Height Limits

[Dan]

The simplest solution of all is overlooked: Increase the frequency of the trains!

What do you think I was talking about when I referred to headways if not running trains more frequently ?

As AdamBC pointed out, the Green Line is clogged as is.

And as I pointed out, increasing the frequency on the Red and Blue lines requires tighter schedule control.

 

[jass]

There is no capacity problem in the MBTA. Yes, the green line runs at capacity in the tunnel, but the cars are far from being full. Turn the Ds at kenmore, and your central capacity problem is solved

The only time Ive ever had a problem getting on a train was friday night, off peak, when theres clearly room for more trains.

 

[cden4]

When there is a Sox game, the Green line is a mess. Every car is packed, and it gets far too congested in the tunnels.

I liked when they ran 3 car trains a few summers ago. Hopefully when(/if) they finish Copley and Arlington they can start running them again.

 

[statler]

What's with the sudden influx of skyline devotees?

To be fair, they have always been here. This site traces its roots back to a site called Skyscraperguy.com. It was only after we moved here did it really start focusing on general urban design and architecture.

 

[JimboJones]

Don't get me started on the triple-length cars.

 

[bostonnative]

It is my suspicion that people don't like towers not because of their height but because we all secretly know that they will be ugly. Look at NYC, there are hundreds of towers and skyscrapers but if you take the time to look at each one you will find that most are ugly boring glass boxes. There are only a handful that stand out and are attractive. I'd even go so far to say that Boston is lucky that most of its skyscrapers are attractive as they are. Anti-skyscraper sentiment probably has more to do with the failure of modernism than it does with "shadows".

interesting point

 

[Tension Member]

It's always so nice to read nonsense first thing in the morning.

The Columbus Center wouldn't be affected, because it's already been permitted. But, if you try to build directly next to it, you will have to be shorter to protect our planes. Oh not to mention, right next door is an 800 foot tower, but we can dodge that. You may only be 400'.

Since when is the South Station tower 400'? Last time I checked this fella was well over 600' to take over as number 3 in the city.

Did I fall asleep for a lot longer than one night last night?

I'm no flight path engineer, or whatever these feebs claim to be. But, limiting the height of a new development to be significantly lower than the existing structure adjacent to it, will do nothing to protect flight paths, or planes, or whatever. This will only deter future growth, and therefore our local economy is further stifled.

This is an old blog, but yes, the South Station Tower currently under construction as I write this reply on August 27, 2021, is going to be 677 Ft in height once completed (400 FT?), whereas for the second and third phases of the South Station Project, the future hotel will be set at 349 FT in height, and the future office building will be 279 FT. FACT CHECK TIME is way overdue! Here is the most current pecking order update for the tallest buildings in the City of Boston: 1 - 200 Clarendon at 790', 2 - Prudential Tower at 749', 3 - One Dalton Street at 740', 4 - Winthrop Square Tower at 691' (under construction), 5- Millennium Tower (Downtown Crossing) at 685', 6 - South Station Tower (also under construction) at 677' in height. I agree that limiting ALL future development to the archaic Zoning Height Limit of 155' is completely unworkable and unstainable with regards to economics per ROI for developers, unsustainable from my viewpoint that in order to INCREASE open space and REDUCE the footprints of future buildings, the only way to achieve this is by building up. Yet, I am not advocating extreme heights (for Boston, it seems that 500' or greater in height causes conniption fits in this "staid old backwater" - please, let Boston LIVEN UP!!!), yet the STAID OLD BOSTONIANS who revile anything taller than a triple-decker will have to accept a future of more high rises in the 200' to 500' foot range. Anyway, as the years go by, the sands of time will bury a lot of the old guard anti-high rise mentality. Still, because of our ancient infrastructure, namely our rather twisty, narrow urban vias, don't EVER expect to have a bevy of NYC or Chicago style super high rise structures in Boston. Again, going forward, 200 to 500 feet in height will be the norm, with most new high-rise structures probably being constructed in the plus-minus 300 FT height range! FTR, and FYI, I have a background in architectural engineering, urban planning, and civil engineering. And finally, I for one severely doubt that at the age of 65, I will ever see a building taller than 200 Clarendon Street built here in our City. Maybe in 2055 or beyond, but more than likely 790' will be the building height limit for at least the next 30 years, and I will be shocked if I am ever proven wrong.

