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

i put 6k miles on the Sledgehammer the last 3 weeks. Read all your great posts, but near ZERO time to post anything but, 'i want that 510 foot wall of cement downtown broken up with some tall high a/r towers' mantra. We might get 4 or 5 of 'em. i'll try to be less obnoxious, but we need the mother of all signature drives for 1 Bromfield and Harbor Garage this summer.

creed; http://addicted2success.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/grant_cardone_quote.jpg

please see; 7:54 to 13:55.

https://youtu.be/QGDawzarSq8?t=474

Grant C: "You need some haters...."

i'm willing to stand for what i believe and be hated for it.

please see 29:45 to 34:00

https://youtu.be/QGDawzarSq8?t=1786

__________________________
i love great infill.
 
Seemed like the best place for this tidbit of info for those who care...

For those who were wondering why One Financial Center always appears to be taller than the Federal Reserve Building on the skyline, it's because it is taller than the Federal Reserve Building.

Federal Reserve is 588' and One Financial is 600'. Found some data at work with those figures and confirmed them by measuring elevations on Google Earth. For those who want exact height figures, Google Earth might be your best bet.
 
Downburst said:
Seemed like the best place for this tidbit of info for those who care...

For those who were wondering why One Financial Center always appears to be taller than the Federal Reserve Building on the skyline, it's because it is taller than the Federal Reserve Building.

Federal Reserve is 588' and One Financial is 600'. Found some data at work with those figures and confirmed them by measuring elevations on Google Earth. For those who want exact height figures, Google Earth might be your best bet.
Click to expand...

Official height is taken from the lowest point of the structure and I know that the Fed has a large low-rise piece to it. Is it possible that the bottom of the complex is at a lower elevation than the bottom of the tower, and adds a few more feet?
 
DZH22 said:
Official height is taken from the lowest point of the structure and I know that the Fed has a large low-rise piece to it. Is it possible that the bottom of the complex is at a lower elevation than the bottom of the tower, and adds a few more feet?
Click to expand...

Ground elevation is uniform (plus or minus a foot or 2) around the entire structure.
 
Downburst said:
Ground elevation is uniform (plus or minus a foot or 2) around the entire structure.
Click to expand...

Wishful thinking. I'd really like to know where the 614' comes from. One thing I have noticed is that the very top of the Fed has at least 1 barely perceptible stick. It's probably just a lightning rod or something, but I always wondered if that somehow was factored into the overall official height. It might be a similar situation to 33 Arch. If you look extremely closely at the fins, there is a small "spire" sticking up from the middle fin and the only way that possibly hits 477'.

I'd love to get 1 Financial updated across as many sites/databases as possible (specifically skyscraperpage forums) but in less of a rush to "fix" the height on the Fed.

As something further, I have noticed a small mech box on top of BOA (pregnant building) and am wondering if that should technically make the building taller.

I also wonder if the Hancock (or Pru) has any mech at the top that should be counted in the official height, but isn't. The IDS Center in Minneapolis was originally 772' for years, but they realized that a small mech box (similar to BOA's) wasn't being counted, and jumped the official height to 792'. Yes, just above our beloved (formerly known as) Hancock!!!

Ever since I recently found out that many of the listed heights in Boston are only to highest occupied floor, I wonder if more of the buildings are taller than listed. Atlantic Wharf was a good example, seemingly too tall for 395' but really 436'. Also, Vertex and other Seaport buildings really being 250' and not the listed 225'. I wonder about the Keystone Building in particular and think that may be missing the top's calculation, but I'm sure there are more out there!

Remember, not only are mechanical tops often counted in the official height, but buildings are also allowed to be measured from the bottom-most point (hence MT measured from Hawley) and that's probably what helped 1 Financial really be 600'.
 
Can someone help with the exact rooftop heights of the Seaport bldgs?
 
Thank you. Good God. absolutely useless.

Here in the Nimby Empire where building heights are nearly top secret, we must consult the obscure language of the FAA.

The Seaport is just an exercise for the sake of making a list. but the stuff from 495' to 550' is interesting since it offers a clue about TD Garden and Government Center Garage.

Unfortunately, it's not idiot friendly. The structure names are given basically in some strange code that i'm not privy to. GCG sounds like Govt Center but theres several that start with those letters. Then the numbers seem off for the residence tower. No commonly used names nor nicknames. They can't even list a gd address.....

Just coordinates in minutes and seconds; and Google want's pure numerical coordinates w/ decimal points only. So, i got this translator to arrive at decimals :banghead:

https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/dms-decimal

Tell me this isn't a government run operation. Unfreakingbelievable.
 
Last edited:
It is not easy but it isn't impossible to use. Search by city and then use the description to figure out what building it is. For example the Mass Art Dorm Tower aka Treehouse is described as:
The project entails the construction of a new residence hall along the Avenue of the Arts in Boston, MA. of approximately 147,000 square feet of housing, 493 student beds. The building will be located on Huntington Avenue in Boston, MA. and is designed as a 21 story high-rise building.
Click to expand...

If you know the use and general location you can usually determine what building.

Yeah it could be better but I doubt anyone really expects the general public to have any interest in the FAA height approvals so why pay more for a more user friendly design when there isn't public pressure to do so.

Recent projects that are under review are found in a different part of the site btw.

This is the Government Center Garage Parcel 1 page I'm guessing you found this or one of the other pages for this building as there are multiple points with a different height and separate approval pages: https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=291770960&row=9
 
I'm sorry, but I do have to chime in on this. I know this is a stupid question that always comes up, and I always scoff at the utter notion of it.

