How Tall Are Boston's Buildings and Should They Be Taller?

The overall objective would be to centralize the population into Boston.
Larger residential skyscrapers would help keep less groups of people traveling outside of Boston. Everything becomes centralized for those residents that live in Boston.
I
f we get an expansion and a more reliable service from the MBTA then the groups that service Boston can commute into the city with a up-gradable service.

Surrounding towns do not have the infrastructure to handle the future growth of the city.

Our leaders need to start thinking of building much higher in the city along with new innovative ideas for Transporation along with a up-gradable solution for the MBTA.
 
I'm going to go with bakgwailo on this. This fantasy of building large residential skyscrapers only hurts Boston, not help. NONE of those large residential skyscrapers will be affordable to the large majority of people who live in Boston or in the surrounding towns or suburbs. In order to build large residential skyscrapers, you will have to justify the cost, i.e. charge each unit well above what most people can afford. Charging any less and the skyscraper becomes unfeasible to build.
 
Eh depends, some more of these in jp wouldnt change that much.
s0tHbcla0UBYJJVzmo-VpiGqaQIiqdeYjOUsdZgTKVJ_AQfQUOuUE1fiDqw0N7GpoYjsEzujJcAqoNFmwlCr3kzzoO7CC4z3LXATyxHD-k-rSsZ0XgXrqWUTaB5tNEOzaXTdaxpe2wIfkOC-caLZJWuEYFk2Lw4
 
Last edited:
Now that Kenmore is building up a nice cluster, along with Fenway Boylston, BU has a cluster just past here, and Beacon yards is coming as well, and seeing that air rights parcels need to go high to turn a profit, how about Boston goes 650-675 here on the sides on Commonwealth ave?



Weirdly at parcel 15 you can go 1000’ but here only about 650 according to the FAA height map. Anyways I think it actually makes a lot more sense now with Beacon yards, Allston yards, Fenway ctr, Kenmore going taller...etc. to go tall here.
 
Last edited:
If air rights projects start to pan out and become more 'normal' going forward, maybe. That said, the whole intersection there needs a lot of redesign before anything is built bracketing the bridge.
 
George_Apley said:
If air rights projects start to pan out and become more 'normal' going forward, maybe. That said, the whole intersection there needs a lot of redesign before anything is built bracketing the bridge.
Click to expand...

Well the intersection was just rebuilt with the MassDOT replacement of that bridge, and BU just finished renovations of the Howard Thurman Center on the corner. Unfortunately it still mostly acts as a traffic sewer, and isn't great for people walking or cycling.
 
DZH22 said:
677' is the max FAA height. Can't have a spire without lowering the height of the rest of the building. Then we'd have another 1 Financial, except the non-counting antenna would instead be a spire that does count in the official height. I'd rather get what we're getting than shrink the building portion even a single foot. After South Station Tower, we may never live to see another 500' building built in Boston, let alone a new tallest. So we'd better just take what we can get at this point. It's all going to be an underbuilt, utilitarian plateau of buildings wider than they are tall from here on out. I hate to say all hope is lost, but all hope is lost.
Click to expand...

For a site like ours, the last 5-10 years whether you're contributing or reading along, has been incredibly special. Developments none of us EVER thought we would see in Boston, have not only been planned but have been and are being built. You're right DZH, we more than likely won't see many more, if any, 500+ foot buildings and certainly won't see a boom like the decade we just had. We aren't NYC, we don't want to be NYC. Anyone that wishes for that type of development doesn't really love Boston. I live in NYC again now and I continue to know why Boston is special. I've always known. Its best quality is that it isn't NYC.

Frequently when I'm on here, I think about how grateful I am for this site, the passion of the collective and that Boston was finally able to give us all what most who love this town had be yearning for, forever. For Boston, this was as close to a perfect decade of development as you could have ever hoped for. I can only hope the future offers more of it, but much of me believes we may have seen something we might never see again.

Anyway, I'm sorry for the OP/ED.
 
stick n move said:
Are you sure youve seen them all? I feel like theres just as many if not more than many projects. This isnt even all of them.

View attachment 19861View attachment 19857
View attachment 19865
View attachment 19855
View attachment 19858
View attachment 19864View attachment 19860
View attachment 19866
View attachment 19867
Click to expand...

