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

This is an article about Trump's push to privatize air-traffic control:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/pers...zes-air-traffic-control/ar-BBCaE0Q?li=BBnb7Kz

The part that caught my attention is in the second paragraph. It mentions switching to a GPS based system over the current radar one used now. If that were to happen, could that raise the FAA height limit over large swaths of downtown?

If Winthrop Square is still stalled in a couple years, maybe we can turn it into a new tallest instead. That would be quite the middle finger to the obstructionist NIMBY's!
 
I never thought anything good could come from Trump. I'm not sure I'd be so happy with the private air-traffic control.
 
NOTE: I also posted this same thing on the Cambridge Developments thread but wanted to throw it here as well.

Just dawned on me, but it looks like Cambridge is set to add 3 300'+ buildings over the next few years! Compare this to the current total of....1? 0? 2? This doesn't even include the 2nd MXD 395' tower, or any of the Volpe complex. I believe all 3 are in prep phase.

I searched for all years, Cambridge only on the faa site and sorted by height. This is going to be a pretty serious visual upgrade for Kendall!

One Broadway (MIT) 300'

All 3 links listed 300' structure height on the dot. Here's one.

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=328511418&row=11


I believe the site is going to be the right side of this shot, sourced from here:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/marc72/sets/72157625895092864/

one broadway by David Z, on Flickr

More info on this thread:
http://www.archboston.com/community/showthread.php?t=4893&page=9

I think this is it:
Lrfox said:
mit1_zps0ajjjvvj.jpg
Click to expand...




145 Broadway
4 links all showed 300' on the dot. Here's one.

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=330383104&row=10

This is the shorter MXD Tower by Boston Properties. See more here:
http://www.archboston.com/community/showthread.php?t=5335

Equilibria said:
ofr5ti.png
Click to expand...



MIT Building at 264-292 Main Street. Height 334' (or 381', or 382'?)

This one has radically different heights at different corners. I have no idea where or what the high point is. Here's the total list, shortest to tallest.

NW Corner 313'
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=328902657&row=6

NE Corner 314'
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=328902684&row=5

SW Corner 334'
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=328902656&row=19

"High Point" 381'
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=328902687&row=13

Filing a couple months earlier for 382'
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=323543956&row=12

I believe it would be the 381' over the 382', but the only question is what actually comprises this height. So it's either 381' or 334'.

It's this thing. See this thread.
http://www.archboston.com/community/showthread.php?p=280533#post280533

34f34f said:
112816i-new-MIT-dorm.jpg
Click to expand...

stellarfun said:
CyVu-NzUsAETzC3.jpg
Click to expand...

If the 381' is to the top of the box on the right side of the second picture I would say that's the height.

Wow. Prepare yourselves for the next evolution of Kendall Square.
 
^It really is. i'm gonna take crap for this; Cambridge is kicking ass. It's filling in wonderfully. But, i'm not sure about even calling it a skyline–before the new 'tallish' stuff is rising..... i also would include the Fenway as being a bit early yet.... i don't know; if everything was going maybe 75~150' taller (Vancouver), i think these neighborhoods would be deserving of it. i don't think the Seaport or Roxbury/Mission Hill are skylines either. 250~300' buildings barely pop above the brownstones from a distance. Don't get me wrong; the dense core is fantastic. The aesthetic is fantastic, in the way Brooklyn probably looked from Lower Manhattan at the beginning of their highrise boom of the 1920's. i just think you need to be building more Vancouver height (maybe 375-450').

It's going to look incredible in any case. Visitors arriving for the first time might nearly be shocked by the extent of Boston's dense core, not realizing; it's Cambridge *(and then, maybe they'll be surprised again).
 
Last edited:
Random observation but I remember people kicking around the idea that One Lincoln (State Street Tower) height of 503 ft includes the tip of its antennae and that the roof height is actually around 464 ft which is shorter than 33 Arch Street (477 ft). I can attest that is completely false. As having been on the 36th floor (this would be the floor below the 'State Street' Sign), I can already see the top of 33 Arch Street's fin. Assuming that the 36th floor is at the same height as 33 Arch Street and the fact that there are two mechanical floors above it, the roof height should be 503 ft.
 
