Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Rover said:
Not sure.... IF Winthrop Square goes up at 750 or whatever, could you not build a tower somewhere behind it who's shadow would be blocked by the current project? Same thing with MT.
Click to expand...

i thought you could too. Part of me still wants to see the idea tested at the Friars site and maybe elsewhere. i had the fortunate experience of running this idea by the Big Dog himself (Millennium).... Seems they gave this a good look for a possible deal with the Friars at some later date.

"We took a serious look (at this). You would think it would work. And then you test it, and discover it really doesn't.... at certain times of the year in the morning hours, the shadow from that parcel isn't fully shrouded by 115 Winthrop, and it sneaks through...

"You need to lower the tower substantially, like down to three, four hundred feet not to cast new shadow on the Common."

Fuck, show me some tower packages. i need to see this!

So, maybe we see a few going 350~425' including that garage just off the Greenway back there....
 
Last edited:
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Rover said:
Not sure I get the bleating about this being the "last tower" (cue ominous music please).... Beyond that, it was highly unlikely too much was going up near Copley anyway. Your best bet for new tallest or even really significant tall building will be around One Dalton. Doesn't half the board have it out for the Hilton down there?
Click to expand...

We're at proposed stages for very close to the last tower over 500~550'. We'll you're getting down to the end of what would ostensibly be quite a very long while before some truly radical planning can come about for serious height to return.

The official expansion of shadow restrictions over Copley Square effectively, closes off all the remaining parcels in the Back Bay for serious height. i would have to think Copley Tower is exempted.

(shadow restrictions over Copley already had been written in to planning a couple of years ago) ...What i said over the past year; that we're down to these last 4 yet-to-be-permitted >500' towers is spot on, but by no means astute. it's just adding. i'd been telling you all; Copley Square is going to be no-go for future shadow (after Copley Tower). Seems the Walsh Admn used what they were planning to do anyway as a nice bargaining chip for a featured project.

After these 4 parcels possibly get done, you're getting into serious eyebrow raisers in the West End, lots of non-starters, and these 360-390' residences in the Fenway, Roxbury, Mission Hill etc.... In the next few years we could see Parcel 25-26, and a lot of ~200-250' with Bunker Hill, Dot Ave, Landmark Ctr ect....

That's not shabby denstiy all over the City. Let Boston Rise people are going to become much more active, coming out and supporting these projects, as affordable housing units rest on going near the maximum envelope.
 
Last edited:
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Rover said:
Regarding a height fetish, if some developer offered 153M to put the thing at 600 ft or 500ft that would be a good deal for the city too. If you've ever seen a municipal budget up close you just don't blow off that kind of money.
Click to expand...

So bring a Winthrop Square tower in at 400' under existing law; bring in $50M for land acquisition and development rights; and get BPDA to do its job, planning downtown and downtown waterfront for significant density (perhaps residential). Towers are allowable in the Midtown Cultural District under the shadow bank (i.e. Ritz) and under other provisions (i.e. Millennium Tower at Filene's) and behind existing buildings.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Not sure I understand what the "blocking shadows" posts are trying to get at, but just to be clear.... if you "block" a shadow with a big enough building, that building will create a shadow that is at least as big as the shadow it is blocking. You will never gain light by building a building.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

It was 4 of us, Joe, Friar Tom, Halle and myself talking about slipping something tall at St Anthony's Shrine behind Winthrop Square. ...The premise of placing a tower inside the permanent shadow of another tower such that the 2nd tower's shadow never emerges from outside the 1st tower's shadow. You could theoretically get a green light under this scheme–since Joe Larkin's buildings at Winthrop Square and Millennium Tower are quite-wide shadow makers.

But, as you all know, our sun angles cover an enormous range throughout the year. In a special case you might put a Hancock type thing squarely in front of the sun on it's long axis, and stick maybe a slender, 600ish tower behind it to great effect.

