Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

[unterbau]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

The Fed. Reserve is nice and sleek and all, but I've always been surprised there's been so little resistance on this forum to the suburban office park base.

What's there to resist? Sure, it's not the most economical use of the land, but it makes for a very elegant rooftop garden.
I mean, if you want to complain about suburban office parks, take a gander at One Financial Place? it looks like a suburban office building that was turned into a skyscraper, like some bizarro version of postmodernism.

 

[TheBostonBoy]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Well there goes all my hopes....lol
I have been brought up and let down way too much this year....Columbus Center..."It's a go!" then "CANCELLED" TNP...Boston's possible first 1000 footer...probably done
it just kills me that this keep's happening...i am scared for every project now...South Station? Filene's? If those go down the drain, I may just have to kill myself....lol
I feel like this is like the tale of the Red Sox (or so to speak, the Old Red Sox) Every year for four years before we won the 2004 world series, we would get far and then blow it right before the title...well I hate the fact that the same thing occurs with Boston buildings...it's like Boston's second curse, except I am unsure on how to reverse this one. haha
sorry, that's just how I view this whole thing, and I just don't understand how this continues to happen (well I do somewhat, but it still blows my mind)

 

[Suffolk 83]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I think everyone knew this was 50 50 and going to take a long time to see through. Maybe the hopefuls need to just sit on their hands and wait. Just like it took 86 years for the Sox to win and end the torment(not 4 years BostonBoy) but hopefully not that long.

I was talking to a few old timers(aka my Dad and his 60 year old friends) and they were talking about the "chinky" garage and how it used to be 12 bucks to park there. Ever since this proposed tower the prices have gone through the roof. I think when I walked by there recently it was 28 bucks a day which is about average these days but far from 12 dollars. I believe the City of Boston is trying to squeeze every dollar out of the place.

Most likely we can check Filenes as getting done I don't think one has to worry about that.

 

[Boston02124]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I asked a PM this week who works with CBT,If this project was dead and was told it is still active! However I think this economy will dictate when and if this project will be built.

 

[type001]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I asked a PM this week who works with CBT,If this project was dead and was told it is still active! However I think this economy will dictate when and if this project will be built.

This is true. The only new tidbit of info that I have revealed is that the demolition of 133 Federal has been postponed. And regarding the tower itself, I just feel that it would be so long before we see anything that it's not even worth thinking 'Yay, we're getting a supertall'.

 

[TheBostonBoy]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I think everyone knew this was 50 50 and going to take a long time to see through. Maybe the hopefuls need to just sit on their hands and wait. Just like it took 86 years for the Sox to win and end the torment(not 4 years BostonBoy) but hopefully not that long.

Ya I know 86, but I just meant in the 4 years before 2004, we got soooooo soo close everytime and everyone finally thought it would be broken, but then we lost it. I know that over the past 86 years before that it was happening too, but I just mean I really felt the effects of it in those 4 years since I was too young before that.
And ya I knew this wasn't like something that was close to guaranteed, I just had a lot of hopes for this one because the city seemed to be behind it and Belkin had a lot of confidence in it so I felt the chances were looking good...I knew it wouldn't happen for a while though lol

 

[KentXie]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I am still of the conviction that this was a tower that awaited a major tenant signing up beforehand. You don't build commercial towers that size in Boston on spec, unless you have much deeper pockets than Belkin.

To my knowledge, Belkin has no experience in building towers, and Trans National Group has a small real estate portfolio. So even in better economic times, who'd be willing to finance such a tower in Boston without a tenant signed up?

The reason no companies with deep pockets ever comes into Boston to build a tall skyscrapers is because of the unreasonably long process that is required to build one and the extremely strong resistance from the NIMBYs. Boston is never going to be a boom town because of the NIMBYs who have too much power in the city. They complain about practically everything there is to complain about. The FAA doesn't help either. For the Columbus Center project, the FAA complained that the tower is too tall and that cargo planes would need to carry a lighter weight to fly by there. I guess the JHT is too transparent to be notice in that case. Shadows? This is a city. Everything casts a shadow. People casts shadow. And views? Yes you may have your right to live in a place with a view. But that doesn't supersede the right of other people who wants to live in the city too. Your views does not contribute to the city. If Boston ever wants to keep up with the rest of the world, they need to be daring and stop listening to the whiners.

