Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower
Alright, I'll head in as soon as I get a chance. It'll probably be Monday.
Alright, I'll head in as soon as I get a chance. It'll probably be Monday.
Copley Place Expansion and Tower | Back Bay
- Thread starter Mike
- Start date
- Status
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower
Reading some of the comments on Boston.com, I'm really impressed with the community's reaction to this project. Makes me think this has a good chance of being built without any height reductions.
Reading some of the comments on Boston.com, I'm really impressed with the community's reaction to this project. Makes me think this has a good chance of being built without any height reductions.
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower
I was thinking the same thing this morning while reading them. There were a couple of yahoos that complained about wind vortexes(sp?), but that is to be expected. I hope it means we are on a verge of building up now. The case for density, conservation and efficiency is pretty clear. One would hope that Back Bay spine and Financial district will see a boom now. I am hoping to see more buildings in these areas approach the 200 meter mark. As long as they are engaging at the street level, I don't care how tall it is.
I was thinking the same thing this morning while reading them. There were a couple of yahoos that complained about wind vortexes(sp?), but that is to be expected. I hope it means we are on a verge of building up now. The case for density, conservation and efficiency is pretty clear. One would hope that Back Bay spine and Financial district will see a boom now. I am hoping to see more buildings in these areas approach the 200 meter mark. As long as they are engaging at the street level, I don't care how tall it is.
Boston02124
Senior Member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 6,871
- Reaction score
- 6,421
tobyjug
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2007
- Messages
- 3,401
- Reaction score
- 447
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower
Yes, very nice indeed.
One slightly different shade of opinion, though. Very few Brahmins live in Boston, though the trouble makers may have you believe they themselves are part of some elite. Brahminocracy in the city limits is mostly dead beyond the walls of the Somerset Club. It looms large only in the minds of antiquarians, funeral directors and social climbers. As to the latter, their choice of mountain is at best esoteric.
One may as well indict the woolly mammoth as the moldy Brahmin. Most troublemakers are from elsewhere (e.g. Steve from Poughkeepsie). Not that there is anything wrong with it.
Toby
Yes, very nice indeed.
One slightly different shade of opinion, though. Very few Brahmins live in Boston, though the trouble makers may have you believe they themselves are part of some elite. Brahminocracy in the city limits is mostly dead beyond the walls of the Somerset Club. It looms large only in the minds of antiquarians, funeral directors and social climbers. As to the latter, their choice of mountain is at best esoteric.
One may as well indict the woolly mammoth as the moldy Brahmin. Most troublemakers are from elsewhere (e.g. Steve from Poughkeepsie). Not that there is anything wrong with it.
Toby
Joe_Schmoe
Active Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 374
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower
"more housing supply = lower rents".
Ah, that must be why rents are so cheep in NYC. If more housing attracts more people, rent will stay the same: supply and demand. Just like widening the highways never reduces traffic since it just allows more cars to use them.
The whole "skyscrapers will stop global warming" thing was absolutely ridiculous. Skyscrapers might emit less carbon per capita than a single family house, but as long as we're adding more and more people there are going to be increased emissions. And then the implication that this single skyscraper will have some sort of affect was laughable.
"more housing supply = lower rents".
Ah, that must be why rents are so cheep in NYC. If more housing attracts more people, rent will stay the same: supply and demand. Just like widening the highways never reduces traffic since it just allows more cars to use them.
The whole "skyscrapers will stop global warming" thing was absolutely ridiculous. Skyscrapers might emit less carbon per capita than a single family house, but as long as we're adding more and more people there are going to be increased emissions. And then the implication that this single skyscraper will have some sort of affect was laughable.
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower
More supply does equals lower prices, in general. However, in the case of NYC demand is still rising faster than supply. Were the supply not also rising, prices would be rising even faster than they are now.
It's the same argument people use when they say "transit oriented development only caters to the rich". The reality as I see it is that (1) new construction is expensive, but more importantly (2) there is pent-up demand for living near transit, meaning that people who want to move there will pay top dollar to do so.
The main reason why housing is so expensive in MA is because there isn't enough of it. If we add more, prices may not go down a lot, but they certainly won't go up as fast either.
As far as the skyscrapers, they are more efficient per person than a single-family home. It would be far less efficient per person and would also use up a lot more physical space to house the same number of people in single family homes. If we're going to add more people, we might as well give them the option to live in a more efficient way should they desire that.