But Mr. Larkin assured us it was something they'd studied. But, it only worked for a few select days during the year for significant height. The orientation of the blocks around DTX doesn't support doing it.
 
Last edited:
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

FenwayResident said:
Not sure I understand what the "blocking shadows" posts are trying to get at, but just to be clear.... if you "block" a shadow with a big enough building, that building will create a shadow that is at least as big as the shadow it is blocking. You will never gain light by building a building.
Click to expand...

Basically the argument is as follows: You build 1 big fat tall building that casts a big fat tall shadow. Theoretically you could build a slightly shorter, slightly thinner building right next to it where the new shadow would be completely enveloped by the already existing big fat tall shadow. The argument would never claim to remove an existing shadow, so much as to not add additional shadow.

However, at some point the angle of the sun will end up causing the slightly shorter/thinner building to cast a shadow that doesn't perfectly fall within the already existing shadow. If that clips any part of the common at any time of day/year, it doesn't work, particularly if they have blown the entirety of the shadow bank.

I still don't understand this desperate need to make sure we are blinded an extra half hour in the early morning, at very specific times of year, by a horizontal sun. Considering how much of the rest of the common is still in the shadows at that point, shouldn't all those trees be dead if it actually mattered?
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

odurandina said:
It was 4 of us, Joe, Friar Tom, Halle and myself talking about slipping something tall at St Anthony's Shrine behind Winthrop Square. ...The premise of placing a tower inside the permanent shadow of another tower such that the 2nd tower's shadow never emerges from outside the 1st tower's shadow. You could theoretically get a green light under this scheme.

Since Joe Larkin's buildings at Winthrop Square and Millennium Tower are quite-wide shadow makers. But again, it's something they've already studied. It was made clear to me that the premise only works for a few select days during the year for significant height.

That isn't to say in a special case you couldn't put a Hancock type thing squarely in front of the sun on it's long axis, then stick a slender, 600' tower to great effect. It's just that, according to Mr. Larkin, the orientation of DTX doesn't favor anything remotely dramatic.
Click to expand...

I see what you mean now. I was just saying that once the "damage" (for lack of a better term) has been done, nothing will get sunlight back short of demolishing a building. But if you've already got a building blocking that light then in theory you could say a new building isn't casting any new shadows.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

pardon, i had to go back and clean that up a bit.

fixed!

Sicilian said:
So bring a Winthrop Square tower in at 400' under existing law; bring in $50M for land acquisition and development rights; and get BPDA to do its job, planning downtown and downtown waterfront for significant density (perhaps residential). Towers are allowable in the Midtown Cultural District under the shadow bank (i.e. Ritz) and under other provisions (i.e. Millennium Tower at Filene's) and behind existing buildings.
Click to expand...

Force a developer to stay below 401' in 2018, and he's effectively compressed down toward a 40 Trinity type of $$$ model. Study that project. You're taking away nearly all the public benefit, and you ain't going anywhere near $50m for that parcel. Maybe $14-16M. Larkin and other developers have made plain the ugly laws of building economics in Boston time and again.

33 Arch was no $50m parcel. Anyway, have you seen how the $$$ is to be allocated? $50m?? You're looking a considerable number of benefactors significantly hurt. For people waiting for affordable units, (worse).
 
Last edited:
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

odurandina said:
Force a developer to stay below 401' in 2018, and he's effectively compressed down toward a 40 Trinity type of $$$ model. Study that project. You're taking away nearly all the public benefit, and you ain't going anywhere near $50m for that parcel. Maybe $14-16M. Larkin and other developers have made plain the ugly laws of building economics in Boston time and again.

33 Arch was no $50m parcel. Anyway, have you seen how the $$$ is to be allocated? $50m?? You're looking a considerable number of benefactors significantly hurt. For people waiting for affordable units, (worse).
Click to expand...