KentXie said:
Random observation but I remember people kicking around the idea that One Lincoln (State Street Tower) height of 503 ft includes the tip of its antennae and that the roof height is actually around 464 ft which is shorter than 33 Arch Street (477 ft). I can attest that is completely false. As having been on the 36th floor (this would be the floor below the 'State Street' Sign), I can already see the top of 33 Arch Street's fin. Assuming that the 36th floor is at the same height as 33 Arch Street and the fact that there are two mechanical floors above it, the roof height should be 503 ft.
Click to expand...

I actually don't believe 33 Arch is the full 477'. I have seen the 455' number floating around somewhere. Also, the very middle fin has an additional (almost imperceptible) spire sticking up from it. I think, if it is indeed 477', it is due to that spire.

I also think that you are correct in that State Street is slightly higher than listed, or at least doesn't include the pointy spikes at the very top. For instance, from many views from afar it is clearly well above the Millennium Place towers (446' and 475'), even when those are slightly closer to that vantage point.

In short, I think you are correct about State Street, but not because of the way it measures up to 33 Arch.
 
Add Austin to the list of cities ready to eclipse the Hancock in height. But hey, well deserved right? A tiny city like Boston has nothing on the likes of Austin, Denver, Oklahoma City, Charlotte, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, Edmonton, Calgary, Minneapolis... I will say that I think the design is pretty lame anyway. It's like the typical garbage Austin has been churning out lately, only at twice the height.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=2019384
 
Last edited:
DZH22 said:
Add Austin to the list of cities ready to eclipse the Hancock in height. But hey, well deserved right? A tiny city like Boston has nothing on the likes of Austin, Denver, Oklahoma City, Charlotte, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, Edmonton, Calgary, Minneapolis... I will say that I think the design is pretty lame anyway. It's like the typical garbage Austin has been churning out lately, only at twice the height.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=2019384
Click to expand...

Wow you are so butthurt. I honestly feel your obsession with height is unhealthy, especially if you live in Boston. For your sake, maybe you should consider moving to other cities with no height limit if height play such a big factor in your life. Boston just isn't for you.

If it makes you feel better, I have the same obsession about better weather, hence why I hit California once or twice a year (with the hopes of one day moving there) to keep me sane in Boston.
 
KentXie said:
Wow you are so butthurt. I honestly feel your obsession with height is unhealthy, especially if you live in Boston. For your sake, maybe you should consider moving to other cities with no height limit if height play such a big factor in your life. Boston just isn't for you.

If it makes you feel better, I have the same obsession about better weather, hence why I hit California once or twice a year (with the hopes of one day moving there) to keep me sane in Boston.
Click to expand...

I'm a Boston homer. I would like to see it keep up with many of these lesser cities. God knows we need it given the demand here. I'm happy to visit other cities and see other skylines but I fervently believe I already reside in the best region this country has to offer. (or really, pretty much any country)

I still think we will get a new tallest building in this city in my lifetime. It might even be proposed in the next few years assuming Walsh wins reelection! Considering how long we have waited and how built up the city is overall, there is a very short list of cities that "deserve" a new tallest building more than Boston does. We'll need something to break the upcoming Hancock/Pru/CSC/Winthrop Square plateau!!!
 
DZH22 said:
Add Austin to the list of cities ready to eclipse the Hancock in height. But hey, well deserved right? A tiny city like Boston has nothing on the likes of Austin, Denver, Oklahoma City, Charlotte, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, Edmonton, Calgary, Minneapolis... I will say that I think the design is pretty lame anyway. It's like the typical garbage Austin has been churning out lately, only at twice the height.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=2019384
Click to expand...

