[ARCHIVED] Harbor Garage Redevelopment | 70 East India Row | Waterfront | Downtown
- Status
Tim Jackson
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2008
- Messages
- 130
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking lot.
I would say, that the Back Bay skyline with the Hancock and the Pru would be fairly recognizable to most people, but if you handed someone from out of town a shot of the Financial District, they would most likely have little to no idea what city they were looking at.
I would say, that the Back Bay skyline with the Hancock and the Pru would be fairly recognizable to most people, but if you handed someone from out of town a shot of the Financial District, they would most likely have little to no idea what city they were looking at.
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking lot.
True, of course. Ablarc is right, imo. We are all inclined to view home favorably, wherever that may be. (Many of us from Boston may feel that more so.)
But the yen for height on this forum simply because -- what, other cities have it? -- seems, honestly, adolescent. Most of us get over our fascination with erections when we become men. Is height really, really, all that important? Wouldn't we be better served if we talk about good design instead of height. Shouldn't that be the standard?
I would not want to live in Hong Kong. The pictures, pretty as they are, reveal only part of the story of that evolving city. It is not a pleasant metropolis to inhabit (ask the citizens who live there), and the architecture, as photogenic as it may be, is in some part a reason for the unpleasantness. Honestly. The city is an ant's nest of congestion and confusion. Politics bear the burden of blame, of course, but architecture has not solved the problems, only exacerbated them.
The section of the city I like the best, the old part, feels real, original, local and liveable. It is, however, exorbitantly, mind-bogglingly expensive. The rest, the new stuff, is best appreciated from a distance, a great distance, preferably from the water -- which is where you see most pictures taken. It is not a pleasant city to experience on the street, not if you had to deal with it every day.
I love Chicago. One of the best walking cities in America. Some of my favorite buildings are there. Our own HHR shined in Chicago. Millennium Park? I wish we had that. But guys, they call it the city of big shoulders for a reason -- it goes on forever. I mean when they did the world's fair there at the turn of the last century they had room enough to literally create a whole new city, and to also make an enormous lake to go with it. They have boulevards and streets that create manageable L'Enfant-like grids. We have cow paths.
I'm off topic. It's not about liveability, this discussion is about skylines.
Forget pretty pictures. These are the creations of salesmen, city fathers, the architectural press or the architects themselves. We have a lovely skyline. Currently, an evolving one. By this time next year it will look modestly different. It is not an unrelenting wall of skyscrapers, true. Thank God. Any city can do that. We're better. We're Boston.
True, of course. Ablarc is right, imo. We are all inclined to view home favorably, wherever that may be. (Many of us from Boston may feel that more so.)
But the yen for height on this forum simply because -- what, other cities have it? -- seems, honestly, adolescent. Most of us get over our fascination with erections when we become men. Is height really, really, all that important? Wouldn't we be better served if we talk about good design instead of height. Shouldn't that be the standard?
I would not want to live in Hong Kong. The pictures, pretty as they are, reveal only part of the story of that evolving city. It is not a pleasant metropolis to inhabit (ask the citizens who live there), and the architecture, as photogenic as it may be, is in some part a reason for the unpleasantness. Honestly. The city is an ant's nest of congestion and confusion. Politics bear the burden of blame, of course, but architecture has not solved the problems, only exacerbated them.
The section of the city I like the best, the old part, feels real, original, local and liveable. It is, however, exorbitantly, mind-bogglingly expensive. The rest, the new stuff, is best appreciated from a distance, a great distance, preferably from the water -- which is where you see most pictures taken. It is not a pleasant city to experience on the street, not if you had to deal with it every day.
I love Chicago. One of the best walking cities in America. Some of my favorite buildings are there. Our own HHR shined in Chicago. Millennium Park? I wish we had that. But guys, they call it the city of big shoulders for a reason -- it goes on forever. I mean when they did the world's fair there at the turn of the last century they had room enough to literally create a whole new city, and to also make an enormous lake to go with it. They have boulevards and streets that create manageable L'Enfant-like grids. We have cow paths.
I'm off topic. It's not about liveability, this discussion is about skylines.
Forget pretty pictures. These are the creations of salesmen, city fathers, the architectural press or the architects themselves. We have a lovely skyline. Currently, an evolving one. By this time next year it will look modestly different. It is not an unrelenting wall of skyscrapers, true. Thank God. Any city can do that. We're better. We're Boston.
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking lot.
Let's keep something in mind about Boston's skyline here. The 4 tallest buildings (Hancock, Pru, Federal Reserve, 1 Boston Place) were all built between the years 1964-1976. While they are all unique, distinct buildings in their own right, that's 32 years without anything cracking our top 4! If you go beyond that, it's still been a full 20 years since anything broke into the top 7. Of course the skyline is going to be unmistakably Boston! All of the tallest buildings have been standing for 20-40 years already!
