Boston 2050
- Thread starter DZH22
- Start date
BostonUrbEx
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2010
- Messages
- 4,340
- Reaction score
- 127
What's wrong with this?:
http://www.ronsaari.com/stockImages/boston/bostonSkyline.jpg
One thing. Heights? They are good enough, no? But there's holes where there COULD be buildings but are NOT. Height won't do anything to fill in gaps.
Does anything here actually violate any height restrictions besides those God awful Harbor Towers? Build at DTX, build at GC, built right up to (and in some places: on) the Greenway, and build on the Pike. Fill in everything you can and it will look great.
http://www.ronsaari.com/stockImages/boston/bostonSkyline.jpg
One thing. Heights? They are good enough, no? But there's holes where there COULD be buildings but are NOT. Height won't do anything to fill in gaps.
Does anything here actually violate any height restrictions besides those God awful Harbor Towers? Build at DTX, build at GC, built right up to (and in some places: on) the Greenway, and build on the Pike. Fill in everything you can and it will look great.
TheRifleman
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Messages
- 4,431
- Reaction score
- 0
Agree 100% right.........Fill in everything you can and it will look great
Ronwell Pudding
New member
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2007
- Messages
- 33
- Reaction score
- 0
Skyscrapers are a function of the demand for office or residential space within the city. They both create and store wealth. They are not vital to making a great city, however they do represent the value that cities have as centers for business and opportunity. Therefore they are important if not vital components of a successful city.
Sufficient demand could produce a 1000 foot skyscraper in Boston's downtown core. Over the past 20 years wealth has spread horizontally across Boston's cityscape, capturing neighborhoods like the South End, Seaport, South Boston, Jamaica Plain and Fenway. This had made Boston a successful city worthy of national and international acclaim. It remains to be seen whether or not future growth will create the conditions that will lead to the construction of taller skyscrapers.
Sufficient demand could produce a 1000 foot skyscraper in Boston's downtown core. Over the past 20 years wealth has spread horizontally across Boston's cityscape, capturing neighborhoods like the South End, Seaport, South Boston, Jamaica Plain and Fenway. This had made Boston a successful city worthy of national and international acclaim. It remains to be seen whether or not future growth will create the conditions that will lead to the construction of taller skyscrapers.
Ronwell Pudding
New member
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2007
- Messages
- 33
- Reaction score
- 0
One way to try and forecast the demand for new skyscrapers is to look at the industry mix within the City. You can find the largest employers within the city of Boston here.
http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/pdf/ResearchPublications//pdr509.pdf
Currently the health care, insurance, finance and education industries dominate Boston. Most health care and educational institutions have no need for large office towers. The hope lies with the insurance (see Prudential Tower) and finance (see Federal Reserve Tower, Exchange Place etc.) industries. Look at Charlotte, why does it have such tall towers? It is major banking center. If these industries decide to expand their operations within the City of Boston, then you could see newer, larger skyscrapers.
Another way to forecast the demand for skyscrapers is to look at population growth. A large jump in Boston?s populations could fuel new demand for downtown high rise living. This link shows population growth by metro area from 1990-2000.
http://www.censusscope.org/us/metro_rank_popl_growth.html
Boston is all the way down at 229. Another good report on Boston?s future can be found here.
http://www.massbenchmarks.org/regions/boston.htm
Residential demand has peaked in the city center do to the availability of high end jobs and services. But the region as a whole is not growing at a fast enough rate to supply the area with a large scale residential towers.
A third way of anticipating the demand for new skyscrapers is assessing the impact of local politics. It is clear that Mayor Menino has been unable to build enough consensus to push his plans for taller buildings through to completion. Furthermore the political history of Boston?s built environment is one of destruction and regret (see West End and Government Center) along with bungling and incompetence (see Big Dig). This leaves little political will for large scale improvements and it promotes a vigorous defense of the city?s historical character. This can be stifling and stultifying for new growth. Boston has never been a place for tall buildings, see the height restrictions during much of the early 20th century building boom. It is also not a place for innovate architecture. Rather it tends to favor conservative styles that blend in with the surroundings.
