Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
Look at our skyline: Like it or not, it has a certain, what do we call it, symmetry? Maybe too low-rise for many of you, but it makes some (dare I say) visual sense. TNP blows that up. For those of you who argue that this rending of our slyline will be remedied when the next 1000 footer is built -- this is Boston, don't forget, it may be 20 years before we see another behemoth built.
I would not say that it blows up the skyline but rather it creates a landmark for downtown, much like the John Hancock and Pru do for the Back Bay. It will allow you to orient yourself if you are wandering and get lost in the North End.
Take the Citigroup Tower in Long Island City, Queens.
It isn't a remarkable building, some might say it is ugly, but it is one of the greatest landmarks in Queens. Where ever you are in western Queens you can see it and it allows you to orient yourself to where you are and where the city is (or where the major transportation hub in western Queens is).
This is the same idea that churches and water towers used when they were the tallest structures in a village or town. If you look at the downtown skyline you just see a mass of flat topped buildings, each more boxy and bland than the next. But if you look towards Charlestown you can clearly see the Bunker Hill Monument and know that if you travel in that direction you will get to Charlestown. Once in Charlestown you don't need it but you will need other landmarks to point you in the right direction out of Charlestown. Likewise, if you are lost in the Fenway or South End, just look for the Pru to get you into the center of things.
Think about any strong neighborhood in Boston and you will ultimately think about it's landmark(s); Old North Church -> North End, Pru -> Back Bay, Citgo Sign -> Kenmore Sq, State House - > Beacon Hill, Federal Crt House -> South Boston Waterfront. A landmark should help define a neighborhood. Where is the center of the South End? Roxbury, Dorchester, Roslindale? These places exists in a much more ambiguous sense because they don't have as easily identifiable landmarks (visually, and still I'm sure this will stir up some argument, but you should at least get the gist of it).
Downtown once had a great landmark, the Customs Tower. Due to height restrictions and a federal government loop hole, the Customs Tower was the only skyscraper Boston had well into the middle of the 20th Century. "Progress" changed that and now it is only visible from the water, and even then it is obscured by the background noise of the other office towers downtown. This tower is needed to point people downtown, and this is just as much a factor as ego was in the decision to build a 1,000 ft tower in Boston. This is the only place a 1,000 ft tower should go because it is the only place something that high is needed.