More supply does equals lower prices, in general. However, in the case of NYC demand is still rising faster than supply. Were the supply not also rising, prices would be rising even faster than they are now.
It's the same argument people use when they say "transit oriented development only caters to the rich". The reality as I see it is that (1) new construction is expensive, but more importantly (2) there is pent-up demand for living near transit, meaning that people who want to move there will pay top dollar to do so.
The main reason why housing is so expensive in MA is because there isn't enough of it. If we add more, prices may not go down a lot, but they certainly won't go up as fast either.
As far as the skyscrapers, they are more efficient per person than a single-family home. It would be far less efficient per person and would also use up a lot more physical space to house the same number of people in single family homes. If we're going to add more people, we might as well give them the option to live in a more efficient way should they desire that.
underground
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 2,390
- Reaction score
- 3
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower
The simple counter argument is that housing demand is not infinite.
The simple counter argument is that housing demand is not infinite.
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 7,003
- Reaction score
- 1,748
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower
There are a lot of reasons why housing costs so much.
But actually relating it to this thread is that this is a a great place for a luxury condo tower and there are people willing to pay this kind of cash.
There are a lot of reasons why housing costs so much.
But actually relating it to this thread is that this is a a great place for a luxury condo tower and there are people willing to pay this kind of cash.
tmac9wr
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 1,445
- Reaction score
- 63
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower
This looks like a great development, and the response to it seems to be very positive. I'm looking forward to seeing how this works out. I don't think the Globe rendering was too accurate though...I'm pretty sure their design is just what they think it will be. So far the base looks nice though, and I love the fact that it's going to get thinner as it rises. Lets some renderings!
This looks like a great development, and the response to it seems to be very positive. I'm looking forward to seeing how this works out. I don't think the Globe rendering was too accurate though...I'm pretty sure their design is just what they think it will be. So far the base looks nice though, and I love the fact that it's going to get thinner as it rises. Lets some renderings!
Joe_Schmoe
Active Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 374
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower
The answer is the same, we have got to get off the insane demand for infinite growth, unless you're in favor of building more, but not allowing people to move here, or building faster than people move here, forever, until we have skyscrapers from the Cape to the Berkshires.
The answer is the same, we have got to get off the insane demand for infinite growth, unless you're in favor of building more, but not allowing people to move here, or building faster than people move here, forever, until we have skyscrapers from the Cape to the Berkshires.
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower
SUPPLY AND DEMAND.
NY'S demand does keep out pacing supply even if
they have 10 to 15 new high rises in the works. (many super talls)
san fran also has a few highrises planed and it matches boston's modest
48 (sq miles) land area. yet boston refuses to build higher. and only has one super tall planned with the possibility of 3 or 4 reguler highrises. (sst copley heymarket garage aquarium garage and maybe the boston garden)
density wont save the world but it just makes sense. (where its suitable). before these new proposals boston hasnt built a real highrise
in the last 20 or so years.
thats why prices are as high as they are demand out ways supply. its like a bottle neck thats been going on for a long long time. not just in the city but in the out skirts aswell. prices are way to high..
imagine if you will a new 5 new 40 floor residential only highrises. each with 300 units. 100 singles 200 with 2 or more people. thats 550 or so people per building. x 5. round that up to 3,000 residents in total. all 5 buildings.
now add 15 new 20 floor avg buildings with 175 units per. round that up to
another 3,000 units. or 5,000 residents.
thats 4,500 new units. and roughly 8,000 residents in 5 high rises and 15 midrises.
when you think about it thats nothing that wont even make a dent or ease housing prices. the market wont even hickup.. these 8,000 residents wouldnt
even come from out side the city they would come from inside or from the out skirts. it cost almost the same to live in watertown or closer to down town. why not get denser.????
do you know the amount of people who commute from the suburbs..
i havent even included their demand i was just talking about those living in the outskirts of the city or in the city who would gobble up those 4,500 new units. I mean gobble up!!! not even counting the demand of commuters.
not even talking about the 5 or so planned highrises. Im talking adding an additional 5 to that. demand is not limitless but we are not even close to
setting supply and demand even. not close at all. even if you add 5 more residential highrises totaling 15 new (10 being mainly residential.) supply and demand would still not be ballanced. thats why prices are so high not only in town but in the outskirts. thats why so many people move out of the state.
The problem is psycological.
