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

[kmp1284]

Philadelphia is significantly larger than Boston

And despite eclipsing Boston in height, Center City remains strewn with littered parking lots, decaying garages and some of the most anti-urban urban architecture anywhere. Also, like half of the city is a complete slum. Of course this is subjective but the tall buildings they have aren't even that attractive. The u/c Comcast tower makes me think of a giant Mormon temple. Fright night in Philly!

 

[Equilibria]

Montreal has one tower above 600 ft built recently and none of the proposals/u/c are higher than that. In fact, you can say Boston has larger projects than Montreal, a city about three times the size of Boston. Oh and btw, Montreal has a more severe height limit than Boston.

I don't know why Toronto will baffle you considering Toronto is basically the NYC of Canada and is larger than Chicago (and with a smaller skyline than Chicago). Philadelphia is significantly larger than Boston and Seattle is experiencing a boom due to a population boom and Amazon moving its headquarter into the city.

Montreal has a metro population of just over 4 million. Slightly smaller than Boston's but equivalent.

The reason that Boston doesn't have 1,000' buildings is the airport, just like Miami's airport is the reason it doesn't have 2,500' buildings like Dubai. It's not because Boston sucks, it's backward, or it's full of NIMBYs, but because of the safety constraints imposed by the airport.

Logan's location is also the primary reason GE cited for moving its headquarters here, to a relatively short building. Height has zero to do with how "booming" a city is, how pleasant it is to live in, or how vibrant it is. It's just aesthetics. In fact, given that knowledge economy businesses tend to value transit and neighborhood character above building ego towers, a downtown full of 1,000' glass buildings isn't necessarily helpful anymore. Sure, SF is building some due to space constraints (and no airport) but SF's economic boom created that demand, not the other way around. Biotech isn't beating down the door to Charlotte just because it has tall glass towers.

 

[393b40]

Eventually Boston will blow past Montreal due to the height that many posters take for granted. In the meantime over the last few years Montreal has essentially built the equivalent of this project, plus the Trinity Hotel, plus the Bubble Hancock, plus the Avalon NS, Longfellow Tower, and both TD Garden Towers, plus the Pierce, plus the Congress Street residential... They are going bananas between 380'-600'. Montreal has also gone toe to toe with Boston on everything smaller than that range. For whatever reason, the projects here have lagged behind in their timing.

Boston is not churning out the quantity to keep up with Montreal, but Montreal ultimately won't be able to compete with 1 Dalton, Winthrop Square, and SST, not to mention MT.

What the fuck does "keeping up" even mean? Who the fuck cares what other cities are doing. Good city design and urbanism is not about some Tall Tower dick comparison contest. Good for fucking Montreal if it's decided height is appropriate. Just because Montreal decided it was good for them does not mean Boston has to reach the same conclusion.

 

[JeffDowntown]

But if you want to maintain the historic neighborhoods, which are a big part of central Boston, then you also have to build height where you can, or we run out of housing.

Our historic neighborhoods are only 4 to 5 stories tall. You cannot get to the density of a Paris (for example) with that height. So you have to add the density through height in the allowed areas.

 

[kmp1284]

Generally speaking when I'm looking at, around or in tall buildings it's because I have to be. I'm on the clock. I'd much rather spend my time in a fun and interesting neighborhood than in one infested with a bunch of soulless corporate retail outlets and restaurants(nobody else can afford lobbies in tall buildings generally).

I would never go to Canary Wharf or even to the Shard for that matter unless I was being paid to be there. In San Francisco, where I was until Tuesday all I wanted to do was escape my meeting in 50 California and get to the Mission for my favorite grilled cheese at the Sycamore ... a stumpy fifteen footer. I'm almost positive that certain people here would advocate for tearing it down for the sake of density and to "keep up" and would be perfectly content to have a ground floor occupied by a Chase Bank and a Starbucks.

 

[DZH22]

What the fuck does "keeping up" even mean? Who the fuck cares what other cities are doing. Good city design and urbanism is not about some Tall Tower dick comparison contest. Good for fucking Montreal if it's decided height is appropriate. Just because Montreal decided it was good for them does not mean Boston has to reach the same conclusion.

When the Pats won the Superbowl there were some people in my office who shrugged their shoulders. They couldn't care less. How does the success of a sports team improve the quality of life for the residents? Unless those residents' jobs depend on this success, it really makes no difference to their lives. Except they care anyway. I certainly cared.

Some people care about this. When other cities are getting more done, we question why our city cannot. So when you say who the fuck cares? I care, and clearly some others on here do as well. If you want to have a reasonable debate about that, there is no problem. But instead you are straight up trolling other people's hobbies. Why don't you find a hobby of your own? It takes a real prick to shit on people just because they are passionate about something that you are not. Personally, I enjoy watching cities evolve. It's 2017. The future is now.