No you're right, there are more. Even on their sites, and in development articles, basically the same three are in circulation though. Thank you for posting though, Stick.
 
Gunner02 said:
We aren't NYC, we don't want to be NYC.
Click to expand...

It has been a great decade. On the other hand, while we are clearly not NYC, neither are the following other cities that already have a building or more taller than the Hancock (approximately from East to West):
Philadelphia
Jersey City
Charlotte
Miami
Pittsburgh
Cleveland
Atlanta
Indianapolis (cheater!!!)
Chicago
Minneapolis (technicality!!!)
Oklahoma City
Dallas
Houston
Los Angeles
San Francisco
Seattle

That's 16 US cities outside of NYC, with Austin building an 800'+ (with a 1000'+ on the way) to make 17, and Las Vegas having the taller Stratosphere Tower as well.

Then you have Toronto, Calgary, and Edmonton over 800'+, with Mississauga (Toronto suburb) building another. Mexico City and Monterrey have passed us in Mexico. So if we leave out Central America (Panama City has extreme height) we have at least 21 non-NYC North American cities with a building taller than the Hancock, with 2 more cities soon to be added to that list. For reference, when the Hancock was built, even after the multi-year delay with the cladding issues, it still slotted just within the Top 20 in the WORLD! So we went from having a Top 20 building IN THE WORLD to having over 20 cities in North America alone with 1 or more taller buildings!

That's why, as well as we're doing, it still doesn't *appear* all that impressive compared to all these smaller/larger/rival cities that have already surpassed us in height. No we're not NYC, but we sure as heck are competitive with, or better than, the majority of cities on the lists above! By most measurements we are a Top 25+ Global City!!! It's just so disappointing that we can't gain traction to just get a taller building or 2 after 50 years already. When you consider how well cities are faring globally, what their current tallest building is, and when it was built, there is likely no single city on the planet more deserving of a new tallest than Boston. Some of us (me, but not just me) are literally starving for it. Yet the small minded, NIMBY appeasing attitudes have returned, and there is no light at the end of the tunnel! I can still be excited for the next few years, but how will the latter half of the decade feel when there is literally no light!!!
 
DZH22 said:
It has been a great decade. On the other hand, while we are clearly not NYC, neither are the following other cities that already have a building or more taller than the Hancock (approximately from East to West):
Philadelphia
Jersey City
Charlotte
Miami
Pittsburgh
Cleveland
Atlanta
Indianapolis (cheater!!!)
Chicago
Minneapolis (technicality!!!)
Oklahoma City
Dallas
Houston
Los Angeles
San Francisco
Seattle

That's 16 US cities outside of NYC, with Austin building an 800'+ (with a 1000'+ on the way) to make 17, and Las Vegas having the taller Stratosphere Tower as well.

Then you have Toronto, Calgary, and Edmonton over 800'+, with Mississauga (Toronto suburb) building another. Mexico City and Monterrey have passed us in Mexico. So if we leave out Central America (Panama City has extreme height) we have at least 21 non-NYC North American cities with a building taller than the Hancock, with 2 more cities soon to be added to that list. For reference, when the Hancock was built, even after the multi-year delay with the cladding issues, it still slotted just within the Top 20 in the WORLD! So we went from having a Top 20 building IN THE WORLD to having over 20 cities in North America alone with 1 or more taller buildings!

That's why, as well as we're doing, it still doesn't *appear* all that impressive compared to all these smaller/larger/rival cities that have already surpassed us in height. No we're not NYC, but we sure as heck are competitive with, or better than, the majority of cities on the lists above! By most measurements we are a Top 25+ Global City!!! It's just so disappointing that we can't gain traction to just get a taller building or 2 after 50 years already. When you consider how well cities are faring globally, what their current tallest building is, and when it was built, there is likely no single city on the planet more deserving of a new tallest than Boston. Some of us (me, but not just me) are literally starving for it. Yet the small minded, NIMBY appeasing attitudes have returned, and there is no light at the end of the tunnel! I can still be excited for the next few years, but how will the latter half of the decade feel when there is literally no light!!!
Click to expand...

Height is great but as we know, not what we are or should be in competition with anyone. Our restrictions to build tall outweigh most cities and we still have done it comparatively. I was speaking to transformational projects. The Seaport, North Station, South Station, areas that were nothing or just depleted, and now they are what they are. We have taken our weakest areas and made them substantially better.

