff needs to go (Garage and building at Winthrop Square to make room for the new tower), it's all about a balance. However, the Dainty-Dot facade should stay.
I think we're forgetting another enemy (and another unique trait of Boston) to skyscrapers in this town- the FAA. Logan Airport is so close to the Financial District and Downtown Boston that heights are very strictly regulated here. South Station Tower was slated to be much taller, but was reduced to typical financial district size due to resistance from the FAA. I'm dreading the thought that this might happen to 115 Winthrop too (if it gets that far). Most other Cities don't have this. Laguardia and JFK in NYC are relatively far from Manhattan, Miami Int'll is distant, same with Atlanta. I can't speak for Houston or Tampa as I've never been to either and am too lazy to pull up a map for the sake of this post.
But for the Most part, Airports are much further away from the downtown areas of the Metro they serve. therefore there is little to no interference with Skyscraper building/ the FAA.
On top of that, Boston faces fierce historical preservation conflict with the building of new towers and i don't see TOO much wrong with that. Why not preserve an old facade? it usually ensures that the area will remain pedestrian friendly, and retain what makes Boston Boston. Also, it can inspire some more creativity on the part of the architect trying to make a building fit instead of trying to make some flashy monstrosity stand out One of my favorite views of the city is standing in front of the Old State House and looking at it with One Boston Place as a backdrop the old and the new. it's fantastic and there aren't too many places where you can see that in the U.S.
That being said, i can't stand the Nimby "preserve everything and eliminate deadly shadows and turn the city into a forest" approach. Some stuff needs to go (Garage and building at Winthrop Square to make room for the new tower), it's all about a balance. However, the Dainty-Dot facade should stay.
