Supertalls in Boston?

MjolnirMan

New member
Joined
Jan 18, 2016
Messages
87
Reaction score
75
The FAA zoning is somewhat limiting to towers but not impossible to work with to develop some "pretty talls" on otherwise fairly open parcels. Government Center Plaza could max out between 725-800+' (depending on location), the area around North Station (O'Neill, Nashua St., etc.) could hit 825-950', and it looks like the entirety of the Back Bay High Spine is >900'. Lord & Taylor site is in the 950' range, and the Parcel 15 site could be >1000'.

Like Scott alluded to, the real problem for the Back Bay sites are various laws surrounding casting shadows on the Common or Copley, as well as what the neighborhood would tolerate (and for P15, you'd have to build on terra firma neighbor parcels). As seen with Winthrop, however, these are far more flexible than the FAA regs. But I do agree that there's a "right-size" for these locations - more spine towers in the scale of the Pru would be welcome.

original_89f372d18d58f616890939697ba806fb.png
 

gac108

New member
Joined
Jul 22, 2020
Messages
12
Reaction score
21
I truly believe that Boston needs just 1 very tall building (maybe not technically a "supertall"), like between 900-1000', either in the Dalton Street area (my preference would be covering that Pike parcel and connect to the garage where Bukowski's is and make nice stepped-up multi-story Dalton and Boylston Street fronts with a 900'+ tower toward the back on terra firma) or down by the North Station area lots or various other easily removed buildings around there (a 750-850'er there would be great in my opinion). There is nice fill-in density happening now with numerous 400-700 footers and should continue throughout the city, which is all creating a world-class full skyline. But again, 1 very tall stand-out signature tower would be enough for me to feel like my skyscraper itch has been satisfactorily scratched.
 

Max Power

Active Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2012
Messages
111
Reaction score
22
Not a height fetishist/foot counter... but if we can get some buildings that consider proportion as, you know, an architectural merit, then I'm all for it... regardless if they're 750 or 1250 or whatever magic number they wind up being
 

Suffolk 83

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2007
Messages
2,425
Reaction score
324
The FAA height ceilings seem rooted in something other than reality. The financial district just happens to allow for 600,700, 800ft buildings but further out from the airport behind it the height ceiling is lower.
 

KentXie

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
3,995
Reaction score
190
The FAA height ceilings seem rooted in something other than reality. The financial district just happens to allow for 600,700, 800ft buildings but further out from the airport behind it the height ceiling is lower.
Isn't it because some of the towers in Financial District provides radar support through their antenna which gives the airport visibility of planes and thus allowed for higher height? Also IIRC, several of the flights I've taken have paths that crosses N to S behind the Pru. That would explain the drop in height limit West of it.
 

Top