The Definitive ArchBoston Tall vs Small Debate Thread

[Arlington]

Is this tall vs small people or tall vs small buildings?

I thought it was buildings, and, for buildings, I propose some kind of rule of thumb whereby desired height is proportional to the "throughput" of the infrastructure within 1 block.

Maybe 1 story for each of 1,000 pedestrians or passengers you move on the sidewalk or by transit. (I don't know what a good ratio is, but I know there is one that would "force" the massing of buildings atop the most active nodes (Back Bay, North Station, South Station....and Harvard, if they'd let us)

(Cars would count too, but they struggle to move people in sufficient numbers)

I would want the building-height envelope to exactly track the available transit. For example, in the seaport, the tallest buildings would be 1 block from the Silver Line stations, 2 blocks away, you'd get half the height. Height along the water would be limited not for "views" but rather because there's no transit there.

Adding transit would result in automatic up-zoning.

 

[George_Apley]

hahaha

 

[blade_bltz]

Legendary thread.

There are plenty of times where I don't care, like when everybody starts debating which is the best store from England or whatever.

Literally LOLed at this doe.

 

[pixelsand8]

Re: Millennium Tower (Filene's) | 426 Washington Street | Downtown

The amount of people that give a hoot about this could be counted on one hand, maybe even one finger. Good lord just go back to skyscrapercity where you belong and leave the real city building to the adults.

To be fair to DHZ I haven't noticed much of a Boston community on either Skyscrapercity or skyscraperpage, where as other cities have more active local followings there. Not that Boston is known for it's height or skyline but you'd think a city of this size would have more of a following. Personally I would like to see more height downtown and like skylines but I see them as luxury items. Nice to have, but maybe not worth the cost. As it stands, Boston is easily one of the best cities on the continent to live in, even with it's mediocre skyline. The lack of skyscrapers is not hurting anything.

When it comes to height I'd rather see it in more outlying areas near T stops - around 20 or stories - in order to increase residential density, a severe need to deal with the insane rents. The inability to get construction like this going is far more frustrating than the lack of new 60 story luxury condo towers in Downtown and Back Bay.

 

[HenryAlan]

Re: Millennium Tower (Filene's) | 426 Washington Street | Downtown

Our skyline lore is like this, mostly forged 25-50 years ago. If you see these skyscrapers as trophies on top of everything else, then the Millennium Tower for me will equate to the Patriots beating the Rams. Hopefully then the floodgates will open.

This is my hope, too, and I'm fairly optimistic. I think Millennium Tower will be transformational, setting a new standard for what can be done in Boston that others will try to beat or at least replicate. I am not somebody who gets a sexual charge from tall buildings -- street level has been and always will be the true greatness of Boston, but I do agree that some towers that grab your attention from afar are important, and this one is going to do just that.

 

[HenryAlan]

MP3: Amazing glass wall! However, isn't the rest of the building generally considered less palatable? Also, you'd never know it was there unless you're within a block of it.

That's half of what is so awesome about it. You turn the corner and BOOM! Surprises like that, afforded by Boston's combination of mid-rise density and a twisting street pattern is half of what makes it such an interesting city visually. You never know what surprise is coming next. Again, sky-scrapers have their place, but they are not what make a city special.

 

[statler]

How to Build A City 1-oh-1:

 

[George_Apley]

Barcelona?

 

[pixelsand8]

The problem with that picture in regards to Boston is that you can't really spread that kind of development over the entirety of the urban core, most of which is already built up with detatched homes and triple deckers. It'd be great if you had the historic low rise density of Back Bay and South End expanding the entire city limits and through all of Cambridge, Somerville, etc, but you simply don't and you can't demolish what we have in those places to build that. At the same time, you have a city that needs to get more dense in order to meet the incredible demand for housing and general growth.

 

[statler]

Madrid.

