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

Yeah, that sounds like a good idea! Too bad that it's not going to be on the top floor, but such is life! :)
 
Looks like something from Dubai, which is not a compliment - how did they get the proportions on this so wrong, taller and slimmer coulda been great...
 
urbanmansprawler said:
Tall and skinny where it's not demanded by location and/or economics is just architectural fetishism that quickly turns Vegas-esque. Not twisting the knife, but Dubai is the perfect example of that...
Click to expand...
I agree with you but Dubai was designed for that very reason. In a sense, the economics did call for it, specially to diversify the city into a tourism mecca. I'm also hesitant to call it Vegas-esque; much of their skyscrapers are designed to reflect cultural roots.
 
stefal said:
Slimmer doesn't get you tenants...
Click to expand...

Taller at the same width would have made the proportions appear slimmer. As long as Boston is continuing to churn out Class-A office space, I don't see what harm would have been caused by this being 100' taller. Too many projects just cater to NIMBY's and instinctively chop 10%+ of the height between the initial proposal and the revisions. In this case, it prevents what might be the best new tower in the city from standing out further. Overall the whole city is just a bit stubbier and a lot fatter than it coulda/woulda/shoulda been.
 
I don’t think the FAA would have allowed much more height at this location.
 
DZH22 said:
Taller at the same width would have made the proportions appear slimmer. As long as Boston is continuing to churn out Class-A office space, I don't see what harm would have been caused by this being 100' taller. Too many projects just cater to NIMBY's and instinctively chop 10%+ of the height between the initial proposal and the revisions. In this case, it prevents what might be the best new tower in the city from standing out further. Overall the whole city is just a bit stubbier and a lot fatter than it coulda/woulda/shoulda been.
Click to expand...

It is the difference between getting approved and not getting approved. It's easy to say "don't appeal to the NIMBYs" but the politicians do listen. The game sucks, but you gotta play it.

RandomWalk said:
I don’t think the FAA would have allowed much more height at this location.
Click to expand...

The corner of the garage where this tower sits could have gone up to about 750 per the Massport/FAA Logan Height map: https://www.massport.com/media/1545/boston-logan-airspace-map.pdf

The reality is they cut the original tower down a fair bit after Beacon Hill residents complained. It wasn't getting off the ground unless they were appeased.
 
2/12 from Charlestown Naval Shipyard Park:

IMG_20220212_095528789_HDR.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top