Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

That maps been posted many times. Basically from this post down is what would that map look like without runway 9/27, and why was it even built where it is since nobodies ever found concrete evidence in writing why it was. We just collectively assume until everyone agrees and then thats what we feel the answer is, but Ive never seen concrete evidence from the city explaining what the real reasons were and maybe it really was an oversight and lack of future proofing.

My theory lies in the direction bigpicture was going, but I think there was an oversight. When they built Logan there was ocean and a couple islands where the airport is now. They slowly filled in more and more over time expanding the airport each time and I feel like they already had the land filled in so they just put it where they had room. The pic above shows the fill could have gone in a better place. If they had planned ahead of time the fill would have been placed in different areas allowing the proposed runway to be built. Again I agree that it was probably because the land was already there (after expansions), but this is created land. This is a guess and I have never seen documents from the city explaining, but I truly think it was an oversight on their part not knowing what the future held and just building out of convenience.

KentXie said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

^ Stick, I appreciate your healthy skepticism and I agree we sometimes jump to confirmation bias on this forum, but another thing about this forum is that we get yelled at for long-winded ostensibly off-topic posts, so we're pressured to leave off all the explanation behind stuff...

1) you didn't take into account my point about wind directions; runway 9-27 has a unique vector compared to the others, and is strategically used during two of the 4 primary wind configurations...it may be possible to shut down 9-27 in favor of another one parallel to rw 33, but i am pretty sure they use an interweaving scheme that allows the traffic to come from two primary directions during that wind condition. In other words, we can't say there will be no impact on airport operation, and even if other traffic patterns are possible, massport isn't just going to say "OK, sure, we'll give up traffic flexibility so that tall stuff can be built on a few specific parcels downtown"
Link: how Logan Operates

2) Building new runways over water is FREAKING expensive these days. This is not the same era as when Logan primarily expanded. A 470' safety extension on runway 33L cost $63million 4 years ago. For reference, that's the little white rectangle sticking out into the harbor on the right of your photo above. Now...this was built on piles and had aircraft arresting material (EMAS) built in (so it's not the same cost as raw runway), but if you multiplied that by a 9000' runway, that would be $1.2billion project. Even if the cost were a lot less per linear foot, you're still looking at nearly a billion dollar project:
Link to project site.

3) next, there will be violent opposition to filling in more land around Logan because of the clam beds. I am not kidding - apparently there's a thriving clam habitat around there, and there are protests anytime Massport proposes something:
Example, and from recent project:
...Because commercial clammers harvest shellfish from the area, altering it required mitigation efforts to replace the lost salt marsh and compensate for both the environmental and economic value of the affected shellfish.
Click to expand...

4) and we can't forget the Eastie residents who will most certainly protest a new runway at Logan...they will think it's more traffic and more noise...and in this case that's actually true, b/c the 9-27 departures you're proposing eliminating are ones that go away from Eastie...I'm not even going to post the links to all of that history.

5) and regarding your comment above about runway 14-32 (the one that can only be used in one direction), there is the saddest, most complex, angst-inducing history behind that...you should read it. The saddest parts:
In 1988, Massport had proposed an 800-foot (240 m) extension to this airstrip (a project which would have required additional filling-in of land along a clam bed), but was thwarted by a court injunction.[32]

Boston's Hyatt Harborside Hotel, which sits only a few hundred yards from the runway threshold, was built primarily to prevent Massport from ever extending the length of 14/32 or using it for takeoffs or landings over the city. Massachusetts state legislators carefully chose the location of the hotel—directly in the runway centerline—prior to its construction in 1992.[33]
Click to expand...

Look, I am practically a YIMBY about tall building construction in Boston and a decent chunk of my work experience is in aviation infrastructure, so there is practically no one more than me who would LOVE to see Logan build a new runway and boost the height map around the city. That's probably why I have all this angst and "never gonna happen" frustration pent up. I share your excitement over the prospects, but it's just really, really hard for them to pull this off - the stars would have to be aligned. Better radar, more advanced air traffic control, and probably some other options are more likely than a new runway.
 
Last edited:
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

I agree its not happening today, my main point was why didn't it happen before. The bridge and pictures were really to show what the possibilities were if they had went another direction at the inception. The wind definitely is a factor, but the way they operate is most likely because its there. Im sure it would have been fine without 9/27 just as many airports are they would have adjusted accordingly.

Does anyone actually have a no shit pdf or some scanned files or a website that truly explains the construction of Logan and why it was built the way it was?

At this point its speculation and at the end of the day were left with what we have, which is fine Im very happy with the city how it is, its just a hot topic on here and it would be nice to know once and for all. If not its not the end of the world either, but its just a recurring topic on here.

