The next BIG skyscraper proposal that rises above 600'.....

[odurandina]

Where will it be?

In the Globe nearly 3 years ago, i posted that we're getting down to the 'really grisly' sites for any serious consideration for tall buildings.

In play at the time were Winthrop Square, Copley Tower, Back Bay Station and Harbor Garage sites. There were a couple of sites with proposals around 400' including Parcel 15 and the stale proposal at 1 Bromfield St.

Much to the surprise of many observers, both Parcel 15 and 1 Bromfield Street were proposed at 627' and 709' respectively.

But, since those proposals came down nearly 2 years ago, and despite being one of the most robust office, lab, condominium and luxury apartment markets in the United States, the development world has gone totally silent on proposals for serious height–just as (guess who) predicted.

i'm leaving out the Harbor Garage, because the height has already been handed down. There would already be a formal proposal if the sq ft limit were higher. *The only thing preventing the project from racing ahead are the severe restrictions that accompany the City/developer's desire to build on the site.

Where do the very narrow options for building tall in Boston leave developers?

Discuss.

 

[FenwayResident]

Where will it be?

New York, Hong Kong, Shanghai are all good bets.

 

[odurandina]

Editor's Pick;

New York, Hong Kong, Shanghai are all good bets.

You neglected to list about 30 American cities that are building smart for the future.

 

[Beton Brut]

Pi Alley Garage

 

[odurandina]

^^you know what

i was going to include it and just bleeping forgot to add it!!!

Mods if you can please add the Pi Alley Garage

 

[tysmith95]

Kendall

 

[DZH22]

New York, Hong Kong, Shanghai are all good bets.

This isn't the 1990's anymore. You sound like somebody who has absolutely no clue what you are talking about. I mean, those 3 cities aren't wrong, but I know why you brought them up.

 

[dotdude78]

Why am I not allowed to vote in the poll?

 

[dshoost88]

I still think/hope Boston should get a 1,000-footer at Lord & Taylors site in Back Bay (Boylston & Ring Road)

 

[cjbski]

I still think/hope Boston should get a 1,000-footer at Lord & Taylors site in Back Bay (Boylston & Ring Road)

+1

 

[odurandina]

^^Lord and Taylor will be developed. Unfortunately, the Walsh Admn determined Copley Tower would be the last tall structure allowed to cast any significant shadow over this part of Back Bay. Now it's written into the new Shadow Law. Be assured; its top will be about Avalon Exeter height (325~340') but no taller–due to shadow over Copley Square, Trinity Church, South Meeting House, Mall & PG.

Avalon Exeter is 336'.

In any case, the parcel would still look very good if built to that height.

 

[FenwayResident]

This isn't the 1990's anymore. You sound like somebody who has absolutely no clue what you are talking about. I mean, those 3 cities aren't wrong, but I know why you brought them up.

I'm sorry my lighthearted jab didn't meet your rigorous technical standards. I'll try better next time.

 

[DZH22]

I'm sorry my lighthearted jab didn't meet your rigorous technical standards. I'll try better next time.

It's not that rigorous. There are probably 100 cities worldwide going over 600' right now. This includes places like Manchester England, Edmonton Canada, Warsaw Poland, Austin US... Quebec City has a proposal for 900'. Denver is attempting to land a supertall. Even DETROIT is doing site prep for a building taller than the Hancock.

It just shows extreme laziness to fall back on the tried and true NIMBY trope where somehow all tall buildings are going into those few select cities. Boston is very small-minded architecturally given its actual influence, in comparison to pretty much everywhere at this point.

 

[type001]

Oh fuck, here we go again...

 

[tysmith95]

Mods, move this thread to the trash bin.

Or at least move it to the design a better Boston section.

 

[datadyne007]

Better in this trash heap of a thread than in the actual project threads.

 

[Shepard]

Height Fetish Thread -- Table of Contents

1. Tall buildings are good
2. Some sites can support tall buildings - yay
3. Other cities build taller buildings - boo
4. Why should we care
5. Tall buildings are good
6. Some sites can support tall buildings - yay
7. Other cities build taller buildings - boo
8. Why should we care
9. Tall buildings are good
... to infinity.

 

[odurandina]

Better in this trash heap of a thread than in the actual project threads.

i can appreciate that you might wish to moderate. Your input is generally fantastic. But, did you know the City is doing a skyscraper study? It's being called the Downtown Planning Study, but it's ostensibly, a skyscraper study.

I thought it might be cool to speculate about if and where a future skyscraper might be proposed. Do you have anything to offer the discussion – or just revel in the Massachusetts Bay/cop culture refereeing oriented activity?

Wow wtf is this discussion even about anymore?

There's plenty of urbanism going on for the pedestrians to have their endless discussion/s about the infuriating LACK of retail on every street wall.

But there's nowhere to build more toilets (but up). There are 2 or 3 Downtown parcels that will support tall skyscrapers. Probably the Pi Alley Garage, the Lincoln Street Garage and 1 Bromfield Street. We should build at least 2 more very tall skyscrapers in the West End, and a few low skyscrapers in the Fenway & Mission Hill. Then, use the linkage to build more transit oriented development.

 

[TheRifleman]

Since Boston is becoming cosmopolitan at this point.

Why not Trumpanize the rest of the developments in the city.

 

[kmp1284]

Since Boston is becoming cosmopolitan at this point.

Why not Trumpanize the rest of the developments in the city.

Sniffing glue again?