"The point at which abstract ideas are tested makes fools of us all...."
Regarding the so-called height fetishism (HF, HF'ers & their ilk): There sure is some bull being sallied about by intelligent people who appear to lose their collective minds over the topic.
Is the source the people who sporadically call for more height, 1000' towers etc, or their accusers, jacked up on coffee and hidden issues of their own "primacy," invariably leaking out?
To be honest, i haven't seen that much height fetishism on the forum--from anyone. Now, before you laugh: the true facts are often stated, then repeated--and still, people don't seem to want to accept that the end of height in any type of dramatic sense is already here.
There have been a few folks who speculate about what might get built vs their hopes and desires--including the dreaded "1000 foot tower."
Boston's practical height limit is probably more realistically in the 840~870' range. That's because first, Back Bay towers aren't going past JHT height west of Mass Ave -- and secondly, all other lots east of Mass Ave would shatter the Shadow Law once you topped about 780' ....and while it's theoretically possible something approaching JHT height could be approved in Back Bay, getting much taller than that can virtually be ruled out.
FACT: Boston's practical height limit can best be tested between the Zakim Bridge, and 65 Martha Road along a point of demarcation at the north side of Causeway St.
Boston is booming. After many years of growth, things are just now, beginning to slow. We do have the Harbor Garage advancing toward an official proposal. But the project itself is not new. Odd, there are no new proposals eclipsing 390' in the City, and there have been no proposals eclipsing even 370' since early in 2016. Some might recall, i predicted such an event (taking place in the near future), in the Globe 4 years ago.
i suspect this has been less to due to the cresting of the cycle, but the challenges involved with building tall on what remains. Writers about development have quipped regarding 1 Dalton: words such as, "possibly the last tower of this scale, that may be seen for decades...."
Before asking the obvious Q of: [why do you suppose this is],
we might first consider its source:
1. deductive reasoning?
2. City planners speaking off the record?
3. the development community pontificating?
Why would it be true?
Is Boston about to be done building >200m skyscrapers?
What about >180m? or >150m, or >120m?
Was Boston ever in danger of so-called "yimby's" getting their way? Frankly, do yimby's even exist, or do they get a bad rap for stating we should consider height where it's appropriate to do so? A few have postured (in heated discussions) as if "things" might have actually gone some crazy way.
No. After the planning of the "Flynnino" years, and early planning of the Walsh Admn where several highrises above 400' were approved, there was never going to be but handful more blocks where >150m could realistically be considered.
The majority of lands/buildings in the dense core of Boston can be ruled out.
There is no height fetishism to be done. And despite random calls for a few extremely tall towers... despite what someone might say to the contrary: Short of some political force of nature like Tom Menino appearing, it's not going to (ever) happen. The number of sites that come up for anything >200m, is at most, about 10 lots -- and they're all extreme long shots. >120m? Don't expect to see much proposed eclipsing this height, anytime soon, either.
The >110m sausage can be run through the slicer, and (maybe) a few possibilities open up. Then, consider the neighborhoods are already dead set against even that type of height. The sentiment isn't going to change. Boston isn't about to spiral out of control w/ tall development. If anything it's quite nearly the opposite. The yimby towers will be rising far from Boston.
The Downtown/West End area:
It's appropriate to look beyond "2030," at the area of the West End roughly between Charles River Park apts/Mass General, and New Chardon St.
It's likely a number of blocks will be developed in the next 20~30 years, ostensibly, with a range of medical and mixed-use residential. But planning won't be like Pemberton Sq (~400') of the 1960s/70s. Height will more reflect the closeness to Beacon Hill, and to a much lesser extent, the proximity to Downtown.
My best guess is that very little if anything will be rising much over 250', except perhaps on a few blocks over by Charles River Park, which could go a bit taller. But most of the area will be planned toward "212 Stuart St" type of scale--at most.
Most of the West End will go just about that way. The North End and Greenway are wrapping up at the Govt Ctr Garage and Dock Square leaving only about 4 lots a ways down, all the way to the opposite end. (They are listed with the other downtown sites, below).
With this in mind, it's perfectly reasonable to look out beyond 2030 and consider a theoretical upper limit for those few outliers in the West End to approach the nominal height for a 1970s era Los Angeles skyscraper.
Boston is the metro core of the 6th largest CSA in the United States. There's no reason to decry building at this scale, as there would be 1. no Shadow Laws broken, and 2. these sites will continue to be viable as plans for transit improvements eventually come to fruition.
Skyscraper sites in Downtown/West End
1. 2~3 sites near North Station, including the low-rise section of the O'Neill Fed Bldg
2. 65 Martha Rd, and the parking lot next door.
3. The State Service Ctr building (a huge land site).
4. The low-rise section of the JFK Fed Bldg (another large parcel)
5. 125 Court St (a long shot)
6. 1 Bromfield St.
7. Pi Alley Garage
8. The Harbor Garage site
of lesser height, in the 300~350' zone
1, 2, 3 Center Plaza,
Hook Lobster site
51-53 High St
125 Lincoln St
a few other sites near the Bay Village/Theater District
such as 290 Tremont St
In the Boston's compost, it would require years of recycled proposals, cooperation between multiple .gov authorities (haha), Article 80 review, ritual infighting and the force equivalent of Tom Menino before the first >200m parcels ever reached the shovels to rise as skyscrapers.
Over the coming decades, it should appropriately, happen.
i'll have "shuffled off this mortal coil" by then. But I'm already telling the young people to keep physically fit so that one glorious October morning, in the year 2078 they can bring their grand kids up to Belmont Hill on the first clear day after a front has pushed through--and take some glorious photos of the Boston Skyline. Hell, they may push it back then. It may become a generational affair. Dreams passed from father to son, mother to daughter.
Maybe Cambridge will pick up the mantle. But someday, somewhere, someone may see their dreams of a City and metro core unafraid to add a bit of height--realized.
coming soon:
Back Bay: will anything >450' ever (again) be built?
and the Fenway (future home of the 284' neighborhood megatall);
Capture
