Downtown skyline around 1980

J

JSic

Active Member
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
637
Reaction score
44
Just for perspective. Boston has come a long way.

910216-Large-boston-ma-usa-usa-city-skyline-boston-skyline-1980.jpg


today:

9-15-15_Boston-CBD_6514-170%20copy.jpg
 
The Federal Reserve building deserves a lot more credit (than I've given it, anyway) for being a (late) 1970s building that's aged really well.
 
Arlington said:
The Federal Reserve building deserves a lot more credit (than I've given it, anyway) for being a (late) 1970s building that's aged really well.
Click to expand...

The tower is great but the low-rise portion of the base is awful and basically a fortress with zero street interaction. I think it's a net positive but where you're walking that stretch of the greenway it feels disjointed--obviously not a skyline issue.
 
I like nice skylines, but I'm fully aware that nice skylines don't always make for better cities. I'm more impressed with the fact that the city is undoing the awful car oriented development that has been blighting the city since the 60s. I don't care if they put up a 100 story tower or a 6 story row house, if it has street level interaction and makes the place more walkable, then I'm all for it.
 
My religion is summarized below.

bolehboleh said:
I like nice skylines, but I'm fully aware that nice skylines don't always make for better cities. I'm more impressed with the fact that the city is undoing the awful car oriented development that has been blighting the city since the 60s. I don't care if they put up a 100 story tower or a 6 story row house, if it has street level interaction and makes the place more walkable, then I'm all for it.
Click to expand...
 
bolehboleh said:
I like nice skylines, but I'm fully aware that nice skylines don't always make for better cities. I'm more impressed with the fact that the city is undoing the awful car oriented development that has been blighting the city since the 60s. I don't care if they put up a 100 story tower or a 6 story row house, if it has street level interaction and makes the place more walkable, then I'm all for it.
Click to expand...

But height is required to keep things affordable.

All too often this board focuses too much on the way buildings look and not enough on how they perform their actual intended purposes. Cities need work spaces and living spaces, and you can't fit enough of these spaces in a 6 story row house. Every building that is built shorter than it could be is one more lost opportunity to provide more living and work space for our society. I push for height not because of any aesthetic concerns but for its functional purpose.
 
Space? Or density and accessibility...? A skyscraper, of course, is just a vertical cul-de-sac...there's a place for them...but another way to keep things affordable (and vibrant and interesting etc. etc.) is to provide a variety of reasonably pleasant ways to quickly get a lot of people from here to there and everywhere else.

There's plenty of affordable housing in the city and especially in the region - its just not close to the T. I'm not being cute - seriously, there's a day and night difference between T accessable and not T accessable.
 
CSTH said:
And yes, the Fed low-rise is an inhumane fortress - there are actually gun portals in the gatehouse on congress st.: https://goo.gl/maps/sNsHqUVmunq
Click to expand...

Geez, I wonder why the gun portals? Could it be, A:The project was designed by a cowboy from Texas? Or, B:It really IS a Federal Reserve Bank, with millions, and MILLIONS of dollars inside?
 
My parents have a small painting of the Back Bay skyline hanging in their house that they received as a wedding present when they got married in 1980. Occasionally when I'm home and see it I remind them that they really need to get that thing updated...
 
lapradetom said:
Geez, I wonder why the gun portals? Could it be, A:The project was designed by a cowboy from Texas? Or, B:It really IS a Federal Reserve Bank, with millions, and MILLIONS of dollars inside?
Click to expand...

Yes, i think it 's B.
 
JumboBuc said:
But height is required to keep things affordable.

All too often this board focuses too much on the way buildings look and not enough on how they perform their actual intended purposes. Cities need work spaces and living spaces, and you can't fit enough of these spaces in a 6 story row house. Every building that is built shorter than it could be is one more lost opportunity to provide more living and work space for our society. I push for height not because of any aesthetic concerns but for its functional purpose.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. But remember Paris, at 40 sq/mi, has a little over two million people and almost no skyscrapers. Boston, at about 48 sq/mi, has about 650,000 people. I'm not saying that Boston should try to be as dense as Paris, but sometimes all that matters is how you organize your streets.
 
