South Station Tower | South Station Air Rights | Downtown

[bigpicture7]

And now for the really wacky stuff. I have no idea if any of these were ever serious proposals.
View attachment 64070

^This one looks like an early '90s shopping mall exploding

 

[chrisbrat]

I almost like the exploding Prudential Center (circa '93) aesthetic -- minus the transition from the headhouse to the tower. Thanks for sharing -- never seen that one!

 

[DZH22]

They cannot build a tall res tower in the other locations south of the current tower. You enter FAA 300 ft. restricted airspace just south of the current tower. (In fact it seems they likely fudged the edge of the airspace restriction for the current tower.)

I checked and you're right that the height limit there is stupidly low. However, there also seems to be some leeway compared to the FAA map. For example, 1 Dalton is squarely in the ~500' range but ended up approximately 756'. So maybe there's some hope to at least exceed 300'.

 

[JeffDowntown]

I checked and you're right that the height limit there is stupidly low. However, there also seems to be some leeway compared to the FAA map. For example, 1 Dalton is squarely in the ~500' range but ended up approximately 756'. So maybe there's some hope to at least exceed 300'.

View attachment 64073

Yes, there does seem to be some ability to bend the line close to the transition points (like One Dalton). Although the FAA may have already done that for the South Station Tower, and may not be willing to do more.

I believe those mid-height zones are for clear radar coverage on the even tighter runway approach paths.

 

[HelloBostonHi]

some crown lighting would be lovely on this one, such a prominent tower at night

 

[The EGE]

Let's go back... way back... to proposals back when "tear down South Station" was the going concern.

The first serious proposals seem to have been in 1958. Here's a 3,000-car garage (with heliport!) proposed by the city that year:

Here are two proposals from 1966:

BRA plan from 1967. They claimed the 5,200-space garage could be emptied in 22 minutes. Gridlock? What gridlock?

Port Authority plan, also from 1967, by Josep Luis Sert:

Suffice to say, what we're getting - the beautiful South Station with the exciting new concourse, a decent bus terminal, minimal parking, and a non-hideous (if slightly boring) tower - is worlds better than what could have been.

 

[Ryanontherails]

Here are some photos from when I went through South Station yesterday (6/20). They have the track numbers on the new building now!:

I also was able to get a look through the keyhole to the new section of the bus terminal:

And lastly, the tower itself:

I wonder what's taking the new section of the bus terminal so long to open. The terminal and bus bays look done, and certainly they can block off any other elevators and escalators until they are ready, right?

 

[BeeLine]

A few more photos from today. 6/21/25.

 

[stick n move]

We definitely do need a few more spires on the skyline. Too bad we missed out at hub on causeway.

 

[SMCYB]

A few more photos from today. 6/21/25.

They really need to take down all that cra- hanging inside the concourse. It looks messy, it makes the space seem much smaller, it blocks light, and now it blocks the view of the domes they spent so much money building. There are plenty of other ways they can sell ad space without junking it up like that. And speaking of the domes, they should light up the interior facades of the support columns so they don't look so dark from inside the concourse. It would show them off as well.

 

[thepianoperson]

 

[BeeLine]

Some more from this morning. 6/22/25

 

[SMCYB]

Wow, they're really going to leave that gap open, aren't they?

 

[chrisbrat]

Wow, they're really going to leave that gap open, aren't they?

good!

 

[stellarfun]

Yes, there does seem to be some ability to bend the line close to the transition points (like One Dalton). Although the FAA may have already done that for the South Station Tower, and may not be willing to do more.

I believe those mid-height zones are for clear radar coverage on the even tighter runway approach paths.

The FAA restrictions are for one-engine out on takeoff and climb. A developer is free to build above those limits, but good luck getting liability insurance. The FAA could declare that the proposed structural height represented a hazard to aviation. No insurance, no financing.. The FAA does not have any zoning authority.

Also, in high temperature conditions -- which can directly affect lift and engine thrust --this might lead to the runway being closed for departures for certain types of aircraft.