That will probably look ridiculous and out of scale with Austin's (tiny) skyline - the The Austonian @ 680' already looks kind of silly. I would judge a skyline by its proportions and overall size vs. having one single really tall tower sticking out in low tide. With the current crop here (if they every get built), we stand to have our top 10 be over 600', and a ton of mid height below that.
 
bakgwailo said:
That will probably look ridiculous and out of scale with Austin's (tiny) skyline - the The Austonian @ 680' already looks kind of silly. I would judge a skyline by its proportions and overall size vs. having one single really tall tower sticking out in low tide. With the current crop here (if they every get built), we stand to have our top 10 be over 600', and a ton of mid height below that.
Click to expand...

They have another one slightly taller than Austonian (I think it's 690') that is halfway up. They also are building a nice plateau around the 400' range with some stuff higher. It won't be as out of place as you think. Outside of Miami, probably no US city has done more to change its skyline in the last 15 years or so. (starting with Frost Bank Tower) It basically went from a Providence sized skyline, to bigger than Hartford, and will soon be challenging Charlotte. (which is also growing fast)

If you really want out of place, check out Stantec in Edmonton (U/C), and also Alldritt Tower in Edmonton. (approved) They are going from 0 buildings over 500' (vs Boston's current 17) to multiple buildings taller than the Hancock.

On the international stage, Sydney is finally building a taller building (maybe the only city that deserves a new tallest more than us) and Warsaw has a supertall (basically a Pru with a huge spire) that's U/C. Bogota also just built taller, as did a couple of the Mexico cities. (Mexico City, and either Guadelajara, Monterey, or both) The amount of tall construction worldwide is absolutely staggering.
 
HEIGHT? HEIGHT? The city of Boston can't even knock down a garage that would benefit the public never mind building anything of real significant height.

Boston/Cambridge are going to need height to expand economic growth in the future. That is why Cambridge is starting to talk about building skyscrapers.

I'm think we see a 700ft-1000ft tower in EVERETT soon.
 
Austin is a low density suburb by real city standards. Numerous towns in MA are denser, especially on a pop-weighted basis. If it puts up a couple skyscrapers to satisfy Texan egos, that does not make it any more a city.
 
Went through the FAA site some more. It's relaxing to update building heights, especially since most of them end up getting taller!

Liberty Mutual 335'
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=128519744&row=9

Atlantic Whart 449'!!! From 395' to 436' to 449'!!!
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=681925&row=3


Grandmarc Dorms (Northeastern/YMCA) 222'
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=144163756&row=12

Berklee College of Music Dorm 224' (I knew this one just HAD to be over 200')
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=146005069&row=11

Kensington 313'
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=148990953&row=6

319 A Street Rear 238'
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=152254624&row=14
 
It's funny, I actually personally posted some of the above back in December. I totally forgot, especially the ones that hadn't been updated on the skyscraperpage diagrams!

Speaking of which, the diagrams are missing a bunch of the Seaport buildings. It looks like PWC and Goodwin Proctor aren't represented, for starters. I think some others might just be listed too low.
 
I have had an ongoing discussion to update the diagrams page on SSP. I could definitely use help from some of you. (citylover, odurandina, etc) I know I'm not the ONLY person who cares about this stuff!

I did ask for 2 downgrades - Grandmarc from 300' to 222' (300' was the original, totally shot down proposal) and 33 Arch from 477' to 455' (based on FAA and because we all know the 477' is bs).

I asked for upgrades on Atlantic Wharf, the Berklee Dorm, 319A, Wynn Casino, and Blackfan buildings (all the way to 348' on this last one). I also requested that the Hub on Causeway residential shift from proposed to under construction.

Please let me know if you find any proof that the FAA heights are incorrect.

Also, I am looking for correct heights on some older buildings not listed by the FAA. Exchange Place, The Devonshire, and the Keystone Building come to mind as buildings that are almost definitely taller than listed. Any information would be helpful.
 
I wish I could help with the diagrams but I started working a second job and there is a lot happening this month that I have to coordinate for that so at least for now I don't have time to work much on adding buildings, but once things are a little calmer you may start to see me adding things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top