The Case for Skyscrapers

[BarbaricManchurian]

Tall Order

IF BOSTON IS SERIOUS ABOUT GOING GREEN, IT NEEDS TO JOIN OTHER MAJOR CITIES AND EMBRACE THE SKYSCRAPER. BY TOM KEANE

Sixteen Boston buildings rise 500 feet or more above the city. These are our skyscrapers - a respectable number, but we haven't been keeping pace. All but three were built in the 1980s or earlier. The tallest, the John Hancock, no longer impresses; it now ranks just 46th in the country. Meanwhile, the destruction of the World Trade Center notwithstanding, other cities race ahead. San Francisco has 14 skyscrapers either approved or in planning. New York has 39, Chicago has 30, and Toronto (Toronto!) 19.

Boston is looking to build - maybe - two. That's right: two.

Carol Willis, executive director of the Skyscraper Museum in (where else?) New York, theorizes that skyscrapers are potentially about three things: sex, power, and money. I think this a profound observation until it occurs to me that pretty much everything is about sex, power, and money. Still, stay with her formulation and one can begin to understand why we lag. A lot of us New Englanders are embarrassed about sex, don't like to brag about power, and cringe at ostentatious displays of wealth. Add to that our never-ending love affair with five-story 19th-century town houses and brownstones and a near pathological fear about the "Manhattanization" of Boston (all a consequence, argues Northeastern architecture dean George Thrush, of the way we have made a fetish of our Colonial origins), and one can begin to understand why Boston is so averse to making its skyline bigger and taller. I know. It sounds as if I have some sort of edifice complex myself. Boston's beauty is its small scale, its human-sized buildings. Real cities don't have to have skyscrapers, do they?

Yes, they do. It's not that I don't like those cute town houses - I live in one. But density is what cities are all about, skyscrapers are the ultimate form of density, and - here's the kicker - they are flat-out the greenest way to build. If we care about Boston, if we care about the environment, we should build up and build tall. A skyline is nothing to be ashamed of. Indeed, it may save us all.

Smirking analogies aside, skyscrapers aren't really about sex or power, says the museum's Willis. What they are about is money. The first skyscrapers were built because they were an extraordinarily efficient way to add square footage to a parcel of land. When land is expensive, it is far cheaper to build upward. The taller you go (at least until you hit 80 stories), the less the cost per square foot.

Yet today, the most compelling argument for skyscrapers is ecological. Newer skyscrapers are being designed in ways that dramatically minimize their impact on the environment, allowing them to achieve the highest rank possible ("platinum") under the LEED Green Building rating system. Water and heat are recycled. Solar panels reduce the need for outside energy. The entire life cycle of the building is managed, from construction to obsolescence, with some of the original materials getting reused to build other structures. This is all possible because of the building's size, which makes it economically feasible to do things that in a smaller structure would be far too costly.

But even if a skyscraper isn't LEED certified, it is the way the building is used that makes it so profoundly green. When people are packed together, the services needed to support those people are easier and cheaper to provide. Less travel is required. Everything can be provided in bulk. That's why, as David Owen argued in a seminal New Yorker piece in 2004, Manhattan on a per-capita basis may well be the most energy-efficient place in the country. The reason largely boils down to the fact that it is also the densest.

Building tall is building smart. Yet here in Boston, we're unmoved. Catcalls greeted Mayor Tom Menino's push to build a 1,000-foot tower at 115 Winthrop Square. Scorned for its hubris, it was mockingly dubbed "Tommy's Tower," making for an amusing but wrongheaded cheap shot. The very thing that makes cities vital - the proximity of everyone and everything - is what skyscrapers do best. In a world where environmental issues loom ever larger, "the heart of the question is how we build sustainably," says Diane Georgopulos, president-elect of the Boston Society of Architects. Skyscrapers are the answer.

Plus, they do look cool.

