Future Skyline

[armpitsOFmight]

Trolling is fun!

GOOD trolls add entertainment to the internetz.

 

[dotdude78]

I don't think our skyline is an embarrassment at all. I'd just like to see ONE tall tower (800'-900') downtown for some variety and to have one building to stand apart from the batch of 400'-600' buildings.

 

[nm88]

Overall, our skyline is an embarrassment. The rest of the country is leaving us in the dust.

From this point on I will spare you the embarrassment I feel for you over your posts. I'll skip them.

 

[KentXie]

money
surfing (i spent 10 days on Tavarua a few years ago. hope for a trip to P-pass soon).
real estate market
wifey killing me with med school bills (she just finished)
Doing what i can to inspire the BRA to show backbone against selfish, anti-development interests.
car addiction/try to do at least 1 track day at Willow Springs or Chuckwalla each winter

The reason we have endless stunted highrises, an awful skyline and no more land for building over 180m? imo, it's because no one gave a shit about actually getting in these militant loons' faces. There's a lot to indict there. i think the city's overall architectural massing is relevant if not flatly important to forming it's identity. i discovered by reading the Globe posts there were more than a few people who agreed with my point of view: the time has come for Boston to be bold, and start building tall again.

i know as architects, most of you find it's distasteful to hold strong affirmative opinions, to the point of arguing over the height of a city's skyline. But, i decided to do what little i could to raise awareness that the nimby narrative isn't true; we're not going to become a mini Manhattan or anything even close. i've publicly railed against Shirley Kressel and others and i'm just getting started. i take the nimby destroying the a/r of my city's architecture a too far. No question. It's my warped sense of civic pride coming through, perhaps a bit too loudly.

You are perhaps as bad as the NIMBYs you constantly deride in this forum if not worst. The similarities are apparent, while NIMBYs come up for ridiculous and nonsensical reasons why a building should not be approved, you come up with the most ridiculous reasons why a tower should be built and why it needs to be a certain height. Some of these reasons include 1) other cities have taller towers, 2) developers should just stick a spire on top of building because they are so close to being taller than the JHT and the developer is crazy for not having the same goal as a YIMBY even though the spire doesn't provide anything in return, and 3) height of a tower is completely determined by what is the maximum allowable height a plot has based on FAA guidelines and not on feasibility, return on investment, and other economical factors.

Newsflash, the real world isn't SimCity 4. You can't just plop a skyscraper down anywhere, you can't just build a tall tower without it going under public review, and you can't keep pointing at a random plot in the city and say they should built a supertall here because you feel like it and that it's the damn NIMBYs and the government that the supertall hasn't been built (well you can but it's annoying and doesn't contribute to anything).

So while you deride the NIMBYs on this board, maybe you should take a hard look at yourself in the mirror because you're not much different from them.

 

[stick n move]

All it takes is 1 trip to the East Boston waterfront, just sayin.

 

[odurandina]

...I had pictures that showed exactly why the skyline is shaped the way it is and I think if you could see the beauty behind that maybe you would appreciate it more.

For the most part, i'm in agreement with your opinion. i understand the sloping of the heights near BPG and BC. i think tall, because i see what they're doing around downtown LA, and how they're concerned about what their options would look like, say 30 years down the road. Then i look at Boston and the alarms went off.... With the low alley near the Mass Pike, i'm concerned that our choices will be limited.

We need a few +700' towers to break up the 'wall,' downtown, 1 maybe ~760', and maybe one +600-700' at the TD Garden. i'd have been very thrilled about the downtown skyline if they'd done something like that. Maybe we still get there.

In Back Bay, a few of these; the Hilton, 101 and 111 Huntington, Westin, Marriot, should have gone higher with possibly a higher a/r, and a couple topping 700'. i'm fine with Boston never ascending over 790 JHT, although i'd like to see 1 go a bit taller in Back Bay.

The number and height of the towers being proposed in this cycle really has the potential to put our skyline over the top. i'd be extremely happy if Copley Tower, 111 Fed, 1 Bromfield, SST and the tall office spire at 1 Congress got done, even if many others were held over for a future cycle.

You are perhaps as bad as....

