General Boston Discussion.

[stick n move]

Found the other thread.
http://www.archboston.org/community/showthread.php?t=4277

 

[George_Apley]

Found the other thread.
http://www.archboston.org/community/showthread.php?t=4277

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.

 

[stick n move]

This one?

http://www.archboston.org/community/showthread.php?t=4630&page=2

 

[FitchburgLine]

This one?

http://www.archboston.org/community/showthread.php?t=4630&page=2

Thanks for linking that, very interesting thread

 

[Java King]

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.

https://files.constantcontact.com/c56c44eb501/65950099-182e-4ef5-b47d-742c17bfa0bc.pdf

 

[kmp1284]

Maybe there should be a measure for drive time from tallest building to nearest international airport. Pretty sure Boston would win that one hands down.

 

[bigpicture7]

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.

https://files.constantcontact.com/c56c44eb501/65950099-182e-4ef5-b47d-742c17bfa0bc.pdf

View attachment 196

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:
There are numerous other cities in the same boat as Boston (no new tallest in 3+ decades).
This suggests, unlike a lot of the rhetoric on aB, that "everyone is building tall faster than us" is hyperbole.

 

[chrisbrat]

not only is it hyperbole it's also a whole big sack of "who gives a shit?" you can build tall anywhere -- you can't have the street-level activation, walkability, cultural/historical significance, economic vitality, architecture/urban design, or character of boston just b/c you put up a 1,000-foot spire.

depending on the design and location, i'll absolutely be a little excited if/when something tops the JHT in my lifetime. but if it doesn't happen then i'll somehow manage to struggle through and enjoy everything else about my city and area.

nonstop, one-topic-only height fetishists really ought to do themselves a favor and head to nyc or shanghai or dubai. it'd be less annoying on this forum and they'd probably be a lot less frustrated in their lives.

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.

 

[George_Apley]

I still feel like I've never gotten an answer from @odurandina or others about just why height is important to the vitality of Boston's future, nor why the alleged failure to build high is what will cripple our metro. I absolutely agree that Boston's metro is going to be crippled in the near future, but I don't think height of towers has anything to do with it.

 

[guitarguynboston]

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.

 

[Poolio]

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.

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.

 

[odurandina]

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....

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.

Most of those cities with a long-standing, "no new tallest," are either not credible peers of Boston, or they are already insanely, tall iconic structures in larger cities. What few peer cities, or slightly inferior cites Boston has are building many 600', 700', and taller towers. Boston has a nimby culture that prevents much of anything eclipsing 350', 450' or 500'. Worse still, we have this "Peak Highrise" thing taking place.

I wasn't sure where to place this information, but I get emailed this report.

This PDF has some interesting, enlightening stuff in there. Certainly well worth the look. Thanks.

 

[stefal]

This image came from MIT recently. No link to a research journal/article explaining it any further, but some interesting data nonetheless.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

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.

 

[stefal]

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.

Yeah, the less dense triangle for NYC in comparison to Boston had me wondering what they calculated/how they produced this...

 

[odurandina]

Yup, reasonable comparisons between the Big Apple and Boston's Metro sprawl can be made
thanks to Baseball's luxury tax. Don't know where else you make much comparisons, other than possibly thinking of Boston like a 6th borough or such thing.

 

[DZH22]

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.

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)

 

[odurandina]

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):

Michelle Wu wants to ‘abolish’ Boston Planning & Development Agency - The Boston Globe

The city councilor says her goal is to “empower people to be part of shaping our city’s growth.”

www.bostonglobe.com

 

[Coyote137]

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):

Michelle Wu wants to ‘abolish’ Boston Planning & Development Agency - The Boston Globe

The city councilor says her goal is to “empower people to be part of shaping our city’s growth.”

www.bostonglobe.com

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.

 

[George_Apley]

FYI - Please continue Wu's proposal talk here. And please keep in mind that evidence-based comments are infinitely better than vitriol in meaningful political debate.