Well streets and having almost every building above 5 stories with most around 7 stories tall and very few empty lots. If all of Boston was filled with wall to wall 5 to 8 story buildings it would probably have a similar population and density to Paris. So all those apartments and condos being built in the outer neighborhoods that are around that height will start to make a difference.
 
The federal reserve building may be attractive viewed by some in isolation, but a slew of large warehouse buildings were cleared to assemble that massive parcel. The tower only occupies a portion of the property. I'm speculating, but I wouldn't be surprised if that tower has less square footage than the sum total of all the demolished buildings. Also the warehouse buildings were of the same vintage that are now in such high demand in the fort point with tech firms and starts ups etc. The federal reserve building represents the flawed way to build a good urban city
 
bolehboleh said:
I agree with you. But remember Paris, at 40 sq/mi, has a little over two million people and almost no skyscrapers. Boston, at about 48 sq/mi, has about 650,000 people. I'm not saying that Boston should try to be as dense as Paris, but sometimes all that matters is how you organize your streets.
Click to expand...

Yes, but streets are hard to change. We are undoing the overbuilt parking garages in a fairly straight forward way, but we can't/won't undo the overbuilt roads anytime soon. Hence we need to reach for a bit more height to achieve density. That doesn't always mean skyscrapers - out along the GL branches that means more 4-8 stories replacing 1-2 stories.
 
Yeah the idea of Boston being America's Paris are sadly long since dead.
Not sure if it ever would have possible given America's land use patterns.
 
CSTH said:
Space? Or density and accessibility...? A skyscraper, of course, is just a vertical cul-de-sac...there's a place for them...but another way to keep things affordable (and vibrant and interesting etc. etc.) is to provide a variety of reasonably pleasant ways to quickly get a lot of people from here to there and everywhere else.

There's plenty of affordable housing in the city and especially in the region - its just not close to the T. I'm not being cute - seriously, there's a day and night difference between T accessable and not T accessable.
Click to expand...

It is MUCH easier to create very dense walkable places along existing infrastructure than to expand the speed and reach of transit to less dense places. A skyscraper is not just a vertical cul-de-sac because it does not inhibit the permeability of the streets around it. Density gained through the 3rd dimension is infinitely easier and more efficient than expanding in 2D.

The best way to improve transportation efficiency is to demand/use less transportation - aka density.
 
fattony said:
Yes, but streets are hard to change. We are undoing the overbuilt parking garages in a fairly straight forward way, but we can't/won't undo the overbuilt roads anytime soon. Hence we need to reach for a bit more height to achieve density. That doesn't always mean skyscrapers - out along the GL branches that means more 4-8 stories replacing 1-2 stories.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with you. I was just stating that it's also possible to have density without skyscrapers.

Statler
Re: Downtown skyline around 1980
Yeah the idea of Boston being America's Paris are sadly long since dead.
Not sure if it ever would have possible given America's land use patterns.
Click to expand...

And I don't necessarily consider that a bad thing. I liked Paris, but after a while it seemed a bit uniform for me. That's why Like cities like Boston, New York and Singapore. They have skyscrapers, dense low level apartment blocks and even single detached houses. I like the variety.
 
CSTH said:
Space? Or density and accessibility...? A skyscraper, of course, is just a vertical cul-de-sac...there's a place for them...but another way to keep things affordable (and vibrant and interesting etc. etc.) is to provide a variety of reasonably pleasant ways to quickly get a lot of people from here to there and everywhere else.

There's plenty of affordable housing in the city and especially in the region - its just not close to the T. I'm not being cute - seriously, there's a day and night difference between T accessable and not T accessable.
Click to expand...

So basically Los Angeles in a few years after they build out their metro. I rather Boston keep the sprawl as small as possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top