We havent built major highrises since what? 20 years ago no wonder prices are so high. 3 highrise proposals come in and everyone says its the end of the world no not in boston. too many shadows. too much traffic too much this and that. Im not saying build like manhattan. Im saying just be boston and grow smart. the coply tower would be right next to a t stop. great.
the jfk T stop/ air rights idea is tremendous and I could see a 35 floor tower go up there. besides its right next to 93 so not to much traffic woes. and one building isnt going to hamper the lifes on surounding resident with shadows. if anything it will liven up the place.
the jfk area is only a bit further from downtown highrise are. than the prudential center is from downtown. that jfk project would also go well with the Bayside Exposition Center project across the street.
FENWAY
this is another great growth area with midrise buildings here. there are 4
great projects the trilogy.1330 boylston. landsdown is gettign redone.
then you have the pike air rights near the ball park. instead of 5 to 6 floor
ugly buildings and parking lots you get denser smarter nicer looking 10 to 15 floor building with shops.
Fan pier and seaport square..
another example of denser yet not so tall development that will be gobbled up.. future development and growth.
the area of mass ave in south boston next to 93.. thats filled with fatories
parking lots.. even after the boston waterfront is developed even after 5 new highrises are built their would still be demand.
you could build and entire new large neighborhood here. with a few highrises next a T stop and 93 so no traffic problems. the are is not filled with residents to complain about height or shadows. it an area of rail yards higway and factories and parking lots.
SUPPLY AND DEMAND.
NY'S demand does keep out pacing supply even if
they have 10 to 15 new high rises in the works. (many super talls)
san fran also has a few highrises planed and it matches boston's modest
48 (sq miles) land area. yet boston refuses to build higher. and only has one super tall planned with the possibility of 3 or 4 reguler highrises. (sst copley heymarket garage aquarium garage and maybe the boston garden)
density wont save the world but it just makes sense. (where its suitable). before these new proposals boston hasnt built a real highrise
in the last 20 or so years.
thats why prices are as high as they are demand out ways supply. its like a bottle neck thats been going on for a long long time. not just in the city but in the out skirts aswell. prices are way to high..
imagine if you will a new 5 new 40 floor residential only highrises. each with 300 units. 100 singles 200 with 2 or more people. thats 550 or so people per building. x 5. round that up to 3,000 residents in total. all 5 buildings.
now add 15 new 20 floor avg buildings with 175 units per. round that up to
another 3,000 units. or 5,000 residents.
thats 4,500 new units. and roughly 8,000 residents in 5 high rises and 15 midrises.
when you think about it thats nothing that wont even make a dent or ease housing prices. the market wont even hickup.. these 8,000 residents wouldnt
even come from out side the city they would come from inside or from the out skirts. it cost almost the same to live in watertown or closer to down town. why not get denser.????
do you know the amount of people who commute from the suburbs..
i havent even included their demand i was just talking about those living in the outskirts of the city or in the city who would gobble up those 4,500 new units. I mean gobble up!!! not even counting the demand of commuters.
not even talking about the 5 or so planned highrises. Im talking adding an additional 5 to that. demand is not limitless but we are not even close to
setting supply and demand even. not close at all. even if you add 5 more residential highrises totaling 15 new (10 being mainly residential.) supply and demand would still not be ballanced. thats why prices are so high not only in town but in the outskirts. thats why so many people move out of the state.
The problem is psycological.
We havent built major highrises since what? 20 years ago no wonder prices are so high. 3 highrise proposals come in and everyone says its the end of the world no not in boston. too many shadows. too much traffic too much this and that. Im not saying build like manhattan. Im saying just be boston and grow smart. the coply tower would be right next to a t stop. great.
the jfk T stop/ air rights idea is tremendous and I could see a 35 floor tower go up there. besides its right next to 93 so not to much traffic woes. and one building isnt going to hamper the lifes on surounding resident with shadows. if anything it will liven up the place.
the jfk area is only a bit further from downtown highrise are. than the prudential center is from downtown. that jfk project would also go well with the Bayside Exposition Center project across the street.
FENWAY
this is another great growth area with midrise buildings here. there are 4
great projects the trilogy.1330 boylston. landsdown is gettign redone.
then you have the pike air rights near the ball park. instead of 5 to 6 floor
ugly buildings and parking lots you get denser smarter nicer looking 10 to 15 floor building with shops.
