State Street HQ | One Congress | Bulfinch Crossing | West End

This thing is flying. Usually we see the core top off quickly and then everything else move much slower after that especially the cladding. But here, it appears that the glass is going in almost as fast as the steel did.
 
DZH22 said:
5/8 from Malden (note I put up an angle never before seen on archboston in post 939, but it looks like it got buried). I wonder if any of MT will be left showing from here once this is done?
Click to expand...
I thought it was interesting that there was practically nothing in front of MT from that Melrose view. Was the spot Pine Banks Park?
 
A Chicagoan said:
I thought it was interesting that there was practically nothing in front of MT from that Melrose view. Was the spot Pine Banks Park?
Click to expand...

No, I somewhat tried to find that view after this but have to go back and explore the rest of it. This was woods directly to the southwest of the Mt Hood golf course, Flagg Acres or something. Very confusing place. I was extremely lost and only found the view because of a helpful local who was out walking his dog. You're right that MT is striking as it's possibly the most of it I can see, top to bottom, in any view.
 
Czervik.Construction said:
Where in Melrose can you get a vantage point like that?
Click to expand...

It's called Flagg Acres. I think the view was just North of Towner's Pond. You can park at the golf course, or there's a very very small lot on Swain's Pond Ave. There's actually a second view of the ocean and Revere but that's somewhere on the other side of the woods.

I think Pine Banks (also in the link above) has a view too, on the East side of the park. I was on the West side and couldn't quite find it there other than a building through the trees. However, that's right down the road from Waitts Mountain so I abandoned Pine Banks for that next view.
 
BosDevelop said:
This thing is flying. Usually we see the core top off quickly and then everything else move much slower after that especially the cladding. But here, it appears that the glass is going in almost as fast as the steel did.
Click to expand...
It's funny you'd say (write) that, since while I agree with you that the core has gone up at a speedy clip, only 1.5 (give or take) more floors of glass/skin/cladding and only a few more of steel framing have been added since my pix from over two months ago. Supply chains for both steel and glass are in the midst of serious pandemic-related shortages, so I'm guessing that's what's behind the delay, but whatever the case IMHO the glass is going in *very* slowly (compared to other recent projects of similar scale/type -- 1 Dalton, MT, etc.).
 
Last edited:
Czervik.Construction said:
Where in Melrose can you get a vantage point like that?
Click to expand...

A much easier to find version of this view is from Slayton Tower on the Mount Hood golf course. Park all the way at the end of the long parking lot and follow the cart path. Can't miss it.

creepychusetts.blogspot.com

Slayton Tower, Melrose

I must confess that I have a strange fascination with a tower on top of a hill. And yes, please stop mentioning the phallic mambo-jumbo, Dr...
creepychusetts.blogspot.com creepychusetts.blogspot.com
 
The Mt. Hood golf course tower is the best of the above locations imo Really good views in all directions
 
KriterionBOS said:
Still looks overweight to me. I feel like Boston could have a much taller looking skyline if they trimmed some of these buildings aspect ratios.
Click to expand...

Yep. Boston's skyline looks stumpy because of proportions, not the lack of height. This building looks fat to me, especially the broader sides. But it admittedly isn't really much worse than many of Boston's biggest offenders, so it doesn't stand out as being fatter than many of the 70s/80s boxes nearby.
 
Lrfox said:
Yep. Boston's skyline looks stumpy because of proportions, not the lack of height. This building looks fat to me, especially the broader sides. But it admittedly isn't really much worse than many of Boston's biggest offenders, so it doesn't stand out as being fatter than many of the 70s/80s boxes nearby.
Click to expand...
It's also the lack of setbacks. Both Chicago and NYC have a large collection of mid-size towers that looks much taller due to the fact that they are set back correctly. That being said, much of the setback design came during the art-deco era, of which Boston seemingly missed out entirely.
 
At the end of the day, Boston just needs 1 new tallest to flip that perception on its head. Something in the 900' range would give the skyline more of a Seattle feel, which is never accused of being too short. San Francisco went from stumpy to arguably the 3rd best in the country with the Salesforce Tower.

Right now 16 US cities have a building taller than the Hancock (although Indy's is bs and in a way so is Minneapolis'). Las Vegas has the Stratosphere, and Austin is building a (hideous) 880'. So we're talking about 18 US cities going taller than the Hancock, and counting. Keep in mind the Hancock was a top 20 tallest building IN THE WORLD when completed in 1976, even with the plywood palace delay, and the Pru was the tallest building outside NYC in the whole country. Now we have 18 cities that surpass us in the US alone. Those are Reasons #1-18 why Boston is considered too short.
 