I especially hate how in recent news that people from other neighborhoods are supporting other neighborhoods in downing their project because they feel that they would not like a tower like that in their neighborhood. They need to realize that this tower is not affecting in anyways. If they can do that, we should be able to get people from NYC to support the construction of tall towers in Boston because the people in the NYC would like to see a tall tower built in their neighborhood.

 

[kz1000ps]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Guys, you're losing perspective. NIMBYs are nothing specific to this city. I closely follow Boston, NYC, Albany and Buffalo developments, and save for Albany (where there isn't much to complain about since there isn't much for development), the NIMBYs are just as vicious there as they are here.

Even in Buffalo, where the economy has been comatose for decades, NIMBYs have been busy bringing about lawsuits against what few projects are actually going on (see Gates Circle tower, Elmwood Ave hotel near Buff State).

 

[nm88]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

kz is right.

You guys sound like you're 12 years-old. (This forum has changed so much in the years I've frequented it.)

TNP is a mediocre design. The world-class architect who concieved it has even disavowed it. Belkin is a developer of limited means and modest intellectual gifts.

And yet, to so many of you that's irrelevent.

Do you guys really want a thousand feet just to have a thousand feet?? Under any circumstances?? To any rational mind that sounds, well, petulant and adolescent.

If developers are so hesitant to build in Boston, ask yourself this: why does this city have so many top-flight high-end hoteliers looking (begging really) for space?

All you complainers, seriously, review the last couple pages of this thread and see for yourself. What I'd like to say is "grow up." But that would probably scare you.

 

[KentXie]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Guys, you're losing perspective. NIMBYs are nothing specific to this city. I closely follow Boston, NYC, Albany and Buffalo developments, and save for Albany (where there isn't much to complain about since there isn't much for development), the NIMBYs are just as vicious there as they are here.

Even in Buffalo, where the economy has been comatose for decades, NIMBYs have been busy bringing about lawsuits against what few projects are actually going on (see Gates Circle tower, Elmwood Ave hotel near Buff State).

But do they have the same amount of power that the NIMBYs in Boston have? Really, I know NYC has strong NIMBYs too but I see the majority of their towers being built. I'm not surprised about Buffalo and Albany as they are not necessarily a major city nor are they as important in the eyes of the world.

And really what can you expect from the city where the average time from proposed to constructed is in the double digits. Most people won't build towers in Boston if they know that they will be dead before the project they are proposing ever see profit.

On the side note, my rant on NIMBYs is meant to be directed more at C.C. but I'm just making a point that some of reasons that NIMBYs make are irrational and unreasonable.

kz is right.

You guys sound like you're 12 years-old. (This forum has changed so much in the years I've frequented it.)

TNP is a mediocre design. The world-class architect who concieved it has even disavowed it. Belkin is a developer of limited means and modest intellectual gifts.

And yet, to so many of you that's irrelevent.

Do you guys really want a thousand feet just to have a thousand feet?? Under any circumstances?? To any rational mind that sounds, well, petulant and adolescent.

If developers are so hesitant to build in Boston, ask yourself this: why does this city have so many top-flight high-end hoteliers looking (begging really) for space?

All you complainers, seriously, review the last couple pages of this thread and see for yourself. What I'd like to say is "grow up." But that would probably scare you.

No I think I speak for many forumers that though height did influence many of our desires for this tower to be built, it is not the main reason why we are so frustrated. It's the fact that towers like the CC are being delayed so long and then ends up being cancelled. Fan Pier anyone? If it's approved then that should be that. To me, TNP gave me hope that this vicious cycle might actually change for once. I didn't necessarily have to be tall. I would be fine if it would at least be taller than the surrounding tower so it can be seen. It just feels like this tower will just be another SST or One Lincoln, W Hotel, etc. that has taken more than 10 years to be built although the W Hotel had a good reason why it was delayed.