Ouch. Obviously, it's gonna be tough to walk that back (my post)... but, i'll take your advice.

Like Bill Hurt said in his terribly unfortunate remarks in the Big Chill, 'Sorry guys. i was just tryin' to keep the conversation lively.'

 

[citylover94]

I think this image shows the skyline off pretty well. It isn't East Boston but it looks pretty impressive to me.

Another impressive view.

This is essentially the BU Bridge View.

 

[lapradetom]

^^My official position; despite all the lovely infill and low highrises that we do so well;

Overall, our skyline is an embarrassment. The rest of the country is leaving us in the dust. It didn't have to be that way. If all these towers get built, we will have ascended to a relative safe zone, free from embarrassment...

But, until i see every damn one of these towers proposed to top 190m actually go up, yes, hold me to the fire for that one.

I was thinking a bit about it last night – and i came to the conclusion a good many of the ones set to rise above 190m, will not be built in this cycle – if ever.

Why i'm not optimistic; http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-24/58-facts-about-us-economy-2015-are-almost-too-crazy-believe

my list of those that run the range of less likely to 'not happening;'
1. Copley Tower 190m (highly questionable)
2. 111 Federal St 224m (unlikely)
3. 1 Congress Office 190-195m (highly unlikely)
4. 1 Bromfield 215m (highly unlikely)
5. South Station Tower 206m (very remote)
6. Harbor Garage Tower 183m (extremely remote)

^^While driving or walking along Memorial Drive near MIT at night, and looking at the Boston skyline from there, embarrassing is not the word that comes to mind. Impressive is more like it....and it's getting much better. As a recent former nationwide truck driver, I have seen just about every skyline in the country,(never went to Seattle) and Boston is right up there with the best...other than the occasional standout tower in each city, most can't match Boston's overall impressive skyline perspective.....the mix of Back Bay brownstones, old church steeples, historic older buildings, newer towers. (Plus the Charles river and Atlantic ocean contribute to Boston's beautiful and picturesque setting as well.) Despite FAA restrictions, nimby activism, high construction costs, economic realities, etc., our skyline has evolved very nicely, and continues to do so.

 

[stick n move]

If you really feel that way its not big deal no need to apologize stick to your guns. I completely disagree with your opinion but you are entitled to it. Im just gonna add one last part and then Ill step back.

To me, personally, context is everything. Build the Pru and Hancock in the middle of downtown Orlando and it'll look like shit. Carrying that over to our skyline, if you look at each individual building yes we are kind of stunted. The sum of the parts though it what makes up for it. A strong foundation makes for a stable house. The Longfellow bridge, the little church steeples poking through, the sail boats, the esplanade, all work together. Anybody can build a 1 Bromfield, you could literally just give it to another city and let them build it. Its the same with all these supertalls going up. Anybody can build one it doesn't make them special. Its the things that are already cemented in place and would not be possible today due to obsolete construction methods or high materials costs that make certain cities have "it". Dubai has the most supertalls in the world and as a sum of its parts IMO it is the worst "major city" skyline in the history of man kind. Once you have that base you have a much stronger future, and we have plenty of proposals.

In my opinion we have one of the greatest ground levels on earth. That is the starting point. We have some great towers but not a lot, but they play well with the old city. Millennium tower was a great addition and the Hancock is an icon, so is the Pru due to the high spine. What we have in the pipeline...SST, 111 Fed, 1 Brom, Govt Ctr...etc. is going to be incredible. We are going to have a few very nice towers for the skyscraper fans out there in the near future. The human scale of the city I think should be embraced because we are lucky we have it. It gives Boston a cozy feeling that not many American cities have. When I first started coming to this site there would be like one 300 ft tower a year built and it was awesome. No way am I ever going to take this boom we have now for granted.

I don't have a recent picture to show this but this view is even better today. Look at this picture but start from the bottom of the picture and move up. It starts with the water, moving through the sail boats, to the tree line, to the red brick, the church steeples, to the dome, the art deco, to the time capsule into the 70's, and if this was a recent picture to the present with Millennium. I wouldn't trade it for any other city.