Finally, you have to examine the cityscape itself. Boston?s downtown core is largely built out. There is very little room for new construction. Most if not all new buildings would have to be build upon existing structures. This leads to clashes with historic preservation groups. Furthermore given the tremendous availability of historic housing and neighborhoods, residential growth has spread out horizontally rather than vertically. There are plenty of fantastic neighborhoods within the city and its suburbs to settle leading to a lessening of demand for new high rise condos.
One last point deals with Boston?s image. Is Boston a striving city, trying to define a brand for itself that it can project to others? No it is not. The City has a well established brand that connects to its historic architecture, living history and quality of life, not its skyscrapers. It simply doesn?t need tall buildings to fulfill the role of herald to the world.
Personally I?d like to see one taller structure rise out of Boston?s downtown to give the skyline a better proportion. Boston?s skyline is great for the breadth and length, from downtown to the Back Bay. But its buildings are largely subpar. Living in Chicago now I don?t feel the need to defend Boston?s skyscrapers anymore. Most lack all sense of grace and proportion. Chicago is full of gorgeous architecture that I marvel at constantly. But it built its legacy upon that fact. It is part of the cities image and aura. Boston will see tall buildings for sure. Political will might change. One hotheaded developer can build a great building. In the end I thought I?d just give my 2 cents.
http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/pdf/ResearchPublications//pdr509.pdf
Currently the health care, insurance, finance and education industries dominate Boston. Most health care and educational institutions have no need for large office towers. The hope lies with the insurance (see Prudential Tower) and finance (see Federal Reserve Tower, Exchange Place etc.) industries. Look at Charlotte, why does it have such tall towers? It is major banking center. If these industries decide to expand their operations within the City of Boston, then you could see newer, larger skyscrapers.
Another way to forecast the demand for skyscrapers is to look at population growth. A large jump in Boston?s populations could fuel new demand for downtown high rise living. This link shows population growth by metro area from 1990-2000.
http://www.censusscope.org/us/metro_rank_popl_growth.html
Boston is all the way down at 229. Another good report on Boston?s future can be found here.
http://www.massbenchmarks.org/regions/boston.htm
Residential demand has peaked in the city center do to the availability of high end jobs and services. But the region as a whole is not growing at a fast enough rate to supply the area with a large scale residential towers.
A third way of anticipating the demand for new skyscrapers is assessing the impact of local politics. It is clear that Mayor Menino has been unable to build enough consensus to push his plans for taller buildings through to completion. Furthermore the political history of Boston?s built environment is one of destruction and regret (see West End and Government Center) along with bungling and incompetence (see Big Dig). This leaves little political will for large scale improvements and it promotes a vigorous defense of the city?s historical character. This can be stifling and stultifying for new growth. Boston has never been a place for tall buildings, see the height restrictions during much of the early 20th century building boom. It is also not a place for innovate architecture. Rather it tends to favor conservative styles that blend in with the surroundings.
Finally, you have to examine the cityscape itself. Boston?s downtown core is largely built out. There is very little room for new construction. Most if not all new buildings would have to be build upon existing structures. This leads to clashes with historic preservation groups. Furthermore given the tremendous availability of historic housing and neighborhoods, residential growth has spread out horizontally rather than vertically. There are plenty of fantastic neighborhoods within the city and its suburbs to settle leading to a lessening of demand for new high rise condos.
One last point deals with Boston?s image. Is Boston a striving city, trying to define a brand for itself that it can project to others? No it is not. The City has a well established brand that connects to its historic architecture, living history and quality of life, not its skyscrapers. It simply doesn?t need tall buildings to fulfill the role of herald to the world.
Personally I?d like to see one taller structure rise out of Boston?s downtown to give the skyline a better proportion. Boston?s skyline is great for the breadth and length, from downtown to the Back Bay. But its buildings are largely subpar. Living in Chicago now I don?t feel the need to defend Boston?s skyscrapers anymore. Most lack all sense of grace and proportion. Chicago is full of gorgeous architecture that I marvel at constantly. But it built its legacy upon that fact. It is part of the cities image and aura. Boston will see tall buildings for sure. Political will might change. One hotheaded developer can build a great building. In the end I thought I?d just give my 2 cents.
Last edited:
Pierce
Active Member
- Joined
- May 29, 2008
- Messages
- 461
- Reaction score
- 1
So true-- roads and sidewalks are outdated 20th century novelties, just public parks in sheep's clothing. Lets fill those gaps! I dream of a city of without room for windows, just party walls as far as the eye can see.