It's also frustrating to see Boston lagging behind other city. Cities like SF, Philadelphia, and yes even Baltimore and Miami, are growing in a rapid rate. Boston however, isn't going anywhere.

 

[stellarfun]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

But do they have the same amount of power that the NIMBYs in Boston have? Really, I know NYC has strong NIMBYs too but I see the majority of their towers being built. I'm not surprised about Buffalo and Albany as they are not necessarily a major city nor are they as important in the eyes of the world.

And really what can you expect from the city where the average time from proposed to constructed is in the double digits. Most people won't build towers in Boston if they know that they will be dead before the project they are proposing ever see profit.

On the side note, my rant on NIMBYs is meant to be directed more at C.C. but I'm just making a point that some of reasons that NIMBYs make are irrational and unreasonable.

No I think I speak for many forumers that though height did influence many of our desires for this tower to be built, it is not the main reason why we are so frustrated. It's the fact that towers like the CC are being delayed so long and then ends up being cancelled. Fan Pier anyone? If it's approved then that should be that. To me, TNP gave me hope that this vicious cycle might actually change for once. I didn't necessarily have to be tall. I would be fine if it would at least be taller than the surrounding tower so it can be seen. It just feels like this tower will just be another SST or One Lincoln, W Hotel, etc. that has taken more than 10 years to be built although the W Hotel had a good reason why it was delayed.

It's also frustrating to see Boston lagging behind other city. Cities like SF, Philadelphia, and yes even Baltimore and Miami, are growing in a rapid rate. Boston however, isn't going anywhere.

You haven't seen NIMBY's until you've been to San Francisco. NIMBY's in Boston pale in comparison.

As for Philadelphia, there are no 1,000 foot towers, nor in Baltimore or Miami. Miami's parade of mini towers are almost all condo residential, of which there is a big bust.

Columbus Center's height was not dictated by the FAA, the SST was.

IMO, the problem with getting all enamored with Tommy's Tower is that Tommy's friends who have deeper pockets and more real estate experience than Belkin weren't building it; e.g., Ron Druker.

Towers, even in NYC, are typically not built on spec, following a sort of 'Build it, and they [tenants] will come' paradigm.

If you re-read the Dec 22, 2006 Boston Business Journal article on Belkin's Tower you can see the basis for skepticism even back then.

The tower is 75 stories, with 70 stories of occupyable (sp?) space. At 1.5 million sq ft, thats a floor footprint of about 20,000 sq ft. Belkin said he would take 100,000 sq ft for his own company, and he asserted over 18 months ago that he had another prospective tenant who would take 150,000 sq ft. That leavers 1.25 million sq ft to fill. Belkin wanted to charge between $65 and $85 a sq ft. Belkin said that by the time he started construction he wanted to have half the building leased. He also said of the $1 billion cost, he was willing to put up $150 million of his own money. (What he means by his own money is unclear.)

So how many companies, businesses, or firms in Boston are eagerly looking for 20,000 sq ft floor footprints at between $65 and $85 a sq ft?

Finally, as I understand it, much of Belkin's core business strength is travel-related. The sort of business that may leave him strapped if there's even a modest recession.

 

[BostonObserver]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

The reason buildings have to be lower in the seaport is that if a plane has to abort it's take off it needs to make a u-turn at a low altitude to swing back to Logan, depending on the wind, that can be over the seaport. This is a safety issue and people on this forum need to stop whining about this. Do you people really think the FAA makes this decisions just to be mean? The Hancock is not on this emergency flight path.

Belkins is an obnoxious wind bag and it's unlikely he will ever get his building built. Buildings above 40 stories are less efficient an less profitable because of the space taken up by elevators and utilities. That is why Boston has so many 40 story building. This will change as sites become scarcer and more expensive. But don't look to belkin to do it, he doesn't have the resources.

NIMBYs can be a pain but they also contribute a lot of good to a project. Anyone who believes otherwise has never been to a neighborhood meeting. If you think developers can be trusted you are living in a fantasy world. Look at the Commonwealth Hotel. Look at Independence Wharf where the developer added a floor with out approval. Look at the observation deck at the Hancock.