 

[chrisbrat]

If you really feel that way its not big deal no need to apologize stick to your guns. I completely disagree with your opinion but you are entitled to it. Im just gonna add one last part and then Ill step back.

To me, personally, context is everything. Build the Pru and Hancock in the middle of downtown Orlando and it'll look like shit. Carrying that over to our skyline, if you look at each individual building yes we are kind of stunted. The sum of the parts though it what makes up for it. A strong foundation makes for a stable house. The Longfellow bridge, the little church steeples poking through, the sail boats, the esplanade, all work together. Anybody can build a 1 Bromfield, you could literally just give it to another city and let them build it. Its the same with all these supertalls going up. Anybody can build one it doesn't make them special. Its the things that are already cemented in place and would not be possible today due to obsolete construction methods or high materials costs that make certain cities have "it". Dubai has the most supertalls in the world and as a sum of its parts IMO it is the worst "major city" skyline in the history of man kind. Once you have that base you have a much stronger future, and we have plenty of proposals.

In my opinion we have one of the greatest ground levels on earth. That is the starting point. We have some great towers but not a lot, but they play well with the old city. Millennium tower was a great addition and the Hancock is an icon, so is the Pru due to the high spine. What we have in the pipeline...SST, 111 Fed, 1 Brom, Govt Ctr...etc. is going to be incredible. We are going to have a few very nice towers for the skyscraper fans out there in the near future. The human scale of the city I think should be embraced because we are lucky we have it. It gives Boston a cozy feeling that not many American cities have. When I first started coming to this site there would be like one 300 ft tower a year built and it was awesome. No way am I ever going to take this boom we have now for granted.

I don't have a recent picture to show this but this view is even better today. Look at this picture but start from the bottom of the picture and move up. It starts with the water, moving through the sail boats, to the tree line, to the red brick, the church steeples, to the dome, the art deco, to the time capsule into the 70's, and if this was a recent picture to the present with Millennium. I wouldn't trade it for any other city.

very well-worded, compelling post. i've been getting a little excited (maybe overexcited) about the prospect of "tall! Tall! TALL!!!" mostly b/c i've been in boston nearly all my life and i haven't really experienced a time with this much vertical growth and potential for vertical growth. but you're absolutely right -- what makes boston great are the combination of factors and to get over-the-top stoked for height just for height's sake, w/o pausing to consider "the whole" is the same narrowly-focused type of thinking that lost us the west end. i'd be happy with one, nicely designed, perfectly placed new tallest (or even an actual supertall), but that said -- i love this place and am not chomping at the bit for it to change drastically or recklessly.

 

[KentXie]

Ouch. Obviously, it's gonna be tough to walk that back (my post)... but, i'll take your advice.

Like Bill Hurt said in his terribly unfortunate remarks in the Big Chill, 'Sorry guys. i was just tryin' to keep the conversation lively.'

Thank you. I don't think it's a problem as long as you keep it in a single thread and not across multiple unrelated ones.

 

[stick n move]

I dont remember which poster it was but someone said that the BRA is a blessing and a curse. We all know of the problems, they're well documented, but the good that comes from review processes, community input, time... is that in the long run it allows us to grow organically.

The SST was planned like 15 years ago or something and it still looks great, transit oriented development is even more important today than it was at the time. Build it. I'm not saying wait 15 years, thats just an example. Sometimes designs that look good at the moment don't age well (a lot of brutalist) and if you build too fast you may be stuck cleaning up the pieces 60 years later. Is it worth rushing something just to have to fix the mistakes for the next half century? No. Is it worth throwing up a rushed new tallest in Boston just to realize it was a mistake and now your stuck with an eye sore towering over the entire downtown for the rest of your life. It feels great at the time... west end- hey were building dozens of modern high rises all at once! but if they had just slowed down, realized they had a blank canvas, and let it grow slow and organically over time through different architectural periods and ideas it would have turned out much better. Im no expert but I believe that if they had paved a new street grid and instead of doing a masterplan they broke it up individually and let it grow over decades, it would have been fine. We are still cleaning up the pieces to this day.

Time reveals all. You may want to hurry up and propose, approve, and start building that new tallest all within 6 months, but 10 years from now is it still going to look good. Boston is an old city, older than all of us, and she'll be around much longer than all of us. Boston has plenty of time we are the ones who do not.

