Best Proposed Development

[briv]

Please choose one. Polls close 11:59pm on March 1.

A list of all previous winners can be found here: http://www.archboston.org/awards/

In no particular order:

1. Simons Copley Residential Tower - THREAD

2. Anthony's Pier 4 Development - THREAD

3. Seaport Square - THREAD

4. 1282 Boylston Street (Fenway McDonald's) - THREAD

5. Forest Hills/Arborway Viaduct Reconfiguration - THREAD

6. 1325-1341 Boylston Street (Former Goodyear Tire) - THREAD

7. West End Garage Tower Proposal - THREAD

 

[DZH22]

Copley Place Tower should be a no-brainer

 

[HenryAlan]

This was hotly contested!

 

[czsz]

I actually didn't vote for Copley; we already have a streetwall in this part of the city, and while density is kewl and all, I always prefer a parking lot filled to something redeveloped into a taller tower.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

Frankly I'm stunned how lopsided it was... I think Pier 4 is great. It knocks out parking lots and vast expanses of nothingness, brings life to a struggling new neighborhood, and brings a slew of mixed uses.

Copley = tall, singular use tower, a couple new retail spaces. Oh yay.

Don't me wrong, Copley Place is HUGE, and it's GREAT to see. But if we're talking about the BEST proposal, well, I think Pier 4 has it all. Except height, but it ain't too shabby.

 

[HenryAlan]

I came very close to voting for Pier 4, for the reasons you both cite. There were two things that swayed my vote:

1. visibility: the Copley tower will have a wide ranging impact because it is visible from a distance and more importantly, because it is in a central location. Pier 4, though cool, is pretty remote. It will not have as broad an impact, though certainly I agree that for the micro level, it will have a greater impact. But I'm more of a macro oriented guy.
   
2. bitchingness: they both score high here, but the Copley tower is just a bit more awesome looking.

 

[Ron Newman]

I voted for Seaport Square for the same reason you may have voted for Pier 4. I hope once they're both done, they look like they belong together.

 

[datadyne007]

I think Pier 4 is actually the better development too. Copley has the wow-factor, especially because it's a gorgeous 47-story tower, but in terms of judging impact, Pier 4 or Seaport Sq has much more of an impact.

 

[DZH22]

I think Pier 4 is actually the better development too. Copley has the wow-factor, especially because it's a gorgeous 47-story tower, but in terms of judging impact, Pier 4 or Seaport Sq has much more of an impact.

The Copley Tower will have a bigger overall impact by changing the culture of only building short, fat towers. You can already see the pendulum swinging, with the latest example being the Filene's development getting taller (obviously not sure how MUCH taller, but I can't think of too many developments around here that gain height after the initial proposal). The success of this tower could help determine the size of future proposals for years.

Of course, considering 40 out of 50 people voted for this, I am pretty much just preaching to the choir here.

 

[datadyne007]

The Copley Tower will have a bigger overall impact by changing the culture of only building short, fat towers. You can already see the pendulum swinging, with the latest example being the Filene's development getting taller (obviously not sure how MUCH taller, but I can't think of too many developments around here that gain height after the initial proposal). The success of this tower could help determine the size of future proposals for years.

Of course, considering 40 out of 50 people voted for this, I am pretty much just preaching to the choir here.

Just FYI, I voted for Copley Place. In saying that Pier 4 will have a bigger impact, I was talking about urban life and activity in the Seaport. Yes, Copley Pl got the ball rolling for tall towers, but I don't personally subscribe to the "let's build a bunch of tall towers and we'll be a better city" idea. I'm more of a fan of European city planning and Boston is by far the most European city in the US.

 

[DZH22]

I'm more of a fan of European city planning and Boston is by far the most European city in the US.

While I'm sure you know most of this already, let's do a quick dissection of some European cities...

London - Topping off its new tallest (The Shard, over 1000'), also putting up multiple other towers over 200 meters, including The Pinnacle, The Leadenhall, and the recently completed Heron Tower.

Paris - Renovated/reclad/added to an old building to make it the new tallest in the city. Also imminent plans for multiple supertalls in the works, and currently building a couple towers in the 500'-600'+ range.

Moscow - Welcome to Europe's first Supertall cluster! It's only getting bigger. (in fact, wayyyy bigger)

Rotterdam - Recently built a new tallest, still building a good clip

Madrid - 4 towers all built at the same time between about 770'-820'. More talls might be in the works.

The Hague - Recently built a new tallest (twins), as well as other tall towers (for The Hague).

Warsaw - Currently cladding a ~630' tower, building a 525', and more (taller) ones in the works.

Frankfurt - Just topped out a 200 meter tower, in the process of adding a couple towers in the 500-600' range.

Benidorm - Topping off a new tallest (it's disgusting, and so is the whole skyline, but still Europe)

Istanbul - Technically this is half in Europe, half Asia, but the European side is building up like an Asian city.

Seville - New tallest being built

Milan - It's 3-4 tallest buildings were all literally either finished in the last year or 2, or still U/C.


This is all off the top of my head. Apparently, all these European cities are realizing that with a lack of space, they might as well start building UP. If Boston really is the most European city, then building tall towers IS, in fact, keeping with the program!

 

[Ron Newman]

Where are these new Paris skyscrapers going? What building is being added to? I thought they had decided never to repeat what they considered a mistake (the Tour Montparnasse).

 

[DZH22]

Where are these new Paris skyscrapers going? What building is being added to? I thought they had decided never to repeat what they considered a mistake (the Tour Montparnasse).

Most of them are in the business district of La Defense. The current tallest was an addition to Tour Axa. You can see it in the first pic on this page (as well as other pics).
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=23918&page=44
I kind of think I heard of another skyscraper being constructed in the city, but I'm not sure and it's probably just a proposal right now. However, their main business district is being added to extensively.

The only other cities I named with specific, separate business district skylines are Madrid and Moscow, and Moscow has recently added a lot of tall buildings outside of this district as well.

Another European city with massive construction is Baku. Here are my personal favorite from there, the Flame Towers http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=875700&page=14

Please check out skyscrapercity for more European construction, as well as multiple European skyline threads. If you didn't know, you will be SURPRISED! (also check out Australian cities, Canadian cities especially Toronto and Calgary, the middle eastern cities including a nearly 2000' clocktower in Mecca, and of course all of the Asian cities, especially the Chinese ones). The modern skylines may have originated in America, but a new age is dawning of... ULTRA modern skylines!

 

[czsz]

European cities may be investing in new skyscraper clusters, but that's partly because they're already very built out. The City of London didn't see a skyscraper boom until Canary Wharf was redeveloped; Hamburg has no need for tall towers because it has its HafenCity waterfront to finish first. Paris developed acres of Kendall/Seaport-like corporate midrise canyons in suburbs like Levallois before the current wave of tower construction in La Defense. None of these cities have the same extensive scars of 60s urban redevelopment that need healing the way that Boston does. It doesn't make sense to prioritize height over developing prime brownfield land that scars the cityscape -- doing so results in a Houston or Atlanta; a downtown core of tall, glassy things surrounded by parking lots. The obvious difference between them and Paris is your European city planning lesson for today.