Forgot about that thing - I think the Copley Tower allowed me to be OK with it/settle for it.
Future Skyline
- Thread starter Downburst
- Start date
Forgot about that thing - I think the Copley Tower allowed me to be OK with it/settle for it.
stick n move
Superstar
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 11,189
- Reaction score
- 15,350
Turtles.
KentXie
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,192
- Reaction score
- 757
Can you stop making assumptions on why people are ragging on you on this subject? It has nothing got do with us disagreeing with your political views.
Look I'll make it easy on you and tell you why I disagree with some of your posts in regards to the skyline. This forum used to be an treasure trove of information on Boston projects, nearly each posts consisting of substance. Now it is a diamond in a cesspool full of posts from people who thinks Boston is Simcity where you can plop down 800 ft towers at a whim, thinking that developers would care to plop a 500 ft antennae so that you guys have a shaft to jerk off with to satisfy your urge to put Boston higher on an arbitrary ranking that has nothing to do with the health of the city, and if uncontained would actually be detrimental to the economy of Boston. If I was to make an analogy, it's like when people are watching football and someone decides that there's not enough mentions of phallic symbols on the field and chucks a dildo onto the field of play (see what I did there). You start making these unbelievable reaches to build tall towers, "every corner needs a 600 ft+ tower", "Cambridge is now Boston", "they propose a 750ft tower. Is the developer stupid? Why not add a 250ft antennae and make it a super tall?" I see where you guys came from. I used to be an advocate for taller buildings but you guys take it so far that you make yimbys sound like nimbys. If you guys feel so strong about this and need to get your fix on having tall towers in Boston, here's how you get your fix. Buy simcity from Steam, download a map of Boston, and plop as many ESB as you need to feel better.
And this isn't only pointed at you. There's a few other forum members that fit this description.
stick n move
Superstar
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 11,189
- Reaction score
- 15,350
I like DHZ22 and dont think hes one of the crazies on here but regarding the overall message, finally. Were getting somewhere with the unspoken sentiment of the forum recently.
KentXie
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,192
- Reaction score
- 757
I don't either. I love his pictures and the future skylines on google earth that he makes the effort to put together. Doesn't mean that I won't disagree with him on things.
odurandina
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2015
- Messages
- 5,328
- Reaction score
- 265
i'm not a believer in adding height by means of antennas. the Pru and flat roof setups reign. if you can't get a window washer crane above it, it's prolly not authentic height.
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,255
- Reaction score
- 9,253
Thank you
I think you are confusing me with odurandina. I can assure you that I am not him. I never make renders of anything.
I also hate the idea of using a spire as a height grab. I'd like a building to pass the Hancock one day, but not exclusively because of a spire. I want it to be legitimately taller.
I also love the layering of Boston and don't think it makes sense to just throw humongous towers all over with no regard for anything. I do get unhappy when prime sites where the FAA allows height are being wasted (North Station residential and Back Bay Garage for starters). We should build height where appropriate. I view the skyline as both a work of art and part of the visual stature of a city.
My favorite mode of transport is walking as a pedestrian so I consider the street level to be of utmost importance. My favorite cities are all dense, varied, interesting walking cities. Height is just a bonus, but I also think it's about time Boston just went for it because I think we can do better than having 70's boxes as the most visually dominant structures in the city.
I stand by this. It's one big city with an arbitrary set of borders and multiple governments. But it's not 2 stand-alone cities. They literally run into each other by the Science Museum. When making comparisons with other cities regarding things such as the businesses or colleges, Boston and Cambridge are always lumped together. It is one single powerhouse area, and one single unbreaking urban area. I wouldn't lump somewhere like Lowell or the 128 belt in with Boston, but I definitely put Cambridge, Somerville, and Brookline as part of that single large city that spills out of Boston's borders.
Add those 3 cities in and it's ~66 square miles for 880,000 people, over 13,000 people per square mile. I think it's fair to consider this all part of one major city.
Contrast that with the following:
Jacksonville 758 square miles
OK City 607
Honolulu 600
Houston 579
Phoenix 515
Nashville 502
LA 465
San Antonio 408
Indy 362
Dallas 343
San Diego 325
Kansas City 314
NYC 305
Memphis 279
Austin 252
Charlotte 242
Chicago 227
Columbus 210
New Orleans 181
Denver 153
Philadelphia 135
Raleigh 115
Milwaukee 96
Baltimore 81
Cincinnati 78
Cleveland 78
Washington DC 61
Anybody not from around here who didn't already know the borders would think this is one city. Frankly, it IS one city, just that certain areas happen to have different names and different governments. From many angles it's nearly indistinguishable where one ends and the other begins.
Here's one of a million.
IMG_0487 by David Z, on FlickrI have been the resident whiner at some points in the past. I bitched and kvetched when they lowered the North Station proposal. But, again, this sweeping generalization is not me. Most of my height related posts at this point are related to nailing down the official height. I don't need it to be 200' taller or have a spire or anything along those lines. I just need it to be accurately defined so it can be recorded for statistical purposes.
