Boston 2050

D

DZH22

Superstar
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
11,605
Reaction score
28,771
I can't wait until the skyline view looks like this! I should mention there are a bunch of 200 foot precast blocks off to the right...

IMG_5940.jpg



Also, we got a great new park in the North End!

IMG_5266.jpg



It all just makes me so angry sometimes!!!
 
LOL

Lovely new park, by the way. Those corn stalks cast an awful shadow, though... I think we should thin them out a bit, there's just too many.
 
Ok, I know it seems kind of stupid, but let's look at the cold hard numbers.

Boston's Top 10 (from emporis)
1. John Hancock Tower 790' 1976
2. Prudential Center 750' 1964
3. Federal Reserve 614' 1977
4. One Boston Place 601' 1970
5. One International Place 600' 1987
6. 100 Federal (BOA) 591' 1971
7. One Financial 590' 1983
8. 111 Huntington 554' 2002
9. Two International Place 538' 1992
10. One Post Office Square 525' 1981

So basically, the top 4 have been the same for 33 years, the top 7 the same for 23. I am amazed that 111 Huntington was built at all, but besides that and some lower high-rise height density, the skyline really has barely changed since I was a kid (I am now 28).

I have been on these sites for a decade, and have seen some pretty good projects come and go. Boylston Square, gone. South Station Tower, well it's been about 15 years with multiple revisions/height reductions, and no sign of a tower! Tommy's Tower is too tall and not really feasible at the moment anyways (need to keep that garage going!) Chiofaro and Menino don't get along, although most of those proposals really looked like garbage, something great can and should (and won't) be built on this site. What about the South Bay Development proposals? They seem to have just disappeared. The Copley Place Tower would be incredible (and barely 3rd tallest!) but I highly expect it to be cut down 5-10 floors, and then probably not built.

Obviously, Menino's policies have proven to have stalled taller skyscrapers in Boston, but what of the lasting damage with people crying about shadows and protecting parks? There is such a culture of fear to let something new and great be built in Boston. I used to sit on my friend's balcony and point out where all the new towers would be in 5-10 years. Of course, none of those are actually there. I am reduced to excitement over 300 footers because I expect nothing more.

So, truly, does anybody think any of these major projects are going to get off the ground? I love the density, but I really expected more. For those of you who look outside of Boston, the skyline is really falling behind in stature to both American and worldly cities. When people here want to build, it takes so long and by the time they CAN build, the window of opportunity is closed (not to mention many of these developers seem to be flat out extorted by the neighborhoods). I remember a proposal for a beautiful ~30 story apartment tower on the greenway, and it was shot down for "looking too iconic". It all makes me want to barf. Is there any reason I should still be optimistic about skyscrapers in this city?
 
Who gives a shit about the skyline? There are plenty of massive projects in Boston - the Greenway, the Seaport - but they're urban planning-related, not architectural. And they're doing active harm to the city, not merely being insufficient.
 
I see truth here, not drama. If you want to see a real drama queen, go find a NIMBY will ya.
 
czsz said:
Who gives a shit about the skyline? There are plenty of massive projects in Boston - the Greenway, the Seaport - but they're urban planning-related, not architectural. And they're doing active harm to the city, not merely being insufficient.
Click to expand...

The biggest problem with the greenway is that they refuse to let anything new and nice be built on it, (everything they backed has failed on its own, everything that COULD be built gets shot down, nothing but a 200 foot precast box allowed please!) so there are too many "dead zones" where there is no reason for people to stop or be drawn to that area of the park. The Seaport, well, what was there before? It's a whole new area of development, hampered by the FAA, and continues to show how messed up this city is when those large blocks keep being built no problem.

The skyline... well, this is like the first impression of the city. You see it well before you see the parks, or the seaport low/midrises, etc. I'm not on this site because I love the politics of it, or think we need more parks. I'm here because I love skyscrapers, and originally I saw all the projects and thought "wow Boston is going to look amazing in a few years!" Of course, all the big/semi-big ones are either canceled or delayed indefinitely. So, why are we holding up all these towers from 30-40 years ago on pedestals? As long as nothing is allowed to pass any of these and create new peaks, the city will continue to age from afar.

Here's some examples of cities getting great new towers...
Austin - the Austonian, 683 feet, almost completely finished, new tallest
Cincinnati - Queen City Square, 689 feet, outside basically done, new tallest
Calgary - The Bow, ~770, new tallest... EAP, 697, 3rd tallest
Mobile (Alabama!!!) - RSA Battlehouse Tower, built in 2007, 745', new tallest
Charlotte - Duke Energy Center, 764(+?), finishing up, new 2nd tallest
Oklahoma City - Devon Energy, 850'! U/C new tallest by 350'!
Philadelphia - Comcast Center, 975' 2008, new tallest

Let's go overseas a bit...
Perth, Australia - BHP Billiton Tower, UC, 768', new tallest
Brisbane, AU - Soleil, 797', Infinity Tower, 774', both UC, will be new 1/2