For me its not even about building tall downtown, although thats cool too, its the other possibilities like the bridge, and even safety...etc that Im more interested in. Eastie is essentially cut off from the city completely to foot traffic because there is not a direct route to the city that isnt a subway or tunnel and Ill always wonder "what if". Also the silver line...or whatever rail line hopefully is built there in the future, will need a dedicated way to get across the harbor one day.
 
Last edited:
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Stick, unfortunately I don't know of one single source that contains what you suggest. I too wish I had access to one. All I've ever had on Logan is bits and pieces, here and there.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Same we kind of have to just put it together and take a best guess, which leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Ah well anyways.

Hubman said:
I'm not surprised.
Click to expand...

The China town thread actually has a piece of it right now haha.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

It makes perfect sense to me that people on this board have never taken a plane in or out of Logan ..
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

I've said it before and I'll say it again but the people in the comments section jacking off about how short Boston is and that we don't any tall buildings are not helping.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Height where appropriate, plays a role in creating a balance between conservation and economic vivacity. It is precisely the way density (height) has been, and continues to be done in Boston that allows us to afford our historic, green City, and capital improvements.
 
Last edited:
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

odurandina said:
Height where appropriate, plays a role in creating a balance between conservation and economic vivacity. It is precisely the way density (height) has been, and continues to be done in Boston that allows us to afford our historic, green City, and capital improvements.
Click to expand...

I don't think meddlepal is commenting on whether height is appropriate. He/she is commenting that the way commenters in the Globe "jerk off" about height on every one of these articles is not supporting their cause; if anything it is divisive and it is hurting it.

Dante Ramos, on the other hand, goes through the substantive reasons why the project is valuable rather than just harping on height for height's sake. That's a better approach.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

While I don't advocate jacking off to inanimate objects such as buildings, to each his own. However, its a good counterargument to NIMBY's who oppose everything taller than a tree. It also puts the idiotic "Manhattanization" comment that every Boston NIMBY uses for every project in its place.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

bigpicture7 said:
I don't think meddlepal is commenting on whether height is appropriate. He/she is commenting that the way commenters in the Globe "jerk off" about height on every one of these articles is not supporting their cause; if anything it is divisive and it is hurting it.

Dante Ramos, on the other hand, goes through the substantive reasons why the project is valuable rather than just harping on height for height's sake. That's a better approach.
Click to expand...

Aka oduradnia in the globe comment section lol.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Hubman said:
What is the hold up on 115 Winthrop? I thought it was approved.

There seems to be some idea about changing the law so Winthrop could be built, but cut down on towers in the future near The Common.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2017/01/19/city-would-toughen-rules-building-shadows-long-winthrop-square-tower-can-rise-feet/MbwTg68DRS93Gas9buinLP/story.html
Click to expand...

Lots of issues still being negotiated.

Still too tall per the FAA.

Still unresolved some compromise related to shadows on the Common (change to the plan, change to the MA Law, some combination....)
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

JeffDowntown said:
Lots of issues still being negotiated.

Still too tall per the FAA.

Still unresolved some compromise related to shadows on the Common (change to the plan, change to the MA Law, some combination....)
Click to expand...

The FAA can make exceptions, right?

I know Atlantic Wharf got to build 436 feet in a heavily restricted part of Boston.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_Wharf
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Hubman said:
The FAA can make exceptions, right?

I know Atlantic Wharf got to build 436 feet in a heavily restricted part of Boston.
Click to expand...


I don't think Atlantic Wharf needed an FAA exception to go to 436 feet. FAA cap there is about 650 feet (hard to tell exactly on their map, but it's about that). The Fed Reserve and a number of other buildings in pretty close proximity are taller.

https://www.massport.com/media/11778/BOS_COMPOSITE_Ver2pt0_dec201_small.pdf

I think Atlantic Wharf got an exception to Chapter 91 height restrictions. Others hopefully remember this more clearly.

That would not add up to a "no" answer to your question, just that you need a different example.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

The proposed SST would be a better example. It's at the edge of the 300 ft limit and near a flight path.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

tysmith95 said:
The proposed SST would be a better example. It's at the edge of the 300 ft limit and near a flight path.
Click to expand...

It's not about exceptions to the map. The FAA considers each case separately and issues an opinion. If they say 725' is the height, it's the height.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

BRA official off the record last spring;

"They might be able to get 735'."

i believe this 775' and 750' is civics101 to create artificial wiggle room for the shadows, such that the "no-big-towers-ever" folks can walk away feeling like winners. i'm sure Joe Larkin would love to go 875' if he could. That's how awesome we are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top