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

chrisbrat said:
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.
Click to expand...
I clearly did not say "destination" or "1000 footer" any of that strawman nonsense
 
At this point bostons future is the mid rise and thats ok. Its going to make boston actually unique as far as american cities go. It wont be like D.C. which only had mid rises, boston has a regular american downtown core, but outside of that its going to have lots of mid rises clusters throughout every neighborhood. Its going to be different than most other cities and theres nothing wrong with that.
 
stick n move said:
At this point bostons future is the mid rise and thats ok. Its going to make boston actually unique as far as american cities go. It wont be like D.C. which only had mid rises, boston has a regular american downtown core, but outside of that its going to have lots of mid rises clusters throughout every neighborhood. Its going to be different than most other cities and theres nothing wrong with that.
Click to expand...
The Boston metro area is very traditional, to say the least, made up of small towns that act like walled fortresses opposed to anything much different than what is already there. One of the few exceptions is Everett, and even there some NIMBY blowback might happen against high rises, depending on where they're located, So, mid-rises are the most we can hope for in the vast majority of Boston and the surrounding towns.
 
I don't mind the relative lack of height in Boston; I mind the overabundance of fat, squat boxes. We don't have to build taller, but I do wish we'd build thinner.

Tokyo is a city of midrises. Most of the multi-resident buildings here are between 10 and 20 floors and are nothing spectacular to look at. But they have footprints 1/3 the size of Boston's goofy stumps and as a result look graceful by comparison.
 
type001 said:
I actually think that buildings are getting too tall all over the world. There, I said it.
Click to expand...
I agree with you in some ways. Supertalls could be more vulnerable in case of war, fires, or natural disasters. Then there's the overloading of transportation infrastructure from the super density of clusters of supertalls. Definitely some significant minuses.
 
shawn said:
I don't mind the relative lack of height in Boston; I mind the overabundance of fat, squat boxes. We don't have to build taller, but I do wish we'd build thinner.

Tokyo is a city of midrises. Most of the multi-resident buildings here are between 10 and 20 floors and are nothing spectacular to look at. But they have footprints 1/3 the size of Boston's goofy stumps and as a result look graceful by comparison.
Click to expand...

And what is the average square footage of a unit in Tokyo? Seems a bit disingenuous to harp on how they do things there when the vast majority of Americans would never tolerate those living conditions.
 
kmp1284 said:
And what is the average square footage of a unit in Tokyo? Seems a bit disingenuous to harp on how they do things there when the vast majority of Americans would never tolerate those living conditions.
Click to expand...
Average 1LDKs in Tokyo are 46 sq m (495 sq f). 2LDKs average 77 sq m (829 sq f). I don't know how that stacks up to Boston, but I cannot imagine the average 2LDK in Boston running much over 90 sq m / ~1000 sq f. Japanese units of course are smaller, but not drastically so.

The average rent for a 1LDK in Tokyo is $1080, $1820 for a 2LDK. What's the average 2LDK in Boston these days, $4500? If you offered the vast majority of Bostonians the option of downsizing their 2LDKs by ~100 sq feet to save ~$2600 a month in rent, do you think they'd tolerate such an adjustment in living conditions? 80% of the space for 40% of the rent seems like a good trade to me.

I'm not sure unit sizes necessarily have to impact building footprints though. Vancouver has been nailing the well-proportioned, under-400 foot residential tower on a street-activated retail pedestal build for three+ decades and they're doing it with typical North American unit sizes. Honolulu and San Diego do it too.

Boston can do this from time to time; the Seaport Omni and the Parker on Lagrange Street come to mind. It looks like the 1LDKs in the Parker are between 455 and 579 sq feet . . . so, typical Tokyo sizes :)
 
The average size of a Japanese home has expanded a lot even in the last 30 years. It's largely caught up with all the other rich countries short of the United States and Canada (although it's not that far behind). I would speculate a lot of that change is enabled by the shorter duration of the redevelopment cycles in the big cities.
 
sean99090900 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think this is an interesting point, but it makes me wonder whether tall buildings are the only indicator for underlying fundamentals we all embrace? And again, to go back to the point that @chrisbrat has been making, there are examples of truly great cities for which building height does not tell the underlying story.

stick n move said:
At this point bostons future is the mid rise and thats ok. Its going to make boston actually unique as far as american cities go. It wont be like D.C. which only had mid rises, boston has a regular american downtown core, but outside of that its going to have lots of mid rises clusters throughout every neighborhood. Its going to be different than most other cities and theres nothing wrong with that.
Click to expand...
Arguably, the creation and expansion of more outlying mid-rise districts that we are seeing is a response to the limits on height in the core. If Boston can achieve a more evenly distributed high density, it would be fairly unique among major US cities in doing so. Constraints on height such as the FAA limits may ultimately result in a highly creative alternative.
 
