Future Skyline

Honestly I think Kendall is the best spot to put a 1000 ft tower.
 
dotdude78 said:
Could someone do this with Burj Khalifa instead of Willis Tower?? Thanks!
Click to expand...

It looks really out of place. This is to scale, as long as sketchup didn't distort anything.
Link

Here's another angle.

I also did Burj Khalifa at the Volpe site.
Another angle at Volpe.

I personally don't think we need 1000' (or 2000'+) in Boston or Cambridge. I like the scale of our city as it is right now. I would go as high as 850-900; anything else looks out of place. I'd only support 1000+ if we really build up our city, height wise.

Here's a scaled down (former) 2 WTC over the pike. 850' to the top. I've always wondered how this building would look in Boston.
link
Another angle, looks pretty cool.
And here are two for Government Center Plaza at 850'.
1. Front View
2. Down the "spine"
 
Last edited:
^I like your thinking, Stefal

Another thought I'd had (in terms of what's a reasonable tall skyscraper, under 1000', but tall yet fitting for boston) is something like Cleveland's Key Tower. I am NOT saying I love the specific architectural details of this tower, but I just think its scale would fit very nicely somewhere in boston. It's still hard to imagine this thing is 947' - if we went tall, I think something like this would work:

Cleveland_Skyline_Aug_2006.JPG


Key_Center.jpg
 
Totally agree. I know we're not going to get a 1000'+ here, but something in the 850-950 range that had an iconic crown and was lit up at night? I'd be so freakin thrilled with that...
 
^^ totally agree. As some have said, that range of height either in Back Bay or the West End is realistic, and spectacular.

If we're talking about Back Bay (and i'm speculating with the noose tightening fast) – with several garages in play around the City... with new offices and residences being added in the neighborhood, i see the Dalton St Garage's loss as too austere for Back Bay to be deemed a realisitic possibility just now. And it's really not even close. Then, it's importance just increases with time. With future capacity, ostensibly being taken up by so many big projects in Back Bay and downtown, then factor the tall tower rising above squeezing a smaller garage even more.

Didn't the BRA also quickly rebuff a proposed demo of Dalton St Garage a short time ago? Put me in the group with the others who said, 'no way.'

Lord & Taylor was given by generous donors on the forum as our best hope.... i recall reading some time ago, that the far south end of the Christian Science Ctr at Mass Ave and Huntington Ave is in play, but i'm keeping (the part of the Garage that's visible above ground) as my dark horse for a future tower.

Lastly, the West End. White hot nimby zone now, but maybe in 10 or 15 years, things would have quieted enough to pull down one of those Soviet Era turds.

That leaves the Monoliths. Nothing much over 700' is likely when they eventually come down, but it's amazing we're even at such a place where talk of future skyscrapers can be discussed openly in rabid anti-development circles like the Globe – in the context of where we were just a year or two ago with the fight over Copley Tower.
 
Last edited:
If the west end residents could be blindfolded for a minute that garage in the center of the west end would be a great spot for a huge residential. They get a gated community in the middle of the city with all kinds of parks, access to the waterfront, hospitals, tennis courts, etc.

Whittier place parking lots near the garden garage tower would be nice to add to street life along with across the street there are huge parking lots on nashua st that will have to go eventually depending on an ns expansion.

Cambridge st has a huge open lot that could fit a 300 footer without much fuss, Im surprised it hasn't been looked at in any way yet.
 
stick n move said:
If the west end residents could be blindfolded for a minute that garage in the center of the west end would be a great spot for a huge residential. They get a gated community in the middle of the city with all kinds of parks, access to the waterfront, hospitals, tennis courts, etc.
Click to expand...

I very much agree, despite feeling compelled (forced) to tread lightly about this. My dream plan would be a Blue Line extension to Charles/MGH, yet instead of going straight there, it would be routed to one stop in the middle of the West End at the base of a huge transit-oriented residential tower. I realize that many probably hate me for this view, but it makes a lot of sense for so many reasons. 1) underutilization of current west end, 2) a fantastic place for height due to FAA map, 3) lousy current west end architecture that could use a boost, plus, not having to worry about damaging historic character as we are concerned with elsewhere, and 4) potential for excellent transit utilization. I would put the developer on the hook to pay for part of the Blue Line extension (packaged in advance into the development plan).

I'll stop suggesting this plan since it doesn't seem to resonate. But, aside from the neighborhood response (which we really don't need to discuss here/now), I am honestly/genuinely interested in the pros/cons/constraints that would/wouldn't enable this.
 
Probably will never even be discussed for a 'Boston supertall' here, but this one next door to Equity's 485' tower might be the last 'home run parcel' for building 750-780' in the future.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/G...af6653935646a13!8m2!3d42.3650519!4d-71.064649

Of course, if and when the site is finally built, it'll probably be in the range of 450-500' like the others. Or maybe by such time, $$$ will force the city to think taller.
 
A 900' tower would be nice. Tall enough that it can stand out and make a mark, but not tall enough to stand out too much.
 
Someone throw me a user made render of something going up in Boston this thread is going south. Not the Odurandia one either that gets posted on every thread here and on Skyscrapercity. Downburst where are you buddy.
 
Best spot for an 850'-900' tower is above Lord and Taylor at the Prudential or somewhere in the courtyard that doesnt touch the Pike. Creates a triangular angle between Hancock, Pru and 1 Dalton.
 
bigpicture7 said:
It's still hard to imagine this thing is 947' - if we went tall, I think something like this would work:

Cleveland_Skyline_Aug_2006.JPG
Click to expand...

947' to the top of the spire. 888' to the top of the pyramid structure. The (building formerly known as the) Hancock is about as high as the key logo. So it actually has a higher top floor than this (same thing as with BOA in Charlotte) but a lower roof and spire. When you consider that the Hancock's antenna are around 850' and the Pru's is over 900', a Key Tower type clone really wouldn't stand head and shoulders above the current bigs.
 
Here are the buildings together in the SSP diagram. DZH22 is right for something to stand out you need a tower around 1000 feet for the height to be very noticeable.

NQgw7Lp.png
 
^ very cool, DZH22 and citylover; thanks for the clarification on the dimensions.

I still think something with similar proportions & crown to The Key would fit nicely into the boston skyline (and based on this thread, maybe a few feet taller). I'm sure there are other examples too. Not too fat, top floor around 850, with a taper (nicely illuminated at night), maybe peaking @ 980' or 1000' or so. That'd do the trick for beantown, IMHO. Maybe for the lord & taylor site.
 
Downtown the key tower w/ crown would be very noticeable. Great diagram.
 
I doubt Boston could ever go tall on the lord and Taylor site...it would be nimbygeddon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top