I don't live in Boston anymore. I don't frequent this forum as much as I use to and I'll admit, I have less stake in Boston's development. Do I like these landscapers? Absolutely not, I think they are awful and you've seen me complain about the low quality of the designs in the Seaport and Northpoint. Again, argue with those people saying that, not me.
This is fair. I think it's easy to lump posters together when everybody has their own specific opinions, with lots of gray areas. Maybe it's just because we disagree so much on other topics that I instinctively go by that.
On my end
I have never once called for a 1000' tower in Boston. Not one time, not ever. FAA map wouldn't even allow it, as the 1000' zones are to sea level. Seaport is also stuck around 250' due to FAA flight paths. On the other hand, North Point could have pushed into the 900's, Kendall into the 900's, North Station Area as high as 800'+ in specific areas, and Back Bay into the 900's. So I am definitely complaining that we don't even build half that high, in the few places where height is actually possible. Just 1-2 buildings for each of those neighborhoods that approach their FAA allowances would really pop, and visually redefine the entire area. I also complain that we plan to put, say, a 190' lab on a choice 600' parcel next to South Station, or that instead of a slim 709' residential in DTX it's going to be a super fat 350' office.
Also on my end I constantly hear that anything over 40 floors stops being cost effective for the developers. So building over 1000' in a city full of low-rises and parking lots seems like it would be purely ego driven, and not the model of efficiency you are implying. There's probably 30 US cities ahead of Austin that should be pushing for 800'-1000' due to actual constraints.
I'm jealous of Austin's upcoming height, but not the designs and definitely not the city itself. I just recognize we might be heading towards a decade or more without even cracking 500' after South Station Tower is done, whereas we have the actual need and demand to get more of the larger towers. If there were somehow a ratio out there, we have probably built the most square feet in the last decade with the least visual impact to show for it, maybe in the entire world. For instance, for every 800' office tower Chicago builds, we put up 4 buildings on the same footprints, except at 1/4 of the height (Seaport, North Point, Kendall, Fenway....). Maybe the ratio could be something like "total square feet built / total square feet above 300'" or "total square feet built / total square feet above the city's prior 25th tallest building." Something that illustrates all the times I witnessed the seas of cranes end up being more impressive than the buildings they created. The entire North Point area is obviously our prime example there. Huh... Maybe you do kind of get it too. My bad then.