I know it is a beautiful skyline, but every year it seems to lose it's prestige just a little bit more. I also realize that Boston is amazing and about much more than just the skyline, but in my opinion, it's time for an update here. Copley Tower and South Station Tower are on the right track, but the financial district is definitely in need of a 700-900 footer, a pinnacle SOMEWHERE.
Oh and to tie it back to this thread, the greenway around here would be a nice place for a 400-600 footer, sleek design, minimal impact. Boston deserves to get these projects built.
Let's keep something in mind about Boston's skyline here. The 4 tallest buildings (Hancock, Pru, Federal Reserve, 1 Boston Place) were all built between the years 1964-1976. While they are all unique, distinct buildings in their own right, that's 32 years without anything cracking our top 4! If you go beyond that, it's still been a full 20 years since anything broke into the top 7. Of course the skyline is going to be unmistakably Boston! All of the tallest buildings have been standing for 20-40 years already!
I know it is a beautiful skyline, but every year it seems to lose it's prestige just a little bit more. I also realize that Boston is amazing and about much more than just the skyline, but in my opinion, it's time for an update here. Copley Tower and South Station Tower are on the right track, but the financial district is definitely in need of a 700-900 footer, a pinnacle SOMEWHERE.
Oh and to tie it back to this thread, the greenway around here would be a nice place for a 400-600 footer, sleek design, minimal impact. Boston deserves to get these projects built.
KentXie
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,185
- Reaction score
- 744
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking lot.
That's the type of talk that would create a skyline just like Boston, where everything is at the same height. It lacks any sort of ambition. Now what we are saying is not height > design. Now if you are going to build a skyscraper or a tower, build it tall. And Jesus Christ, a 400ft tower isn't tall unless you live in a small size city like Providence or Hartford. If we were really yearning for height, we make the tower to be at least 600 ft. It's not as if we are asking much in the height category.
That's the type of talk that would create a skyline just like Boston, where everything is at the same height. It lacks any sort of ambition. Now what we are saying is not height > design. Now if you are going to build a skyscraper or a tower, build it tall. And Jesus Christ, a 400ft tower isn't tall unless you live in a small size city like Providence or Hartford. If we were really yearning for height, we make the tower to be at least 600 ft. It's not as if we are asking much in the height category.
statler
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 7,908
- Reaction score
- 496
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.
I've yet to have anyone explain why having a 'impressive' skyline in any way relates to having an impressive city.
Paris does not have an impressive skyline (La Defense is outside the city) The really nice parts of London do not have an impressive skyline. Prague does not have an impressive skyline.
I have no problems with tall buildings but they are not an essential element of all great cities.
I've yet to have anyone explain why having a 'impressive' skyline in any way relates to having an impressive city.
Paris does not have an impressive skyline (La Defense is outside the city) The really nice parts of London do not have an impressive skyline. Prague does not have an impressive skyline.
I have no problems with tall buildings but they are not an essential element of all great cities.
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.
"I would say, that the Back Bay skyline with the Hancock and the Pru would be fairly recognizable to most people, but if you handed someone from out of town a shot of the Financial District, they would most likely have little to no idea what city they were looking at."
Personally, I've never really thought of the Back Bay as a true skyline. 2 spikes dont make a skyline (athough the addition os 111 Huntington has changed that a bit, and the new tower planned for Copley Place should continue to do so).
The downtown is a skyline - lots of continuity and density. But the problem is that its pretty bland - too many 60's-70's building blocks and a flat top at 600'. Time to break the ceiling with some tall, slim towers, and a spire or two wouldn't hurt.
"I would say, that the Back Bay skyline with the Hancock and the Pru would be fairly recognizable to most people, but if you handed someone from out of town a shot of the Financial District, they would most likely have little to no idea what city they were looking at."
Personally, I've never really thought of the Back Bay as a true skyline. 2 spikes dont make a skyline (athough the addition os 111 Huntington has changed that a bit, and the new tower planned for Copley Place should continue to do so).
The downtown is a skyline - lots of continuity and density. But the problem is that its pretty bland - too many 60's-70's building blocks and a flat top at 600'. Time to break the ceiling with some tall, slim towers, and a spire or two wouldn't hurt.
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.
I've always been curious about why the height frenzy that swept through New York and Chicago skipped Boston almost entirely. Was it an official city policy to limit height to ~40 floors, or did it have to do with lesser demand for office space?
I kinda wish the Boston skyline made a bolder statement. It's not like the modest height makes the financial district a special treat to walk through - it just makes it look bland.
I've always been curious about why the height frenzy that swept through New York and Chicago skipped Boston almost entirely. Was it an official city policy to limit height to ~40 floors, or did it have to do with lesser demand for office space?
