citylover94
Senior Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2012
- Messages
- 1,140
- Reaction score
- 58
You can turn off the 3D imagery in google maps and see the new satellite imagery now.
"Why doesn't Boston have taller buildings?" on SSP
- Thread starter shawn
- Start date
You can turn off the 3D imagery in google maps and see the new satellite imagery now.
tangent
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2012
- Messages
- 1,789
- Reaction score
- 68
Yes, I expect several more 600 footers to extend the skyline outward to fill in towards the Garden. Several. As in about . But not extended upward since they won't be much above 600' based on the FAA skittishness about planes and tall buildings near airports.
Some room out towards the Prudential for a few more.
Not sure what your color coding means, but site 6 in Fenway/Kenmore is on BU's Institutional Master Plan as site CC with a proposed height of 15 stories and FAR of 8.4
That said, they've been eyeing the site for a long time:
So, discussed for almost 30 years, owned for over a decade, we'll see if it ever turns into something.
citylover94
Senior Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2012
- Messages
- 1,140
- Reaction score
- 58
Green is sites with active proposals or at least as far as I could tell, purple no proposal but likely to be redeveloped soon, red unlikely to be redeveloped, and orange I was unsure of how likely redevelopment is.
If I made any mistakes let me know. I hope that helps clear things up. Also this is nowhere near finished and identifies all potential development sites not just sites for highrise and skyscraper development.
If I made any mistakes let me know. I hope that helps clear things up. Also this is nowhere near finished and identifies all potential development sites not just sites for highrise and skyscraper development.
Oh, nice. Didn't realize that. Thanks.
JohnAKeith
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 4,321
- Reaction score
- 69
So, I tried to do some analysis of Boston's tall buildings compared to other cities', and fell down a rabbit hole of data.
Based on my research (which, honestly, probably has some gaps in it), I don't think it's true that Boston has fewer tall buildings than other cities of similar size.
Full spreadsheet, here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19ehEeoWedpNJ-Y_A8AEOtk-P1ZVBqOMEUJEEqKzbBlc/edit?usp=sharing
If you look at Boston's population and compare it to other cities of similar size, we have as many "tall" buildings. If you look at the metropolitan Boston population, it seems to be reasonable, as well.
The problem is, though, that each city varies in size, in populations, as well as in square miles of space, so comparisons are hard to make.
Regardless of whether or not Boston actually has fewer high-rises, it sure seems it does to the casual observer.
Members of the Skyscraperpage forum came up with several good (logical) reasons why Boston might have fewer than expected, and each seems to make sense:
* Logan's flight paths put much of downtown Boston off-limits;
* Boston built on marsh & landfill meaning builders have to spend the money to bore down to bedrock;
* History - Boston was land-making while cities such as Chicago and New York were "going vertical";
* Bostonians hate "displays of wealth and progress", poo-pooing "vanity" structures;
* Boston's economy stagnated just as the sky scraper boom ignited elsewhere. (1890-1920).
To this list I would add one more:
* Boston's industry is, to a large part, built on medical care and education - eds and meds, as it were. Eight of the top ten private employers within the city are colleges or hospitals. Those businesses aren't inclined to build towers (although we've been seeing somewhat-tall dormitories, lately).
Our 2nd-largest industry is Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate (FIRE), and you'd expect towers would be built to house employees, and they have been. It's just that almost all of them were built prior to the 21st-century. State Street, The Boston Company, Bank of Boston, Shawmut, and of course John Hancock and Prudential all built towers in the 1960s and 1970s. How many more towers do they need? State Street built a satellite office park in North Quincy and The Boston Company, after its purchase by Mellon, expanded to Medford, then Everett. Fidelity has moved employees to Marlborough and New Hampshire, and elsewhere.
Is there any reason to build a tower over 600-feet tall, at this point?
Based on my research (which, honestly, probably has some gaps in it), I don't think it's true that Boston has fewer tall buildings than other cities of similar size.
Full spreadsheet, here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19ehEeoWedpNJ-Y_A8AEOtk-P1ZVBqOMEUJEEqKzbBlc/edit?usp=sharing
If you look at Boston's population and compare it to other cities of similar size, we have as many "tall" buildings. If you look at the metropolitan Boston population, it seems to be reasonable, as well.
The problem is, though, that each city varies in size, in populations, as well as in square miles of space, so comparisons are hard to make.
Regardless of whether or not Boston actually has fewer high-rises, it sure seems it does to the casual observer.
Members of the Skyscraperpage forum came up with several good (logical) reasons why Boston might have fewer than expected, and each seems to make sense:
* Logan's flight paths put much of downtown Boston off-limits;
* Boston built on marsh & landfill meaning builders have to spend the money to bore down to bedrock;
* History - Boston was land-making while cities such as Chicago and New York were "going vertical";
* Bostonians hate "displays of wealth and progress", poo-pooing "vanity" structures;
* Boston's economy stagnated just as the sky scraper boom ignited elsewhere. (1890-1920).
To this list I would add one more:
* Boston's industry is, to a large part, built on medical care and education - eds and meds, as it were. Eight of the top ten private employers within the city are colleges or hospitals. Those businesses aren't inclined to build towers (although we've been seeing somewhat-tall dormitories, lately).
Our 2nd-largest industry is Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate (FIRE), and you'd expect towers would be built to house employees, and they have been. It's just that almost all of them were built prior to the 21st-century. State Street, The Boston Company, Bank of Boston, Shawmut, and of course John Hancock and Prudential all built towers in the 1960s and 1970s. How many more towers do they need? State Street built a satellite office park in North Quincy and The Boston Company, after its purchase by Mellon, expanded to Medford, then Everett. Fidelity has moved employees to Marlborough and New Hampshire, and elsewhere.
Is there any reason to build a tower over 600-feet tall, at this point?
lapradetom
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2015
- Messages
- 296
- Reaction score
- 8
Mostly common knowledge to most on here, but I'll mention it anyway. Logan Int'l Airport is only three miles from downtown Boston, this has to be the biggest reason for our "short" skyline. Downtown Miami is six miles from Miami Int'l, and the FAA just approved two new towers of around 1000' tall, but not without an initial rejection of the planned buildings due to proximity of the airport flight paths/further review needed. With only three miles between downtown and the airport here, we'll probably never see anything too tall downtown.(750' max ?) Back Bay is further out, so that's where they would get FAA approval.