If the conversation and comparisons are always going to be predicated on height, then it's probably not worth having because you're right those cities are doing that too.
 
Gunner02 said:
Height is great but as we know, not what we are or should be in competition with anyone. Our restrictions to build tall outweigh most cities and we still have done it comparatively. I was speaking to transformational projects. The Seaport, North Station, South Station, areas that were nothing or just depleted, and now they are what they are. We have taken our weakest areas and made them substantially better.

If the conversation and comparisons are always going to be predicated on height, then it's probably not worth having because you're right those cities are doing that too.
Click to expand...

Back Bay and Kendall could support over 900' and North Station area could support over 800'. Hurley redevelopment should be asking for a Pru-sized building as it's basically a harder version of the Winthrop Square site but with less encumbrances including higher FAA limits. Yet they are settling for 400', and the cycle of mediocrity begins. There are areas that could support higher buildings and if government entities weren't standing in the way, we'd get those towers. It has nothing to do with the economics or the demand or even the airport. We could get those towers but instead crater to the NIMBY crowd and get less than we should, all over the city really. The only things standing in the way are the politicians that cater to the NIMBY crowd and act like our city is a small town and not the absolute powerhouse that it actually is.
 
If nothing over 500’ is going to be built in Boston again its not going to be because of space its going to be because of demand. Boston isnt even close to running out of space, but well have to see how the post covid work environment changes. If the demand is there though, theyll either demolish one of the dozens of crappy low rise buildings and build there, or build on one of the dozens of empty parcels still left.
 
stick n move said:
If nothing over 500’ is going to be built in Boston again its not going to be because of space its going to be because of demand. So far though demand in Boston has been high and really shows no sign of significantly slowing down. Its definitely possible, but we just dont know that today.

Once enough time passes and all these new buildings fill up theres probably going to be more demand for space again. Theres still tons of empty parcels left around the pike, north station, the jail, spaulding… then theres the dalton garage, the harbor garage is appealing, and the massive hurley site hasnt even started showing what they plan on doing there. Plus theres dozens of crappy low rises that can be demolished and replaced all over the place as well. Boston is not even close to running out of space, so it really will all come doen to what demand looks like a few years from now into the future.
Click to expand...

One thing Michelle has mentioned is changing the zoning across the city so that every other developer doesn't show up at city hall asking for a variance. However, my fear is that the zoning will max out at a number where we can't even get a Top 30 building built in the future, let alone 500'+ or a new tallest somewhere. The variances (replete with their developer extortions) are the only reason we have been able to get some taller buildings lately. However, when you see things like a perfect site for a 600' residential near South Station instead get proposed as a 190' lab, you know that we are trending in the wrong direction. There are a billion places in the city for a 190' lab, and only a very small few for a 600' residential, so it's pretty alarming that we let it get to this point.

Again, look at the Hurley site. If even that is capped at 400', don't expect to see any tall buildings built here after 2025 for a long time.

I agree with you that one day we will build tall(ish) again. However, for now it looks more like we're heading back in time to a repeat of the Flynn/Menino eras.

If anything, it's time we start pressuring MIT to team up with Harvard and develop the "University Tower of the Future" or something like that in Kendall. Maybe we can find somebody with an ego big enough to pull that off. Otherwise, are there any sites in Somerville that could support an extremely tall building?

This city is going to peak in 2025, and it's going to look GREAT! From there it's going to visually stagnate, just like it did all through the 90's, while we continue to get passed by more mediocre cities here and abroad. However, at least it will finally look like a much bigger city for a little while. I'll give it that. It's just that I have never experienced a time where there wasn't a potential 500-600'+ building looming somewhere in the future. That's going to be very hard once we get to that point.
 
Explain to me why it's good/bad/significant/other that Oklahoma City (or any of the others listed) has "an 800'" and Boston doesn't? Why and how does that matter? Does Cleveland's taller "tallest in the city" tower make it a more desirable, aesthetically pleasing, internationally significant (etc etc) metro area than Boston?

Rome is pretty great and there are no super tall buildings. Barcelona is excellent and its tallest tower is barely over 500'. I never leave after visiting either city (and plenty others) thinking, "Man, that place could be so great. Too bad they don't have a supertall!"

This is archBOSTON -- not skyscrapercity.com. The focus is on architecture and not *just* height, no?

