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

I'm unlocking this thread. Let's start by not re-hashing arguments, but by posting useful links.

In the XMBLY thread, we touched on height (and probably fanned the flames), so I'm re-opening this thread, in the hopes that we can constructively engage. (If we can't, mods will lock it again).

In the XMBLY thread, I introduced, without evidence, the reasons why Somerville might want to only allow 250' worth of building in a space where the FAA would permit 500. Here I'm going to stack them up and give them links.

Here are some natural "step function" points:
- 260' = 25 stories a [construction-cost] break-point reported by Glaeser in NYC
- 208' = (20 stories) the height at which energy use per square foot is fully double that of buildings of 5 stories or shorter.
- 158' = (15 Stories) a [construction-cost] break point reported by Glaeser in NYC
- 137' = The height of north america's tallest Aerial Ladder Firetruck. In Somerville, where the first floors are 18' and uppers are at least 10', an 13-storey building would be 128' tall.
- 108' = (10 stories) the height above which a service elevator is recommended
- 70' = The height at which a building is considered "high rise" in Mass (many safety costs start here)
- 75' = of elevator travel requires elevator lobbies or smoke doors or elevator pressurization
- 70' = Six Story mid rise a break-point in price reported by Glaeser
- 40' = The most energy-efficient height for a building (minimizes energy in lifting, minimizes surface area to building volume heat gain/loss)
- 40' = (4 stories) the height at which "gurney sized" elevators are needed (so firefighters can carry a sick person down)


Other Breakpoints I'd like to better understand
- Typical "Second Bank of Elevators" height. Breaking elevators into 1-12 and 14-22 etc. happens at different points, but there is going to be some point at which the "high people" demand it.
- Typical "Fourth Elevator" Height. Seems determined by a mix of "how many units are served by this bank of elevators" (some say 1 elevator per 90 units). At some point you've maxed your 3 elevators and adding one more floor's worth of units triggers the need for a 4th elevator
- Typical "Third Elevator" Height. Seems determined by a mix of "how many units are served by this bank of elevators" (some say 1 elevator per 90 units). At some point you've maxed your 2 elevators and adding one more floor's worth of units triggers the need for a 3rdelevator
- 200 unit price break point (while costs per unit are fairly constant between 20 and 200 units, there's a step at 200. I suspect this is where the "3rd elevator" break is. (see Table 1)
- Utility line losses (if there's a central source of steam or chilling, at what point do the efficiencies of scale get lost to the inefficiency of pipes
- Utility piping cost, space wasted on vertical shafts and lifting water. Every new set of units added to the top of a building increases the diameter / cross section of the pipes needed to raise the gas or water (or take the sewer)
- Streetwall: you can activate more street with more-but-shorter buildings (ask Paris)
- Tenant preference: Nobody likes long elevator waits nor long elevator rides.


Bibliography:
buildingandinteriors.com

Find the Magic Number - No. of Elevators required in a building

Sometimes professionals find it hard to calculate the no. of elevators (lifts) required in a building - residential, offiice. A quick guide for reference!
buildingandinteriors.com buildingandinteriors.com

CR 137 Aerial Ladder Fire Truck – Custom Fire Trucks – E-ONE Fire Trucks

E-ONE Fire Trucks’ CR 137 is the tallest aerial ladder truck in North America, reaching more than 13 stories with a 126’ horizontal reach with a 750 lb. tip load.
e-one-aerials.com e-one-aerials.com
www.tandfonline.com

Energy use and height in office buildings

The relationship between energy use and height is examined for a sample of 611 office buildings in England and Wales using actual annual metered consumption of electricity and fossil fuels. The bui...
www.tandfonline.com

CR 137 Aerial Ladder Fire Truck – Custom Fire Trucks – E-ONE Fire Trucks

E-ONE Fire Trucks’ CR 137 is the tallest aerial ladder truck in North America, reaching more than 13 stories with a 126’ horizontal reach with a 750 lb. tip load.
e-one-aerials.com e-one-aerials.com
 
Last edited:
I am also going to posit that there’s another cost or functional breakpoint at around the 44th floor since that’s about where the sky lobbies are in tall buildings as diverse as Chicago’s Hancock and Burj Khalifa. I posit that any economic builder on a normal CBD parcel would design to either stay below 44 or jump to 88 floors
 
I think we are going to find that there enough ergonomic, economic, ecologic, and safety factors that for more a combination of reasons, buildings come in logical steps, for about the same reasons that cubes and spheres end up being optimal and that skinny shapes are sub-optimal.