As JeffDowntown said, if you don't build height where height is appropriate, then you have to satisfy that demand (and yes, there is a ton of demand here) in some other fashion. In Boston's case it means demolishing the Dainty Dot, or the Times Building, or any other piece of history that could have been preserved if something bigger was built somewhere else. Even if you don't care about height for height's sake, there are still plenty of reasons to care, especially in Boston.

 

[DZH22]

Height has zero to do with how "booming" a city is, how pleasant it is to live in, or how vibrant it is. It's just aesthetics.

As long as the first 3 points are covered, and they certainly are, what's wrong with a little more focus on aesthetics? As I said before, the "postcard view" of the Back Bay wouldn't even be on postcards at all if not for the JHT.

 

[Equilibria]

But if you want to maintain the historic neighborhoods, which are a big part of central Boston, then you also have to build height where you can, or we run out of housing.

Our historic neighborhoods are only 4 to 5 stories tall. You cannot get to the density of a Paris (for example) with that height. So you have to add the density through height in the allowed areas.

Paris isn't a mass of tall towers. It looks like this:

Building out the housing stock is about building lots more 4-5 story neighborhoods with more densely-packed living spaces, not building skyscrapers kept unoccupied by Chinese millionaires. You can't build enough of those to house the population anyway. The densest town in MA is Somerville, and it accomplishes that without any towers.

Paris is mostly 3-7 stories, but it's a vast amount of 3-7 stories, done in an attractive aesthetic style.

Also, the housing need isn't in "central Boston". It's in Somerville, Cambridge, Dorchester, Quincy, Newton, etc. - places accessible by the T but affordable. A modern urban center doesn't house everyone in downtown. Paris houses no one at all in La Defense.

As long as the first 3 points are covered, and they certainly are, what's wrong with a little more focus on aesthetics? As I said before, the "postcard view" of the Back Bay wouldn't even be on postcards at all if not for the JHT.

Nothing. I'm not arguing against this project or projects like it. I think they make the city look nicer. I'm arguing that they aren't a measure of "how we're doing" vs. any other city.

 

[393b40]

Some people care about this. When other cities are getting more done, we question why our city cannot. So when you say who the fuck cares? I care, and clearly some others on here do as well. If you want to have a reasonable debate about that, there is no problem. But instead you are straight up trolling other people's hobbies. Why don't you find a hobby of your own? It takes a real prick to shit on people just because they are passionate about something that you are not. Personally, I enjoy watching cities evolve. It's 2017. The future is now.

No it takes a special kind of person to constantly derail every thread into a "Boston isn't tall enough" or "We need to keep up with <X> city" circle jerk. Keep your hobby I don't care about that. All I really care about is that you take it to a place where talking about only height in every thread is totally appropriate: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/

 

[stick n move]

Thats like saying Boston looks like this:

La Defense:

 

[atlantaden]

It's like a huge constituent of Bostonians refuses to believe that we are anything more than a small town, let alone Boston's Alpha- ranking as a global power. On that level we are talking between the 24th-45th most important cities IN THE WORLD. Only 3 US cities are above the Alpha-. (NYC, LA, and Chicago) At the same level as Boston are San Francisco, Washington, Miami, and Atlanta. Like it or not, Boston is a big city with an aversion to big city buildings.

Granted, I'm including two studies but they show the powerhouse that Boston is. I agree with DZ that most people, not just in the metro area, but anywhere in the country, think of Boston as anymore than a quaint, quirky, college town.


http://www.knightfrank.com/globalcities

https://www.atkearney.com/documents...2016.pdf/8139cd44-c760-4a93-ad7d-11c5d347451a

 

[Equilibria]

Thats like saying Boston looks like this:

Not one of the towers in your image is residential. La Defense exists because the people of Paris were stingy about their height limits and hated the only skyscraper in the city limits. It's basically a high-rise office park. It is entirely tangential to Paris.

 

[DZH22]

Nothing. I'm not arguing against this project or projects like it. I think they make the city look nicer. I'm arguing that they aren't a measure of "how we're doing" vs. any other city.

They are a visual measure. A nicer looking city makes me happier the same way the 5 time Superbowl Champion Patriots make me happier than the 0 time Superbowl Champion Patriots made me.

The densest town in MA is Somerville, and it accomplishes that without any towers.

2 things about this... First, while technically correct, "density" in this case only measures population density, and not the actual density of structures themselves. (completely leaves out office/commercial buildings as if they were empty fields) Second, while I couldn't tell you this for sure, I think if you removed Logan from the equation that Boston would be denser than Somerville.

