B
BostonSkyGuy
Guest
When I first read this I laughed at the subject until I really thought about it more. I posted in another thread all the buildings in the last "boom" (if you want to call it that) that were 400 feet and above. Here's my post for those of you that missed it:
That wasn't that bad of a boom for this city. When you concider the size of Boston in terms of land mass and then figure in how difficult it is to get through the building process--we ended up with some decent buildings. 111 Huntington and State Street FC are two of my favorite buildings in the city, the later because of how it looks at night especially.
When I listed those projects and said "if this one extends like it seems to be it will be a pretty big boom" meaning the current crop of projects like SST, Winthrop Sq., etc. I meant a big boom for Boston. When I read this subject line I was comparing it to other cities. The fact is you cannot compare Boston to cities like Vegas or New York because it's just not reasonable. Those cities need constant additions because of the businesses (New York) and hotels/casinos/etc. (Vegas) that are demanded by the amount of companies global HQ's and tourists needing places to stay and go.
I think the current cycle of projects has some interesting buildings that will certainly change the skyline of Boston. Think if SST, the Filene's Tower, and Trans National Place go up, the DT skyline will look totally different. Even if two of the three go up, the change will be noticable. I concider that a boom.
BostonSkyGuy said:For reference, the last "boom" was from about 2001-2004. Buildings over 400 feet that were built in this cycle:
Millenium Place Tower I 475ft. 38 Floors (2001)
Millenium Place Tower II 445 ft. 36 Floors (2001)
111 Huntington 554 ft. 36 Floors (2002)
State Street Financial Center 503 ft. 36 (2003)
33 Arch Street 477 ft. 33 Floors (2004)
State Street was actually delayed after approval due to low office vacancy rates, so there's always cycles but if this one extends like it seems to be it will be a pretty big boom.
That wasn't that bad of a boom for this city. When you concider the size of Boston in terms of land mass and then figure in how difficult it is to get through the building process--we ended up with some decent buildings. 111 Huntington and State Street FC are two of my favorite buildings in the city, the later because of how it looks at night especially.
When I listed those projects and said "if this one extends like it seems to be it will be a pretty big boom" meaning the current crop of projects like SST, Winthrop Sq., etc. I meant a big boom for Boston. When I read this subject line I was comparing it to other cities. The fact is you cannot compare Boston to cities like Vegas or New York because it's just not reasonable. Those cities need constant additions because of the businesses (New York) and hotels/casinos/etc. (Vegas) that are demanded by the amount of companies global HQ's and tourists needing places to stay and go.
I think the current cycle of projects has some interesting buildings that will certainly change the skyline of Boston. Think if SST, the Filene's Tower, and Trans National Place go up, the DT skyline will look totally different. Even if two of the three go up, the change will be noticable. I concider that a boom.