Let me try this:
68' The 5+1. Avoids "high rise" regulations, can have 180 units and two elevators, uses wood construction, 36 units per floor, moderately long walk to the elevator

130' Still 180 units, but now 18 per each of 11 floors (and still only 2 elevators

250’ four elevators 18 units per floor for 20 floors, 360 units
 
can't fault your logic and reason, but for many -- particularly on aB -- the passion for taller buildings in boston is just that: passion. and something so driven by emotion will never concede to rational thought.
 
chrisbrat said:
can't fault your logic and reason, but for many -- particularly on aB -- the passion for taller buildings in boston is just that: passion. and something so driven by emotion will never concede to rational thought.
Click to expand...
True, buy allow me to try to direct that passion to parcels for which tall makes sense. And I get that it is really hard to "see" the logarithmic decay between the very best sites in the world, and sites that are just enough "off center" that they drop several orders of magnitude in what you can build. And then several orders of magnitude later, you're at XMBLY.

It is a lot like hosting the Olympics, really. It is hard to see the huge swing that happens as you move from LA/NYC/London/Paris to Atlanta/Athens/Boston but a lot deteriorates very quickly as you move away from the truly exceptional to the merely great.

A wild swag at how "the dropoff" happens as you move away from being "The Site"* to "any old site"
20 sites globally will get 120 stories or more
100 sites globally will get 100 stories or more (currently there are 21, with 16 under construction but about 40 cancelled)
200 sites globally will get 80 stories or more
2000 sites globally will get 60 stories or more
20000 sites globally will get 50 stories or more
200000 sites globally will get 40 stories or more
millions of sites will get 25 stories
hundreds of millions of sites will get 12 stories.

And this will happen less because of zoning and planning or the FAA, and more because of things like surface area to volume ratios, the length of a human on a gurney, the height of the tallest fire engine, the tolerance of people waiting for elevators, the tolerance for schlepping to an elevator, the incompressibility of water, the weight of food and waste, the duration of construction loans from ground breaking to full occupancy, etc. etc.

* We do get what it means to be "atop PATH on Wall Street " or "a Chicago Loop site closest to the Metra" or "atop both Red & Commuter" or "atop both Pike and OL" but what I hope we will come to see is how as you move each block away the economics drops by 20 to 40 stories per block. And that at most sites around boston, while a great place, turns out, economically, to be where if it made sense to collect X number of 500' buildings, it probably makes better sense to collect 3X of 200' buildings (Seaport, Assembly, MIT, Longwood...)
 
Arlington said:
True, buy allow me to try to direct that passion to parcels for which tall makes sense. And I get that it is really hard to "see" the logarithmic decay between the very best sites in the world, and sites that are just enough "off center" that they drop several orders of magnitude in what you can build. And then several orders of magnitude later, you're at XMBLY.

It is a lot like hosting the Olympics, really. It is hard to see the huge swing that happens as you move from LA/NYC/London/Paris to Atlanta/Athens/Boston but a lot deteriorates very quickly as you move away from the truly exceptional to the merely great.

A wild swag at how "the dropoff" happens as you move away from being "The Site"* to "any old site"
20 sites globally will get 120 stories or more
100 sites globally will get 100 stories or more (currently there are 21, with 16 under construction but about 40 cancelled)
200 sites globally will get 80 stories or more
2000 sites globally will get 60 stories or more
20000 sites globally will get 50 stories or more
200000 sites globally will get 40 stories or more
millions of sites will get 25 stories
hundreds of millions of sites will get 12 stories.

And this will happen less because of zoning and planning or the FAA, and more because of things like surface area to volume ratios, the length of a human on a gurney, the height of the tallest fire engine, the tolerance of people waiting for elevators, the tolerance for schlepping to an elevator, the incompressibility of water, the weight of food and waste, the duration of construction loans from ground breaking to full occupancy, etc. etc.

* We do get what it means to be "atop PATH on Wall Street " or "a Chicago Loop site closest to the Metra" or "atop both Red & Commuter" or "atop both Pike and OL" but what I hope we will come to see is how as you move each block away the economics drops by 20 to 40 stories per block. And that at most sites around boston, while a great place, turns out, economically, to be where if it made sense to collect X number of 500' buildings, it probably makes better sense to collect 3X of 200' buildings (Seaport, Assembly, MIT, Longwood...)
Click to expand...
Bravo. This 👆 is a very good post.

Obviously there are real numbers to crunch for any specific project on a specific site, but the principles you outline are an excellent guideline and should give everyone interested in height and density something to contemplate.
 
Arlington said:
True, buy allow me to try to direct that passion to parcels for which tall makes sense. And I get that it is really hard to "see" the logarithmic decay between the very best sites in the world, and sites that are just enough "off center" that they drop several orders of magnitude in what you can build. And then several orders of magnitude later, you're at XMBLY.

It is a lot like hosting the Olympics, really. It is hard to see the huge swing that happens as you move from LA/NYC/London/Paris to Atlanta/Athens/Boston but a lot deteriorates very quickly as you move away from the truly exceptional to the merely great.

