I'm glad you stopped by. You know, i must admit; last April i had begun to have my doubts. Shirley Kressel had been banished, 1 Bromfield, and 2 Charlesgate West came about, then SST, and now this.
But then, the grounds beneath the Back Bay volcano began to stir. What a difference a few months makes.
No Copley Tower. No end in sight for the 115 Federal St saga. 1 Bromfield in danger of fading to become a distant memory..... Yeah, you remember. You remember how in the fall of 2015, i had begun posting in just about every Globe article that we were just about done planning and permitting tall highrises in Boston; like, as in as near as makes no difference, none. And they way i came across. What an ass. And now look at what's happened. People like Galer, and Ryan and anyone else who votes against a perfectly reasonable proposal for not even massive height exactly where it should be: right next to two other skyscrapers in a big American urban core that barely has any tall buildings.
Yes, cross this off the list. And by doing that, you've canceled the advanced decking plans for the unification of these 2 parcels + that 1/2 parcel thing. Now nothing is getting decked. Not an inch. The developer can now walk away from the project and consider doing some apartments in Hyde Park.
That leaves us with
115 Winthrop Square 725'
1 Bromfield St 709'
Harbor Garage Tower 600'
Except if, Parcel 15 is gone, by applying your Boston no-go-for-height logic (near anything that trumps height) 1 Bromfield is also a goner. Then, i eagerly await anyone who can suggest any parcel where we can build even a 600' tower. If this holds out to be true, do i still get slain for saying, 'we're just about done building seriously tall shit....' ??
Or for just being the first turdwagon to say it?
I may be alone with this opinion, but I think these towers are a miss. I love the location, the idea, the density, and the height - but the design is doing nothing for me. The smaller tower looks like they put little effort into it (not unlike 30 Dalton) and for such a potentially prominent corner, it should have some redeeming qualities besides the podium.
The taller tower is a bizarre combination of other buildings that I do not think come together cohesively. The idea of a twisting tower is interesting and could be executed well, but this seems to half ass it and kind of twists but also doesn't really want to call attention to itself and therefore does not commit to the full potential. The crown is the same as Millennium Tower (sloped with the highest point in one corner), which seems uninspired. The second photo from the Bisnow article also shows random vertical lines in the facade (seems to be a reference to 1 Dalton), but they aren't cohesive to the front of the structure. The second photo also looks to have a slanted facade change (could be related to the twist?) that looks like the back is attempting to be some weird geometric shape that, again, seems to have nothing to do with the front of the tower. And the balcony placement in the second photo is awful.
Again, I may be alone in this opinion, but I think this site deserves something more interesting than a random collection of other buildings' features.
I'm curious to know what these people who oppose every cool project in Boston look like...where do they live? For how long? Are they old? Wealthy? Anyone have any idea?
I'm tired of assuming it's a bunch of old people that live in the west end.
Well, based on the cut and paste letters about the Winthrop Place Garage project, they live along Beacon Street and Commonwealth Avenue, around the Common and Public Garden or close by. I would suggest that at least makes them wealthy.
I'm curious to know what these people who oppose every cool project in Boston look like...where do they live? For how long? Are they old? Wealthy? Anyone have any idea?
I'm tired of assuming it's a bunch of old people that live in the west end.
The problem isn't the present. It's the future: our past is prologue nightmare for any hopes of filling in our last parcels with density. We are about to become the only city in the United States that can't build a building taller than 390'. if you think that's a typo, stop and consider that our future is resting on these parcels....
Proposed;
1. 115 Federal St 725'
2. Parcel 15 615'
3. Harbor Garage 600'
4. 109-153 Lincoln St (will be shadow law restricted at ~450-500')
not in my lifetime or yours, FAA heights/
1. Sheraton North Tower + Lobby; Boston's tallest build site; ~990'
2. Lord and Taylor; ~965'
3. 65 Martha Rd 900'
4. a site near the Garden Garage project 860'
5-7. 3 small parcels in the West End near Mass General; 825-850'
8. low section of the O'Neill Fed Bldg; 825'
9. State Services Ctr 810'
10. Suffolk Court (it needs to go) 775'
11. 1-3 Center Plaza 760-775'
12. low section JFK Fed Bldg 735-760'13. Boston City Hall 725-735'
14. 1 Bromfield St 710' (pushed back to theoretical status)
15. The south end of Christian Science Park; ~515'
16. The Midtown Hotel; 500~510' Christ Scientist says 'when Hell freezes over.'
btw, what is never mentioned is there's also a tacit shadow law for Copley Square. The Comm Ave mall is also protected in Back Bay from additional shadows. Losing Copley Tower is a terrible blow.
Another fucking list!
Almost no one who actually lives in or has any appreciation for Boston wants this kind of stuff built. If it's strictly tall buildings you're after, move to New York(or Philthadelphia).
Almost no one who actually lives in or has any appreciation for Boston wants this kind of stuff built.
What do we who live and work in Boston what exactly? To live in a city frozen in time?
I'm not generalizing forum members but rather the city's population at large.
... it's going to take a lot more than a few tall buildings to change that.
Another fucking list!
I've said this before and I'll say it again but just because it can be done, that doesn't mean it should be done.