HenryAlan said:
Arguably, the creation and expansion of more outlying mid-rise districts that we are seeing is a response to the limits on height in the core. If Boston can achieve a more evenly distributed high density, it would be fairly unique among major US cities in doing so. Constraints on height such as the FAA limits may ultimately result in a highly creative alternative.
Click to expand...

Londonization, if you will.
 
BronsonShore said:
Londonization, if you will.
Click to expand...

Here's an interesting thread I just stumbled upon about London. It's up to 42 buildings over 150 meters which would make it the 4th biggest skyline if it was in the US. They do have height limits but have been building right up to them in Canary Wharf (just below the Hancock), and close to them in the main city skyline area (just over 1000' max).
https://www.reddit.com/r/skyscrapers/comments/1jydwak/london_has_overtaken_houston_in_number_of
 
HenryAlan said:
I think this is an interesting point, but it makes me wonder whether tall buildings are the only indicator for underlying fundamentals we all embrace? And again, to go back to the point that @chrisbrat has been making, there are examples of truly great cities for which building height does not tell the underlying story.
Click to expand...
By no means is it the only way to evaluate cities lmao, directly looking at regulatory codes and per capita GDP get at those fundamentals much more cleanly for sure. It's possible to build a nice city without the high rises, but constraining their construction entirely in favor of historical preservation just strikes me as being small minded.

Tokyo is actually a great example of a midrise-dense city I like in that it redevelops buildings every 40 years or whatever. And despite that I've never met anyone who comes back from Tokyo thinking Japan is a land devoid of culture and history 🙃
 
kmp1284 said:
the vast majority of Americans would never tolerate those living conditions.
Click to expand...
An evidence-free assertion! Americans, just like anyone else, will tolerate all sorts of discomfort, as long as that discomfort is made up for in other ways. Boston's housing market is hot enough that basically anything can be rented at the right price.

I assure you there would be pleeeenty of eager takers for a "tokyo-sized" unit for <$1000/mo unit in the city's urban core. That's actually probably what we need if we want full-time artists and musicians to be able to live in the city again without rent subsidies.
 
kdmc said:
An evidence-free assertion! Americans, just like anyone else, will tolerate all sorts of discomfort, as long as that discomfort is made up for in other ways. Boston's housing market is hot enough that basically anything can be rented at the right price.

I assure you there would be pleeeenty of eager takers for a "tokyo-sized" unit for <$1000/mo unit in the city's urban core. That's actually probably what we need if we want full-time artists and musicians to be able to live in the city again without rent subsidies.
Click to expand...

Hardly evidence free. The average size of housing units here and in Japan more than confirms a preference for dramatically larger spaces and this is further reinforced by the almost non-existent adoption of micro-units even in dense major cities in the US.

For “practically free” though people will buy(or rent) anything but that particular price point isn’t going to justify new construction or the significant renovation of an existing property.
 
kmp1284 said:
Hardly evidence free. The average size of housing units here and in Japan more than confirms a preference for dramatically larger spaces and this is further reinforced by the almost non-existent adoption of micro-units even in dense major cities in the US.

For “practically free” though people will buy(or rent) anything but that particular price point isn’t going to justify new construction or the significant renovation of an existing property.
Click to expand...
BS. A 250sqft unit in beacon hill is currently going for $2000/mo.

Now imagine a place "half as desirable" as Beacon Hill. Allston, maybe? A $1000/mo tiny studio in Allston would be life changing for some people.
 
kdmc said:
BS. A 250sqft unit in beacon hill is currently going for $2000/mo.

Now imagine a place "half as desirable" as Beacon Hill. Allston, maybe? A $1000/mo tiny studio in Allston would be life changing for some people.
Click to expand...
The goal shouldn't be to build tiny studios for $1000/mo. The goal should be to build normal size studios at $1000/mo. They are doing shrinkflation and some of y'all are actually cheering this as some sort of, non-dystopian solution.
 
KentXie said:
The goal shouldn't be to build tiny studios for $1000/mo. The goal should be to build normal size studios at $1000/mo. They are doing shrinkflation and some of y'all are actually cheering this as some sort of, non-dystopian solution.
Click to expand...
$1,000 per month regular studios sound great. And when we get there, we should also have $500 per month micro studios. It's not a matter of forcing dystopia on people, it's a matter of broadening choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top