Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

You know what also creates a ton of shadows, especially on the Public Garden? Trees. We should cut all of them down - especially the ones planted after the state law took effect. Also kind of interesting that the city basically has no say over the parks in this matter, and what is best for the city without the State's permission.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

bakgwailo said:
You know what also creates a ton of shadows, especially on the Public Garden? Trees. We should cut all of them down - especially the ones planted after the state law took effect. Also kind of interesting that the city basically has no say over the parks in this matter, and what is best for the city without the State's permission.
Click to expand...

The folks in the State House are the ultimate NIMBY's -- protecting their public "front yard".

Of course the legislature threw a bit of air cover in the 1990 law to throw shade on the NIMBY argument -- they included Lynn Common in the law, because we all know that Lynn Common was under imminent threat of being covered with shade from all the massive developments in Lynn!
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Did someone say they were going to make a decision today? I don't see anything on the BRA site about a meeting. Or is this happening behind closed doors through the city council?
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

While I agree this could be a slippery slope, I would like to see this built as is.We're only talking about 90 minutes in the morning and it's not as if the entire park will be under darkness. It's a great opportunity to take nothing and turn it into something.

At the very least, this tower should be 550-600 feet if they do have to cut it down for approval.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I really don't believe anything is going to get compromised. It's a stupid law, and there is $153 million on the line here for the city.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

BPDA October supplimental meeting today to possibly decide the GE development.

BCDC meeting today on SST.

So, we get MT, 1 Dalton, Avalon, TD Garden Residence, 50 Sudbury (GCG residence tower) and the Pierce from this build cycle....

but getting very late (nervous) for SST, Garden Garage, Harbor Garage, 380 Stewart St, 40 Trinity, and a half dozen more....

3-4 skyscrapers cut down to medium highrises in the West End, and a Seaport mid-rise cluster that has 1/3 of the people of Boston wanting to lynch the Mayor,

And a lot of good + turd infill.

7 months ago, the day after 1 Bromfield was proposed, could anyone have imagined that we'd win, then lose 111 Fed..... Copley Tower would be scrapped, 1 Bromfield sent to the scrap bin and, and, and, and....

but we'd see the resurrection of SST, Harbor Garage and Columbus Center....

and we get a 600' tower proposed at Parcel 15.....

it could have been miraculous. Maybe someday at Copley Tower. Maybe the BRA grows some balls at 1 Bromfield.

......
 
Last edited:
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I like the Millennium Proposal for this site: Great Filler for this location:
At this point I think the city should reevaluate Winthrop Garage developer and get a better understanding on how management is handling SF sinking tower scenario before 100% committing to this developer for this location.
Millennium got 10's millions in tax breaks to get the Downtown Tower site going which looks beautiful.
If Millennium walks away from the SF Sinking Tower problem I would ban them from building in our city altogether.
It would show how they actually handle problems and incompetence.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

TheRifleman said:
I like the Millennium Proposal for this site: Great Filler for this location:
At this point I think the city should reevaluate Winthrop Garage developer and get a better understanding on how management is handling SF sinking tower scenario before 100% committing to this developer for this location.
Millennium got 10's millions in tax breaks to get the Downtown Tower site going which looks beautiful.
If Millennium walks away from the SF Sinking Tower problem I would ban them from building in our city altogether.
It would show how they actually handle problems and incompetence.
Click to expand...

Lots of assumptions here that Millennium is the party at fault in the sinking tower. Still to be determined in a court of law. Probably across multiple cases.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I don't think you'd have any developers left in Boston if you banned all of the developers who don't have squeaky clean records.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

JeffDowntown said:
Lots of assumptions here that Millennium is the party at fault in the sinking tower. Still to be determined in a court of law. Probably across multiple cases.
Click to expand...

Not saying they are at fault. But they are the developer---Instead of battling in court who's at fault. Lets find solutions.

It just would say a lot about the character of the organization. I would not let them build in my city if I saw them walk out on a --sinking skyscraper in major city that was ultimately proposed by them--
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I have a feeling there's people with enough power to make this happen backing up the proposal...
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Sane governance would be to understand the spirit of the law, and to clarify or further specify it if that spirit is not embodied by the current law.

If the spirit of the law is to keep the Common as a bright, inviting public space that is true to it's historic presence, then 60-vs-90 minutes of shade at very early hours of the morning when the public seldom accesses the space is a nit-pick that is untrue to the spirit. An across the board change to revise the hours of applicability or to increase the duration of shade may be appropriate and fully reasonable.

