Back Bay Garage Tower | Dartmouth and Stuart | Back Bay

[bobthebuilder]

Re: Back Bay Garage Tower (Dartmouth and Stuart)

Yea that's what I was going by. I checked the map and saw that as the limit.

I know that map, I've cited that map before. It's frustrating because according to the Map, the only places we could ever see a 1000 footer are places that we would NEVER see a 1000 footer. IE Cambridge & the back bay.

The only runway that conflicts with any of the areas where we could (and should) build tall is runway 9/27. Who was the asshat that pointed this runway towards the downtown area? Must be some NIMBY with a house in the south end.

Seriously tho, if we could just rotate that runway a couple of degrees, bring the flight path away from the downtown area a bit, the whole High spine up to the financial district would be open to the kind of high rise development that I think most of us would like to see. I assume runway 14/32 is used for fedex/ups? Otherwise I'd say upgrade that runway and use it inplace of 9/27, I think that would be cheaper than rotating 9/27. My guess is that roatating 9/27 would cost $1b easy. Between infilling the land rebuilding the runway, reworking the taxi ways etc.

 

[AmericanFolkLegend]

Re: Back Bay Garage Tower (Dartmouth and Stuart)

AFL, no worries. I understand. You were pretty tied up with shoving whatever that thing was up your ass.

Ben Wa balls. The key is to rip them out fast. Like your trying to start a chainsaw.

 

[bigeman312]

Re: Back Bay Garage Tower (Dartmouth and Stuart)

I know that map, I've cited that map before. It's frustrating because according to the Map, the only places we could ever see a 1000 footer are places that we would NEVER see a 1000 footer. IE Cambridge & the back bay.

The only runway that conflicts with any of the areas where we could (and should) build tall is runway 9/27. Who was the asshat that pointed this runway towards the downtown area? Must be some NIMBY with a house in the south end.

Seriously tho, if we could just rotate that runway a couple of degrees, bring the flight path away from the downtown area a bit, the whole High spine up to the financial district would be open to the kind of high rise development that I think most of us would like to see. I assume runway 14/32 is used for fedex/ups? Otherwise I'd say upgrade that runway and use it inplace of 9/27, I think that would be cheaper than rotating 9/27. My guess is that roatating 9/27 would cost $1b easy. Between infilling the land rebuilding the runway, reworking the taxi ways etc.

You can't really use 14/32 in place of 9/27. It has an entirely different orientation and thus is used for completely different wind patterns. Planes generally take off with the wind and land into the wind, hence the need for runways with multiple orientations, including the WSW/ENE 9/27.

 

[Equilibria]

Re: Back Bay Garage Tower (Dartmouth and Stuart)

You can't really use 14/32 in place of 9/27. It has an entirely different orientation and thus is used for completely different wind patterns. Planes generally take off with the wind and land into the wind, hence the need for runways with multiple orientations, including the WSW/ENE 9/27.

Actually, it's worse than that. 14/32 is a unidirectional runway, meaning that flights can only take off and land over the water, and only in severe winds that force the tower to activate that configuration. Even doing that took about 2 decades of lawsuits with neighbors to accomplish.

ANYTHING that gets built on the Logan airside is opposed to the death by neighbors (I hesitate to call them NIMBYs because some of their families actually do predate jet traffic at the airport). Building or shifting pavement there is really out of the question.

In the grand scheme of things, the benefits of having the airport that close to the city far outweigh the costs (that Downtown Boston is effectively capped at 950' forever). There's plenty that can be accomplished within that envelope. Honestly, it's not like the world's tallest building competition is coming back to this hemisphere any time soon, so let's go for quality over height.

 

[DZH22]

Re: Back Bay Garage Tower (Dartmouth and Stuart)

I think if someone's going to build a new tallest, we're not going to have to worry about things like sub-par materials which usually come into a project as a result of value-engineering. I wouldn't have a problem with a building taller than the Hancock going next door though. I think it could look really cool actually.

Look at a city like Miami. It had a modest, but interesting/high quality skyline back in the 90's. Today, most of the best buildings (specifically Wachovia or whatever it's called now, and Miami Tower/BOA or whatever it's called now) are completely lost in the shuffle behind gigantic pieces of SHIT. They are building 600-700' towers that would get ripped to shreds if built in Dubai. They're that tasteless and gross. I hope to God that Boston never starts to resemble what Miami has become, which is, IMO, the ugliest skyline in the country.

The Hancock is pure minimalist perfection. It's literally the best building ever created of a particular style. Are we going to block it out with lesser quality crap and become the northern version of Miami? We have to be extremely careful here. Back Bay skyline is as "classy" as it gets, and it all starts with the Hancock(s). A tasteless new tallest next door would be irreversibly damaging.

 

[Roxxma]

Re: Back Bay Garage Tower (Dartmouth and Stuart)

BB Station is a shit hole because it's not privately managed.

I was under the impression that the MBTA contracted out Back Bay Station's management several years ago to whatever company managed South Station (Equity Office maybe?) and that they were the ones responsible for replacing all of the broken doors with the even more useless (heavy revolving and narrow side) doors that are there today. Did that actually ever happen, or was it talked about and just fall through the cracks?

 

[Matthew]

Re: Back Bay Garage Tower (Dartmouth and Stuart)

On the other hand, Miami also has the biggest building boom in the country. If we really believe that increasing floor space is important, then should we not weigh that against whatever aesthetic criteria you are using?