After giving it some serious thought, and really looking at the progression of other US cities in the last decade, I do think Boston should have taller buildings. But not new taller new buildings. Simply, let's just tattoo each FiDi building with an exact image of itself... just 2 inches taller.
 
It'd be fairly great to see like a 750-850', slender tower at 6 Martha.

That parcel is perfect.
 
Its weird that the 30 park place/liberty mutual new deco trend never really caught fire. For a few years between what seemed like exclusively Chicago, NYC, and Boston we started to see this cool trend start to gain momentum. Now other than that 1 tower going up near central park and I think there's 1 more somewhere around there its all but fizzled out. NYC and Chicago were absolutely blessed with the art deco era. Boston was barely grazed. I love that we made up partially for it with Liberty mutual, as that is a wonderful building, but nothing else has ever been proposed. Thank god we have the Custom House tower, which was built even before the art deco era took off, but I think literally one 500 footer downtown would make a huge impact. We have some very low slung great examples in Boston, but nothing in the skyline other than the old Hancock. I really wish we could get one of these to really add to the bones of the city. I am one of those people who appreciates all of the different eras that you will find in good skylines. I think 1 of these to make up for what missed would be better for the skyline that 5 more glass 600 footers.

Heres some examples of the art deco we have.

If the middle towers on these had been built tall they would have been masterpieces.

photo34.jpg


tumblr_lzd4cnaB5t1qe7vo3o1_500.jpg


It would be cool if they refabbed one of these like they are doing with the longfellow bridge but added a whole tower in between the crown and base. Then pieced back together the crowns.

That wont happen though so getting a 30 park place but with a copper roof, or a crown would be just as good. /rant
 
In the event of redevelopment anywhere neare the Adams Courthouse should be open for something being done like Liberty Mutual style.... there's been some stuff done in Chicago the ended being not so great. These hybrids w/ modernism are challenging. There's been a few fantastic examples recently in New York on mid-rises filling in old burnouts and rehabs.

would be great to get some of this!!

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=134560054&postcount=6669
 
Its weird that the 30 park place/liberty mutual new deco trend never really caught fire. For a few years between what seemed like exclusively Chicago, NYC, and Boston we started to see this cool trend start to gain momentum. Now other than that 1 tower going up near central park and I think there's 1 more somewhere around there its all but fizzled out. NYC and Chicago were absolutely blessed with the art deco era. Boston was barely grazed. I love that we made up partially for it with Liberty mutual, as that is a wonderful building, but nothing else has ever been proposed. Thank god we have the Custom House tower, which was built even before the art deco era took off, but I think literally one 500 footer downtown would make a huge impact. We have some very low slung great examples in Boston, but nothing in the skyline other than the old Hancock. I really wish we could get one of these to really add to the bones of the city. I am one of those people who appreciates all of the different eras that you will find in good skylines. I think 1 of these to make up for what missed would be better for the skyline that 5 more glass 600 footers.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. US Shoe Machinery Building is one of my faves.


Would it be possible for Boston to annex some suburbs, and then build on them?
 
Hubman said:
Would it be possible for Boston to annex some suburbs, and then build on them?
Click to expand...

I believe that the city considered annexing Chelsea during the 1990s.

I would love to see the city annex Cambridge, Somerville, Brookline, Newton, Watertown, Waltham, Quincy, Everett, Malden, Lynn, Belmont, Arlington, Medford, Revere and Cheslea. However I believe that Cheslea, Lynn, Revere and Everett are the only ones that are feasible. The other towns would be very resistant to any sort of annexation. Brookline parents would be horrified if their schools became part of BPS.

I remember Whigh mentioning in another fourm that Boston should pay to extend the Blue Line out to Lynn. Well that would make a lot of sense if Boston was to annex Lynn, Revere, and Cheslea.

Annexing Revere could make development in Suffolk Downs/Wonderland/Revere Beach more cohesive and well thought out. That is probably the biggest area of potential development with easy rapid transit access.
 
Last edited:
tysmith95 said:
I would love to see the city annex Cambridge, Somerville, Brookline, Newton, Watertown, Waltham, Quincy, Everett, Malden, Lynn, Belmont, Arlington, Medford, Revere and Cheslea.
Click to expand...

Why?
 
Because that would make Boston look BIG in all sorts of list and charts! Cool, huh?
 
I think region wide planning would improve the area. Hyper local government gives too much power and influence to the NIMBY's
 
tysmith95 said:
I think region wide planning would improve the area. Hyper local government gives too much power and influence to the NIMBY's
Click to expand...

I agree in many ways that consolidation would have been better for the region overall. Municipal fragmentation has big effects on the T and how/where homes are added to the region. The 4 rapid transit lines of the T go to 12 (I think) different municipalities, each with their own taxes and school systems, local identity, etc. Expansion has been onerous to say the least and often bypassed logical areas (e.g. Arlington). I think transit would not have been scrapped from the Big Dig if not for municipal fragmentation. I think we'd have Red/Blue, GLX, NSRL, and the Urban Ring right now, today, if Boston proper encompassed more of the Boston metro.

Fragmentation gives us towns like Brookline with a coveted school system and Cambridge with an exceptional commercial sector and low property taxes. Those differences and dynamics define our metro area today, but I'm not convinced that we are better off for it. Sure, the people who live in Brookline or Cambridge today don't want to change the system today, the same way people 150 years ago didn't want to change then. But if they HAD changed 150 years ago, I think all those same people would be better off today.
 
^well said. And just as an anecdotal example, alewife is the type of disjointed development that you get when multiple municipalities have to work together.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top