I kinda wish the Boston skyline made a bolder statement. It's not like the modest height makes the financial district a special treat to walk through - it just makes it look bland.
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.
Agreed. I've never considered the Back Bay to have a true skyline(yet). I also agree that while downtown has a legitimate skyline, it is bland and unimpressive. It is my opinion that they need to add modern skyscrapers that will symbolize progression, growth and other elements of a vibrant city; not a dormant city.
It's unbelievable how difficult it is to get a modern tower approved in this city when so many of the buildings are dated and hardly aesthetically pleasing. (Maybe that's the reason why?)
Agreed. I've never considered the Back Bay to have a true skyline(yet). I also agree that while downtown has a legitimate skyline, it is bland and unimpressive. It is my opinion that they need to add modern skyscrapers that will symbolize progression, growth and other elements of a vibrant city; not a dormant city.
It's unbelievable how difficult it is to get a modern tower approved in this city when so many of the buildings are dated and hardly aesthetically pleasing. (Maybe that's the reason why?)
statler
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 7,908
- Reaction score
- 496
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.
Read "Invented Cities: The Creation of Landscape in Nineteenth-Century New York and Boston" by Mona Domosh
It does a pretty good job of answering that question.
Read "Invented Cities: The Creation of Landscape in Nineteenth-Century New York and Boston" by Mona Domosh
It does a pretty good job of answering that question.
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.
real estate is part of the problem obviously...a lot of the places that would be prime locations for a world class tower are already taken by old and or ugly old buildings. They had a good location for Trans-National but obviously we know how that is turning out...
In my opinion, the best locations in the city for an iconic tower would be the One Boston Place or One Beacon Place locations....not that the buildings are so hideous but because that is prime real estate on the border between civil and business Boston and it is ashame to have such gigantic boxes in such highly visible spots. Same with the Prudential Tower and many buildings in the financial district which need to be destroyed. The saving grace for The Pru was always that it was all alone and sorta cute for years...now that 111 Huntington is next to it, it has become a visible burden imo...even if it is beloved.
So when a spot opens up like at the Aquarium garage people want to rush to suggest a tower simply because it is available. If you could get something slender and iconic in that spot fine...but it is not the location for just another standard modern apartment highrise. Tear down Boston harbor Towers and then lets talk!
For Boston it will never be aobut how many tall buildings we have but about where they are located. New York and Chicago don't have to worry about that, but our officials can't relent on wanting to find the perfect spot of land and they shouldn't give into to cheapo developers with their nice but unspectacular local-firm designs.
real estate is part of the problem obviously...a lot of the places that would be prime locations for a world class tower are already taken by old and or ugly old buildings. They had a good location for Trans-National but obviously we know how that is turning out...
In my opinion, the best locations in the city for an iconic tower would be the One Boston Place or One Beacon Place locations....not that the buildings are so hideous but because that is prime real estate on the border between civil and business Boston and it is ashame to have such gigantic boxes in such highly visible spots. Same with the Prudential Tower and many buildings in the financial district which need to be destroyed. The saving grace for The Pru was always that it was all alone and sorta cute for years...now that 111 Huntington is next to it, it has become a visible burden imo...even if it is beloved.
So when a spot opens up like at the Aquarium garage people want to rush to suggest a tower simply because it is available. If you could get something slender and iconic in that spot fine...but it is not the location for just another standard modern apartment highrise. Tear down Boston harbor Towers and then lets talk!
For Boston it will never be aobut how many tall buildings we have but about where they are located. New York and Chicago don't have to worry about that, but our officials can't relent on wanting to find the perfect spot of land and they shouldn't give into to cheapo developers with their nice but unspectacular local-firm designs.
Last edited:
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.
I don't have a lot of faith in TNT happening. If it does I hope it leds to the old First National Bank building either being re-built taller or torn down and replaced with a better and taller building. It's hard to believe but that was not the only design for the building, although I heard that from the sky it looks like a 1.
I don't have a lot of faith in TNT happening. If it does I hope it leds to the old First National Bank building either being re-built taller or torn down and replaced with a better and taller building. It's hard to believe but that was not the only design for the building, although I heard that from the sky it looks like a 1.
Tim Jackson
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2008
- Messages
- 130
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.
True, I can understand what you're saying. I still think that a photo of that area is far more recognizable than one of the Financial District - when given to an outsider.
On the topic of height making a great city, I agree with nm88. I am almost grateful that Boston doesn't have multiple 1,000+ foot towers. I hope it stays that way. Don't get me wrong, I am all for projects like Columbus Center, Copley Place, Columbus Center, etc., so it's not like I am anti-density. I would also be in favor of Boston getting one or two iconic skyscrapers to help it stand out, but I never want to see Boston become a mini-NY with 1,000 foot towers sprouting up everywhere.