Maybe $14-16M? Seaport Square lots with development rights for towers averaging 250' are selling at $29M per acre. Prior sales of vacant lots in the Seaport were averaging $26M/acre.

As for location by comparison. I assume you've seen this.

Winthrop Square may be apples/oranges with a Seaport Square comparison, and I don't pretend to be an expert, but the idea that a 400' tower is not feasible with significant benefits to COB seems a stretch.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Shinjuku%20Chuo%20Park.jpg


Just snapped this with my phone, Shinjuku Chuo Park. The Tokyo Metropolitan Gov's prominent tower on the right is the same size as the Hancock, for reference. Again, I must be living in an alternate reality where trees don't shoot death rays or conjure the ghosts of the Plains of Megiddo upon being touched by the all-corrupting tendrils of tall building shadows.

Will wonders never cease?!
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Its Japan but the funny thing is if this was in China theres actually a possibility that they would put in fake trees. North Korea theres a 100% chance....but thats NK they live in a different universe. To think that China which is damn near a superpower would definitely take this into consideration and at the minimum someone would mention it is kind of funny.


I watched the Marty Walsh interview tonight on tv and the host brought up the shadow issue and was proven wrong on the spot, but they still insisted on leaving out the parts that make this look good the whole time. Once he was gone and without chance to respond the host casually just called the proposal "the tower which is going to cast shadows onto the common". Obviously if you say it like that it looks terrible. Marty told him its literally in the winter and never goes beyond 9:30am which when that little (ginormous) tidbit is mentioned, I don't think anyone in the right mind could care enough to jeopardize this entire project along with its community benefits.

The people who are watching this show who the VAST majority are in all likelihood not following the design/approval process hear this and think WTF. I think thats unfair to the developers because I don't really see them releasing a commercial that says THIS IS NOT AS BAD AS YOU THINK. Also if a Millennium Partners CEO does an interview on late night tv no ones going to care or watch. No way he gets even half of what the Mayor of Boston gets so for them to conveniently leave out VERY important facts, while still making mention of some disparaging ones-that have been taken out of context, it hurts them in a way that they cannot respond. That being said this is going to get approved and built so F em.
 
Last edited:
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

City/state approve shadow law then FAA cuts the tower down in size also effectively cutting the payout then the city gets up in arms that they allowed this building for $75M instead of $150...then what?

We potentially get a stiffer shadow rule that not only cuts development downtown but back bay as well plus less of a payout and less tower.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

617 said:
City/state approve shadow law then FAA cuts the tower down in size also effectively cutting the payout then the city gets up in arms that they allowed this building for $75M instead of $150...then what?

We potentially get a stiffer shadow rule that not only cuts development downtown but back bay as well plus less of a payout and less tower.
Click to expand...

I don't think the FAA is going to cut the tower in half... they may cut 15 feet off the top...
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

There is really no other perfect spot in the city of Boston to build one of the tallest skyscrapers in the city in this location.

I would not be surprised to see WYNN propose a 1,000 ft tower in Everett just to piss the city of Boston off even more.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

617 said:
City/state approve shadow law then FAA cuts the tower down in size also effectively cutting the payout then the city gets up in arms that they allowed this building for $75M instead of $150...then what?

We potentially get a stiffer shadow rule that not only cuts development downtown but back bay as well plus less of a payout and less tower.
Click to expand...

Am I right here, that the trade-off is this tower today but far stiffer shadow laws going forward? Is that worth it? Call me the opposite of a height fetishist. I don't care how tall it is. I just want to see underused lots - garages, parking lots, pedestrian-unfriendly parcels - converted to thriving mixed-use fabric. All over the city - from North Station, to Back Bay to Ink Block - developers are voting not to go to the height limit. That's fine by me, as long as what's going up is high quality and enhances the urban environment (not my view of the skyline coming down 93)
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Happy to see that so many showed up to support the project. I can only imagine the Friends of the Public Garden drafting a lawsuit already.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top