Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Ron Newman said:
Los Angeles has .... I'm sure a whole bunch, but I can't name or picture even one.
Click to expand...

LA always to me had a very small downtown area. Obviously the city is huge, but in terms of skyscrapers over 20 stories, I always found it confined to very few blocks -- with only the one cylindrical building sticking up above the rest.

A quick search on Emporis shows LA having 2 buildings larger in size than the Hancock in Boston... and 29 Buildings over 135 meters (arbitrary number) compared to Boston having 24 over that same number.

I'm merely expressing amazement that such a "large" city population wise is really not much larger than Boston in terms of size and amount of skyscrapers -- I don't want to turn this into Boston vs. LA, as I know there are many, many, many differences.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

LeTaureau said:
Tall buildings do not make a city. Look at Charlotte. Tall buildings, empty streets.

Do you really think that 1000 foot plus buildings matter to the average person? I was at Pub trivia last Wednesday when the following question came up: Which American city west of the Mississippi has the tallest building. I salivated at this question, and the answer is obviously Las Vegas, and I was the only one who got it correct in the whole bar. Most probably guessed Houston or LA. And do you think that anybody could name the thousand foot buildings in those cities?
Click to expand...

Tall buildings don't make a city, but they do help a lot. Residential towers are the best for a city though, bringing lots of people to a certain area. Office towers only bring people in during the day.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

^Right.

And you're able to recall those buildings not because they are tall, but because architecturally they stand out. Whether they be iconic, historic art deco, modernist monoliths, pyramids, etc. Ultimately, I think that good or unique design leads to successful landmarks, not height.

IMO, Trans National Place is not very unique or very good design.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

BarbaricManchurian said:
Tall buildings don't make a city, but they do help a lot. Residential towers are the best for a city though, bringing lots of people to a certain area. Office towers only bring people in during the day.
Click to expand...


That is true, but listen to this quote by Rousseau:

"Houses make a town, but citizens make a city"
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

LA has multiple skyscraper districts, though. The most famous tall LA building I can think of is Capitol Records, in Hollywood. Again it's the unusual shape that makes it memorable, not the height.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

LeTaureau said:
That is true, but listen to this quote by Rousseau:

"Houses make a town, but citizens make a city"
Click to expand...

And making a big house (skyscraper) in the middle of the city brings thousands of CITIZENS to make the city, which means skyscrapers, preferably residentials, are the best way to make the city vibrant with citizens.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

If you separate people from the street by long elevator rides (and waits for elevators), aren't they less likely to spend lots of time in the street? I can't picture a district of towers being as 'neighborly' as one of brick walk-ups.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

And if you're right about Las Vegas having the tallest building west of the Mississippi, then Wikipedia's list is wrong. Wikipedia's list of top 104 tallest buildings in the US has none in Las Vegas, but:

Houston - 10
Los Angeles - 8
Dallas - 5
Minneapolis - 3 [are they actually west of the Mississippi? Not sure]
Seattle - 3
San Francisco - 2
Denver - 2
 
Last edited:
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I guess Wikipedia doesn't include the Stratosphere Hotel?
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Las Vegas has the tall 1,149 ft Stratosphere tower but it doesn't qualify as a building since its an observatory tower (with an restaurant and a roller coaster!). Las Vegas is building the 1,064 Crown Las Vegas twin towers and many many 700 footers so it will have the tallest hotel in the US.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Upon rereading the "Boston Won't get a Piano" article, I noticed that they mention Piano being peeved regarding "degree to which the altered design is being attributed to him". Does anyone know if this refers to the renderings that were released? This could be one of the reasons that the design is so underwhelming...
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

castevens said:
A quick search on Emporis shows LA having 2 buildings larger in size than the Hancock in Boston... and 29 Buildings over 135 meters (arbitrary number) compared to Boston having 24 over that same number.
Click to expand...

According to today's WSJ, LA's US Bank tower is the tallest building west of the Mississippi: "the iconic U.S. Bank Tower, the tallest building west of the Mississippi..." (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119786229242133093.html?mod=hps_us_inside_today)

As for the larger debate at hand, I always felt a swell of pride as a kid when I drove toward Boston along the Mass Pike, Storrow Drive, 93, the Southeast Expressway, or any other of the roads leading into the city, and saw the city's glimmering skyscrapers up ahead. I still do.

It's a feeling that tells you you're from somewhere, from a major metropolis, and that the city has something special to it. Granted, Charlotte may have a few half-baked skyscrapers, but that doesn't cheapen tall buildings for Boston: given the history that Boston oozes with, the presence of modern buildings is a reminder that the city looks forward (hopefully!) as well as backward.