Tom Keane, a Boston-based freelance writer, contributes regularly to the Globe Magazine. E-mail him at tomkeane@tomkeane.com.
? Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/articles/2008/01/06/tall_order/

 

[Cojapo]

I like this. It wont have any effect on anyone that is against the "Manhattanization" of Boston. I just don't understand the debate. Density, along mass transit lines should be encouraged. Urban sprawl is a much less viable option. Look at the cities out west. Sprawl creates a strain on services and infrastructure. I just hope we are on a verge of a shift in attitude, though it is Boston and I have been let down before.

 

[KentXie]

I wish we could just evict all those NIMBYs out.

 

[caravaggiste]

haha, I wish. That sounds like a dream. Just go to more community meetings and get involved in the process. If there are enough of us maybe we can make a difference.

 

[JimboJones]

I think the lack of construction has more to do with economics than neighborhood opposition. No developer wants to be stuck with a half-full building should Boston's economy go back in the dumper.

But, regarding NIMBYism - some people on this board have look hard at themselves in the mirror. Plenty of people don't want Winthrop Sq built if it means the Rudolph building will be torn down.

 

[atlantaden]

Add 120 Kingston and the Dainty Dot building to the list.

 

[KentXie]

I think the lack of construction has more to do with economics than neighborhood opposition. No developer wants to be stuck with a half-full building should Boston's economy go back in the dumper.

But that's because the process in Boston takes about 3x than it should normally be just to get a project approved and NIMBYs play a part in the delays. Yes I do agree that there should be opposition when it is legit. Something like Columbus Center being a threat to flight patterns don't make sense. Remember that one? They thought planes needed to carry less cargo so they can fly over the project while the JHT was standing next to the project, which was 300 foot taller. And shadows are ridiculous reasons unless you own the the whole property on which the shadow casts on. It's not your city, its ours and unless if you were kept under shadow for most of the day, get used to it. I'm fine if traffic congestion is one of the factors of the opposition or if the tower was really blocking air traffic but having a tower being cancelled because of stupid reasons really show that the NIMBYs in the city have way too much power and way too much time on their hands.

 

[Joe_Schmoe]

The article seems to me to be another in the school of "I love Boston, I love Boston, I love Boston... what Boston needs to to be completely unlike Boston."
Skyscrapers may be greener than sprawl, but both embody the insanity of the religion of infinite growth; neither of which are sustainable or "green."

 

[unterbau]

Is it possible this NIMBYism was borne out of a distrust for the powers that be, and their ability to make sane planning decisions? If the city took a more active role in pushing development into less intrusive and more green directions, local citizens might be less against these developments being plopped next door. Nobody want's their community to be killed off or consumed by other forces (students!) and that's exactly what reckless development can lead to. These people own land and homes that will be permanently affected by development, so why shouldn't they have a say in these projects? The developers tend to look only at their bottom line, and quite often the same can be said for NIMBY's (mainly property devaluation), so who's right and who's wrong?

 

[nico]

It is hard blame NIMBYs for complaining. If you can get something out of it...good for you. I think quite simply our system just isn't adequate at sorting out the legitimate complaints from those less legitimate complaints.
Somehow, arguments need to be evaluated for their integrity and then development decisions made accordingly. All variables considered, this may be all but impossible.

 

[a630]

Skyscrapers may be greener than sprawl, but both embody the insanity of the religion of infinite growth; neither of which are sustainable or "green."

Where is the growth machine being advocated in this article? Maybe he's just concerned with the nature of residential/commercial supply? There are other things worth sustaining or gaining: affordability, a competitive standard of living, job and housing opportunities. Why does the discussion of sustainability have to be exclusive of these things?

 

[itchy]

Maybe he's just concerned with the nature of residential/commercial supply? There are other things worth sustaining or gaining: affordability, a competitive standard of living, job and housing opportunities. Why does the discussion of sustainability have to be exclusive of these things?

all of those things come with skyscraper construction. or is that what you're saying?

 

[BarbaricManchurian]

The bitch responds:

I'm surprised that Tom Keane, usually a sensible critic, has fallen for the "towers = density = good city" story, long honed by developers and their friendly politicians ("Perspective," January 6). Of course density is good, for both social and environmental reasons. But you don't need towers to achieve density. Somerville is the densest community in the area; Beacon Hill, Back Bay, South End, and North End are good models of good density in Boston.

