Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

And now into the tournament lists, with heralds blaring, sallies forth the New York Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/...n-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Categorizing City Hall as a prostitute, willing to do anything for the right price. And by currying favor with the uber-rich, only reinforcing a Gini index score worthy of third world countries led by despots. The city is described as having the greatest inequality of any major American city (with a not-so-small caveat).
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

^^Good God.... repeated in the Globe in 3... 2... 1.....
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Blah blah blah...just approve it already.

I find the article misleading when it talks about the magnitude of the shadows being cast. Also find it extremely hypocritical of something being written about buildings, shadows, and inequality in the nyt...
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

I'm sure the writer of this story has been in Bryant Park many times since the NYT building is a six minute walk from the Park. Has she never looked up?
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

stellarfun said:
And now into the tournament lists, with heralds blaring, sallies forth the New York Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/...n-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Categorizing City Hall as a prostitute, willing to do anything for the right price. And by currying favor with the uber-rich, only reinforcing a Gini index score worthy of third world countries led by despots. The city is described as having the greatest inequality of any major American city (with a not-so-small caveat).
Click to expand...

Yeah, seriously, this is a very unbalanced, non-neutral piece of journalism.

Seelye (who's been the Boston beat writer for the Times for a few years now) always seems intent on painting Boston as some sort of quaint new england town. If you read any of her other pieces, it seems almost like this is her agenda...or what the NY readers want to hear, or something.

I mean, come on:
- Not quantifying the magnitude of the shadow? The article makes it seem like a total solar eclipse is forthcoming. How do you not at least give some frames of reference? Every building casts a shadow on something for crying out loud.
- The NYT making 775-feet out to be as if it were 1,500-feet....again, a good piece of journalism provides benchmarks/reference frames: she makes it seem like this would be the tallest building in our city by far. In reality it's not breaking any records in boston, and would be short for NYC.
- A cover image with total darkness descending upon Copley (which, ironically, is produced by buildings that have been there for over 40 years!)

This is just bad, bad journalism. She gives a mere handful of sentences to the proponents of the project, and dozens of paragraphs to the opponents. GEE, wouldn't you think that if the city council overwhelmingly voted for this, there probably existed more than a couple of sentences worth of positive aspects of it?

Ugh.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Agree with what everyone said about this. The piece gives off a very inaccurate feeling, like there isn't sunlight in Boston anymore.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

bigpicture7 said:
.
....

Seelye (who's been the Boston beat writer for the Times for a few years now) always seems intent on painting Boston as some sort of quaint new england town. If you read any of her other pieces, it seems almost like this is her agenda...or what the NY readers want to hear, or something.
....
Click to expand...

It's always hard to know how much of a beat writer's slant is her own, and how much of it is what she's being shoe-horned into by her editors, so it's tough to assign blame. I lived in NYC for three years (a few decades ago), and there are a fair number of New Yorkers who want to hear this, and the NY Times certainly spends some fair share of its energies telling its readers what they already think they know. So this trope in the NY Times long pre-dates her. Doesn't mean she's blameless: she might have volunteered for the beat because she's a true believer in the stock view.

Goes in the other direction, too: both papers here feed the chip on the shoulder attitude towards NYC at least some of the time. Both directions of the bad reporting are beyond pathetic. I mean, one has to acknowledge the enormous differences between the cities if one is a beat writer in either city reporting on the other, but it really isn't necessary to endlessly fall back on cliché.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

aaaaaa said:
I liked it. I think it reinforces two important points: (1) that certain goods should remain fully public and that includes parks and the waterfront, and (2) modifying the law for a single private development regardless of the money on offer sets a bad precedent and is a bad idea.
Click to expand...

But the shadow law isn't about protecting a public good. it is gross state overreach into City of Boston municipal affairs. The only reason the state legislature is "protecting" the Common is because it is their "front yard".

And the public votes every day how they feel about shadows on the Common. Observe people's behavior on a hot sunny day. The only benches on the Common that are occupied are in the shade/shadow.

Shadow is not some universally accepted demon. Legislative overreach certainly is.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

aaaaaa said:
I liked it. I think it reinforces two important points: (1) that certain goods should remain fully public and that includes parks and the waterfront, and (2) modifying the law for a single private development regardless of the money on offer sets a bad precedent and is a bad idea.
Click to expand...

RE item #1, I think the article direly misrepresents the access to public spaces (namely the Harbor Walk) among newer developments. That photo of the outdoor sitting area intended for Intercontinental residents along Fort Point Channel? That takes up maybe 600 square feet. It is literally the only such space along the entire Fort Point Channel, and sits behind more than 25 feet of public harbor walk frontage passing between it and the water.

Nine years ago I use to bike to harborside rocks next to the Moakley Courthouse at Fan Pier. It was an abandoned swath of packed dirt, parking lots, and neglected marina slips. Today it features condos fetching $3,000/square foot and 100 feet inwards of green space, outdoor furniture, a year round fire pit, cascading waterfall into the harbor, and discretely placed stereo speakers playing jazz music at a purr... all of those amenities listed are intended for and accessible to the public. A vast improvement by any measure!