If the Friends of the Public Garden are so concerned about the "snowball effect" by this one development (that is actually quite far from the Common), then the city can propose setting up height zones around the common that mitigate encroachment. But the several developments being talked about (with the exception of 1 Brom, which is probably dead in its current form anyway) are not examples of encroachment.

I think it's fully reasonable for the city to aggressively champion an approach such as this, and say what you will about him, I think we have a governor who may be a champion of this on the state's side.

My two cents (that are worth zero cents).
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

tysmith95 said:
I don't think you'd have any developers left in Boston if you banned all of the developers who don't have squeaky clean records.
Click to expand...

This is absolutely true but beside the point. It is wildly unlikely that anyone in a position of power would ever try to ban developers unless they have squeaky clean records. None of them do, we all know that.

The question on any developer review is not "is this group perfectly clean?" but rather "are the identifiable risks arising from this group's inevitably imperfect past of a magnitude that they could collectively overwhelm the protections (insurance, compartmentalization, etc) that the developer has in place and hurt them so badly they can't perform here?"

As has been noted here repeatedly, we don't know enough yet about the SF Millennium Tower to know if that one rises to such a risk level. Lots of work still needed yet to determine the engineering issues (cause of problem or repair thereof) or the location of liability (M Partners or abutting construction site). It's all officially in the unknown zone. But this is a rare case where a single project's issues could, in the worst-case scenario, make a good run at overwhelming their defenses.

There's a ton of "ifs" baked into that paragraph, but as for maximum possible scope? We're not just talking about a building that is settling downward at a faster than projected rate, something that I imagine engineers could get comfortable with. It's also leaning over at a rate that must be way outside the projected parameters. In earthquake country. With a massive hard-to-stop public infrastructure project right next door that might or might not be exacerbating whatever the hell is going in the soils below and adjacent to the MT's foundation.

If I were an investor or a lender in Millennium Partner's next big deal, I'd want to know more. Maybe they could assuage my concerns with info not publicly available. As for Boston / BRA? I guess a cynic could say that so long as they get their land purchase money upfront, what the hell? But the last thing Boston needs is to collect a pile of cash from a transaction and then see the project derailed for ___ years. I hope they're doing due diligence on this.

I say all this as someone who very much appreciates what Millennium Partners has accomplished in this town in the last decade.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

bigpicture7 said:
If the Friends of the Public Garden are so concerned about the "snowball effect" by this one development (that is actually quite far from the Common), then the city can propose setting up height zones around the common that mitigate encroachment. But the several developments being talked about (with the exception of 1 Brom, which is probably dead in its current form anyway) are not examples of encroachment.
Click to expand...

Especially when Winthrop Square isn't anywhere near the Common. The intention of the law seemed to be to avoid a death wall of apartment/condo towers along the Common, not to prevent skyscrapers from being built in the Financial District where the skyscrapers go.

FWIW, if there were a wall of high-rises along that side of the Common, shadows from Winthrop Square wouldn't reach the park. It's the lack of other tall buildings in the neighborhood that makes this one a problem.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

TheRifleman said:
Not saying they are at fault. But they are the developer---Instead of battling in court who's at fault. Lets find solutions.

It just would say a lot about the character of the organization. I would not let them build in my city if I saw them walk out on a --sinking skyscraper in major city that was ultimately proposed by them--
Click to expand...

Sometimes the only solution that the other parties want is a $ billion check -- then it is off to court. As I said, a lot of assumptions (including the reasonable other parties one, that they are seeking solutions, and not just a pay day at this point).
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

It would be interesting to see a map of the shadows cast by existing buildings. Without that it is impossible to say how much "new" shadow there would be due to this proposal. Any new shadow is almost certainly a lot less than if this proposal were the only tall building in the area. This is probably an expected aspect of the development process if the city and developers have any foresight at all.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

stick n move said:
Check out this render I found on Accordiapartners.com. The setbacks are individually lit at night, this looks amazing.

160608_02.jpg
Click to expand...


the right building won't be the one that doesn't get built.

wow even the 2nd time.

http://www.archboston.org/community/showpost.php?p=263640&postcount=1845
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

https://twitter.com/BostonPlans/status/793552246227267589

Millennium awarded. I think more than anything, the NIMBYs should try and work with the City on a compromise here. Perhaps Millennium can find an innovative way to adjust the architecture here to reduce shadows? We could finally get some unique architecture in this terrible skyscraper city.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top