Pixeland8, I agree you can't bulldoze existing neighborhoods, but this is the type of development I would have loved to have seen for the Seaport and would still like to see if we were to do a large scale redevelopment/infill of Government Center/West End.

 

[DZH22]

How to Build A City 1-oh-1:

Looks awesome, but how much of this was built in the last 20 years? Of course cities were built better wayyyyy back in the day, but hasn't that ship sailed? How many cities have comparable new developments to this in 2014? In all probability we are talking about: ZERO.

I guess I just don't see how it's relevant to compare cities of yesteryear to present day development. Apples and Oranges.

 

[Matthew]

Looks awesome, but how much of this was built in the last 20 years? Of course cities were built better wayyyyy back in the day, but hasn't that ship sailed? How many cities have comparable new developments to this in 2014? In all probability we are talking about: ZERO.

Is that not an indictment of current and 20th century city building practices?

What makes you think we cannot properly build cities once again? We can fly into space, build superfast computers, get bored of flying over oceans, but we cannot match wits with architects and builders who lived over 500 years ago?

 

[DZH22]

Is that not an indictment of current and 20th century city building practices?

What makes you think we cannot properly build cities once again? We can fly into space, build superfast computers, get bored of flying over oceans, but we cannot match wits with architects and builders who lived over 500 years ago?

It's not about can or can't. It's about will or won't. I think the key change is if/when we find a replacement for cars, and how that will change the planning process.

Also, there's approximately 7 times as many people on earth now than when many of these cities were (largely) constructed. People seem to be aiming larger. I think we will see more Dubai-like cities pop up (China is already experiencing this), and less ultra-dense ground level development. Personally, I prefer the latter (hence my disgust with many southern cities despite their taller towers) but the point is, it's not about what's right or what's wrong, but what IS.

Sure, we can feasibly match wits with architects of hundreds of years ago, but is it still practical? In Boston's case, there's both a housing crunch and a land crunch compared to other similarly sized cities. Seems like the most practical way to go is up.

 

[datadyne007]

Funny coincidence, this appeared on my feed just now:
Essentially the antithesis of the old-world density of Madrid and Barcelona.

Stunning Photos of Architectural Density in Hong Kong

www.demilked.com/architecture-of-density-hong-kong-michael-wolf

 

[Blackbird]

Funny coincidence, this appeared on my feed just now:
Essentially the antithesis of the old-world density of Madrid and Barcelona.

www.demilked.com/architecture-of-density-hong-kong-michael-wolf

I prefer the look of Madrid and Barcelona.

They just don't build cities like they used to..

 

[Matthew]

Also, there's approximately 7 times as many people on earth now than when many of these cities were (largely) constructed. People seem to be aiming larger. I think we will see more Dubai-like cities pop up (China is already experiencing this), and less ultra-dense ground level development. Personally, I prefer the latter (hence my disgust with many southern cities despite their taller towers) but the point is, it's not about what's right or what's wrong, but what IS.

Except that many of those tower-based districts can be quite a bit more low density than you might think. Towers in the parking lot waste a lot of space.

Whereas low-rise Paris manages to be one of the most densely populated cities in the world.

I don't see our lack of good traditional urbanism to be a matter of "needing height." It's a matter of we simply cannot do it anymore, height or no height, because we seem to have lost the knowledge of creating good, traditional-style places. It's like a Dark Age of architecture.

Also, can I mention that places like Madrid do mix height into their fabric? They're not strict like Paris.

 

[statler]

I'm not even sure if it lack of knowledge, more likely it's political will. My brother-in-law, for example says he could never live in the North End because he finds it 'dark and crowded'. He would be an outlier in this group, but I think there are a lot of people who feel the same way, so they elect politicians who create zoning laws that encourage (or mandate) suburban/car oriented developments (including towers-in-the park).
One bright spot is that the Millennials seem to really embrace urbanism (as a whole, not to the person) so hopefully that won't change once they start settling down and pumping out kids.