True, I can understand what you're saying. I still think that a photo of that area is far more recognizable than one of the Financial District - when given to an outsider.
On the topic of height making a great city, I agree with nm88. I am almost grateful that Boston doesn't have multiple 1,000+ foot towers. I hope it stays that way. Don't get me wrong, I am all for projects like Columbus Center, Copley Place, Columbus Center, etc., so it's not like I am anti-density. I would also be in favor of Boston getting one or two iconic skyscrapers to help it stand out, but I never want to see Boston become a mini-NY with 1,000 foot towers sprouting up everywhere.
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.
Holy Crap....we have people on here stating this would ruin the area, and others complaining this obscure views of some rather boring office buildings to boaters/photographers. Forget NIMBY, we have some NIM-C(ity) posters.
If Back Bay and South End survived John Hancock with its horrible windswept plaza, and the skyline didn't suffer too much even though it obscured many downtown buildings when viewed from the west, I'm sure a 400'-600' building with a thoughtful approach at the ground level isn't going to be a plague on the city.
I welcome the developer and architects to bring their best vision. This doesn't mean tallest. It can be 5 stories or 85 stories, just don't be scared to present something that could be great just because they are scared of the NIM-Cs. That said, its too late, as we never got a chance to see the initial concept....such is Boston.
Holy Crap....we have people on here stating this would ruin the area, and others complaining this obscure views of some rather boring office buildings to boaters/photographers. Forget NIMBY, we have some NIM-C(ity) posters.
If Back Bay and South End survived John Hancock with its horrible windswept plaza, and the skyline didn't suffer too much even though it obscured many downtown buildings when viewed from the west, I'm sure a 400'-600' building with a thoughtful approach at the ground level isn't going to be a plague on the city.
I welcome the developer and architects to bring their best vision. This doesn't mean tallest. It can be 5 stories or 85 stories, just don't be scared to present something that could be great just because they are scared of the NIM-Cs. That said, its too late, as we never got a chance to see the initial concept....such is Boston.
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.
I have such a view on the wall in my office. Folks generally say, "That's Boston isn't it?"
When I inquire how they knew, they reply: "It's the big arch. That's a dead giveaway."
(That's what it means to be iconic.)
Rowe's Wharf and the Custom House distinguish the Financial District skyline from the water.
I have such a view on the wall in my office. Folks generally say, "That's Boston isn't it?"
When I inquire how they knew, they reply: "It's the big arch. That's a dead giveaway."
(That's what it means to be iconic.)
Ron Newman
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2006
- Messages
- 8,395
- Reaction score
- 9
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.
The Prudential Tower is not beautiful, but it's functional and well-recognized and is finally being knit into the fabric of the city. I'd rather leave it alone, thank you.
The Prudential Tower is not beautiful, but it's functional and well-recognized and is finally being knit into the fabric of the city. I'd rather leave it alone, thank you.
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.
I think its safe to say that the Pru or any other sizeable tower aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
I dont think we need to tear down any of the building blocks in the skyline. The city just needs to make the most of the remaining oportunities to build bold, sleek, and tall. In this way the newer towers will be the ones that stand out, and the older, blander ones will fade into the background while adding depth. To a limited extent this has already happened with the newer towers like 111 Huntington, Millenium Place, State Street Financial Center, 33 Arch, and the upcoming Filene's Tower, SST, and Copley Place. Now, we just need to push the envelope a little more - a little taller and a bit more bold.
I think its safe to say that the Pru or any other sizeable tower aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
I dont think we need to tear down any of the building blocks in the skyline. The city just needs to make the most of the remaining oportunities to build bold, sleek, and tall. In this way the newer towers will be the ones that stand out, and the older, blander ones will fade into the background while adding depth. To a limited extent this has already happened with the newer towers like 111 Huntington, Millenium Place, State Street Financial Center, 33 Arch, and the upcoming Filene's Tower, SST, and Copley Place. Now, we just need to push the envelope a little more - a little taller and a bit more bold.
Last edited:
tocoto
Active Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 385
- Reaction score
- 82
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.
I wonder if this clip from an article in the the B&T is about this project. I don't get the paper so I cannot read the entire story.
Developer Denied Access To Hub Mayor
By Thomas Grillo
What does it say when the developer of a proposed $1 billion skyscraper on Boston?s waterfront can?t get face time with the mayor?.....
I wonder if this clip from an article in the the B&T is about this project. I don't get the paper so I cannot read the entire story.
Developer Denied Access To Hub Mayor
By Thomas Grillo
What does it say when the developer of a proposed $1 billion skyscraper on Boston?s waterfront can?t get face time with the mayor?.....
Tim Jackson
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2008
- Messages
- 130
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: New tower at Aquarium parking garage.
Go to page 17, statler posted that article there.
Go to page 17, statler posted that article there.
- Status