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

This photo from Chris08876 on skyscraperpage reminds me of a few times where Ive mentioned that I wish Boston was blessed with better geography. The city is surrounded immediately by hills on all sides and theres a few gaps that let you see in like on Rt2 etc... but overall the skyline is blocked pretty quick by the landscape. You can see probably the 10th floor and up on a lot of these buildings and this photo is taken pretty far away. This town is about the same distance as Waltham from the city, but look at how much more connected to the city you feel its incredible. NY was gifted in sooo many ways, truly is an incredible city. I love when you are able to see skylines from far away like this without needing height to break over the trees, it looks incredible as a backdrop. Thats something cool about NYC is that not only are the towers tall so where automatically you will be able to see them from far away, but the land is pretty flat from both sides of the city- less so on the North, so it makes for incredible backdrops from random ass places in NY, NJ. Imagine being able to have a podunk house like this from Waltham and having the entire Boston skyline in your backyard. Badass.

He says this is Wood Ridge NJ
32410349022_9255720fef_k.jpg
 
Been looking at this shot since you posted it. Calls to mind the view from Orient Ave.
 
Last edited:
odurandina said:
BPDA says

AVA 332'

W Hotel 310'

Motor Mart proposal; 310'

http://www.bostonplans.org/getattachment/38a7e87a-443c-4735-99b6-87dc578b8dfe
Click to expand...

Make sure the SSP diagrams get updated. I need your help with that. They're also missing all of the Seaport construction, all of the MIT construction, and the Northeastern dorms. I don't know where to find the exact heights for this stuff (which include the mech tops). It's like looking for needles in a haystack sometimes.
 
It looks like Detroit's upcoming new tallest is now slated to go over 900' with potentially a new design as well. I never expected to see any tower get built in Detroit in the next 20 years, let alone something that dwarfs the Hancock. I wish we could get a vanity project like this, with the most feasible possibility MIT in Kendall Square. Too bad Four Seasons didn't go 900'. It really was our best chance to build a new tallest in my lifetime.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=208634&page=15
 
SHoP is really killing it. The Detroit scheme reminds me of Piano’s original (never to be built) scheme for Transnational Place.
 
not really im direct response to anything, per se, but i'm currently in shanghai again (and was in nyc last weekend) and finally got to the top of the shanghai tower (i'd been to the other two supertalls and the pearl of the orient before) and damn... i know shanghai is a massive city and i wouldn't want boston to try and "compete" with some place so different in scope and when measured by pretty much every other metric, but goddamn -- i really believe boston's too short/squat for its own good. not to mention too slow. it's a shame. i wouldn't want wanton unregulated or ill-considered development, but grow a backbone, arleady (or a "high spine," even).
 
chrisbrat said:
not really im direct response to anything, per se, but i'm currently in shanghai again (and was in nyc last weekend) and finally got to the top of the shanghai tower (i'd been to the other two supertalls and the pearl of the orient before) and damn... i know shanghai is a massive city and i wouldn't want boston to try and "compete" with some place so different in scope and when measured by pretty much every other metric, but goddamn -- i really believe boston's too short/squat for its own good. not to mention too slow. it's a shame. i wouldn't want wanton unregulated or ill-considered development, but grow a backbone, arleady (or a "high spine," even).
Click to expand...

I don't know. I haven't been to Shanghai in a while, but I was in Hong Kong last week and I wasn't that impressed. Almost too many tall buildings, I felt overwhelmed and lacking certain neighborhood qualities.

I live in Kuala Lumpur and it seems like everyday they're tearing down an old "kampung" area or low rise flats to put up gated off condos or super tall buildings. Fuck that.

Honestly, I'd rather see more Paris and less Manhattan, Hong Kong or Shang Hai.
 
Who's asking for Manhattan, Hong Kong, or Shanghai? Not even the height crazies on here ask for that.

People are simply asking for one or two 850-950 footers. That's all it would take to convert boston's skyline into the no-doubt-this-isn't-albany-or-hartford category.

My take is: yes, more Paris please. Also one 900' please.

People (err, students) have been overheard questioning boston's seriousness as a city. And I can't take that (especially since some whom I've heard this from are the types I'd like to see stay here).
 
So if there was just one 900 foot tower, the students would stay?
 
type001 said:
So if there was just one 900 foot tower, the students would stay?
Click to expand...

It would change perceptions of the city. Especially from certain vantage points across the Charles.

22 year olds have a very superficial view of the world. I don't care about losing talent to SF or NYC in general; I do care about losing people, for superficial reasons, who would otherwise really add to the fabric of Boston. Smart, capable 22y.o.'s are nonetheless incredibly naive at that age.
 
type001 said:
So if there was just one 900 foot tower, the students would stay?
Click to expand...

Let me flip this around: if there were just one well-designed 900 footer, would the holier-than-thou architectural I-love-Paris crowd really have their dreams killed?
 
Speaking of Paris, they're still trying to get these things built and they are recently approved by the Council of State. Twin supertalls, not amazingly designed but still...

https://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=634777&page=64

Frankly, our La Défense should be in Kendall. Enough with the 280' and let's go 800'+ for Volpe and maybe one more site!
 
bigpicture7 said:
Let me flip this around: if there were just one well-designed 900 footer, would the holier-than-thou architectural I-love-Paris crowd really have their dreams killed?
Click to expand...

i believe you've won the thread.

65 Martha or 1076 Boylston.

You win; both parcels.
 
Isn't it a funny coincidence that the magic recipe for being considered a "serious city" is to have one building just a smidgen taller than our current tallest? I don't think anyone on earth (let alone a layperson) can eyeball the JHT and tell you whether it is 700 or 800 or 900 feet tall. Actually think about that for more than 3 seconds. Your case doesn't make a lick of sense.

People base where they move after college on where they find job postings and how much the salaries are. Boston is growing fast with loads of jobs and relatively high salaries. What exactly is the "problem" this 900 footer is supposed to solve? What evidence is there that Boston is failing to attract or retain talent?

If you like the look of tall buildings, just say so. You don't need some invented justification. Someone will build a 900 or 1900 foot tower here if and when it ever makes economic sense to do so.
 
^fattony,

Your post logically makes sense, and until I started working with university seniors, would have completely agreed with your logic. But what you outline naively assumes that all students are motivated by the same rational economic considerations. Some do, sure, but that's not how the mind of all 22y.o.'s work.

I cannot count the number of times I have engaged with students who have "already made up their mind" that they "need to get out of Boston" or "want to experience NYC" before they even know what their exact job prospects / salary options are. That is what 22 y.o.'s do, especially those who have no loan debt / have a sense they should go explore.

I agree with you that this has nothing to do with the height of JHT.

The boston skyline is a flat plateau that lacks punctuation. So, yes, if something were 792' it would not have the effect I am referring to.

The salesforce tower in SF is a direct play into the "we are an important city" game. It has a commanding presence. And it was strategically implemented by Benioff who knows how to play this game.

So, I respectfully disagree with you, because before - through talking/listening to hundreds of individuals - I gained a new perspective, I personally could not have cared less about the heights of boston buildings.

How hard is it to admit that the boston skyline is a stumpy plateau that lacks pizzaz? And how hard is it to admit that one punctuating tower would not destroy any of the other urban aesthetics that some folks on aB prefer?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top