 

[tmac9wr]

Re: Back Bay Garage Tower (Dartmouth and Stuart)

Look at a city like Miami. It had a modest, but interesting/high quality skyline back in the 90's. Today, most of the best buildings (specifically Wachovia or whatever it's called now, and Miami Tower/BOA or whatever it's called now) are completely lost in the shuffle behind gigantic pieces of SHIT. They are building 600-700' towers that would get ripped to shreds if built in Dubai. They're that tasteless and gross. I hope to God that Boston never starts to resemble what Miami has become, which is, IMO, the ugliest skyline in the country.

The Hancock is pure minimalist perfection. It's literally the best building ever created of a particular style. Are we going to block it out with lesser quality crap and become the northern version of Miami? We have to be extremely careful here. Back Bay skyline is as "classy" as it gets, and it all starts with the Hancock(s). A tasteless new tallest next door would be irreversibly damaging.

True, and I understand what you're saying but I wasn't saying all "tallest" buildings will be good. I was simply referring to a tallest being built in Boston. I just can't imagine someone not going all-out if they were going to build the tallest building in the city, especially if it's in this location, and especially given the amount of resistance it would/will face regardless of design.

Of course we need to be careful though. You're right about that.

 

[DZH22]

Re: Back Bay Garage Tower (Dartmouth and Stuart)

If we really believe that increasing floor space is important, then should we not weigh that against whatever aesthetic criteria you are using?

In that case, let's just redirect the whole sewage system so it dumps out on that spot. Once we have collected our 900' pile of shit, we can wait till it dries, hollow it out, add some steel supports, and call it day. Cause really, who cares, right? Seems like it's working for Miami.

 

[Boston02124]

Re: Back Bay Garage Tower (Dartmouth and Stuart)

whats wrong with Miamis skyline looks very interesting to me?? (not my pics btw)

 

[KentXie]

Re: Back Bay Garage Tower (Dartmouth and Stuart)

While I'll admit that Miami doesn't have the most interesting skyline, I do like the density that it created when view from above (looks like a mini Chicago).

 

[DZH22]

Re: Back Bay Garage Tower (Dartmouth and Stuart)

whats wrong with Miamis skyline looks very interesting to me??

Looks good as long as you don't get too close. Too much white paint, cheap materials, terrible looking balconies, and overall monotony to many of the newer condo towers.

Most buildings from the last 10 years are about on par with this:

http://miami.curbed.com/archives/2013/09/30/the-kings-of-edgewater-complete-another-new-tower.php

Sadly, this example is one of the less offensive ones out there.

 

[DZH22]

Re: Back Bay Garage Tower (Dartmouth and Stuart)

I realize these 2 buildings are in Sunny Isles Beach down the road from Miami, but still part of the overall boom going on there. If these were built in Dubai they would be criticized forever. I actually think Miami is starting to look like a shorter, cheaper looking version of Dubai.

But seriously, look at these things!

I think the age old questions of "Does God take shits? And if so, where do they go?" has finally been answered.

 

[tmac9wr]

Re: Back Bay Garage Tower (Dartmouth and Stuart)

I agree those are horrible...but why do you call them a "cheap" version of what's being built in Dubai? The vast majority of the stuff in Dubai is absolutely horrid. There are certainly some nice buildings too, but 90% of it is garbage.

 

[DZH22]

Re: Back Bay Garage Tower (Dartmouth and Stuart)

I agree those are horrible...but why do you call them a "cheap" version of what's being built in Dubai? The vast majority of the stuff in Dubai is absolutely horrid. There are certainly some nice buildings too, but 90% of it is garbage.

Because somehow, these look worse. I don't think I have ever seen a worse looking building than that one on the left, and I don't think I ever will.

 

[shawn]

Re: Back Bay Garage Tower (Dartmouth and Stuart)

I hate what has happened to the Miami skyline as well - a sea of cheap-looking, permanently half-empty condo towers with external balconies (which I abhor visually, even though I love having one in Tokyo) have drowned out some of the better PoMo this country made outside of NYC.

Half these towers' units are owned by rich South Americans and Europeans who spend a month or two at most a year there. The rest of the time they're empty, dark windows at night and all. And they're practically all towers-in-the-park ala Sao Paulo, barbed-wire-topped fences and all. Zero street activation across the board.

DZH22, that last pic reminds me a bit of the god-awful Mecca Royal Clock Hotel Tower - that building could stand as one of the Clock Hotel's base pillars.

 

[Tombstoner]

Re: Back Bay Garage Tower (Dartmouth and Stuart)

Honestly, it's not like the world's tallest building competition is coming back to this hemisphere any time soon, so let's go for quality over height.

Amen.

 

[JSic]

Re: Back Bay Garage Tower (Dartmouth and Stuart)

I say build tall here. 900'+.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

Re: Back Bay Garage Tower (Dartmouth and Stuart)

But look that right outside the dense area it becomes very spread out or worse, a bombed out ghetto. This is unfortunately typical of many mid-to-large American cities. I'd be much happier to see a more gradual density gradient.

 

[George_Apley]

Re: Back Bay Garage Tower (Dartmouth and Stuart)

Ben Wa balls. The key is to rip them out fast. Like your trying to start a chainsaw.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XWgoJT1xPU