MassDOT Pike Parcels 12 - 15 | Boylston St. and Mass. Ave | Back Bay

We don't necessarily need to build that tall though for example if all the residential areas in Boston had a built form similar the area around the Christian Science Center/Northeastern which averages a density of around 75,000 ppsm the city of Boston could fit 3.6 million people in the city without any buildings over 8 stories in height. That isn't reasonable but as long as new buildings in neighborhoods around the city being added and continue the trend of being slightly denser 4 to 7 story buildings replacing empty lots and older less dense housing Boston shouldn't have any trouble increasing density.

I do support skyscrapers being built in the city I am just trying to give a different perspective on why skyscrapers/highrises are not really the key to more housing. The reality is that while a building like Millennium Tower or Avalon North Station do add tons of housing units they are not the only part of the solution what actually will play the largest role in Boston meeting the demand for housing is developments like those in South Boston, the South End, Allston/Brighton, Somerville, Malden, etc.
 
citylover94 said:
as long as new buildings in neighborhoods around the city being added and continue the trend of being slightly denser 4 to 7 story buildings replacing empty lots and older less dense housing Boston shouldn't have any trouble increasing density.
Click to expand...

Amen
 
bigpicture7 said:
Honestly, those of us who care about this need to start showing up at these meetings (at least I am going to try to). I am not going to name names, but I noticed in the twittersphere that some of the same people who were complaining about 115 Fed are complaining about this. That actually relates to a different hypothesis - that there are generically anti-development folks out there, not just angry neighbors.
Click to expand...

This actually would make me even angrier -- to think that there's people with time on their hands intentionally shitting on the city and the general public.
 
odurandina said:
i attended the last two meetings and did what i could to keep the negativity at bay and the 'win factor' at the base in the conversation. i was unable to attend yesterday. i fell behind on a project i'm working on related to this problem. i was afraid something like this might happen.
Click to expand...

I know you get a ton of flak on this forum and I might not agree with everything you say but I wanted to let you know I appreciate your dedication to going these meetings and fight for progress and change. Screw the haters.
 
Blackdog said:
I know you get a ton of flak on this forum and I might not agree with everything you say but I wanted to let you know I appreciate your dedication to going these meetings and fight for progress and change. Screw the haters.
Click to expand...

+1

O, we have our differences, but there's a certain necessary respect to those who attend these meetings
 
Blackdog said:
I know you get a ton of flak on this forum and I might not agree with everything you say but I wanted to let you know I appreciate your dedication to going these meetings and fight for progress and change. Screw the haters.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I dig his dedication. Please keep going to meetings and advocating.
 
odurandina said:
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....
Click to expand...

Wrong, how can you say that when Boston has been proposing multiple projects above 390'? Btw, San Diego has a far more severe FAA limit than Boston so please cut the shit.

Honestly, if you're so into height, why don't you buy the land surrounding your house and develop them into supertalls so you can jack off to it non-stop until the day you leave this earth.
 
kmp1284 said:
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. This is nothing more than childish wankery and I think that's putting it nicely. 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).
Click to expand...

The Pike will likely never get covered except by building tall to cover the construction costs. I'd say in a trade-off between a few tall buildings and a gash thru the middle of the city I'd take the tall buildings.
 
Not building taller in the core of the city:
Increases overall traffic throughout the area
Increases rents dramatically-- since supply & demand remain depressed.

Boston needs tall buildings on certain sites to continue its growth especially most of the desirable areas to live are geared towards college students, yuppies and out of towners, (Young professionals).

South Boston----has become the youngest hipster area in the city. Everytime I'm down in the area I find it harder and harder seeing anytype of locals.

Boston in my opinion is not family friendly.

Agree on Odurandina---Attending the meetings--Good Luck man---Your thoughts and opinion are most valued here on this site.
 
Thanks for the kind words, all. Today is a very impactful day at the BPDA Meeting of the Board. w/ three big/huge impact projects up for approval.