RE Winthrop Square & #2: I think Millennium Partners have demonstrated a great deal of considerate planning that not only appeals to their luxury residents, but also to local facilities for public consumption. The multi-million dollar transformation of Washington, Summer, and Franklin Streets through Downtown Crossing--thanks largely to investment from Millennium Partners--has added to the vibrancy and economic vitality of the neighborhood, as well as created more pleasant public experiences that all may enjoy. The way I interpret Winthrop Square's sale to Millennium Partners is as something of a reward to that developer for demonstrated good will and continuous investment into Boston's Downtown. If that's the precedent being set, then I think it's a good one.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Looks like there's some initial site prep going on at the garage site.
DEdSJrkXgAAxXqS.jpg
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

^^great posts. Maybe a few of these fine offerings can be amalgamated into a AB brain trust op ed for Da Globe.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Spot zoning is problematic, but there's a fair bit of the driving force behind spot zoning in Boston actually coming from obstructionists. They see every development as an abundant opportunity to force large extractions/concessions from a developer, but then get upset when in return the developer is allowed to actually build in accordance with the fact that Boston is a city, not a rural village.

I'm all in favor of public amenities flowing from development, even more so if the development will have a significant impact on citizens. But it seems hypocritical to see every new proposal as a chance to ask for a unique basket of goodies, then turn around and complain about spot zoning or special treatment.

In fact, I imagine that many NIMBYs would ultimately be opposed to a reasonable* process of creating a new zoning regime. It would remove their ability to obstruct every proposal as they negotiate the payoff.

*I stress reasonable, because they might accede to new zoning regs that put an absurd cap on height or sq. footage.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

BostonDrew said:
Looks like there's some initial site prep going on at the garage site.
DEdSJrkXgAAxXqS.jpg
Click to expand...

This photo sums up why this thing just needs to be built already.

We can have a vacant, abandoned turd of a garage...or a modern, iconic building that creates hundreds of jobs and tons of tax revenue for the city.

What a tough choice!

But "oh no, the shadow!"
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

I dont get why people keep saying that in a few years the entire common is going to be surrounded by huge towers. Where the hell are they at? Even if every single proposal thats been canceled in the last 15 years along with whats going up now were built that still wouldn't happen. Where are they getting this in their heads from?

That is completely and utterly false, even the ballsiest developers have barely touched on anything other than the 1000' winthrop tower that will really have any effect on the common. I dont think it helps when Tosh33 comes around like clockwork on every single building going crazy on anyone who even says the words too tall and then suggests 300 more feet on everything minimum, while posting a 1.3 million character response that just overwhelms the persons opinion and tries to imply that he is right and to say anything contrary is blasphemy. That doesn't help anyone, it actually hurts their own position because you are putting people off who were otherwise in the middle.

We need to have a respectable dialogue between both sides that explains our positions, how this notion about shadows is false, and ultimately meet in the middle. Bashing every single thing they say makes them automatically against everything we are for. Both sides need to try to understand each other, explain our positions and genuinely listen to the other side and try to work on a compromise, and try to come up with things and ideas that everyone for the most part is okay with. Nothing will ever be unanimous, but I think theres ways to get closer than we are at now. Theres ways to do this right, I think the peoples voices need to be listened to much more. I think the people are an invaluable resource to the city.
 
Last edited:
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

stick n move said:
We need to have a respectable dialogue between both sides that explains our positions, how this notion about shadows is false, and ultimately meet in the middle. Bashing every single thing they say makes them automatically against everything we are for. Both sides need to try to understand each other, explain our positions and genuinely listen to the other side and try to work on a compromise, and try to come up with things and ideas that everyone for the most part is okay with. Nothing will ever be unanimous, but I think theres ways to get closer than we are at now. Theres ways to do this right, I think the peoples voices need to be listened to much more. I think the people are an invaluable resource to the city.
Click to expand...

I agree in theory, but the problem is you have professional agitators with no agenda other than to delay projects with the hope they fall apart so that they can get their names in the paper. At some point, it gets hard to differentiate. People advocating for more affordable housing - I get it. People wanting a few bucks to say upkeep the Greenway? Sure. But the loudest people are people like Shirley and hacks like Bill Galvin. They're in it for press coverage, not to reach an honorable compromise. For a long time these people ruled the roost, and they're not struggling with not getting gold plated coverage anymore, so they're getting more radical in their opposition.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

stick n move said:
I dont get why people keep saying that in a few years the entire common is going to be surrounded by huge towers.
Click to expand...

Who debunked this theory? You're welcome to kindly critique my final updated essay.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=131941038&postcount=792

stick n move said:
I dont think it helps when Tosh....
We need to have a respectable dialogue between both sides....
Click to expand...

Lighten up. Boston nimby's play hardball. Good development was bullied for decades by these assholes. ....here's the latest from the Globe echo chamber including Steve w/ his prepared statement;

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business...blic-spaces/xNPO0rKAK2KXiJue6Z7QRJ/story.html
 
Last edited:
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Two of the Ten Commandments of politics:

I. When thine study doesn't giveth thou the answer thou wanteth, thou needeth more study.

II. When thine process doesn't giveth thou the result thou wanteth, thine process is flawed.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

"shadows" or the market? Or are shadows the scapegoat for shifting market forces so you don't have to lose face?
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

vanshnookenraggen said:
"shadows" or the market? Or are shadows the scapegoat for shifting market forces so you don't have to lose face?
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with shifting market forces. This is Bill Galvin and the MHC doing what they often do - playing obstructionism without good cause. There is a reason that the MHC is referred to as the Massachusetts Hysterial Commission by many in the real estate business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top