South Station Tower | South Station Air Rights | Downtown

Does anyone have a clear pic depicting the base of the tower where it will actually be put? Seems so confusing because I don't really know exactly where the tower will be placed. :unsure::eek:
 
Jahvon09 said:
Does anyone have a clear pic depicting the base of the tower where it will actually be put? Seems so confusing because I don't really know exactly where the tower will be placed. :unsure::eek:
Click to expand...

sst.PNG
 
johnboy008 said:
of all the buildings chopped vertically down in our beautiful city, this one is the one I am most sad about. The original 759’ would have made this the downtown jewel, and the original top spire would have given her individuality from our stumpy tops……
Click to expand...

We would benefit so from a for-real spire on one of the big boys. Even the pretty weak spire on the penultimate Verizon Tower design would have been nice. Flat roofs, no nighttime lighting -- on neverending repeat loop.
 
> The original 759’ would have made this the downtown jewel

I vaguely recall (emphasis on vaguely) looking at a graph with the height limits imposed by the FAA and believe that this tower is situated right on the edge of one of the zones that doesn't exceed 700 ft. I'm sure that FAA map is buried somewhere in one of these threads but don't have time to hunt for it.
 
Last edited:
johnboy008 said:
of all the buildings chopped vertically down in our beautiful city, this one is the one I am most sad about. The original 759’ would have made this the downtown jewel, and the original top spire would have given her individuality from our stumpy tops……
Click to expand...

Are you confusing the 759' number with an early iteration of the Winthrop Square proposal? The only taller version I can ever remember proposed here was this one from the 1990's and it was about 840' to the top of that ridiculous spire.

1651505201038.png
 
just curious: why's that spire "ridiculous"? (any moreso than, yknow, any spire)
 
chrisbrat said:
just curious: why's that spire "ridiculous"? (any moreso than, yknow, any spire)
Click to expand...

It doesn't look like it belongs there, especially the side view which is difficult to find. It added a ton of extra cheating height that we aren't used to in Boston. Would have been considered a taller building than the Hancock despite having a roof about 100' shorter and the spire probably being about the same height as the Hancock's antennas.

My biggest issue is it appears as a hollow structure on top of the building, rather than a natural continuation of the building.
 
Come to think of it there are only a couple of spires in Boston area besides church spires. John Hancock Building, Memorial Hall at Harvard and Chapel at MIT. Maybe the best known in New England would be Gillette Stadium? If you want a spire on a building it will be a fight to prove yourself worthy enough. I think the Mormon church on Rt 2 had years of battle to get approved. I wish the Church of the Holy Cross spire got completed, it would have been amazing.

131970scr_941fe2e7dde4e1e.jpg
 
Last edited:
spires is spires. i dont see how that one would be any more ridiculous than most other spires on top of towers, but it's a moot point. and -- woof! you are correct! i'd never seen that (the last pic) sst proposal. what an ungodly mess. thank goodness we were spared that nonsense.
 
DZH22 said:
Are you confusing the 759' number with an early iteration of the Winthrop Square proposal? The only taller version I can ever remember proposed here was this one from the 1990's and it was about 840' to the top of that ridiculous spire.

View attachment 24003
Click to expand...

To the contrary, I don't think that the spire looks so ridiculous. It would've made the tower look just as tall, if not taller than the John Hancock Tower. :):unsure:
 
DZH22 said:
Glad we waited an extra 50 years rather than pulling the trigger with this one below.
Click to expand...

Bullet dodged on that thing... I forgot about that. Not sure I appreciate being reminded it was ever a possible thing.

And yea the spire was stupid and felt tacked on just because.
 
DZH22 said:
Found the side view. I stand by my assertion of it being ridiculous.

SST rendering, skyline by Mike Poole, on Flickr

Glad we waited an extra 50 years rather than pulling the trigger with this one below.

View attachment 24010
Click to expand...
I'm with you. What amazes me the most is that it took 50! years for anything to occur. At the time of the earlier proposal that would of been the tallest building downtown. (or close) They couldn't even get this done in the eighties before Ray Flynn decided to hate skyscrapers and well before the FAA took over.
 
Last edited:
Cortes said:
and well before the FAA took over.
Click to expand...
Educate me please: from all I’ve read and heard, the FAA’s radar-related height restrictions have been in place pretty much since Logan (as it’s currently configured) existed.
 
citydweller said:
I know there is a lot of love in this forum for the Fed Reserve building but it really does look like a giant lego set. I'm sure I'll get hate for it. Whatever.
Click to expand...

I still wanna know what the deal is with the one random balcony on the left side that sticks out. Almost feels like thats the one you are supposed to throw yourself off if the economy tanks too heavily.
 
DZH22 said:
Glad we waited an extra 50 years rather than pulling the trigger with this one below.

View attachment 24010
Click to expand...
Po-mo you don't!

Great find. I love the ...turrets? Flanking the HVAC? I don't think it would have aged well. Also, how much rain would have been leaking on to the tracks below from that slantacular low slung roof?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top