The real problem is how long the process takes, 13 years for Columbus Center, decades for Fan Pier. All the changes made could have been made in a much shorter time frame. Just think of the tax revenue lost. As far as Seaport Square it would never had been built under McCourt because Menino has a grudge against him. Again think of all the money the city could have earned if the project had been built years ago. And this while the city is struggling with budget problems. Menino put himself first, not the city. Does Jaba the Mayor get royalties from Star Wars.

 

[GW2500]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Most NIMBY's are selfish and don't care about the overall good of the city/state, nor do most know what they are talking about. They just care about themselves and their condo views. And for the most part they make projects more boring and will resist developments with true urban fabric to the death. In their heads they own the neighborhood and should get final say in everything. Cities like Boston and New York and Chicago, to name a few, would never get built today with NIMBY's around. They would look like the suburbs. In short they are mainly complainers.

 

[BostonObserver]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Most NIMBY's are selfish and don't care about the overall good of the city/state, nor do most know what they are talking about. They just care about themselves and their condo views. And for the most part they make projects more boring and will resist developments with true urban fabric to the death. In their heads they own the neighborhood and should get final say in everything. Cities like Boston and New York and Chicago, to name a few, would never get built today with NIMBY's around. They would look like the suburbs. In short they are mainly complainers.

Could you give examples from the numerous neighborhood meetings you have attended.

 

[nm88]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I understand the frustration many feel for the prolonged and (too) often arduous review process. However, I would take our process, such as it is, over the "no-review-process" of cities like L.A., Houston, Phoenix and too many others.

I realize we can argue our ideas about beauty. It's an old quarrel: what is beautiful?

What I feel we can all agree on is good design trumps everything. Tall, midsize, whatever size -- wise design enriches our city and stands the test of time. I don't mind waiting for good design.

I thought C.C. was pretty good design. My instincts tell me Winn may be the complicating issue there. My feelings about Belkin are similar.

I like our city more than any other in the country. SF comes close, but I believe it may be losing it's charm and its identity to a flurry of new-built towers, arguably generic structures that could just as easily exist anywhere else. Singapose, anyone? Houston?

And talk about NIMBYs, there's a growing counter-reaction to the new towers in SF with a possible moratorium on height looming.

There's an old adage: a fish stinks from the head. There's the root of my frustration. Our leadership.

 

[unterbau]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Most NIMBY's are selfish and don't care about the overall good of the city/state, nor do most know what they are talking about. They just care about themselves and their condo views. And for the most part they make projects more boring and will resist developments with true urban fabric to the death. In their heads they own the neighborhood and should get final say in everything. Cities like Boston and New York and Chicago, to name a few, would never get built today with NIMBY's around. They would look like the suburbs. In short they are mainly complainers.

Couldn't the exact same thing be said for developers? Even if a project does better the urban environment, do you really think it's because the people paying for it are genuinely concerned about the good of the city? Heck no. In a business like this, they're always looking at a relatively short-term bottom line. If anything, they're just trying to appease local residents beforehand, instead of waiting for their suggestions in public meetings. If there wasn't any opposition, you'd likely have lots of awful projects being built that just abuse the resources and transit infrastructure of the city without adding anything aside from tax dollars.

 

[PaulC]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I agree that profit is the bottom line for developers, but sometimes developers can have a strong civic vision. I think the original developers of Fan Pier were civic minded but Anthony Athanis ended this with his greed. I also think Hynes is doing the same for Seaport Square. I think he is trying to follow his father's legacy.

 

[tmac9wr]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

You haven't seen NIMBY's until you've been to San Francisco. NIMBY's in Boston pale in comparison.

As for Philadelphia, there are no 1,000 foot towers, nor in Baltimore or Miami. Miami's parade of mini towers are almost all condo residential, of which there is a big bust.

Columbus Center's height was not dictated by the FAA, the SST was.

IMO, the problem with getting all enamored with Tommy's Tower is that Tommy's friends who have deeper pockets and more real estate experience than Belkin weren't building it; e.g., Ron Druker.

Towers, even in NYC, are typically not built on spec, following a sort of 'Build it, and they [tenants] will come' paradigm.