Thats not to say every tower needs to wait decades like SST. Im just saying slowing down and doing it right will save you the trouble of fixing your mistakes later. Yes we need housing, and we need it fast, but that doesn't mean bulldoze dorchester and throw up 267 mid rise condos. This is where smart growth, planning, vision, respect to history, organic growth, community input, meetings, people bitching, NIMBYS all come to the table and work out their differences. Realize a NIMBY is just the opposite of you and if you were in their shoes you would be just as passionate. This forum is testament to that fact. We need to balance growing fast with growing smart. In my opinion we are doing both fairly well and I don't see any need for panic in the immediate future. Just take a breath and enjoy it, take in the views. They are changing all the time and you will be able to tell your grandkids one day what the "old Boston" of 2016 looked like, just like my grandparents can tell me what Boston looked like back in their day.

 

[Bos77]

Obviously, it's gonna be tough to walk that back (my post)... but, i'll take your advice.

I fired the first shot over the bow, so I'll just say this: everyone here shares an enthusiasm for the history of this city and the potential of the future through the built environment. Duh. We will never be NYC, Chicago, or Hong Kong, but we will never be Des Moines either. There is no shame in anyone wanting Boston to dream bigger and challenge the status quo. Everything in this city can't be summarized in one line as an embarrassment, a turd, worthy of hate, or expected to be 110% perfect from the outset either. Fixating on a building in Boston being 20 or 200 feet shorter than a building in Philadelphia is pointless. The fact that people take the time to make homemade renders or catalog every inch of construction with photos, and can have a constructive discussion being equal parts hopeful and cynical, is certainly the point of being on here.

 

[stick n move]

Well that was an interesting day...heres some renders.

1 Brom and 111 fed


Copley, 40 Trinity, 1 Dalton, Air rights parcels


Copley + 1 Dalton


Copley + 1 Dalton


Copley + 1 Dalton


Some other interesting shit I came across on my photobucket:

Allston Yards





Bonus:

Back when I was still in the Marines I was talking shit about the new Hancock towers ground floor and said I could draw a better ground floor in 10 mins on a napkin. Well someone said Id like to see that so I found a napkin and drew this shit right before a formation and quickly uploaded it to the forum. It may be better it may not, in my opinion it is lol. I don't draw so I cant really do 3d but the right side corner flattens out as it goes up like the proposal does...I just made the glass change to sort of show it. The thick penned in part around the entrance would stick out from the building in 3d.



vs.

Remember I drew this in 10 mins on a napkin in a Marine barracks so you gotta work with me on this one haha.

 

[stick n move]

Part 2: The first 3 are not going to happen, the rest are outdated, still interesting.

I have no idea who made this it was deep in my photobucket.



Original Back Bay massing study



Via: Preserve Boston Waterfront

Via: Blog; Shift Boston

Via: Boston Globe

Via: Boston Globe

 

[odurandina]

Thanks (everyone) for taking the time with these great posts and illustrations.... and in all the threads. i save them all. No question; Boston absolutely knocks it out of the park down low. And if i'm honest, it's far from bad above 450'. Then, who knows maybe we end up seeing a few of these +190m and +200m rise... Maybe that will build momentum for a new tallest in the not too distant future.

Seems the JHT was aiming for humungous + uniformity. They nailed it in spades... but, it would render a dull ground floor. Like someone mentioned, it helped America fall in love with the glass curtain wall. So, i think it's a fair trade. Any thoughts?

 

[stick n move]

Thats essentially what I did I pulled the facade to street level, and threw a 1wtc inspired entrance with some planters on it. I have no idea though I've just come to terms with it. I trust that they are going to deliver when it comes time and overall its a quality development. I just threw that up because I came across it when I was digging.

 

[stick n move]

New one I made with a very good picture posted on this forum today.

 

[stick n move]

Downburst, you got any updated renders now that we know what 1 Bromfield will look like?

 

[Downburst]

I have a cantilever-less One Bromfield and 2 Charlesgate complete with a bit of effort- curves aren't the most fun in SketchUp!