 

[chrisbrat]

I think the greatest likely catalyst for a new tallest in Boston is for a neighboring city -- most likely Cambridge, but this could happen in Somerville, Everett, etc. -- to put up something taller than the JHT. Then a sense of wounded pride would motivate for city/developer collaboration to top THAT taller building.

 

[Gunner02]

This is an old blog, but yes, the South Station Tower currently under construction as I write this reply on August 27, 2021, is going to be 677 Ft in height once completed (400 FT?), whereas for the second and third phases of the South Station Project, the future hotel will be set at 349 FT in height, and the future office building will be 279 FT. FACT CHECK TIME is way overdue! Here is the most current pecking order update for the tallest buildings in the City of Boston: 1 - 200 Clarendon at 790', 2 - Prudential Tower at 749', 3 - One Dalton Street at 740', 4 - Winthrop Square Tower at 691' (under construction), 5- Millennium Tower (Downtown Crossing) at 685', 6 - South Station Tower (also under construction) at 677' in height. I agree that limiting ALL future development to the archaic Zoning Height Limit of 155' is completely unworkable and unstainable with regards to economics per ROI for developers, unsustainable from my viewpoint that in order to INCREASE open space and REDUCE the footprints of future buildings, the only way to achieve this is by building up. Yet, I am not advocating extreme heights (for Boston, it seems that 500' or greater in height causes conniption fits in this "staid old backwater" - please, let Boston LIVEN UP!!!), yet the STAID OLD BOSTONIANS who revile anything taller than a triple-decker will have to accept a future of more high rises in the 200' to 500' foot range. Anyway, as the years go by, the sands of time will bury a lot of the old guard anti-high rise mentality. Still, because of our ancient infrastructure, namely our rather twisty, narrow urban vias, don't EVER expect to have a bevy of NYC or Chicago style super high rise structures in Boston. Again, going forward, 200 to 500 feet in height will be the norm, with most new high-rise structures probably being constructed in the plus-minus 300 FT height range! FTR, and FYI, I have a background in architectural engineering, urban planning, and civil engineering. And finally, I for one severely doubt that at the age of 65, I will ever see a building taller than 200 Clarendon Street built here in our City. Maybe in 2055 or beyond, but more than likely 790' will be the building height limit for at least the next 30 years, and I will be shocked if I am ever proven wrong.

there is something strangely familiar about the cadence of this rant... odurand....ina, is it you?

 

[stick n move]

It is him. Tension Member posted some long winded stuff on here before and when I went on skyscrapercity that day the Boston thread was bumped and the exact same post was made by Odurandia on there.

 

[jdrinboston]

there is something strangely familiar about the cadence of this rant... odurand....ina, is it you?

Use of the word “blog,” to describe a “post” would also suggest another banned member whose name I dare not speak.

 

[Boston02124]

Forgot one!

Wow posted these 13 years ago, I don’t remember how I made them

 

[Rover]

First of all I'll point out that Boston has had a remarkable run of development since the great recession. It might take a little while to absorb all the space which isn't necessary a bad thing. Second, the city isn't nearly as built out as people think sometimes. There's still a lot of the Seaport being developed and Suffolk Downs will also complete for lab space. Even a couple of parcels over the Pike are under construction. Once that's done over the next couple of years, the need for tall building will resurface. I'm guessing more towards the West End.

 

[Charlie_mta]

Once that's done over the next couple of years, the need for tall building will resurface. I'm guessing more towards the West End.

Towards the West End is what I see as well for tall buildings in the next building cycle(s). Also some of Government Center, such as 1-2-3 Center Plaza and the low portion of the Federal Building being replaced by towers. Also further west the low portion of the O'Neill and the parking lot and Spaulding Building on Nashua Street, Also Cambridge around Kendall Sq and First Street, if it can overcome its provincial phobia about tall buildings.

 

[SeamusMcFly]

Funny to have my rant from 13 years ago 'fact checked'.
I mean, it would have been third tallest for a minute had they built it back then.