Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District
115 Winthrop Square Public Meeting
when; Jan 05, 2017, 6:30–8:30 PM
Contact; Christopher Tracy,
Christopher.Tracy@Boston.gov
Phone; 617.918.4259
.........The public comment period is also being extended, based on community request, until January 16, 2017.
Almost waited too long, but I just sent the following email to Christopher:
To Christopher Tracy and whomever else it may concern,
I am writing you mainly to voice my support for the new proposal at Winthrop Square, although I am not fully without criticism for Millennium. I also would like to share some of my other opinions about Boston's development process, loosely related to this proposal. As to my background, I am a local resident who has grown up in the area and lived here most of my 30-something years. I am a mostly fervent supporter of smart, dense development, and am a longtime poster on archboston.com. (DZH22)
Before I zero in on Winthrop Square itself, I would like to discuss part of the spirit of the RFP, and how I believe the city is being done a disservice on this front. As we all know, ex Mayor Menino originally tabbed this location as the site for a new city tallest, a Supertall Tower over 1000' which would become the new beacon of Boston. This was ultimately shot down by the FAA, but it begged the question: Can Boston build a new tallest building, and is this the site to make it happen?
Regarding a New Tallest
The short answer is maybe Boston can build a new tallest, somewhere, but it isn't here. The FAA is seeing to that. So even with this RFP requesting a bold new tower and new focal point in Boston, we are still going to be looking at likely the 4th tallest building in the city. (behind the tower formerly known as the Hancock, the Pru, and the upcoming 1 Dalton)
If Boston is ever going to get a new tallest, and rise above what it attained 40 years ago, there are precious few places to do it. 2 prime locations are North Station and the Back Bay Garage, both of which are being squandered with underwhelming towers planned, courtesy of Boston Properties. I would like to see more consideration regarding these general locations for height, and a chance for a genuine new icon.
I know many people don't want Boston to become like NYC, but there is no chance of that truly happening. In terms of scale, NYC has 16 buildings simultaneously under construction right now that all eclipse our tallest. In fact, many peer and smaller cities can boast at least one taller building than Boston, including San Francisco, Seattle, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, , Chicago, LA, Miami, Pittsburgh, Minneapolis, Cleveland, Charlotte, Oklahoma City, Indianapolis.... That list continues to grow, and it sells our city short because a skyline is basically an outsider's first impression. We are stuck with large, 70's boxes as the focal points on our mostly beautiful landscape.
Iconic Architecture and Preservation
The demands for this proposal called for something iconic to be built here. I would like to bring up another tower, 1 Bromfield, which I thought was maybe the boldest, coolest looking proposal I have ever seen for Boston. Now, to be fair, I was very unhappy with the base and believe the Payless Building should be saved on that corner, perhaps via facadectomy. But the tower itself is spectacular and I hope it can retain most of its original design and all of its height. The shape is sleek and daring, and the color scheme adds more variety to Boston's palette. As the financial district already has a dense canopy of 500-600' buildings, this would be an incredible piece of the puzzle at over 700', right across from the 685' Millennium Tower.
This next paragraph may seem a little bit scathing, but I am extremely disappointed with the way large projects such as this continue to fail (Harbor Garage and many air rights projects are current examples) while our city agencies so callously approve the destruction of gems such as the Dainty Dot and Times Buildings. The Dainty Dot in particular was a travesty, as the original proposal, which would have preserved the building, was deemed "too iconic" to be on the greenway. So we lost the Dainty Dot, and 50' off the proposal, and better architecture. Who wins? There needs to be more done to preserve the soul of Boston, emulating projects such as Atlantic Wharf. I know 2 more gems on Stuart Street will eventually be replaced by the new "bubble" Hancock, and the Trinity Hotel, while there are still empty lots in the area. More effort needs to be made to save our historic urban fabric.
Millennium Praise and Criticisms
Before I truly support the current project, I want Millennium to add some sort of roof to the new Millennium Tower. From points all over the South and Southwest you can see the opening in the roof. (see attached picture) From most angles this is bar-none the most beautiful tower built here in my lifetime, and was a great win for the city of Boston. However, from certain angles the top is literally an eyesore. Seeing the white grid inside is jarring and looks unfinished. The renders showed a roof here, with a slit for the window washing equipment to extend through. Please ask them to finish this roof the same way they finished the roofs on Millennium Place. There is no reason to have this tower be 1% eyesore, right at the very top no less, when the rest of it is so gorgeous.
Now, if they will finish the roof, I have ever ounce of faith that Millennium will deliver a top-notch product at Winthrop Square. The current iteration reminds me of IDS Tower in Minneapolis, only for the 21st century. Despite its heft, it is sleek, modern, and powerful. I am excited about the prospect of the Great Hall to enliven the area, and hope they light the crown at night. The developer has already done so much already to revitalize DTX and the Theater District, and I am confident they will be able to complete this project and inject yet more life into downtown. Obviously, Boston is also due a windfall if this succeeds, and after will annually receive an impactful amount of taxes for the city budget.
Shadow Concerns and the FAA
I am going to admit that the FAA will be difficult, if not impossible, to circumvent. I do wonder if it is feasible to add additional radar coverage to Logan, allowing an increase in development potential across large swaths of downtown. I hope something can be done to get this tower to at least the 725' original target or a lot of people might end up looking rather foolish on this front.
Regarding shadows, it's important to note that this tower won't be blocking any of the pleasant, overhead sun during the day. It certainly wouldn't have an effect on the horticulture of the Common and Gardens. Instead, it will be blocking out an essentially horizontal, blinding sun for a few minutes in the morning. I, for one, would welcome this sweeping sliver of shade to block out the extreme glare. We are supposedly a powerhouse city, with both a top 10 metro and GDP for the country, and shouldn't let a little bit of shade scuttle such a promising, positive project. Contrary to what a vocal minority may scream at the top of their lungs, the sky is not falling and this will have essentially zero impact on people's enjoyment of our parks over half a mile away.
Final Thoughts, Thank You for Reading
In closing, I would like to reiterate that I am for this proposal and believe "Let Boston Rise" is an appropriate slogan for 2017 and beyond. I have a lot of pride for our city's history, but also want to have pride in the way we continue to blend our past into the future. I believe the city has a ton of potential, but we need to make sure we don't squander it, particularly in the specific locations where we can conceivably "reach for the stars."
Thank you very much for taking the time to read this. I wish you luck in your role of shaping Boston's success, and hope you will pass along my letter of support.
Respectfully,
(DZH22) <---Real name provided in the email.
Here is the picture I attached.
IMG_3767 by
David Z, on Flickr