Future Skyline

Could a future skyline be rendered from Northpoint Park, looking in the direction of the Nashua Street Jail/TD Garden? I was down there yesterday, observing the progress of Avalon North Station and trying to imagine the same view with the Garden Towers, Garden Garage, and Government Center Garage towers all in view.
 
timsox6 said:
Could a future skyline be rendered from Northpoint Park, looking in the direction of the Nashua Street Jail/TD Garden? I was down there yesterday, observing the progress of Avalon North Station and trying to imagine the same view with the Garden Towers, Garden Garage, and Government Center Garage towers all in view.
Click to expand...

Our little shiba wondered the same thing when we walked him there. Ideally, he'd like something that's "much beauty", with - ideally - "very striking", a dash of "so perspective", and, of course, a healthy dose of "wow".
 
Very crude masing render in paint with 1 brom, millennium, 111 fed, 1 dalton, Copley. SST would be blocked by the hancock in this shot.

 
Last edited:
Since I'm a former Chicago resident, I've always wanted to do this just to see what a supertall would look like at scale in the skyline.

aAvvPJ5.jpg
 
Galactic said:
Since I'm a former Chicago resident, I've always wanted to do this just to see what a supertall would look like at scale in the skyline.

aAvvPJ5.jpg
Click to expand...

I am glad that someone did this (thanks, Galactic); it is a helpful perspective for those of us who truly care about optimizing Boston's layout/density for the business/innovation/housing demands of our growing and popular city.

My point is that many critics of height in this city (and I promise I am not a height-at-all-costs person) really don't have good outside-of-Boston perspective. We do not have any imposingly tall buildings here - not anywhere near what other cities have. And I am not talking NYC/Chicago. I am talking about such places as Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Oklahoma City (eek), whom all have 800'+ footers.

It is not remotely unreasonable for Boston to plan for an 800-950' tower or two - strategically placed, of course - to complement our urban core strategy. The residents who complain about 400-600' footers as being "manahattanization" really don't have a reasonable perspective.

We need a few parcels ZONED for this before someone submits a proposal. So that we can get the NIMBY fight over with before a specific developer is involved (so that we can stop hearing the same argument about the BRA being in bed with developers). We just need smart, strategic, pre-zoning of a few key parcels for height - that's all I'm asking. If placed correctly, it will not destroy the character of "Boston" - not even close.
 
That's all i've been saying in the Globe. 'Cept you've said it wayy more much better. i have failed to bring up scale where the anti-development people talk about Boston becoming Manhattan. i also like that the Mayor and BRA are open to a bit more (and that's all it is) density in the urban core for the simple reason that it will allow for more people to be closer to everything. Clearly not something everyone agrees with having... and those who don't will bully and slander city planners to defend that point of view.
 
Last edited:
Interesting observation quoted in BBJ [behind the firewall]
[Boston’s dirty little secret: It’s not just the city’s tallest building that’s struggling to fill space

The decline in demand for space above the 20th floor has accelerated in part as key drivers — financial and professional services firms — undergo big changes to the way they do business.
Click to expand...

If this is not an temporary aberration -- The implication for the future skyline:
  • Only residences and hotels are willing to pay the premium price for for being high up with a fancy view
  • Hence no one is likely to build a really tall office building
  • Any future tall buildings will have to be all residence, residence and hotel or possibly mixed use with the offices on the lower floors

Wonder if this is part of the structure of the proposals for 111 Federal

Finally --what of the Pelli Office Tower as part of the Congress Garage project?
 
whighlander said:
Interesting observation quoted in BBJ [behind the firewall]


If this is not an temporary aberration -- The implication for the future skyline:
  • Only residences and hotels are willing to pay the premium price for for being high up with a fancy view
  • Hence no one is likely to build a really tall office building
  • Any future tall buildings will have to be all residence, residence and hotel or possibly mixed use with the offices on the lower floors

Wonder if this is part of the structure of the proposals for 111 Federal

Finally --what of the Pelli Office Tower as part of the Congress Garage project?
Click to expand...

I agree we have seen some indications of waning or flattening demand for traditional office space in the heart of the city, but there's shortage of both hotel and housing, and I think we are seeing the mixed-use building being the way of the future. Like it or not (especially with the biotech explosion), our workers have fanned outbound of the core of a city. You can't put a biotech research firm in a tall tower. The work is now distributed. But there is strong demand for a transit-oriented mixed use tower.

*Edit*
And what about a Boston salesforce tower? They could be an anchor tenant for the Pelli project (I don't have behind-firewall access):
http://www.bankerandtradesman.com/2016/06/salesforce-tower-boston-horizon/
 
bigpicture7 said:
I agree we have seen some indications of waning or flattening demand for traditional office space in the heart of the city, but there's shortage of both hotel and housing, and I think we are seeing the mixed-use building being the way of the future. Like it or not (especially with the biotech explosion), our workers have fanned outbound of the core of a city. You can't put a biotech research firm in a tall tower. The work is now distributed. But there is strong demand for a transit-oriented mixed use tower.
Click to expand...

BigPicture -- But the [pardon the pun] Big Picture - Takeaway is this:

If you want to build a say 50 story building -- the office demand will basically stop at 20 -- so with a 5 story podium -- and 15 floors of [somewhat fancy offices] most of the building is going to be paid for by residences or hotel rooms

Being high those are premium residences and hotel rooms

So -- does the cut off of demand for traditional offices with their CEO suites with high and wide views -- mean that there will be only Uber-Lux towers being built

How many Uber-Lux MT's and Four Seasons can we see in the pipeline?