Pierce
Active Member
- Joined
- May 29, 2008
- Messages
- 461
- Reaction score
- 1
Midtown and Wall Street sell on postcards and in tourist albums but ask anyone who has spent significant time in New York which parts of the city are indispensable to it being "world class" and i don't thik you won't see much of a correlation to height.
The more I hear the "skyline" argument on archboston the more retarded it sounds
czsz
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 6,043
- Reaction score
- 5
Good lord, Boston needs a larger skyline to be perceived as a larger and more important city?
Most people think Boston is far larger than it is. Show Boston's skyline to someone with no clue what the city's population is, and they'll venture a figure in the millions. The city is large enough to have 50+ story buildings, multiple skylines (how many other American cities can boast this?), and skyscrapers stretching into neighborhoods beyond the central Financial District cluster. It looks infinitely larger than it does on, say, a list of the US' largest cities by city proper population, or even by walking or driving through the tiny built up core (i.e., wherever the density of Central Boston doesn't collapse into a semi-suburban morass of taxpayers and triple-deckers).
If more growth in Boston were concentrated in skyscrapers, less would be able to fill in gaps - not the gaps you see in the skyline from afar, which actually make the city appear larger (because it appears that there are multiple major commercial districts) - but the gaps at street level. Kendall Square is banal and hideous, but most of it would still consist of parking lots if its office space had been clustered into a few 500 foot buildings.
Washington might be a better example than Paris or Prague. It's one of the country's fastest-growing metro economies, with practically zero recognizable skyline beyond the monuments at its core. Even the neighboring suburbs fail to muster anything like La Defense; the tallest buildings are barely much bigger than anything built at the Seaport.
Most people think Boston is far larger than it is. Show Boston's skyline to someone with no clue what the city's population is, and they'll venture a figure in the millions. The city is large enough to have 50+ story buildings, multiple skylines (how many other American cities can boast this?), and skyscrapers stretching into neighborhoods beyond the central Financial District cluster. It looks infinitely larger than it does on, say, a list of the US' largest cities by city proper population, or even by walking or driving through the tiny built up core (i.e., wherever the density of Central Boston doesn't collapse into a semi-suburban morass of taxpayers and triple-deckers).
If more growth in Boston were concentrated in skyscrapers, less would be able to fill in gaps - not the gaps you see in the skyline from afar, which actually make the city appear larger (because it appears that there are multiple major commercial districts) - but the gaps at street level. Kendall Square is banal and hideous, but most of it would still consist of parking lots if its office space had been clustered into a few 500 foot buildings.
Washington might be a better example than Paris or Prague. It's one of the country's fastest-growing metro economies, with practically zero recognizable skyline beyond the monuments at its core. Even the neighboring suburbs fail to muster anything like La Defense; the tallest buildings are barely much bigger than anything built at the Seaport.
BarbaricManchurian
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2007
- Messages
- 1,067
- Reaction score
- 64
^^that "semi-suburban morass of taxpayers and triple-deckers" is still denser than all but 2 major US cities
BarbaricManchurian
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2007
- Messages
- 1,067
- Reaction score
- 64
Seriously, discussion here is so academic at times that it ignores reality and conjures up idealized visions of what exists elsewhere, when it really isn't the case
Last edited:
GW2500
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2008
- Messages
- 1,085
- Reaction score
- 115
Some cities build 600 ft plus sky scrapers to compensate for the fact thtat they arnt urban. When a city like Boston, London, Paris, San Fran does it it just further solidifies it's place as a city in the post affordable Steele age. And it's frustrating that Boston hasn't cracked 600ft in soon to be 40 years. But then DC is awsomely urban at 14 stories.
KentXie
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,185
- Reaction score
- 744
Hahaha, wrong. NYC would not be great without its skyline. Heck without the skyscrapers, NYC population would be probably 1/8 of what it is today.
KentXie
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,185
- Reaction score
- 744
If only Boston could learn a thing or two from its more world-class academic sister city...
Just like Hong Kong!
I'm surprise my picture is still on wikipedia. This shot was back in 2006 I think.
Quick word on Cambridge. 1-2 400 footers in/around Kendall would make that skyline seem so much larger. I really want to go to the MIT people and say "Hey, Harvard told me they were planning a 450 footer to have the signature building in Cambridge" and vice versa. Obviously ridiculous but is there a height limit over there? Could these be built in Cambridge?