1. Tremont Crossing for final board approval....
2. 111 Harrison Ave "Albany Block"...
3. 370-380 Harrison Ave.

Board meetings take on the appearances of formality. We know the fun takes place out of the public view with loud shouting matches and controversy. Insiders know projects are already approved. However, the risks of the process appearing "ingenuine" are greatly diminished if people come out to show support.

reposted;
 
kmp1284 said:
I'm not generalizing forum members but rather the city's population at large.

And yes, Boston is frozen in time sadly and it's going to take a lot more than a few tall buildings to change that.
Click to expand...

Hear, hear!
 
KentXie said:
Honestly, if you're so into height, why don't you buy the land surrounding your house and develop them into supertalls so you can jack off to it non-stop until the day you leave this earth.
Click to expand...
Because an absurd and stifling system of laws designed to enrich existing residents makes this exact idea illegal? Which is his *entire complaint*? He may be overdramatic but the idea that he's the one who wants to coerce others is completely backwards.
 
i believe for at least some Globe readers who have trouble connecting dots, 'the list,' and my "listy" essays allows the 'big picture' of how much height can be added to emerge. i kept harping on it to encourage a more sympathetic view with respect to 115 Fed, Harbor Garage, 1 Bromfield, Parcel 15 and future parcels such as 65 Martha Road. I know that it's helped at least a few people reduce their reactionary tone. People who attend the meetings tell me so. It's also amazing what 1 on 1 conversations can do to defuse their concerns. You all can make a huge difference at the meetings.
 
Last edited:
Regarding motivations, NIMBY's go where they think 1) they'll get the most media coverage, and 2) they have a decent chance at success.

Think about it. Where where the Concerned Citizens Against Too Much Height when One Dalton was sailing through the approval process and getting build? Isn't all height offensive? Answer: Nowhere to be found. Why? First, its kinda hard to be protesting or extorting a church vs the ever handy "greedy developers". Even lazy Globe reporters are apt to leave that one alone. Next, as the shadows, wind tunnels, etc etc all affect the church campus itself, no standing to gripe about the usual idiocy that ties projects up.

Now, if NIMBY's had any pride, they'd still fight the good fight. They don't so they'll try to find a different project to lean on in the hopes of generating their names in the paper.

In terms of buildings, I have to image in a lot of cities many buildings are proposed that never actually get built for a variety of reasons. As long as demand stays high these will eventually rise, however I do worry about covering the Pike. Difficult enough as it is without dealing with the usual gang of idiots protesting everything.
 
Rover said:
"greedy developers". .
Click to expand...

For those who don't own real estate in Boston and who would like to live in the city will struggle when rents continue to increase to absurbed levels where no families can actually afford to live near or the surrounding areas without sometype of govt assistance due to the lack of supply from those Greedy Developers.

Most of the housing I see now is individuals renting out rooms--700-1000.

Boston is a very expensive place to live with a family
 
somethingrandom said:
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.
Click to expand...

This would be the 3rd iteration of Elkus's towers on a podium template (after VanNess and One Seaport). You're right about it being something of an awkward hybrid: in Elkus's limited bag of tricks they keep pulling out variations of the same boilerplate again and again. I mostly don't mind it I guess but more coherence would be welcome. A firm like Morphosis or BIG could do some real magic here though.
 
total insanity has broken out at the Meeting of the BPDA Board.
 
FitchburgLine said:
Because an absurd and stifling system of laws designed to enrich existing residents makes this exact idea illegal? Which is his *entire complaint*? He may be overdramatic but the idea that he's the one who wants to coerce others is completely backwards.
Click to expand...

No that's not it. Even if the absurd and stifling system of laws didn't exist, you won't see cities the size of Boston jacking up 14 skyscrapers over 700 feet in a short span of time without it ending up like Miami where several sits half empty, all because a group of people wants height. That's just plain stupid city planning and just as stupid as the absurd and stifling system we have in place.
 
There are 90 skyscrapers planned, under-construction or built in Miami.

We're twice the size of Miami and we're doing like 10 significant highrises.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top