If this is a longish-term trend -- then we might well be seeing the proposals now that will end this incarnation of the exuberant High Crane Era
 
whighlander said:
Interesting observation quoted in BBJ [behind the firewall]


If this is not an temporary aberration -- The implication for the future skyline:
  • Only residences and hotels are willing to pay the premium price for for being high up with a fancy view
  • Hence no one is likely to build a really tall office building
  • Any future tall buildings will have to be all residence, residence and hotel or possibly mixed use with the offices on the lower floors

Wonder if this is part of the structure of the proposals for 111 Federal

Finally --what of the Pelli Office Tower as part of the Congress Garage project?
Click to expand...

Before the JHT story gave us pause, Some, including myself have mentioned that putting offices high in the sky might be too speculative for Boston. Not necessarily in New York or LA, but definitely in Boston... The Govt Center tower could still work, in that it opens up some nice possiblities to reposition tenents around redeveloping the State Service Center, the Suffolk Court tower and even City Hall and (albeit a longshot), the lower section of the JFK Fed or even 1-3 Center Plaza (Shorenstein Properties).

Then again, i'm in no position to disprove this as being pure fantasy.
 
Last edited:
We *could* see continued migration of suburban tech firms back into the city (we keep hearing it talked about, and we saw GE make the jump). Not saying I have any new data to back this up. But with a young professionals/millennial population preferring to stay urban, and with the big 'ol office park becoming a thing of the past, we could possibly see some more of the highway-exit firms gravitate to the city. Or, that whole movement could fizzle...

I wouldn't be surprised if BP broke that story about JHT softness almost as a PR move to draw attention to the office market before they cut prices.

These next few months will be an exciting time to see what firms may/may not choose to go urban.
 
bigpicture7 said:
We *could* see continued migration of suburban tech firms back into the city (we keep hearing it talked about, and we saw GE make the jump). Not saying I have any new data to back this up. But with a young professionals/millennial population preferring to stay urban, and with the big 'ol office park becoming a thing of the past, we could possibly see some more of the highway-exit firms gravitate to the city. Or, that whole movement could fizzle...

I wouldn't be surprised if BP broke that story about JHT softness almost as a PR move to draw attention to the office market before they cut prices.

These next few months will be an exciting time to see what firms may/may not choose to go urban.
Click to expand...

BigPicture -- we've already seen that Demandware which is being bought by Salesforce is expanding in Burlington and Trip advisor has just expanded in Needham

In addition to the well developed trend of millennials moving to cities and the "millennial-centric" employers following suit, the traditional suburban office parks are retooling themselves. What used to be a sea of parking surrounding stand-alone buildings are becoming small villages with all the typical amenities within walking distance of the offices.

The key is the difference in cost between the real Gnurds who want / need the MIT fix and the Gnurd-managers and just plain suits who will be happy enough in Burlington

For example Microsoft -- has moved a fair number of the non R&D folks out of Kendall to the former Nokia Center in Burlington

The other examples are slightly less tech -- but two shoe companies are settling into new office complexes in Waltham
 
In regards to zoning for future supertalls, I believe there are at least 3 locations that fit the bill. The first is that ugly back end of the original Liberty Mutual building between St. James and Stuart. The 2nd is the Saks Fifth Avenue building at the Pru. Yes it would block site lines from one side of the Pru, but a 1000+ ft. tower was put there, it would work. The third place is the Hilton Hotel. I am not sure about FAA stuff, but I believe all of these sites would qualify. As a side note, The Double Tree Hilton at the New England Medical center stop on the Orange line should be zoned for a huge building (not sure about FAA on this one), to mitigate ACTUALLY putting the Silver Line underground. 700 feet seams feasible to me there, and it would be right in the middle of the downtown and back bay clusters.
 
my sense re: tall offices is that its less about firms not wanting a tall office and more about them wanting a huge floorplate, and it being not possible to build both fat and tall....
 
CSTH said:
my sense re: tall offices is that its less about firms not wanting a tall office and more about them wanting a huge floorplate, and it being not possible to build both fat and tall....
Click to expand...

CSTH -- the implication of the B&T article is that the former "Uber tenants" -- the big names in finance and business consulting as well as Law & Accountants don't want to pay a premium for "Uber Views"

The specific nugget that triggered the article -- the "Dirty Secret" -- is that the higher floors in buildings such as 200 Clarendon, the building formerly known as the John Hancock Tower -- are hard to fill

Note that both 200 Clarendon and the Pru -- have huge floor plates and are tall -- so the problem seems to be that the former advantage of the corner office with the view to Provincetown is now a disadvantage because of the cost

Of course the building owners can fix this problem by changing the rental structure in the tower to accommodate filling the higher spaces without paying a premium
 
Nice going back to page 1 with the renders for height of Millennium Tower and 1 Dalton showing quite a bit under.
 
Cortes said:
The 2nd is the Saks Fifth Avenue building at the Pru. Yes it would block site lines from one side of the Pru, but a 1000+ ft. tower was put there, it would work.
Click to expand...

Saks is right over the Pike. It'd be very, very expensive to put anything of significant height there.
 
Honestly I think Kendall is the best spot to put a 1000 ft tower.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top