A wild swag at how "the dropoff" happens as you move away from being "The Site"* to "any old site"
20 sites globally will get 120 stories or more
100 sites globally will get 100 stories or more (currently there are 21, with 16 under construction but about 40 cancelled)
200 sites globally will get 80 stories or more
2000 sites globally will get 60 stories or more
20000 sites globally will get 50 stories or more
200000 sites globally will get 40 stories or more
millions of sites will get 25 stories
hundreds of millions of sites will get 12 stories.

And this will happen less because of zoning and planning or the FAA, and more because of things like surface area to volume ratios, the length of a human on a gurney, the height of the tallest fire engine, the tolerance of people waiting for elevators, the tolerance for schlepping to an elevator, the incompressibility of water, the weight of food and waste, the duration of construction loans from ground breaking to full occupancy, etc. etc.

* We do get what it means to be "atop PATH on Wall Street " or "a Chicago Loop site closest to the Metra" or "atop both Red & Commuter" or "atop both Pike and OL" but what I hope we will come to see is how as you move each block away the economics drops by 20 to 40 stories per block. And that at most sites around boston, while a great place, turns out, economically, to be where if it made sense to collect X number of 500' buildings, it probably makes better sense to collect 3X of 200' buildings (Seaport, Assembly, MIT, Longwood...)
Click to expand...
That was a stunningly well presented and informative reply. Much appreciated.
 
My personal feed is filled with stories of NYC and Miami supertall residentials. I think it is easy to think "we're not that different from NYC, why isn't Boston getting supertall (or even 40+ story) residential?" I think NYC and Miami have two things no other American city (and few global ones) have:

1) Global buyers parking millions, never intending to live in the place
2) Non-residents who don't care how long they wait for too-few elevators, nor how fast the ride is to their too-high floor.

My impression is that only Austin TX is currently building tall residential buildings that people actually intend to regularly reside in
 
Arlington said:
My impression is that only Austin TX is currently building tall residential buildings that people actually intend to regularly reside in
Click to expand...

Nashville and Philadelphia are a couple of others. Nashville is building at Austin levels, except will ultimately be capped at 750' (yes there's a tower this high in the works) while for Austin the sky is the limit.
 
I think it notable that neither Tennessee (Nashville) nor Texas (Austin) have an income tax, making them
1) good places to park $$$ in real estate if it also gains you residency
2) generally faster-growing metros (Austin is #1 fastest (2016–2021): +14.1% , Nashville is #5 (2016–2021): +9.3% )

What's up with Philly? Leveraging the "Acela to NY or DC?" or late getting its own "30 Dalton"
 
Last edited:
Arlington said:
What's up with Philly? Leveraging the "Acela to NY or DC?" or late getting its own "30 Dalton"
Click to expand...

Not as much as I thought but it's throwing up a bit these last few years. The Laurel and Arthaus are both just finishing up. Philadelphia has big plans but, like Boston, those are often glacial while the sub 300' construction marches on unabated.
1673581115899.png
 
One city that isn't often discussed is Montreal, which is essentially a peer city of Boston's across the border. They have a strict height limit due to Mount Royal, but are building right up to it. This diagram is only since 2020!!!

1673581376992.png
 
Comparing old diagrams it looks like the Prudential was the 12th tallest building in the world when completed in 1964, but actually 9th tallest excluding spires. In fact, excluding spires it was the tallest building in the world outside NYC.
1743530565662.png


When completed in 1976, despite the ~3 year delay with the cladding fiasco, the Hancock was still the 19th tallest building in the world. (EDIT it was 21st. The Twin Towers are missing. Ouch.) (barely behind the crown of Woolworth, plus that mech box on IDS is a pretty cheap way for it to claim the taller height) Note that the Ren Tower in Dallas didn't have its spire yet so was only counted as 710'.
1743530644483.png


That brings us to today. Including built and under construction, the Hancock slots in at 1,054. Yes, a large enough number to add a comma. From Top 25 to outside the Top 1,000, which makes sense as a single building won't grow, but doesn't make sense that our whole city was left behind. If we swap to roof height instead of "official" height which includes spires, it's 974. For reference, there's nearly 300 buildings 1,000'+ and over 300 buildings that exceed the international supertall mark of 300 meters (984').

For further reference, I found this list on wikipedia that actually ranks all cities worldwide by their tallest building. If you scroll down far enough, you can find Boston slotting in at 138th! (18th in the US) So we went from having a top 12-21 tallest building in the entire world, to now being eclipsed by 17 other US cities alone (throw in Toronto, Calgary, Edmonton, and soon Mississauga to the North, and Mexico City and Monterrey to the South, and Panama City as still technically North America).