I think you are taking some of your anger at odurandina out on me. In fact, I'm actually relatively subdued about all this in the scheme of things! (at this point)
On the other hand, I can sometimes be confrontational in my posts and I can understand why you might find me offputting. But please, find me offputting for the right reasons! Don't blame me for the sins of others, or others for my sins!
Boston common was interesting a month ago too. People are going to smoke regardless. Why give people only 2 vices (alcohol, tobacco) which happen to be the worst for you. -although I partake in both. Im more interested in the hemp and taxes. Hemp is a waste product that can make literally anything I think that is too big to pass up.
Cleveland were coming to collect. You don't need this anyways. Well just throw it on top of a 747 and land it at logan and then barge it over.
Wow - that picture looks really cool.
I think the idea of a skyline rating system is funny. Not sure why you would take that as a personal insult, but no offense was intended. I don't hate you, man. I think you say some stupid shit. I'm sure you feel the same about me. Not a big deal. Certainly nothing to get upset about.
Believe it or not there are many different rating systems. This one seems to be the fairest/most accurate, although it doesn't account for density/layout/proximity, design, or differentiate between spires/flat roofs. (for instance, Montreal is given credit for a 756' tower due to a small side spire that is almost not noticeable) The "official height" debate often rears its ugly head in this system. What I do like is the cutoff is 295' (90m), basically meaning that anything below that isn't "skyline material".
The worst one I have seen (maybe Emporis', can't remember) bases it by the number of floors each building has. So a Harbor Tower would be worth more points than the 50% taller Federal Reserve. Certain cities were big beneficiaries. (Vancouver, due to being residential dominant)
There is also the "tallest" cities, taken by averaging the Top 10 or 25 buildings per city.
Then there is the real simplicity, basically just taking an arbitrary height (say, 500' or 100 meters) and counting however many buildings in a city meet that criteria. Canadian posters love to harp on the 100m threshold, because that is where their cities really shine. (Vancouver and Toronto in particular) I have a hard time with a system that gives the exact same weight to a Harbor Tower vs The JHT vs The ESB vs Burj Khalifa.
Best bet is to use a combination of the above when comparing cities, and find the numbers to make yours look better. For Boston, I like to go with 150 meters, or 380' (115m) because we have so damn many buildings between 380'-400'!!!!!
I sure do say some stupid shit. I also think that, on the political side, the country is more polarized than ever and each side is more offended by the other than at any time in the past. It becomes easier to point fingers and hurl insults when we are just following the actions of our poorly behaved "leaders". For the next week, anybody voting for the other side is automatically an "idiot" in pretty much everybody's eyes!
stick n move
Superstar
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 11,189
- Reaction score
- 15,350
Please stop posting the same exact ginormous lists and the same renders multiple times on multiple different threads. Thank you.
stick n move
Superstar
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 11,189
- Reaction score
- 15,350
Gonna quote this since this went off the rails for a bit I forgot these were even posted.
Forgive my delays. Life is nuts.
Most Article 80 projects are here. Still working on additions at least a couple of times a week, so I'm not taking requests right now.
Most old models have been revamped. I'm pulling diagrams directly from project filings so they should be within 2-3 feet of their actual dimensions. I don't have time or patience right now to color/texture all of them, so bear with me. Anyways...
Enjoy!
Starting off with some aerials:
Back Bay:
Downtown:
stick n move
Superstar
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 11,189
- Reaction score
- 15,350
Homemade render as well
Padre Mike
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2007
- Messages
- 681
- Reaction score
- 1
Downburst! Great post. Thanks from a Bostonian in Tampa hungry for urban architecture.
odurandina
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2015
- Messages
- 5,328
- Reaction score
- 265
^^incredible contributions to AB. thanks.
whighlander
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 7,812
- Reaction score
- 647
DZH -- It is one Urbanity -- varying nature and density -- but you don't know when you are in:
- Cambridge / Arlington [along Alewife @ say Mass Ave]
- Boston / Brookline
- Cambridge / Watertown [Concord Ave, Mt. Auburn St.]
- Watertown / Waltham [Main St.]
- Watertown / Newton
- Newton/ Waltham
- Waltham / Lexington [Waltham / Lexington St]
- Lexington / Arlington [Mass Ave]
- and of course Boston/Cambridge @ the MOS where the dividing line is inside the building in the entrance lobby
- etc
The point is that we are all part of one Boston Urbanity -- even Providence and Worcester if you use the CSA definition
The problem is that while we are all Boston -- we are also at the same time not only Lexington, and Waltham, but also the South End [not to be confused with Southey] and South Boston [not to be confused with the South Boston Seaport / Innovation District]... etc.
A source of great confusion to the outsider, great consternation to the insider and just plain ........... to all