Future Skylines/Developments of the US

San Fran

920x920.jpg
 
bdurden said:
What a clusterf**k.
Click to expand...
My untrained eye is saying, individually, these buildings are architecturally interesting and definitely not boxes (for the most part), but together, they look horrible. It's like they're all competing to be the next iconic building of London but they all end up making each other look worse, because they lack context and cohesiveness.

I'm sure the sight lines that are reserved for St. Paul's Cathedral don't help in all of this, either.

EDIT: More info on London skyline: http://www.dailymail.co.uk. I'm not sure how I feel about this. Some angles in the video look great/bring the skyline together; others look strange/the scale of the buildings is off. I'm also surprised at the number of YIMBYs in the comments... completely opposite of what we see in the globe.
 
Last edited:
That elegant tower in my first picture I know was replaced. It hurts too much to post it but it went from this.

2839TheBishopsgateTower_pic7.jpg


to this


Screen-Shot-2015-06-15-at-10.50.12-600x414.png
 
^an investor who buys low and sells high

I know the boston climate is painful, but if it makes you feel any better, SF is building urban housing units at a slower rate than boston over the past 3 years despite their extreme demand. Boston, SF, are cities that are extremely difficult to build in. We're like the mutual fund with good performance, but with excessive fees and expense ratios - we're still tempting to investors, but we are not a climate that screams: "hell yes, dive in and buy a million shares!"

I am at peace with the challenge that some of our parcels pose (e.g., we don't want it to be too easy to build a tall pile of crap on a sacred parcel), but I would REALLY like to see boston carve out and re-zone a few parcels that make sense for tall development.
 
bigpicture7 said:
I know the boston climate is painful, but if it makes you feel any better, SF is building urban housing units at a slower rate than boston over the past 3 years despite their extreme demand.
Click to expand...

SF has a 1070' almost topped out, an 801' essentially topped out, and a 605' that's out of the ground. There's also a 900'+ that's imminent. So, slower or not overall, they are getting their biggest (most visible/impactful) projects done.
 
DZH22 said:
SF has a 1070' almost topped out, an 801' essentially topped out, and a 605' that's out of the ground. There's also a 900'+ that's imminent. So, slower or not overall, they are getting their biggest (most visible/impactful) projects done.
Click to expand...

For their skyline maybe. If I a hand full of 800'+ towers vs all of the actually housing we have built, I think I would go with the housing overall.
 
bakgwailo said:
For their skyline maybe. If I a hand full of 800'+ towers vs all of the actually housing we have built, I think I would go with the housing overall.
Click to expand...

Their major investments are in the heart of downtown, and include a bunch of new peaks and a rejuvenation of city pride. Even Odurandina would be satisfied for the next decade if Boston got those results.

We build a bunch of stumpy boxes with giant floorplates in the Seaport, without improving infrastructure, all the while ignoring a downtown that could actually handle some new developments. This is basically a microcosm of the majority of construction here lately.

Where is the vision? Where is the guts? Even Detroit, floundering shithole Detroit, is aiming to build a new tallest building. In today's climate the Hancock itself would have been knocked down to 500'.

I think a lot of my frustration (besides looking at other inferior cities and wondering why the hell they keep getting nicer shit than us) is that I expected some of our major projects to be further along by now. I honestly thought the CSC would be up to 40+ floors, and instead we are at TWO. I mean, who would think that such a small plot of land, without an existing structure to demolish, would still take 2 whole years to get out of the ground? I also thought North Station would be climbing, Congress Street would be climbing, that condo tower in Kendall would be climbing... Maybe my time estimates just suck, but it honestly seems like our rival/inferior cities just build things so much faster.

This leads to my dire prediction that history repeats itself. We had a small boom going up to 2009 when it all came to a screeching halt. Well, there have been a solid 5-6 years of recovery, and shit is still just inching along, waiting for that next bust. The term "strike while the iron is hot" doesn't seem to apply in Boston. You'd think that the "biggest boom in Boston history" would include more than just 3 buildings over 300' in the last 3 years, but that isn't the case at all.

It's pretty sad to think that, besides the Pierce, the iconic city view by the Charles River really hasn't changed at all in the last year. Why is everything so goddamn slow? There's this "amazing pipeline" and yet, most of it hasn't started, and those that have take 2 years just to get out of the ground. A bird in the hand is better than 2 in the bush, and in our case, a skyscraper built is better than 10 in the pipeline that are all going to fail for one reason or another. I'm going to be well-past dead from old age or killer robots before we get the Harbor Garage, SST, 1 Bromfield, and so many others. (and I'm only 35!)
 
A rejuvenation of city pride? San Francisco has been kicking Boston's ass since 1849 and they know it.
 
The seaport is actually more of whats in line with modern office construction. Companies are looking for short buildings with large floor plates and the seaport is delivering that in droves. Unless you get a bank of America move you don't necessarily need a huge tower downtown. Thats why all of of new tallest are residential or the two office towers I can think of off the top of my head that have no secured tenant. Even SST had to go back and change the plans to add housing. I still think the Boston WTC should move into the government center office tower, I cant think of a better place and it would actually have decent transit for once.
 
kmp1284 said:
A rejuvenation of city pride? San Francisco has been kicking Boston's ass since 1849 and they know it.
Click to expand...

More like Union/Political corruption---That is what Mass is known for.
Big Dig original Quote 3 Billion---
Final price tag 30+Billion taxpayer bill, a couple deaths, Aggregate Cemet company using tainted materials on project.
FEDS had to jump and see what the hell was going on.

Just look at the Boston Globe front page today.
MBTA Critics say T-Budget overstated in today's metro page--

One place I would not invest today is Chicago that city is slowly on a downward Spiral.
 
TheRifleman said:
More like Union/Political corruption---That is what Mass is known for.
Big Dig original Quote 3 Billion---
Final price tag 30+Billion taxpayer bill, a couple deaths, Aggregate Cemet company using tainted materials on project.
FEDS had to jump and see what the hell was going on.

Just look at the Boston Globe front page today.
MBTA Critics say T-Budget overstated in today's metro page--

One place I would not invest today is Chicago that city is slowly on a downward Spiral.
Click to expand...

Still bitter that you never got that plum MDC trash picker job?
 
kmp1284 said:
Still bitter that you never got that plum MDC trash picker job?
Click to expand...

Just stating the facts of the situation.
Actually looking for investing ideas.
Chicago Real Estate is like giving away you're money to a loser city.

Boston will continue to price out any working stiff to Springfield area.

Boston needs to build higher to bring down Real Estate costs. The average working class family cannot afford to live in this area anymore.

Great Democratic Community. HAHAHA Liberal Millionaires.
 
kmp1284 said:
Investing in an education would be a great start. Otherwise, try a financial advisor.
Click to expand...

Yeah.....who should I start with---- I'm sure the poor bastards who went with these financial advisors did well...
Lehman? Bearn Sterns? MF Global?
 
I don't know. Just go on Google and do a search for financial advisor for new investor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top