Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

[KentXie]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Dropping down to 700' makes this tower so much less important on the skyline. I hope that is to the top of the tallest floor, because they were allowed more than 700' that would be a huge waste. This is the one spot that has to use as much height as it can, everywhere doesn't really matter. You can save the height talk on the rest of the parcels, but here it is very valid. This is the pinnacle of the skyline as shown below. This completes the spiral stair case from 1ip. If this tops out at 700' this immediately becomes unnoticeable from the water and from the rest of the city its barely taller than MP. This basically will go from crown jewel to anonymous, way to go. There is more allowed than 700', so does anyone know if that is pinnacle height or tallest floor?

The city already missed their chance to make an impact by choosing Millennium's current design. Again, tall doesn't make it a "crown jewel." Denver's tallest building is around the same height and is the most unremarkable tallest tower in the country.

At 669ft, Tokyo's cocoon tower, a cross between SWFC and the Swiss Re, is significantly shorter but infinitely more iconic then Millennium's.

Same goes with the 597 ft Hearst Tower in NYC

 

[Rover]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Really don't care for either of those and wouldn't want to see them downtown. There's a fine line between "ugly" and "iconic".

 

[KentXie]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Unfortunately/fortunately you're getting neither with 115 Winthrop.

 

[mdd]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

I love the Hearst Tower so much.

 

[cadetcarl]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Hearst Tower is good; Cocoon, not so much.

 

[BosDevelop]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Wrong parcel for that and still pay Boston all that $$$.

A hotel would have to be shaped like Belkin's 2nd (L-shaped) proposal from 3 years ago.

The parcel for an iconic super-tall hotel & condo's is 65 Martha Rd.

Why can't 115 Winthrop have a hotel, condos AND office space? Hotel on the bottom, office in the middle and the condos on top. St. Regis would make a nice hotel operator and of course has no other property in town. Then with some unique retail/restaurants, that would be the best way to bring life to that part of town that is desolate after 6pm and on the weekends.

 

[odurandina]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

^^i think it's too fat for maximum profit taking on hotel space. Each floor would have to have maybe a 1 or 2 big meeting rooms. But maybe you could make it work.

Really don't care for either of those and wouldn't want to see them downtown. There's a fine line between "ugly" and "iconic".

agreed. except there ain't no fine line with that crap.

 

[DZH22]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

...Again, tall doesn't make it a "crown jewel." Denver's tallest building is around the same height and is the most unremarkable tallest tower in the country.

Here's Denver's proposal for a new tallest. 1000'+ But hey, they "deserve" it, just like Austin and Detroit. Certainly more than Boston, right? (excuse me while I go bang my head off the wall for the rest of the day)
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=142583550&postcount=9

 

[type001]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

"deserve"

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

 

[stick n move]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Its funny how much peoples opinions can differ so drastically. The hearst tower is awesome but that other one is a mega turd. I think this tower is nice with its folded window curtain facade. Its a flat roof but its going to be lit up between the folds making spaced out vertical light bands resembling a crown- kind of like the clarendon.

 

[DZH22]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

"deserve"

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Within a couple of years it's likely that Boston will have the most 500'+ buildings and most 700'+ buildings out of any city in the entire WORLD that doesn't have an 800'+ building. We are supposedly a Top 10 financial powerhouse on the planet, yet soon 20 cities in our own country will have a taller building. By 2020, I will be able to say with conviction that there is no city on Earth more deserving of a new tallest than Boston.

 

[cadetcarl]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

It feels like you keep missing the point. Lest this devolve into another battle on this forum in the height wars, I think all that's being said is that cities can no more "deserve" or "earn" or do any of the things these words denote than any other impersonal entity. What does it mean for Boston to 'deserve' a taller building, and what correlation does our existing building stock have with the city's desert of a taller one?

 

[DZH22]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

"deserve"

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Oh yeah, but your blanket statements of high-horse superiority explain everything.

It feels like you keep missing the point.

I make my points with data. Boston deserves a taller building because it already has more tall buildings than many/most of these other cities that are going taller, plus it's a larger metro/city than many/most of these, plus it has a much higher importance on the world scale (alpha/beta cities, financial cities, etc., doesn't really matter how you measure it because Boston is near the top). The future is now, and many other cities are starting to reflect that visually. It's not like the demand isn't there for Boston. The only thing we are lacking is the guts to make it happen.

 

[dotdude78]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

It feels like you keep missing the point. Lest this devolve into another battle on this forum in the height wars, I think all that's being said is that cities can no more "deserve" or "earn" or do any of the things these words denote than any other impersonal entity. What does it mean for Boston to 'deserve' a taller building, and what correlation does our existing building stock have with the city's desert of a taller one?

Most of us understand what he means.

I agree with you, DZH. It's sad that cities like Oklahoma City, Indianapolis, and Charlotte have taller buildings than anything in Boston.

 

[Lrfox]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Most of us understand what he means.

I agree with you, DZH. It's sad that cities like Oklahoma City, Indianapolis, and Charlotte have taller buildings than anything in Boston.

Maybe you're not missing the point, but you are placing way too much of an emphasis on building height as a metric of a city's importance. Boston is not less important than Oklahoma City, Charlotte, Indianapolis, Minneapolis, etc. because they all have taller buildings. Nor are those cities somehow closer to Boston now that they have taller buildings. The average Joe doesn't fly from Boston to OK City and go "WOW! Now THAT's a city" because Salesforce Tower is 40 feet taller than the Hancock. That's why many of us who see pages and pages of obsessing over +/- 20 feet and comments like "it's sad that cities like _______ have taller buildings than Boston" roll our eyes and even get annoyed that so much space is wasted on that level of minutia.