But why even debate how tall buildings will "change" Boston? Even when my father was a kid in Boston there were skyscrapers in the form of the old Hancock Building. Skyscrapers have been around for 40+ years; they're a long-established part of Boston, and they aren't going away.

The city's historic quarters are lovely -- but they're hardly predominant, and the vast swathes of ugliness in Boston (basically any "outskirt," from the North Station/Zakim Bridge area, to the BU area, to South Station and the Seaport) would be prime for supertall development.

The question is what sort of buildings gets built. And aside from a few nice ones downtown and the classic beauty of the Hancock and Prudential, Boston could use some pointers in building tall towers. The Federal Reserve building, One Financial Place, One Federal Place, The First National Bank Building -- all unfortunate, hulking masses.

TransNational -- Piano's design, anyway -- really isn't bad. It's a fairly elegant, thin building, and it would represent a step in the right direction in terms of both office space and environmental planning (as a rule tall, dense development is much better for the environment than shorter sprawl -- New Yorkers have 1/4 the carbon footprint of the average American).

So let's inspire us all with a sense of pride, human accomplishment and beauty -- and let's show people all that can be found in Boston. Build tall and build well.
 
Last edited:
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I see TNP primarily as a symbolic statement of civic pride and belief in the future rather than as a piece of architecture or a single building. It's a symbol of the city growing and moving forward, retaining its prominence as a major city rather than decaying. When you look at most other major northern cities like Buffalo, Baltimore, Cleveland, Detroit, Philly even NYC to some degree it's pretty clear that degeneration of infrastructure and loss of prominence are a real threat with all the competition from the large and rapidly growing sunbelt cities. A building like TNP is only a symbol of determination, but its important on a larger scale than simple architecture or aesthetics.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Well stated, tocoto and itchy. I really don't see what's so bad about TNP. It's innovative, it's attractive, and yes, it's tall. The Bank of America building in Charlotte (Charlotte's tallest)is beautiful in my opinion, it's got a lot of fantastic details that go unnoticed until you look into them. First, the 60 floors are to represent each of the years that Queen Charlotte ruled, and the Crown on top is symbolic of her tiara. The lobby contains one of the world's largest frescoes. It's a fantastic building that seemingly fits any city, but really doesn't upon further investigation. The problem is that it doesn't blend into the neighborhood well and Charlotte isn't a pedestrian city, so the building serves no purpose other than looking good from afar.

TNP looks good from afar (at least in the renderings we've seen, my opinion is subject to change with the release of new renderings), has all sorts of environmental features, and i think the raised lobby (with escalators AND elevators, which every skyscraper has, so i don't see how this will keep people off the streets) and ground level park is revolutionary as is the rooftop garden. It'll be a new centerpiece in the already established financial district and will be a new destination there for people who normally would have no reason to stay in the financial district (much like people visit the Pru for the observatory or Top of the Hub). It'd be nice to see people there on Saturday and Sunday. The park on the bottom will be a nice alternative to P.O. Square which can get crowded on nicer days.

Most importantly, it'll be a step forward in eliminating the "plateau" that is the Financial District. Maybe you don't like TNP, but it opens the door for the 700-900 foot range of skyscrapers which could offer some really nice new buildings in the near and distant future which would create a whole new scale for the financial district.

I have a hard time seeing the problem with this building. Maybe i'm just caught up in the glitz and glamor of Boston having a supertall, but i don't think it's bad at all. I think the doors this will open up are good ones.

For the record, buildings like Stratosphere, CN Tower, and Space Needle don't fit into the "tallest" categories because they are "freestanding structures." Tall buildings are measured in 3 categories: height to tip of spire, height to roof, and height to highest inhabitable floor." Freestanding structures are measured differently, more on par with radio and tv antennas. The tallest building west of the Mississippi is the Library (U.S. Bank) Tower in L.A.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

It's funny, all this talk about tall buildings makes me realize that my favorite places in my favorite cities are out exterior. I find I like the spaces, the outside rooms, that buildings create. Give me almost any block of the North End any day. Give me the parks of the South End. Hell, call me crazy, give me half the streets in low-rent Southie, growing less low-rent by the year unfortunately.

I'll take SoHo or the Village over mid-town day or night, weekday or (esp.) weekend. I'll take Golden Gate Park, or the Richmond District, or the Marina over SF's financial district. I'd take the Paseo Del Rio and Alamo Park over downtown San Antonio. And anyplace -- anyplace -- in Paris except Montparnasse and Le Defense.