Fan pier and seaport square..
another example of denser yet not so tall development that will be gobbled up.. future development and growth.
the area of mass ave in south boston next to 93.. thats filled with fatories
parking lots.. even after the boston waterfront is developed even after 5 new highrises are built their would still be demand.
you could build and entire new large neighborhood here. with a few highrises next a T stop and 93 so no traffic problems. the are is not filled with residents to complain about height or shadows. it an area of rail yards higway and factories and parking lots.
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower
You're spot on ralman. There are so many places inside the city of Boston that could EASILY support new denser development. I was just noticing how little development is around Sullivan Square/Rutherford Ave. You could build up the area around the T station, convert Rutherford Avenue into a boulevard instead of a wasteland of pavement, and build all up and and down it. It could practically be another Commonwealth Ave!
You're spot on ralman. There are so many places inside the city of Boston that could EASILY support new denser development. I was just noticing how little development is around Sullivan Square/Rutherford Ave. You could build up the area around the T station, convert Rutherford Avenue into a boulevard instead of a wasteland of pavement, and build all up and and down it. It could practically be another Commonwealth Ave!
JimboJones
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2007
- Messages
- 935
- Reaction score
- 1
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower
There are some pros and cons to building a 47-story tower on that spot. You have to admit, it's already pretty dense there. And it has a small footprint. I'm for the project, but it sure will tower over everything else ... even with the Hancock & 31-story Clarendon, and new Columbus Center towers, nearby.
Dartmouth Street on that block just might collapse ...
There are some pros and cons to building a 47-story tower on that spot. You have to admit, it's already pretty dense there. And it has a small footprint. I'm for the project, but it sure will tower over everything else ... even with the Hancock & 31-story Clarendon, and new Columbus Center towers, nearby.
Dartmouth Street on that block just might collapse ...
Re: Copley Place plan calls for condo tower
sorry fo rthe text I just get upset at how people say
"soaring, towering, shadows, wind, traffic" give me a friggen break.
I love Boston. it has a great old and new. and I believe we should
protect the architectural character and hieght of certain neighborhoods.
but where you should build high build frigen high. not talking super tall just denser Transit oriented developments. like sullivan square jackson square.
its ok and understandable for community groups to protect historic neighborhoods. but not when its old warehouses railyards and ugly parking lots.
that doesn't make sense...
land area (sq miles) & avg population density
ny 300 23,700
bos 48 12,000 5th densest
san fran 47 15,000
mem Ten 270 2,4000
pheoniz 420 2,3000
though boston could get alot denser in some places.
Boston is already around the 5th densest cities in the US.
when you factor in that it is just 48 sq miles.
endles demand??
though NY is 300 sq miles it is still almoat twice as dense as the next densest city, san fran. NY still builds. still has demand
there is your endless demand.
you want to talk about demand? why is it almost as expensive to live in watertown as it is in side the city. almost as expensive because people love living that close.
commuters.. if there wasn' t demand why do so many folks drive in every day and pay gas the way they do regardless of record gas prices. they give up almost 3 hours of commute time each day to afford a cheaper home.
if it was a bit cheaper it would make sense to live closer to town.
two great examples are sullivan square and jackson square.
here is the area i was talking about.
hope you can see it.
sorry fo rthe text I just get upset at how people say
"soaring, towering, shadows, wind, traffic" give me a friggen break.
I love Boston. it has a great old and new. and I believe we should
protect the architectural character and hieght of certain neighborhoods.
but where you should build high build frigen high. not talking super tall just denser Transit oriented developments. like sullivan square jackson square.
its ok and understandable for community groups to protect historic neighborhoods. but not when its old warehouses railyards and ugly parking lots.
that doesn't make sense...
land area (sq miles) & avg population density
ny 300 23,700
bos 48 12,000 5th densest
san fran 47 15,000
mem Ten 270 2,4000
pheoniz 420 2,3000
though boston could get alot denser in some places.
Boston is already around the 5th densest cities in the US.
when you factor in that it is just 48 sq miles.
endles demand??
though NY is 300 sq miles it is still almoat twice as dense as the next densest city, san fran. NY still builds. still has demand
there is your endless demand.
you want to talk about demand? why is it almost as expensive to live in watertown as it is in side the city. almost as expensive because people love living that close.
commuters.. if there wasn' t demand why do so many folks drive in every day and pay gas the way they do regardless of record gas prices. they give up almost 3 hours of commute time each day to afford a cheaper home.
if it was a bit cheaper it would make sense to live closer to town.
two great examples are sullivan square and jackson square.
here is the area i was talking about.
hope you can see it.
- Status