Stuart Street

armpitsOFmight

armpitsOFmight

Active Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2009
Messages
870
Reaction score
12
Any chance a couple of 700' towers can be erected between the W and the Hancock in the next 100 years? It would be nice to connect the Back Bay and Downtown skylines.
 
If you want to see any new towers with that kind of height you'll have to move to NYC.
 
Look, besides the Greenway, Downtown is pretty much a developed area. That TransNational Tower should be placed somewhere on Stuart Street. Also, I want it to be a giant box just so all of you architecture nut-balls can go home and cry to your momma.
 
What do you propose to tear down along Stuart or St. James in order to build such a tower?
 
Doesn't really matter to me. I just want something like the Trans or SST or three or four massive buildings to take up that area. Stop putting all of Boston's tall buildings downtown and start filling in the space between Back Bay and Downtown. I guess you could tear up the Radisson to make room for one of them.

Anyway, look at the potential...
 
Last edited:
Radisson -- yeah, I'd like to get rid of that too, though I'd want to keep the movie theatre that's inside it. But let's not be ripping down the Park Square Building or the Park Plaza Hotel or the Old Hancock, please.
 
What, is Boston's skyline not good enough for you? Why don't you leave if you hate it so much.
 
Van, you just don't understand Boston and that is why it kicked you out and you had to move to NYC.
 
i was thinking more of the chinatown stretch of chinatown as prime teardown area....

but i actually like the stretched-out, tall-on-the-end-low-in-the-middle skyline of boston. If it were just a wall of towers, the high spine, i think its much less interesting. It is interesting in Google Earth but not as dynamic in spatial reality as it is in concept.... i'm fine with the hancock and pru doing the heavy lifting on their own, they become much less important in the high spine concept.
 
I assume you meant to write "Chinatown stretch of Stuart" -- which is really Kneeland, and east of the W hotel.
 
Ron Newman said:
I assume you meant to write "Chinatown stretch of Stuart" -- which is really Kneeland, and east of the W hotel.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that. I navigate by landmarks buildings and spatial configuration and am rather frighteningly ignorant of some street names for as long as I've lived here. Especially in the south end, I can never keep the cross streets straight, and sometimes even confuse columbus and tremont.
 
It's not Stuart St, but a certain air rights project would have (and hopefully will in some form eventually) helped connect the skyline. I mention not it's name for fear for of ghosts in the woodwork.
 
^Agreed. Stuart Street has some gems that I wouldn't trade for a tower. But the pike air rights are where development could really take off - and would be especially beneficial in stitching the city together around that gash in the urban fabric.
 
The whole state transportation block could be removed and replaced with a 700 footer - casting inglorious shadows all over the Boston Heroin Common.

Same with the block next to it that houses the Tam and the porn shop. The block next to the Radisson Hotel could easily sprout a nice 300-500 footer (where that has been much hand-wringing and jitters over a 200 foot building). The Charter School that was just purchased could also house something in the 500+ range.

I think the Radison will have too high of a replacement cost to actually demo, but if you could push 700 feet, it might be possible. Of course, this is all moot if those W Hotel condos don't start selling (which they're not).

All of these thoughts are probably jarring to many people, but if any of them actually got built, and were done right, would become welcomed additions to the city.

500 Boylston is a great case study for NIMBY and Historic hysteria being calmly mitigated after the building opened. Today, most of Boston would probably call that building a huge success (didn't say architect snobs, said "most of Boston")

The rub of course, is that our mayor for life needs his life to run out before anything can be considered. He's getting fat again, so that's good news, but still, it's safe to assume he'll be running the show for at least another decade... if not two.
 
JohnAKeith said:
Armpits, are you channeling Scotty Van Voorhis??
Click to expand...

No, I never knew about the editorial, but good find. Yes, I think Boston's spine needs to be developed; why are you so against building these 500'-700' towers to make this happen?

Justin7 said:
It's not Stuart St, but a certain air rights project would have (and hopefully will in some form eventually) helped connect the skyline. I mention not it's name for fear for of ghosts in the woodwork.
Click to expand...

I hear what you're saying and I agree with you; I think developers will need to erect buildings not only on Stuart Street but around the turnpike.

Shepard said:
^Agreed. Stuart Street has some gems that I wouldn't trade for a tower. But the pike air rights are where development could really take off - and would be especially beneficial in stitching the city together around that gash in the urban fabric.
Click to expand...

Sure, that sounds like we can mix these together. So, you really think the Radison is a gem?

pelhamhall said:
Same with the block next to it that houses the Tam and the porn shop. The block next to the Radisson Hotel could easily sprout a nice 300-500 footer (where that has been much hand-wringing and jitters over a 200 foot building). The Charter School that was just purchased could also house something in the 500+ range.

I think the Radison will have too high of a replacement cost to actually demo, but if you could push 700 feet, it might be possible. Of course, this is all moot if those W Hotel condos don't start selling (which they're not).
Click to expand...

Glad to see that you can envision something too!
 
Err, how hard is it to envision a wall of towers there? can't any ten year old do that?

I feel like I've wandered into some penis-envy skyscraper forum where height and "filling in" skylines is the raison d'etre. Of course Stuart will get some real towers eventually (though I'd bet nothing above 500 feet). What's the hurry?

armpitsOFmight said:
Stop putting all of Boston's tall buildings downtown and start filling in the space between Back Bay and Downtown.
Click to expand...

Why?
 
kz1000ps said:
Why?
Click to expand...

Already answered your question buddy. Go back and read my post and work on your reading comprehension. Oh yeah, and when you do that make sure you look as serious as this guy...
 
Last edited:
armpitsOFmight said:
Any chance a couple of 700' towers can be erected between the W and the Hancock in the next 100 years? It would be nice to connect the Back Bay and Downtown skylines.
Click to expand...

armpitsOFmight said:
Look, besides the Greenway, Downtown is pretty much a developed area. That TransNational Tower should be placed somewhere on Stuart Street. Also, I want it to be a giant box just so all of you architecture nut-balls can go home and cry to your momma.
Click to expand...

armpitsOFmight said:
Doesn't really matter to me. I just want something like the Trans or SST or three or four massive buildings to take up that area. Stop putting all of Boston's tall buildings downtown and start filling in the space between Back Bay and Downtown. I guess you could tear up the Radisson to make room for one of them.
Click to expand...

armpitsOFmight said:
Van, you just don't understand Boston and that is why it kicked you out and you had to move to NYC.
Click to expand...

armpitsOFmight said:
Already answered your question buddy. Go back and read my post and work on your reading comprehension. Oh yeah, and when you do that make sure you look as serious as this guy...
Click to expand...

You told us what you want to do, never told us why.

In summary, you are a tool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top