It's not usually the buildings that entice me, it's the places they create, places where people tend to congregate. I dare say (though I'm no expert), when it comes to tourists, visitors to our fair town find the low-rise sections of our city (older and people-scaled) more interesting than The Pru, The Hancock, or Int'l Place. Belkin's building will prove novel and interesting for a short time, and then it will simply be what it is, another tall building, a variation on a theme that we've all seen in one fashion or another.

Tall buildings are fine, guys, don't get me wrong. But interesting elevators and escalators? Can we get real about this? Tourists, conventioneers and out-of-town visitors all want to do the same things us residents want to do -- drink with our friends, have a nice meal at a restaurant, see a ball game, catch a show, do a little sight-seeing and shopping. The only people "Jones-ing" about skyscrapers are those being paid to do so, and us odd ducks.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

You know building TNP won't change the character of the North End, the parks of the South End, or the streets on Southie. If anything it will let you see Boston from a new vantage point, that being the observation deck. I would think that would make someone appreciate the city more, and from a different vantage point.

All your points are valid and I must say I agree entirely, but I don't see what any of them have to do with a skyscraper.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

It's fine if the outskirts of a city are your favorite part, but there's no outskirts if there's no "inskirts." And I like that we're making the "inskirts" better.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Boston has always had a skyline compete with spikes -- particularly from the harbor
It's just that as time proceeds the new skyline is higher on an average and so the spikes had to get not just higher but proportionately higher to be noticed.

I've got a print of a view of Boston from the harbor in 1853 -- from oil painting at the MFA by Fitz Henry or Fitz Henry Lane (born Nathaniel Rogers Lane). At this time the average city skyline is only about 3 or 4 stories {e.g. Bulfinch style warehouses} punctuated by several spires of prominent churches that tower over the average skyline {e.g. Old North {tallest until 1810} and Park Street {tallest until 1867}}.

Take a look at a photograph of Boston from the harbor made about 50 years later -- and the average downtown skyline is now 8 to 10 stories thanks to elevators and steel {and the Great Boston Fire that did the urban clearing} ? there is the 13 story Ames building {58m} but there are only a few church spires and bell towers that are taller than the 1853 view {exclusively in the BackBay's new development district ? most specifically the 72m tall Church of the Covenant on Newbury St}}.

In the 1915, with the Peabody & Stearns? addition to the old granite customs house {that was on the water in the 1853 view} there finally was an office building {151 m} taller than the church spires of 1853 and even the Church of the Covenant.

By about 1930 there are a handful of art deco towers in the financial district that are lower but comparable to the customs house tower {e.g. USM {24 story} , US Post Office 105m}}. Notably nothing is taller than the late 1800?s churches in the BackBay.

After the extended depressed period {depression + WWII + a few years -- 1947} we see the old Hancock tower finally nearly eclipse the Custom's House Tower {shorter by 1 foot} and its in the BackBay ? downtown the New England Telephone building {90m} is massive but still one hundred feet shorter than the Customs House Tower

Nearly another two decades will then pass before the Pru {1964 228m} definitively breeched the unofficial Customs House limit. In the next decade while the downtown skyline is rapidly surging {e.g. JFK {118m}, One Beacon {154m}} {One Boston Place {1970 183m}-- but note nothing even comes close to challenging the Pru for supremacy in the Back Bay until after the Hancock is built {and the windows stop falling {1976 241m}. Downtown tops out at 180+m {e.g. First National Bank {180m} International Place {183m} Federal Reserve Bank {187m} and One Financial Center {180m} and a few others of similar height}.

Now once again we have an opportunity to redefine the skyline -- and in particular to build new fangled mixed-use structures -- just like those {in function} that used to dominate the downtown in the Lane painting {e.g. downstairs shop, midlevel office, top floors rooms for rent}. However, the new ones can start at 200m and go on up.

So Let's build TNP and then we can decide how to build the next one that will be bigger and better -- perhaps at the location of the old Gov't Center Garage or the wasted space that is Boston City Hall.

Westy
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

As if Piano leaving the TNP project weren't a big enough slap in the face, look how nice his new project for Brooklyn looks:
299711citytechtower-49aernv4z.jpeg

200711citytechtowertwo-49aes0awg.jpeg


Source: http://curbed.com/archives/2007/11/27/piano_plays_brooklyn_with_downtown_tower.php
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

That design for Brooklyn isn't being built either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top