Yeah good find. Some of it is there. I definitely remember Dave going very in-depth with different iterations in other places too. It's a shame those images are no longer fully viewable anymore.
Funny how different people can look at the same data and draw different conclusions. When I look at the graphic you posted what I see is:I wasn't sure where to place this information, but I get emailed this report. (I don't remember how I got on this list) Anyway, all you height fanatics are going to LOVE the city comparisons in this document.
View attachment 196
I was wondering the same thing. I guess because "...the 10th longest such run in any of the country's largest 40 cities" kind of undermined their point. It's terribly inconvenient when the facts don't support your argument.also -- not for nuthin, but where does 1971 come from? that's not the year it topped off or when it was completed. JHT was completed in 1976. US Steel was actually completed in 1971, so this chart is mixing falsehoods with facts. going by the ACTUAL year of completion, boston's tallest is younger than chicago's, washington's, pittsburgh's, and a bunch of others.
The JHT topped in 1971, and although the cladding was under-engineered, and had to be replaced, it was going up, the floors were poured, and there were humans walking around the high floors all the way to the roof, by that time. The JHT was declared completed much later, after the years long debacle of the glass panels falling from the sky, something like 10,000 windows replaced, and issues with the resins that secured them to the structure were resolved.also -- not for nuthin, but where does 1971 come from? that's not the year it topped off or when it was completed. JHT was completed in 1976....
This PDF has some interesting, enlightening stuff in there. Certainly well worth the look. Thanks.I wasn't sure where to place this information, but I get emailed this report.
Yeah, the less dense triangle for NYC in comparison to Boston had me wondering what they calculated/how they produced this...Boston and NYC are vastly different in size and scope. While I get what they are going for, without actual numbers this isn't data, it's an art project.
It's still an international supertall, as 300m equates to ~984'. With that said, you could build something 983' in Boston, or you could build something 999' in Boston, and I would be ecstatic either way. (assuming the design is GOOD)If we built one at 1,000ft people would probably stop bitching about height. But if it was up to me I'd build one to 999ft just to annoy the height fetish people.
Rather than immediately replying with your predictable, knee-jerk bombast, you should take a look at the actual report. There's a lot in the Boston development process that needs improvement, even if you think we've got a supply shortage.There are good reasons why Wu is a marxist, and a grandstanding, neatly packaged horses ass....
but none better than this (the grandstanding, neatly packaged horses ass part):
The city councilor says her goal is to “empower people to be part of shaping our city’s growth.”www.bostonglobe.com