 

[DZH22]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Maybe you're not missing the point, but you are placing way too much of an emphasis on building height as a metric of a city's importance.

It's called visual progress. Forget the Oklahoma City's and Indianapolis's of the world. San Francisco just built a 1070', an 801', and has a 900'+ on the way. Philadelphia just went over 1100' and has multiple serious proposals for supertalls, at least one of them being even taller. Miami just surpassed us and has tons of 800'-1000'+ on the table. Seattle has a supertall proposal. All of these big, dare I say peer cities, are embracing the future. I mean hell, right now Seattle is considered one of the best skylines in the country, and the difference between it and Boston is 1 taller building! 1! That's how much it can do for a city!

If you want us to shut up, appease us, or at least stay out of the way until we find that path to appeasement. Personally, I get sick and tired going through pages and pages of talk about bike lines and steakhouses but I keep my comments to what I care about. Maybe you should keep your comments to what you care about.

 

[Rover]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

That would bother me more if there wasn't a good reason for it, which is FAA height limits for the most part. Not sure where you'd be able to top the Hancock as downtown is off limits, Cambridge seems unrealistic (tech companies seem to prefer a campus to a skyscraper) and the 1000 foot threshold can only be reached in a few spots around the Christian Science Church.

 

[DZH22]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

That would bother me more if there wasn't a good reason for it, which is FAA height limits for the most part. Not sure where you'd be able to top the Hancock as downtown is off limits, Cambridge seems unrealistic (tech companies seem to prefer a campus to a skyscraper) and the 1000 foot threshold can only be reached in a few spots around the Christian Science Church.

Back Bay and West End near North Station are both on the table. Cambridge unfortunately has huge swaths of 1000' potential zoned under 300'. Volpe appears like it will be another missed opportunity. We don't need to go 1000' but there are quite a few places where we can eclipse the Hancock. Instead, they are proposed well below the FAA limits and then chopped from there.

The city blew its load at the Winthrop Square site and all we're going to end up with is Boston's 4th tallest.

 

[Lrfox]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

It's called visual progress. Forget the Oklahoma City's and Indianapolis's of the world. San Francisco just built a 1070', an 801', and has a 900'+ on the way. Philadelphia just went over 1100' and has multiple serious proposals for supertalls, at least one of them being even taller. Miami just surpassed us and has tons of 800'-1000'+ on the table. Seattle has a supertall proposal. All of these big, dare I say peer cities, are embracing the future. I mean hell, right now Seattle is considered one of the best skylines in the country, and the difference between it and Boston is 1 taller building! 1! That's how much it can do for a city!

Height is largely superficial in most cities. It'd be stupid to measure "progress" based on height alone. For starters, there are dozens of factors that limit height. FAA restrictions in Boston are a big challenge. Many other cities have height restrictions (DC being the most obvious). Lack of a super tall doesn't indicate a lack of progress, nor does having a super tall indicate that a city is making major progress. There's way too much that goes into it.

Furthermore, if you want to measure "visual progress" in terms of construction, the amount of large-scale construction sites is a MUCH better indicator than height. As is the lack of vacancy in key places (you know, those Steakhouses that bore you). Boston is well ahead of the curve in all of those fronts. You have literally 3 or 4 (maybe more) essentially brand new neighborhoods under construction here (Ink Block, Seaport, Assembly, Northpoint). You have millions of square feet under construction in and around the core. By all metrics, Boston is booming.

Boston is and will continue to be one of the most important cities in the U.S. It is among the biggest "boomers" and it has the added value of proven staying power and stability. Breaking the 800 foot barrier (or not) does absolutely nothing to change that. However, if you see zero construction, or you see storefronts becoming vacant, then you have something to worry about.

Oh, and Seattle has one of the prettiest skylines in the country because it has a good balance of peaks and tapers nicely. It's also considered one of the nicest because it has an incredible natural setting as a backdrop. It's hardly because it has one building that's taller than Boston's tallest. If Boston builds a 1,000 footer, people aren't going to all of a sudden say Boston has the nicest skyline.

 

[Justin7]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Boston deserves a taller building because it already has more tall buildings than many/most of these other cities that are going taller

The fuck?

plus it's a larger metro/city than many/most of these, plus it has a much higher importance on the world scale (alpha/beta cities, financial cities, etc., doesn't really matter how you measure it because Boston is near the top).

Exactly. Because the height of a city's buildings does not determine its importance/status/desirability/livability/etcetcetc. so Boston's lack of "tall" buildings is irrelevant. You seem to recognize this on some level (hell, you just wrote it out), but then there is a disconnect somewhere.

You're obsessed with height. Most people don't give a shit. It has no bearing on anything. There is nothing wrong with liking tall buildings or campaigning for taller buildings or making a hobby of tracking the heights of tall buildings, but your insistence the Boston is somehow falling behind or deficient because other cities are building (mostly ugly) supertalls is nonsense and people get tired of hearing it.

This is going to sound condescending and I apologize in advance, but consider reading some about what makes great cities and great buildings. Maybe try to focus just a fraction of your observations on quality rather than quantity. By all means, continue to enjoy tall buildings, but please try to recognize that they are just a-thing-you-think-is-cool and of little real world importance.