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

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...

Eh, let those places have their taller ego project. Boston is leaps and bounds ahead of every city on that list by far more meaningful metrics than a single building's height relative to the Hancock. Be glad that a tall skyscraper isn't required for Boston's numerous virtues to stand out.

A city with nothing else will try to build something like that. Let them. If we build taller, let it be because we need to, not because we're desperate to appear as though we need it.
 
Detroit's proposal just grew over 800'. It's hideous but seriously, DETROIT?!

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=208634&page=5

This is getting ridiculous. When the Prudential was built, it was the tallest building in North America outside NYC. Now 50+ years later and and there are over 20 North American cities that have eclipsed Boston from a height standpoint. It's a very disappointing turn of events. Hopefully Walsh puts this on the agenda for his second term. Sour grapes or not, we deserve better than Detroit, Oklahoma City, Austin, Edmonton, Indianapolis, Cleveland, Charlotte, Calgary, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, and every other lesser/cesspool city that has out-built us over the years.
 
We could use a few more 200m buildings for purely economic reasons. If we had a few more permitted in the West End, we'd likely have a better chance at winning the Amazon bid. ...The residential tower at TD Garden was originally planned for 659' (201m) at the top of its very flat roof. Common sense was cut by 164' at 1 of our major transit hubs.

We don't have the land to be squandering what precious few (actual real true parcels for building very tall) we have left. ...To the naysayers, there's a big difference in 'could we' vs 'will we.' We can build 800' at the Garden Garage. Except that we're not going to build 800' at the Garden Garage–despite that the economics would very likely support that scale of height.

When you bring a letter of intent in Los Angeles for a 740' tower, the City comes back and says, 'sure you can't build it 940'? And they've got plenty of land.

To go along with Amazon's signature skyscraper, the accessory 500' office buildings should all come with 280' of condo's on top.
 
o·ver·com·pen·sate
ˌōvərˈkämpənˌsāt
verb
gerund or present participle: overcompensating
take excessive measures in attempting to correct or make amends for an error, weakness, or problem.
 
Justin7 said:
o·ver·com·pen·sate
ˌōvərˈkämpənˌsāt
verb
gerund or present participle: overcompensating
take excessive measures in attempting to correct or make amends for an error, weakness, or problem.
Click to expand...

What makes Boston so great that it can under-compensate? We have 2 of the world's top universities, yet can't keep the vast majority of the those students post-graduation. Without Harvard and MIT, Boston would just be another Baltimore.

It seems like a lot of posters here would be satisfied with a never ending stream of 5 over 1's built from a combination of cardboard and feces, as long as there is a Starbucks and bike racks. Personally, I would like to be able to take as much pride in Boston's future architecture as I do in the past. Without the height to back it up, most of our new buildings continue to get overshadowed by the 70's boxes. In today's climate, the John Hancock Tower would never be able to get built.
 
Pathetic cities with nothing going for them try to build massive, one-shot edifices in the hope of making themselves look great. Sure, I would love to see a massive building in Boston, but I just want to remind everyone here how ridiculous these rust-belt/silicon prairie ego-trips are. No one would even compare Cleveland to Boston. Or even Austin.
 
Here are a couple of the Assembly Square heights nailed down...

Partners Health Care 240'

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=222630057&row=9

(note the next tallest one only says 218' so it depends on what a "Gen Stack" is.
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=222630051&row=20


Block 6 (taller residential finishing up) 245'

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=233657129&row=5


Block 5A is 169'
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=280328246&row=28


I believe the next residential that hasn't started yet will be the one that hits ~270'.
 
Last edited:
DZH22 said:
Here are a couple of the Assembly Square heights nailed down...

Partners Health Care 240'

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=222630057&row=9

(note the next tallest one only says 218' so it depends on what a "Gen Stack" is.
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=222630051&row=20


Block 6 (taller residential finishing up) 245'

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=233657129&row=5


Block 5A is 169'
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=280328246&row=28


I believe the next residential that hasn't started yet will be the one that hits ~270'.
Click to expand...

What's the "next residential" one? I hadn't heard.
 
Hubman said:
What's the "next residential" one? I hadn't heard.
Click to expand...

It is Block 8, between the current tall residential at Block 6 and the Partners Healthcare Building.

Bldup has a render here: http://www.bldup.com/projects/about-assembly-row-block-8

In their render, Block 8 is the tall building in the foreground, while Block 6 (the one finishing up) is the tall white building in the background. Block 5A is visible across the street to the left of that. (it looks mostly black with a grey vertical and grey horizontal bar at the top)
 
The FAA has so many restrictions on how tall buildings should be in Boston. Plus there are so many NIMBY's who are also complaining.
 
The Boston height fetishists contingent should start a real estate development company. Put your money where your mouth is and build yourself a new tallest phallic monument to your idiocy.
 
DZH22 said:
It is Block 8, between the current tall residential at Block 6 and the Partners Healthcare Building.

Bldup has a render here: http://www.bldup.com/projects/about-assembly-row-block-8

In their render, Block 8 is the tall building in the foreground, while Block 6 (the one finishing up) is the tall white building in the background. Block 5A is visible across the street to the left of that. (it looks mostly black with a grey vertical and grey horizontal bar at the top)
Click to expand...

Thanks.
 
The one i question is The Fed Reserve. I'd say it's about 585-588'.

DZH22 said:
I really wanted to see if the Pregnant building is taller (to the small mech box on top) and especially if Exchange Place is closer to 530'-540' rather than 510'. I also think the Keystone building doesn't factor in the substantial black mech top and is slightly over 400'.
Click to expand...

looks like they have it about right.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Boston



40078537251_a6850f9210_k.jpg
 
Re: Why can't Boston build tall?

Because of the lack of proper zoning and infrastructure ideas. The lack of building with height in the core of the city which supports rapid transit has suffocated the overall outdated infrastructure outside the city and also drove up housing prices outside the city. That is why we sit in traffic all day and pay astronomical housing prices outside the city.

Very poor planning, poor zoning and restrictions on developments have really affected Massachusetts residents everyday life’s.
 
A single 1000' supertall would really enhance the downtown/financial district skyline.

With 1 Dalton, Boston has 20 buildings of 150+ meters, which ranks behind NYC, Chicago, Miami, Houston, LA, and San Francisco. Tied with Dallas I think. Boston therefore has a decently-large-but-not-massive skyline.

But the good news is the number of u/c projects in Boston compares favorable with the cities immediately in striking distance. Eg there are more u/c buildings than the cities right near Boston on the list like Seattle, Dallas, Atlanta, and Las Vegas.

But the downtown core only has 15 of these 150+ buildings, with the other 5 in the Back Bay.

If the downtown core were to add another 5 150+ buildings (115 Winthrop, TD garden towers, Bulfinch Crossing are really good starts) and another 10 filler buildings (100-125), then it would look a lot more imposing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top