What about old historic cities?
London (I think we could argue that London has more history than Boston) - Heron Tower, finishing up, 650+ to roof, 750 to spire, new tallest in "the city"
also UC, The Shard, 1017', new tallest! The Pinnacle, 945', 2nd tallest after Shard!
Madrid - Just built 4 buildings in the 700-800' range
Moscow - Huge new business area, struggling with financing but incredibly ambitious with plenty of 1000'+ footers
Santiago, Chile - just built by far it's new tallest, Torre Titanium at 636(?) and currently building an even larger building, Costanera Center, 984' (300 meters = supertall)

I haven't even mentioned that about 15-20 Chinese cities are currently building 1000+ footers (check skyscrapercity for this one), or that even Vietnam is building huge (here's a real good one in Saigon http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=446673&page=34) I haven't mentioned the complete craziness of Dubai (terribly planned city) or other mideast counterparts, such as Doha, Abu Dhabi, or even Kuwait City (finishing up a 1350', I'm not kidding).

I guess I just want some of the excitement for my own. The city looks almost exactly like it did 20 years ago, and even 30 years ago would still be instantly recognizable today. So yeah, I do want Boston to build something bigger, so I'll have something new to point at one day and be excited about, instead of saying "you see that little guy peeking up over there? it's new". In 2050, when we are talking about the JHT as the "oldest reigning tallest of any major American city"... maybe then it will finally sink in.
 
DZH22, Boston has a better skyline than Charlotte, Cincinnati, Oklahoma City and Austin. Charlotte's skyline is essentially 5 or 6 tall buildings and then nothing but flat. Philadelphia has the best skyline of the American cities you mentioned.

I too agree that a skyline is important. But this is Boston, nothing of significance will get built.

111 Huntington is an awesome building and I would say is the best piece of development the city has seen in many years.
 
statler said:
Paris and Prague prove this to be untrue.
Click to expand...

Indeed, but do we have a large-scale "ancient" building to compete with Notre Dame, Sacre Coeur, or St. Vitus.

I see where you're coming from, statler. I love tall buildings, but I love quality even more. We could remove about a third of what passes for a skyscraper in Boston and not be missing anything of genuine architectural value.
 
statler said:
Paris and Prague prove this to be untrue.
Click to expand...

If you're going to provide examples in one way, why don't I provide examples the other way.

New York City and Hong Kong proved this to be true.
 
mass88 said:
DZH22, Boston has a better skyline than Charlotte, Cincinnati, Oklahoma City and Austin. Charlotte's skyline is essentially 5 or 6 tall buildings and then nothing but flat. Philadelphia has the best skyline of the American cities you mentioned.

I too agree that a skyline is important. But this is Boston, nothing of significance will get built.

111 Huntington is an awesome building and I would say is the best piece of development the city has seen in many years.
Click to expand...

Of course Boston has a better skyline than most of these cities! It's much older, much bigger, and its "bones" have been in place for a long time. The point is, it's not going to be better forever if it never builds with height again. Try matching up Boston's and Charlotte's 3 tallest. Charlotte goes 3 for 3! I always thought the best way to describe our skyline is "Boston has heft". However, slowly but surely, Boston is being caught from behind or lapped by cities it was on par with a decade ago (Toronto only had about 9 500 footers, Melbourne was close to even, look at them now). Trust me, I spend wayyyy too much time on all these sites, I know what's going on. I even spend tons of time on the diagrams, just comparing different cities' numbers of 500' buildings, 400', 300'... (not to mention taller or even as low as 200') and what I am seeing is that Boston ain't "keeping up with the Joneses", that's for sure!
 
New York City and Hong Kong proved this to be true.
Click to expand...
LOL, exactly. I challenge anyone to suggest that NYC would be just as great without its overpowering skyline. Not that Boston has to be anything close to NYC in this regard, but even so, having tall, bold towers is an asset for any major city.
 
La Defense =/= Paris.

When most people think of Paris, what they love about Paris, they are not thinking about La Defense.

New York, Chicago and Hong Kong (as well as a host of other cities) prove that skylines can be impressive but they don't prove they are important to be great cities (unless you want to argue that Paris and Prague aren't great cities). New York could (would?) still be a great city sans it's skyline.
 
Whatever isn't controlled by the nimby's is halted by the FAA. I think we need to accept that Boston is never going to be a city with great height and focus on the density. A whole bunch of 300 footers wouldn't be so bad if they're dense as hell. That and a vastly improved subway system would make Boston a city that would shit all over any of these domestic competitors and a lot of international ones too.
 
I'm on Team Skyscrapers. There needs to be vertical density, so that when viewed from afar, the city seems larger. Many cities are perceived as being a lot larger than Boston, simply because there are fewer gaps in height. No one on this board would argue that skyline is superior to street-level density (I don't think), but it's certainly important from a visitor's perspective. Most people don't judge cities by their population densities, they judge them by the number and size of their skyscrapers - so if Boston wants to build up it's public perception, it needs skyscrapers and glamour projects. If Boston is going to grow, it needs skyscrapers - because Americans have very different attitudes towards cities than Parisians.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top