If you re-read the Dec 22, 2006 Boston Business Journal article on Belkin's Tower you can see the basis for skepticism even back then.

The tower is 75 stories, with 70 stories of occupyable (sp?) space. At 1.5 million sq ft, thats a floor footprint of about 20,000 sq ft. Belkin said he would take 100,000 sq ft for his own company, and he asserted over 18 months ago that he had another prospective tenant who would take 150,000 sq ft. That leavers 1.25 million sq ft to fill. Belkin wanted to charge between $65 and $85 a sq ft. Belkin said that by the time he started construction he wanted to have half the building leased. He also said of the $1 billion cost, he was willing to put up $150 million of his own money. (What he means by his own money is unclear.)

So how many companies, businesses, or firms in Boston are eagerly looking for 20,000 sq ft floor footprints at between $65 and $85 a sq ft?

Finally, as I understand it, much of Belkin's core business strength is travel-related. The sort of business that may leave him strapped if there's even a modest recession.

Philly just finished a 975 ft tower, and has a 1,500 ft tower proposed. Miami also has a 1,000 footer in the works.

 

[KentXie]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

You haven't seen NIMBY's until you've been to San Francisco. NIMBY's in Boston pale in comparison.

As for Philadelphia, there are no 1,000 foot towers, nor in Baltimore or Miami. Miami's parade of mini towers are almost all condo residential, of which there is a big bust.

Columbus Center's height was not dictated by the FAA, the SST was.

IMO, the problem with getting all enamored with Tommy's Tower is that Tommy's friends who have deeper pockets and more real estate experience than Belkin weren't building it; e.g., Ron Druker.

Towers, even in NYC, are typically not built on spec, following a sort of 'Build it, and they [tenants] will come' paradigm.

If you re-read the Dec 22, 2006 Boston Business Journal article on Belkin's Tower you can see the basis for skepticism even back then.

The tower is 75 stories, with 70 stories of occupyable (sp?) space. At 1.5 million sq ft, thats a floor footprint of about 20,000 sq ft. Belkin said he would take 100,000 sq ft for his own company, and he asserted over 18 months ago that he had another prospective tenant who would take 150,000 sq ft. That leavers 1.25 million sq ft to fill. Belkin wanted to charge between $65 and $85 a sq ft. Belkin said that by the time he started construction he wanted to have half the building leased. He also said of the $1 billion cost, he was willing to put up $150 million of his own money. (What he means by his own money is unclear.)

So how many companies, businesses, or firms in Boston are eagerly looking for 20,000 sq ft floor footprints at between $65 and $85 a sq ft?

Finally, as I understand it, much of Belkin's core business strength is travel-related. The sort of business that may leave him strapped if there's even a modest recession.

I did not say CC's height was dictated by the FAA. I said that one of the complaints back then was that the FAA claimed that it was too tall that cargo planes have to lighten the load.

I'm not specifically pointing out having a 1000ft tower. What I'm talking is that in cities such as Philadelphia, SF, Miami, And Baltimore are having projects that are much more bold than Boston. Philly is about to finish the 975ft Comcast Tower and are proposing a 1500ft tower. I believe SF has a 1200ft+ tower in the work along with what I believe 3 other 800ft+ skyscrapers proposed. Miami, though mainly residential, did experience a huge boom and would have continue had the housing market not collapsed. And Baltimore has about 4 towers that are at least 650ft tall proposed, tallest being the same height as the Prudential.

Here's what Boston have: A 1000ft tower that most likely not going to happen. A dead 800ft proposal in Chinatown. A scaled back 620ft tower in South Station which is also being delayed as of now. Everything else is below 600ft and there is only one 500+ft tower proposed other than those aforementioned and that's the Copley Tower.

 

[nedev18]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

For me personally, the lack of any innovative designs is more discouraging than the lack of height. I would rather have a 500' beautiful tower that makes me stop and look at it (111 Huntington), rather than a 1,000' tower that is bland and uninspired (TNP would fall into this category). Don't get me wrong, I want a supertall just as much as the rest of you, but the lack of much interesting architecture in many of the buildings going up these days is far more upsetting to me.