From a skyline perspective, the city gets virtually zero respect from the general public, even with the latest building boom. For instance, I posted some recent skyline shots from Blue Hills and BU Bridge that really highlighted all the new towers. The most popular response to that post was this:
1743529969121.png


For whatever reason, until we get a new tallest building it seems the city will always have a "disappointing/pathetic" skyline in the eyes of most outsiders. I guess it's not hard to see why when there's 137 taller cities out there, and your tallest building is about to fall out of the world's top 1,000! Still very frustrating to somebody like me, who waits their whole life for a massive building boom like we just experienced and still doesn't see any outside validation.

I'm still thrilled at the last decade and it filled in a sorely needed "missing middle" between the Hancock/Pru and the rest of the city. But, considering Boston has been one of the most booming and successful cities worldwide over the last quarter century, will we ever see a new tallest get built here?

Here's the full US list of cities that exceed 700'. Basically all of our peers, plus significantly lesser cities like Cleveland, Austin, Oklahoma City... So I would say yes, Boston's buildings should be taller. Considering how strong the supporting cast is, we really only need one and the skyline's reputation would improve dramatically.

1743530904943.png
 
Last edited:
chrisbrat said:
New Delhi, Rome, Washington, Athens, Lima, Munich, Venice, Florence, Dublin, Paris, Stockholm -- there are so many important, beautiful, desirable cities that don't have crazy tall towers. Who cares?
Click to expand...
My 2 cents: it's mostly as a proxy for things that I care more about than raw aesthetics (in which case I do like supertalls lol, guilty as charged). Resistance to dramatically changing the skyline is symptomatic of an excessively conservative local culture that is more focused on the past than the future and inability to build them is indicative of an area without the economic dynamism to support vanity-tier construction cost.
 
I get excited by new, tall projeccts, too. I was (and remain) so surprised and pleased when 1 Dalton finally moved forward and I love the result (and wish they'd managed to add on another 70 -- or more! -- feet so we could have a new tallest), but I don't get the whole dick-measuring thing and comparing against "lesser cities" who have taller buildings than Boston etc. and projecting some sort of shame about it. That all just smacks of insecurity and seems misplaced. Boston's plenty great and will never, ever be Dubai or NYC or Chicago or wherever in terms of lots of supertall towers, so why not either accept it on its own terms, architecturally? Do you -- does anyone -- really think that Boston would instantly, automatically be "better" if there was a 1,100-foot Winthrop Center next to 1 Dalton or in the West End or in one of the pockets where FAA restrictions would allow for such a thing? How? Why?
 
When it comes to attracting tourism, a tall tower DT might help our brand stick out more; people do recognize American cities by their skyline. However, that would be small compared to the benefit of all the infill
 
Scott said:
When it comes to attracting tourism, a tall tower DT might help our brand stick out more; people do recognize American cities by their skyline. However, that would be small compared to the benefit of all the infill
Click to expand...
Maybe if we had THE tallest tower in the U.S. (or world, or whatever) then maybe, but otherwise you really think it'd move the needle? We're typically in the top-10 or top-15 most visited cities in the country -- do you really think that if we had a 1,000 footer that we'd leapfrog over, say, Honolulu as a tourist destination? If folks are super into supertalls, Boston having *one* such building wouldn't make it a destination.

The history, the educational institutions, the geography, the walkability, the mix of architectural styles, the culture (sports, art, music, all of it) -- that's what sets Boston apart.

Having one tall building? We may as well strive to be home to the World's Largest Ball of Yarn or the nation's largest fiberglass chilidog sculpture.
 
chrisbrat said:
I get excited by new, tall projeccts, too. I was (and remain) so surprised and pleased when 1 Dalton finally moved forward and I love the result (and wish they'd managed to add on another 70 -- or more! -- feet so we could have a new tallest), but I don't get the whole dick-measuring thing and comparing against "lesser cities" who have taller buildings than Boston etc. and projecting some sort of shame about it. That all just smacks of insecurity and seems misplaced. Boston's plenty great and will never, ever be Dubai or NYC or Chicago or wherever in terms of lots of supertall towers, so why not either accept it on its own terms, architecturally? Do you -- does anyone -- really think that Boston would instantly, automatically be "better" if there was a 1,100-foot Winthrop Center next to 1 Dalton or in the West End or in one of the pockets where FAA restrictions would allow for such a thing? How? Why?
Click to expand...
I don't know how many people share the way I think, but it comes down to the distinction about whether the height itself or the environment that enables height is what makes Boston "better". That's what I mean when I say I like supertalls as a proxy of other underlying metrics that matter intrinsically where height may not. I think Boston would absolutely be healthier if it had fewer administrative hurdles in construction and I imagine most others would agree Boston would be better if everyone had higher paying jobs too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top