Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Seattle is considered to have one of the best skylines because of Mount Rainier in the background. The skyline combined with natural beauty is what makes it great, unfortunately Boston does not have those awe inspiring surroundings.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Seattle is considered to have one of the best skylines because of Mount Rainier in the background. The skyline combined with natural beauty is what makes it great, unfortunately Boston does not have those awe inspiring surroundings.

Without the Columbia Center peak it would take quite the tumble down many people's lists. One taller building can make a world of difference.

Seattle by Greg Shaw, on Flickr

The Seattle Skyline from Dr. Jose Rizal Park, Seattle, Washington by Ashley Cristal, on Flickr

Seattle Across Elliot Bay by Mark Biggins, on Flickr
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Are we back to jacking off about other cities skylines? Can we stop please.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Are we back to jacking off about other cities skylines? Can we stop please.

it's a forum to discuss architecture. how is comparing "stuff" that boston has to "stuff" present in other cities somehow off-base?
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

and btw, speaking of comparing this to that, and that to oh that again,

what happened to Whiggy?

5 weeks and just the dark blackness.....
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

it's a forum to discuss architecture. how is comparing "stuff" that boston has to "stuff" present in other cities somehow off-base?

Ehhhh he's kind of right about this one.

On base: We are talking about the way a new peak can impact the skyline.
Off base: We are talking about a different building and different peak.

On base: This was originally proposed to go 1000' and we are discussing the effect of a supertall on Boston's skyline.
Off base: This will likely end up our 4th tallest building.


I am competitive about my skylines the way I am competitive about my sports. For instance, the Pats winning didn't put more money in my bank account, or offer me any tangible benefits, and yet it somehow just makes my life better. We have now collectively ripped the hearts out of everybody from Seattle and Atlanta, and it feels great. I am hoping to rip their hearts out from a skyline perspective as well. ;) But for the record, I think both Seattle and Atlanta currently have better skylines than Boston. Although, from ground level, Boston completely wrecks Atlanta in every way possible. (haven't been to Seattle) It is kind of off topic, but we have the better city and I want it to be better in every way possible, including the skyline.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Seattle is considered to have one of the best skylines because of Mount Rainier in the background. The skyline combined with natural beauty is what makes it great, unfortunately Boston does not have those awe inspiring surroundings.

You can count one one hand the number of major US cities that have the natural beauty that Seattle has. I love Seattle and its skyline.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

You can count one one hand the number of major US cities that have the natural beauty that Seattle has. I love Seattle and its skyline.

Portland, OR, has all the same potential. It's just smaller. You've got Mt. Hood right there.

Anyway, my vote is that this skyline comparison stuff doesn't belong here (as I contribute to the derailment...; ) ).

But I'll say this: skyline beauty is art, and not just playing with rulers.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Also that so many people seem to think that NIMBYs are only an issue and stopping or shrinking developments in Boston when in reality this happens everywhere and some cities *cough* San Francisco *cough* have it much worse than Boston.

I really don't think they're worried about it out in SF. The tallest one U/C will have the same impact Menino envisioned for the Winthrop Square site. Note the Leaning Tower of Millennium is between the 2 bigs U/C. The Winthrop Square proposal would be barely above the crown of the one U/C on the right. (which pushes just over 800' with the spire)

Untitled by law_dang, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

I'm interested in how the "Great Hall" will deal with the change in elevation between Devonshire and Federal. 101 Federal St, the building immediately next door to this, also has a publicly-accessible lobby that cuts through between the two streets, and there are two small staircases that make up the roughly 6-8 foot (obvious from this angle on Franklin Street) difference.

The "Great Hall" renders show the floor being just below level with the top of the "dark granite" on the Federal side of 101 Federal next door, but I'm pretty sure this is below street-level on Devonshire. Devonshire and Federal both slope up from Franklin, so I doubt the Great Hall being south of 101 Federal will make any difference as far as east-west grade change is concerned.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Apparently people choose to not listen to that fact.

Question, and this is slightly off topic so feel free to move this discussion elsewhere but would the elimination of runway 9/27 (the one facing downtown) and a replacement runway (say for example they landfilled Logan to create an additional space for a runway not facing downtown) resolve the issue of capping the height limit at around 750 ft, or would there still be a radar issue?
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Question, and this is slightly off topic so feel free to move this discussion elsewhere but would the elimination of runway 9/27 (the one facing downtown) and a replacement runway (say for example they landfilled Logan to create an additional space for a runway not facing downtown) resolve the issue of capping the height limit at around 750 ft, or would there still be a radar issue?

I am under the impression that runway is why we have strict height limits in the Seaport, Dot Parcels, etc., while the rest of downtown is still dealing with the radar issue.

I certainly could be wrong, so don't take my word for it.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Question, and this is slightly off topic so feel free to move this discussion elsewhere but would the elimination of runway 9/27 (the one facing downtown) and a replacement runway (say for example they landfilled Logan to create an additional space for a runway not facing downtown) resolve the issue of capping the height limit at around 750 ft, or would there still be a radar issue?