 

[bakgwailo]

But if you want to maintain the historic neighborhoods, which are a big part of central Boston, then you also have to build height where you can, or we run out of housing.

Our historic neighborhoods are only 4 to 5 stories tall. You cannot get to the density of a Paris (for example) with that height. So you have to add the density through height in the allowed areas.

Well, I would argue to get to the density of Paris it would be by building in the neighborhoods/rest of the city at 4-8 floors. A couple of super tall (or even 600'+) towers downtown aren't going to bring us to that density, its sustained dense development in the 4-8 story range across the entire city.

edit: forgot words

 

[DZH22]

No it takes a special kind of person to constantly derail every thread into a "Boston isn't tall enough" or "We need to keep up with <X> city" circle jerk. Keep your hobby I don't care about that. All I really care about is that you take it to a place where talking about only height in every thread is totally appropriate: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/

Wow it's too bad that you are the person who was advocating to change the heights, without backing up your argument, and then accuse me of derailing the thread for responding. Hypocrite.

600+ right on this corner seems excessive personally. I'd like too see the dev chop about 200-300 ft off and increase size of the smaller building to compensate.

Please amuse me by explaining how two four hundred foot buildings is worse than a 283 ft and a 583,ft building (ignoring crowns). Please. Amuse me. I'm waiting.

I explained it, and you followed up with f-bombs. Your glass house has shattered.

 

[stick n move]

Not one of the towers in your image is residential. La Defense exists because the people of Paris were stingy about their height limits and hated the only skyscraper in the city limits. It's basically a high-rise office park. It is entirely tangential to Paris.

True and I agree with your points in that post. We need housing in the outer neighborhoods where its cheaper land, transit oriented, and more than 2-3 floors but not skyscrapers.....like a shit ton of 5-7 story condos.

 

[bakgwailo]

True and I agree with your points in that post. We need housing in the outer neighborhoods where its cheaper land, transit oriented, and more than 2-3 floors but not skyscrapers.....like a shit ton of 5-7 story condos.

Exactly. Add-in transit expansion like the Fairmont Line, F-Line to Dudley and beyond, and the Orange to Roslindale/West Roxbury, along with upgrades on the High Speed line would really help everything. The density is starting to go up around these places, but the transit isn't there.

 

[HalcyonEra]

Thats like saying Boston looks like this:

La Defense:

Spot on stick.

I will never wrap my head around this height aversion thing. To me, going from 3 stories to 10 is significant but going from 300-400 feet to 500-600 doesn't matter except from a distant view. Christ, they are trying to fill in the Pike scar here. Exactly what is the lesser of two (alleged) evils?

We will never see housing in the outer neighborhoods with a shit ton of 5-7 story condos though. JP, Rosi, WR and HP neighbors will be just as opposed as Ned Flanders and his ilk were/are with high rises downtown.

 

[Rover]

Apologies but a lot of this commentary is way off the mark. You don't build tall towers for the sake of building them, or to keep up with other cities. You build them for the tax revenue. IF the city of Boston is going to help fun worthwhile projects like redoing all of the run down housing projects (and adding housing to them) or building more affordable housing, its going to need $$$ to do so. I have to think for example the Winthrop tower would pay just a wee bit more than the run down garage which was city owned that sits there now. So, every time a scummy NIMBY gets a project shrunk or delayed, that's tax money that's not being used to increase more middle class housing or improve transportation.

Its all linked to each other.

 

[JeffDowntown]

Paris isn't a mass of tall towers. It looks like this:

Building out the housing stock is about building lots more 4-5 story neighborhoods with more densely-packed living spaces, not building skyscrapers kept unoccupied by Chinese millionaires. You can't build enough of those to house the population anyway. The densest town in MA is Somerville, and it accomplishes that without any towers.

Paris is mostly 3-7 stories, but it's a vast amount of 3-7 stories, done in an attractive aesthetic style.

Also, the housing need isn't in "central Boston". It's in Somerville, Cambridge, Dorchester, Quincy, Newton, etc. - places accessible by the T but affordable. A modern urban center doesn't house everyone in downtown. Paris houses no one at all in La Defense.


Nothing. I'm not arguing against this project or projects like it. I think they make the city look nicer. I'm arguing that they aren't a measure of "how we're doing" vs. any other city.

Paris leans more toward 6-7 stories.

Boston's historic neighborhoods lean toward 4-5 stories.

I was not saying Paris is all towers. I was saying Paris' historic density is still much greater than Boston because the low rise architecture is taller. To make up the density difference (40 to 50%) you need to build much higher density in the areas where it is allowed in Boston. That was my point.