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

Brilliant new idea! Build an enormous supertall tower, then put the airport ON TOP of it!
 
Im just kidding but "Bostons buildings" are already built, so thats where I was going with too late.
 
It seems like a developer could squeeze a 1000' tower into a small space near the pru.
 
^^Sheraton North tower comes down... >800' can go up.

Don't tell anyone.
 
odurandina said:
^^Sheraton North tower comes down... >800' can go up.

Don't tell anyone.
Click to expand...

Why hasn't that come down yet? It's so ugly, and if they replaced it with a new, taller tower it could be a real gold mine for them.
 
Why new buildings need to go higher in the first place? what is the real need behind that height "fetish". I don't want to use a Menino's phrase, but why to "Manhattanize" Boston? IMO brand new tall buildings should keep a direct proportion with the city's scale.
 
Hubman said:
Why hasn't that come down yet? It's so ugly, and if they replaced it with a new, taller tower it could be a real gold mine for them.
Click to expand...

Sheraton Corp isn't fanatical about building tall like Four Seasons and Marriot.
 
Hufer said:
Why new buildings need to go higher in the first place? what is the real need behind that height "fetish". I don't want to use a Menino's phase, but why to "Manhattanize" Boston? IMO brand new tall buildings should keep a direct proportion with the city's scale.
Click to expand...

There's more at stake than 'bold' vs 'big-tower fetish' vs 'ultra-conservative' vs 'nimby' ideology...' Boston is a city with a low ratio of high revenue improvements with less than ideal options for high density projects. Therefore we need to be careful with our elite, endangered class of parcels that they not be squandered; Adding more density allows you to hold more sq ft in reserve for the future. We don't want to level 1/2 of Dorchester for a big office park anytime in the next 300 years if we can prevent it. We need a good balance to be maintained.

We're still building a few midrises that could go 75~120' taller.
 
Last edited:
Hubman said:
Why hasn't that come down yet? It's so ugly, and if they replaced it with a new, taller tower it could be a real gold mine for them.
Click to expand...

Because this isn't SimCity.
 
Hubman said:
Why hasn't that come down yet? It's so ugly, and if they replaced it with a new, taller tower it could be a real gold mine for them.
Click to expand...

It's a gold mine now. It's old, fully paid for and there are plenty of people plunking down $400+ per night to stay there.
 
Its already so expensive to build here i cant imagine that being able to work. They definitely cant demo the tower- although its happened in boston, and deconstructing would be probably the cost of a new tower.
 
Hubman said:
Money talks. Bullshit walks.
Click to expand...

Well then, considering that it's still standing then the money must be good that it doesn't need to be replace. Now you're understanding how the real world works.
 
KentXie said:
Well then, considering that it's still standing then the money must be good that it doesn't need to be replace. Now you're understanding how the real world works.
Click to expand...

Lots of companies make money with a building, but always want more.

Corporations are LIKE THAT.
 
Hubman said:
Lots of companies make money with a building, but always want more.

Corporations are LIKE THAT.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and you know how they can do that? Acquire another building or another plot and develop it which would be significantly cheaper than demolishing an existing building they own that is generating revenue. See Four Seasons? Notice how they didn't demolish their own building along Boylston St but instead is developing a new 700 ft tower in Back Bay. How about the Marriot Hotel? Notice how they didn't demolish their building on Long Wharf and instead bought the Custom House? That's what actual corporations are like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top