I'd be fine with a new tallest, but I feel like there's way too much focus on that (from some). Nobody gushes about the architecture in Barcelona or New Orleans or Rome and then qualifies such flattery with, "too bad they don't have a supertall." Conversely, many feel that the (relatively) recent advent of truly tall buildings in London has diminished the city's overall "skyline" and collective architectual worth. Boston has lovely architecture -- including even some of the newer projects -- and a distinctive aesthetic that is far more valuable than the bragging rights that go along with a 900-footer (I guess? Not sure what we'd be bragging about when a 900 foot tower doesn't make us especially unique. "Hey -- look at Boston! We've got a 910-footer. It's the 72nd tallest building in the world!").

I do "get" that having a true pinnacle/peak would provide balance and symmetry and -- again -- I'd be fine with it. It just seems like a pretty minor concern.
 
chrisbrat said:
I'd be fine with a new tallest, but I feel like there's way too much focus on that (from some). Nobody gushes about the architecture in Barcelona or New Orleans or Rome and then qualifies such flattery with, "too bad they don't have a supertall." Conversely, many feel that the (relatively) recent advent of truly tall buildings in London has diminished the city's overall "skyline" and collective architectual worth.
Click to expand...

I think the big difference between Boston and Barcelona/Rome/London (maybe not NOLA) is that it's always been a "skyscraper city" since back when the style first emerged. When the Custom House at 500ft was finished in 1915, there probably weren't may taller buildings in the world outside of NYC (not including structures like the Washington Monument and Eiffel Tower). Even Chicago didn't build anything taller than the Custom House until the 20s/30s as far as I can tell.

So it's not so much an ask to join an elite group of cities with tall buildings as it is reaffirming our place in said group. We've had our hat in that ring for a century whether we like it or not.
 
Blackbird said:
I think the big difference between Boston and Barcelona/Rome/London (maybe not NOLA) is that it's always been a "skyscraper city" since back when the style first emerged.
Click to expand...

That's very strange that you feel that way (imo). That we had a self-imposed height restriction for so many decades, robbing us of hardly any art deco highrises (among other things), defined Boston -- both at home and abroad -- as very much NOT a "skyscraper city" while many others were aggressively going vertical. I honestly don't think I've ever heard of anyone refer to Boston as one of the cities that birthed the modern skyscraper or really had much of anything at all to do with it. Chicago and then NYC were the catalysts for the skyscraper boom. The Custom House tower was tall for its day, sure, but it was an anomoly and wasn't surpassed in height for half a century.
 
chrisbrat said:
The Custom House tower was tall for its day, sure, but it was an anomoly and wasn't surpassed in height for half a century.
Click to expand...

The Shoe Building was built in 1930 as a 300ft Art Deco skyscraper. Then equal height (500ft) John Hancock was built in 1947.

Heck, the Ames Building was kind of a big deal in the world of tall buildings when it was built, iirc. Basically there’s never been a time in Boston’s history when it wasn’t building tall even if the regional economic collapse kept it from matching NYC/Chicago through most of the 20th century. It’s in the city’s blood.
 
Last edited:
chrisbrat said:
........(I guess? Not sure what we'd be bragging about when a 900 foot tower doesn't make us especially unique. "Hey -- look at Boston! We've got a 910-footer. It's the 72nd tallest building in the world!").
Click to expand...

I just want to point out that a 910' building, if it popped up tomorrow, would be 287th (or worse) in the world. That's based on completed buildings, today, in the skyscraperpage database. I'm sure there are plenty in China and some other places that aren't on there. Also, according to the same database, there are 165 buildings currently under construction that are over 910', meaning even a 910' building, which is 120' taller than the Hancock, soon wouldn't make the world's top 450.

According to that same list, the Hancock is currently 628th tallest in the world, and there's another 262 buildings U/C that are taller. That means our tallest building will then be 890th tallest in the world, probably worse assuming SSP isn't fully comprehensive.

In 1976 the Hancock was 19th tallest in the world (Dallas Renaissance Tower didn't add the spire until later). In 1964 the Pru was the 11th tallest building in the world (the flag pole doesn't actually count on Cleveland's Terminal Tower even though it shows it on SSP). In 1915 the Custom House was 6th tallest in the world (not including churches). Now we are on pace to be out of the Top 1000 within about 5 years. That's why Boston is considered too short in 2021.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top