I was in Boston today and I have to say at street level it really is an unbelievable city. I actually believe they should make a new GTA out of it, because the map/architecture/density/terrain is pretty mind-boggling. I definitely agree that many of the smaller projects make the city as a whole feel so much bigger from street level. I think Boston is probably my favorite urban city I have been to from a pedestrian's perspective. (including NYC, Chicago, Philly, Toronto, London, Montreal... actually big fan of Montreal too) The infill is all very good. Does this mean we should just stop building tall forever? Isn't there a limited amount of space to build, especially in the downtown? Why is it ok for some great proposals to be stopped dead in their tracks just because many smaller ones were able to trickle through? I don't think it's childish to expect a big city to build a tall building once in awhile, especially when it's beneficial to the city and the developer is actually able to build it. Any major proposal in Boston always gets attacked from all angles, put through the grinder far more than seems reasonable, often extorted, and delayed to the point of infeasibility. Why do we defend this, and decry any new attempts at greatness in our city? I think the worst argument I have ever heard is against a little extra shade in our parks. If you don't think there should be tall buildings around you, then go move to the suburbs.
Even European cities are finding areas to build taller buildings. Seriously, there's a place for them. It's called the city. It saves space, attracts companies, thus more jobs, more taxes, more vitality instead of protecting garages or Mass Pike gashes or a park from a 15 minute shadow in December.
I mean, to those of you who are trying to shit all over the concept of skyscrapers, I ask you, please present to me your argument why you believe Boston should never build tall (600+) again. To think that in 2050, from 5 miles out the city is going to look essentially the same... Well I'm sorry, but that just doesn't sit well with me.
I was in Boston today and I have to say at street level it really is an unbelievable city. I actually believe they should make a new GTA out of it, because the map/architecture/density/terrain is pretty mind-boggling. I definitely agree that many of the smaller projects make the city as a whole feel so much bigger from street level. I think Boston is probably my favorite urban city I have been to from a pedestrian's perspective. (including NYC, Chicago, Philly, Toronto, London, Montreal... actually big fan of Montreal too) The infill is all very good. Does this mean we should just stop building tall forever? Isn't there a limited amount of space to build, especially in the downtown? Why is it ok for some great proposals to be stopped dead in their tracks just because many smaller ones were able to trickle through? I don't think it's childish to expect a big city to build a tall building once in awhile, especially when it's beneficial to the city and the developer is actually able to build it. Any major proposal in Boston always gets attacked from all angles, put through the grinder far more than seems reasonable, often extorted, and delayed to the point of infeasibility. Why do we defend this, and decry any new attempts at greatness in our city? I think the worst argument I have ever heard is against a little extra shade in our parks. If you don't think there should be tall buildings around you, then go move to the suburbs.
Even European cities are finding areas to build taller buildings. Seriously, there's a place for them. It's called the city. It saves space, attracts companies, thus more jobs, more taxes, more vitality instead of protecting garages or Mass Pike gashes or a park from a 15 minute shadow in December.
I mean, to those of you who are trying to shit all over the concept of skyscrapers, I ask you, please present to me your argument why you believe Boston should never build tall (600+) again. To think that in 2050, from 5 miles out the city is going to look essentially the same... Well I'm sorry, but that just doesn't sit well with me.
Actually, the argument is whether or not we will see skyscrapers built in Boston again that rival/surpass in height those built 20-40 years ago. Will anything that big make it out of the ground in the foreseeable future? The people who run Boston, and an absurdly vocal minority of its residents, seem to be completely against any new large buildings being built here. Even if they don't outwardly say it, too many forces go out of their way to hinder large developments in the city of Boston. I took it to the extreme by forecasting out 40 years, but with the current attitude, will anything of this height ever be built in our city again?
kennedy
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 2,820
- Reaction score
- 7
I thought we were arguing over the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?
Stat, I think that in order for a city to be great, it needs to be perceived by the general public as great. And I think that for the general public, skyscraper dick measuring is a common metric of greatness. At least, in terms of first impressions.
Stat, I think that in order for a city to be great, it needs to be perceived by the general public as great. And I think that for the general public, skyscraper dick measuring is a common metric of greatness. At least, in terms of first impressions.