I can see loving skyscrapers and consequently feeling disappointed in, or let down by, Boston's skyline. If the love of tall buildings is paramount, then wouldn't it make more sense to move to a city that embraces height rather than stick around in a town that's so frustrating and depressing due to the lack of such structures?
 
chrisbrat said:
Explain to me why it's good/bad/significant/other that Oklahoma City (or any of the others listed) has "an 800'" and Boston doesn't? Why and how does that matter? Does Cleveland's taller "tallest in the city" tower make it a more desirable, aesthetically pleasing, internationally significant (etc etc) metro area than Boston?

Rome is pretty great and there are no super tall buildings. Barcelona is excellent and its tallest tower is barely over 500'. I never leave after visiting either city (and plenty others) thinking, "Man, that place could be so great. Too bad they don't have a supertall!"

This is archBOSTON -- not skyscrapercity.com. The focus is on architecture and not *just* height, no?

I can see loving skyscrapers and consequently feeling disappointed in, or let down by, Boston's skyline. If the love of tall buildings is paramount, then wouldn't it make more sense to move to a city that embraces height rather than stick around in a town that's so frustrating and depressing due to the lack of such structures?
Click to expand...

The point is that we used to aim higher here. When the Custom House was built it was one of the 10 tallest buildings in the world. When the Pru was built it was the TALLEST BUILDING IN NORTH AMERICA outside of NYC. When the Hancock was built, even including years of delays, it was within the world's top 20 and only 7 cities had a taller building. Now we have over 20 cities with taller buildings in North America alone. The Hancock is great, but it's no longer the special iconic type of building that it was from say 1976-2005. On the world stage, we used to have both the awesome city AND iconic newer structures to boot. Now, even mediocre places can still throw up a taller building, while we have people screaming that "WE'RE NOT NEW YORK" while ignoring that we are still a powerhouse of a city that deserves to be thrown a bone once in a while.

Boston is awesome, but Boston could be more awesome. Start by picturing the Back Bay if the Hancock and Pru were only 400'. Would we still refer to its timeless beauty across the river, or would we just wonder why it's so stumpy when it didn't have to be? That's how I feel now about future (potential) Hancock's and Pru's, which instead keep ending up at 250' (North Point), under 500' (Kendall's upcoming cappers), 400' (Hurley), 500' (North Station towers on top of the city's 2nd busiest train station), and God knows how fat and stumpy we'll get at the crown jewel parcel at the Hynes. My problem is that the FAA map delivers one picture of what is actually possible here, while the politicians deliver something else altogether.
 
Y'all are crazy with your height fetishes and these spasms of 'every other city is better', every 2-3 months. Entirely new neighborhoods have been built, highways and trains have moved underground, tens of billions of dollars have been invested in downtown and the greater metro area. Almost every surface parking lot has been filled with new development. Streetscapes and functioning urban fabric exist. IDGAF about Cleveland, Jersey City, or Austin having one or two taller buildings as some false bellweather of greatness. Seattle's downtown has two taller buildings, but has turned into a total shithole. If you ever wondered what is like to have seen Detroit start rotting from its core, come to Seattle. This never ending Napoleon Complex for Boston is so fucking dumb and tired.
 
Bos77 said:
Almost every surface parking lot has been filled with new development.
Click to expand...

Another reason why we shouldn't be taking 600' parcels in the heart of downtown, next to the city's busiest train station, and proposing 190' labs there!
 
DZH22 said:
Another reason why we shouldn't be taking 600' parcels in the heart of downtown, next to the city's busiest train station, and proposing 190' labs there!
Click to expand...

Outside New York or Chicago, these cities with singular 800'-1000' buildings tend to be surrounded by lifeless surface parking lots, trenches for 12 lane freeways, and true blight- previously vibrant neighborhoods levelled and now derelict for love of the car. These tall buildings don't add, they take. The jobs, urban energy and investment that could (and should) go to activate surrounding streets of the city, is instead sucked into a private auto-centric superblock. No thanks. If Boston went super tall in only one or two places, perhaps (and likely) you'd never get these transformative projects being built all over the city. Everyone wants in on the action.

One of the best parts of Boston is that developers have to work harder and more creatively than almost any other city in America. Development bends to Boston, not the other way. It's not always perfect, but we should be proud of that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top