Ain't ever gonna happen! Read the article about MassPort just building a road in East Boston, never mind trying to fill in part of the harbor to build a runway.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion...east-boston/kDX87eOvt4eu7VexGc9nTK/story.html
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Louisville Kentucky is very very underrated/not even in the conversation but its beautiful and has a ton of potential. Madison Wisconsin also as the sleeper city.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

I am under the impression that runway is why we have strict height limits in the Seaport, Dot Parcels, etc., while the rest of downtown is still dealing with the radar issue.

I certainly could be wrong, so don't take my word for it.

Honestly, who thought up the idea of putting a runway that points directly into downtown. You'd think people would have more foresight to not point it into an area near tall buildings.

I would have to guess it was built this way to limit the noise pollution into nearby neighborhoods but there had to be a better alignment than what exists.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

guys, we've been through this a million times at various places on this forum. The runway doesn't point directly at downtown. The CBD is left of centerline, as can be seen anytime you're coming in for a landing on 9, or to the right as you're taking off on 27. Logan's runways maximize use of a very tiny piece of land (relatively speaking - you can look up Logan's acreage vs. similarly busy airports and it is a fraction of the size; they jammed as much as they could on there, and positioned the terminals pretty strategically to avoid a runway going right toward the CBD). And given the pretty crazy wind conditions in/near Boston, it's important that they have choices for operating runways pointing in different directions. These are tradeoffs we make for having an airport extremely close to the CBD. I'm sure there's probably more that can be done to make the height map more flexible for developers (& we should pursue those things), but you can't say the airport planners made egregious mistakes.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Without the Columbia Center peak it would take quite the tumble down many people's lists. One taller building can make a world of difference.

And the space needle.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

guys, we've been through this a million times at various places on this forum. The runway doesn't point directly at downtown. The CBD is left of centerline, as can be seen anytime you're coming in for a landing on 9, or to the right as you're taking off on 27. Logan's runways maximize use of a very tiny piece of land (relatively speaking - you can look up Logan's acreage vs. similarly busy airports and it is a fraction of the size; they jammed as much as they could on there, and positioned the terminals pretty strategically to avoid a runway going right toward the CBD). And given the pretty crazy wind conditions in/near Boston, it's important that they have choices for operating runways pointing in different directions. These are tradeoffs we make for having an airport extremely close to the CBD. I'm sure there's probably more that can be done to make the height map more flexible for developers (& we should pursue those things), but you can't say the airport planners made egregious mistakes.


I hear you but this doesn't really prove anything. I know that thats basically the conclusion that we've come to but I feel its more confirmation bias than fact.

-The land issue is a moot point because this is mostly fill between a couple islands that existed before.
-Looking at the pictures below show that it barely would have taken any more fill to have another runway anyways, probably even the same amount if you didn't have to fill in the area around 9/27.
-Look at other airports all over the country/world. Hundreds of airports have the runways at 90* from one another. NYC is a good example and I don't see anything inherently different in NY where they can do this but we cant.
-The wind issue doesn't make a ton of sense because if everywhere else can have runways at 90* from one another we can too (we do). The other runways already face the other direction and they work fine. If the east west runways don't work go north south.
-Theres already space for the "new" runway, it would have ran directly next to an already existing runway so noise, wind...etc are already factored in.
-9/27 doesnt point directly over downtown, but its damn close meaning the seaport was buzz cut, along with height restrictions in the South Station area of downtown.
-Finally this is a safety issue sending thousands upon thousands of flights directly over the most populated areas in the state every week.

What is the real reason? Nobody has actually found no shit documentation of why Logan was designed the way it was, we all just collectively talk about it for a bit then settle with what we think sounds best. I whipped up a couple images below to show how simple this would have been and again theres plenty of airports that run their runways 90* to each other so its not by any means required to have one runway that cuts between both.

https://postimage.org/

https://postimage.org/

https://postimage.org/


I realize this is getting off topic but theres not a ton of news on this tower and this topic comes up all the time on this forum so if we can finally put a nail in the coffin maybe it wont.


**Bonus points, this could have allowed a bridge over the harbor (if that last one way runway at the bottom hadn't been built) instead of a tunnel which could have ran a train (future silver line upgrade), allowed people to walk/bike across the harbor...which is extremely difficult for people in East Boston, vehicular traffic, saved money, and finally looked damn good as the gateway to the city.
 
Last edited:
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Said bridge that if the last runway wasn't added much later would have allowed:

-the future silver line rail upgrade to cross the harbor on a lower deck
-allowed people in East Boston a means of walking/biking to the city
-vehicular traffic
-cheaper and easier to maintain than a tunnel
-finally looks damn good as a gateway.

The runway on the right of this picture was added last, can only be used in one direction, and could have been placed in a different location. I know Im way off track at this point, but I think the post above makes a valid argument why the runway could have been built that way first, or can be added in the future if need be.

 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

This great map shows all the limits for the area, and the paths.
Logan%20Flight%20Paths.png
 

Back
Top