Simply massing piles of gross leasable area does not create sustainable density. You have to include mixed uses, with a critical residential mass that will support commercial and industrial enterprise, and exclude parking garages (and have excellent mass transit). All those LEED-certified buildings with gigantic garages are just like Post Office Square - a handsome lid on a toxic fume factory.

We silly old neighborhood activists do want to avoid a Manhattanization of Boston. Aside from destroying our unique historic character and human scale, skyscrapers block out sunlight and make Boston a cold, dark place during the long winter, requiring more heating fuel, creating harsh winds, forcing us to endure ice sheets on sidewalks, and depriving us of sunlight.

SHIRLEY KRESSEL
Boston

 

[czsz]

Dear Shirley,

I slip and trip on my icy sidewalk in lowrise Cambridge far more often than I do in central Boston where the heavy sidewalk use generated by high density towers virtually demands sidewalks be clear. I don't mind looming towers during winter when the sun is blocked out over 60% of the time by dark clouds anyway. The use of heating fuel is to a great extent proportional to the number of offices and residences in the city overall, not the way they're arranged. The harshest winds in this city come off the harbor and Charles River, and are mercifully blocked in some places by skyscrapers. Also, every attempt to block development over the Mass Pike is a victory for one of the city's most hostile winter environments for pedestrians - the bridges over it.

Oh, and every triple decker in Somerville has parking for a car or three, so that everyone can drive to Star Market, as, despite the statistics, density does not equal pedestrian friendliness, and adequate services are not a convenient walk from most residences in thatg city. Most condo dwellers in Boston aren't generating "toxic fumes" when they merely store their cars in garages - sometimes for weeks - and go about their business on the streets, which is possible when neighborhoods are compressed by truly high density and services are all within walking distance.

 

[tobyjug]

We should be so lucky as to have a little Manhattanization. It is Houstonization or suburbanization that stinks.

 

[shiz02130]

czsz - you should send your letter to the globe and see if they print it!

 

[Lrfox]

please send that in.

 

[KentXie]

I would have added:
"Well since you, Shirley, aggressively oppose the construction of towers and the fact that land in Boston is becoming more and more scarce, the only way to make more space for people to live is to take out most of the park to construct your desired lowrise density buildings. Oh wait? You don't want to lose parks? Aww shucks what are we supposed to do? We tried building towers with parks on top of it which create density as well to give both the things we want but you oppose that too. "

If I was the mayor, I would have given her three choice: 1. Build skyscrapers to alleviate the scarcity of land. 2. Eliminate the parks that were "deemed" necessary for a high-rise project. 3. Shut up, move to the suburb and maybe you would find your perfact place. Of course I highly doubt it because she'll probably bitch about the fact that the tree stumps block her view.

 

[type001]

Very well put everyone. What is this chick's damage? Granted, Boston only has 600,000 people (as opposed to 8,000,000), but how does one insignificant person's stupid opinion have so much clout with other residents in the city?

I think Shirly had a bad sexual experience once, hence her disdain for phallic-looking towers.

 

[statler]

But you don't need towers to achieve density. Somerville is the densest community in the area; Beacon Hill, Back Bay, South End, and North End are good models of good density in Boston.

The problem is, if we were to try to recreate any of those neighborhoods (in say, SBW) you would be the first (and loudest) one screaming that:
a. The streets are too narrow (a fire hazard ya' know)*
c. Not enough open space (has she ever been to Beacon Hill?)
If you really are serious about archiving maximum density we need to agree not to complain about those two points.
Otherwise, to make up for the perceived need for open space & wide streets we need to build high to archive the necessary density.
Personally, I'm fine with a city of low rise, ultra-dense development. But you gotta give up your crusade for open space. Sorry.

*To be fair I don't know that Ms Kressel has ever complained about narrow streets, but it's a fairly typical NIMBY thing.