skintreesnail
New member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2008
- Messages
- 71
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
Glad that was cleared up!
Glad that was cleared up!
Last edited:
Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District
- Thread starter vanshnookenraggen
- Start date
tobyjug
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2007
- Messages
- 3,401
- Reaction score
- 446
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
Given the site footprint and the need to optimize the leasable floorplates, I predict either: 1) a stout version of the Prudential Building, or 2) some sort of girthy glassy polygon. The park (or whatever they called it), heliostats, roof garden, etc. will be deleted. (I'm not crying.)
I'm sure one of the commercial leasing folks on this site could give you a better idea of the ideal floor profile. My guess is that Mr. Belkin can probably get close to the same net leaseable space in a 700 to 800 footer as he could in the initial renderings. To please the Mayor, the developer will squeeze a flatish 50's Bonwit Teller hat onto the glassy matron. The developer will readily agree, gaining more net space below by shoving more mechanicals above. The FAA will forgive this transgression. Final actual height of proposal: 812 feet. Of course, I'm not saying it will get built.
Given the site footprint and the need to optimize the leasable floorplates, I predict either: 1) a stout version of the Prudential Building, or 2) some sort of girthy glassy polygon. The park (or whatever they called it), heliostats, roof garden, etc. will be deleted. (I'm not crying.)
I'm sure one of the commercial leasing folks on this site could give you a better idea of the ideal floor profile. My guess is that Mr. Belkin can probably get close to the same net leaseable space in a 700 to 800 footer as he could in the initial renderings. To please the Mayor, the developer will squeeze a flatish 50's Bonwit Teller hat onto the glassy matron. The developer will readily agree, gaining more net space below by shoving more mechanicals above. The FAA will forgive this transgression. Final actual height of proposal: 812 feet. Of course, I'm not saying it will get built.
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
If something in the 700-800 foot range were to be built with a unique roof line (Not necessarily a massive spire, just different, keep in mind, One Boston Place is different in this way) to simply break the monotony of the financial district skyline, I would be happy.
1,000 feet would be nice, and I (apparently in the minority here) liked the idea and look of Piano's TNP. But Nashville, this is not, and a 1,000 foot tower is not needed to put Boston on the map. Boston is already on the map for numerous other reasons, and a tall building (or lack thereof) won't change that for better or worse.
Something to peek out about the stumps in the skyline there would be welcome though.
If something in the 700-800 foot range were to be built with a unique roof line (Not necessarily a massive spire, just different, keep in mind, One Boston Place is different in this way) to simply break the monotony of the financial district skyline, I would be happy.
1,000 feet would be nice, and I (apparently in the minority here) liked the idea and look of Piano's TNP. But Nashville, this is not, and a 1,000 foot tower is not needed to put Boston on the map. Boston is already on the map for numerous other reasons, and a tall building (or lack thereof) won't change that for better or worse.
Something to peek out about the stumps in the skyline there would be welcome though.
Suffolk 83
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 2,975
- Reaction score
- 2,300
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
NO a 1000 footer wouldnt change the city or put it on the map, but 5 of em would definately get it photographed more and break the monotony. I think TNP got people thinking its ok to go big and maybe it would be a little contagious.
So something tall at the aquarium parking lot isn't going to fly eh? What about the Haymarket garage?
NO a 1000 footer wouldnt change the city or put it on the map, but 5 of em would definately get it photographed more and break the monotony. I think TNP got people thinking its ok to go big and maybe it would be a little contagious.
So something tall at the aquarium parking lot isn't going to fly eh? What about the Haymarket garage?
KentXie
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,189
- Reaction score
- 750
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
To tell you the truth, I'm not at all that disappointed. I just hope the tower will be at least a good 850ft+ so that it can be the new tallest. And while at it, make a better design instead of just a box.
To tell you the truth, I'm not at all that disappointed. I just hope the tower will be at least a good 850ft+ so that it can be the new tallest. And while at it, make a better design instead of just a box.
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,993
- Reaction score
- 1,710
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
How about a glass box we have a glass obelisk? Lord knows Boston loves the obelisk. I don't even think it would be cliche, I think it would look really cool actually.
How about a glass box we have a glass obelisk? Lord knows Boston loves the obelisk. I don't even think it would be cliche, I think it would look really cool actually.
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 6,943
- Reaction score
- 7,975
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
I'm wondering why the FAA waited this long to tell us this. I know some people over there, and I've spoken with them about this project, specifically (albeit years ago, before it was serious). They've had years to figure this out. Were they just waiting for the project to die anyway so they could be driving the last nail in the coffin and not raining on the parade? Did Belkin ask them to do this so he could get out of a bad financial situation without losing face?
That said, throwing out the current design can't really be a bad thing. The most important issue here is making this an iconic building at any height and finding more sites for height in the Downtown area. If Menino is serious about City Hall Plaza (my gut says he isn't) that site would work rather well, as would Aquarium. In fact, those two could work rather well together.
I've always thought TNP had one good angle (from the harbor) and every other angle just saw an ugly box. Every building has its good and bad sides, but this was a very 1-Dimensional building, which is silly in a city that can be approached from all 4 compass points.
Even at 800 feet this building would mean quite a bit, and maybe prove something about how well Boston can do height (either negative or positive). Frankly, we're lucky to have the FAA to shorten projects that could never succeed otherwise. Look at Signature Tower in Nashville, the several supertalls in Miami, or any of the other tall buildings failing in the recession. If this gives Belkin an excuse to build a beautiful, rational, buildable tower, I'm happy about it.
I'm wondering why the FAA waited this long to tell us this. I know some people over there, and I've spoken with them about this project, specifically (albeit years ago, before it was serious). They've had years to figure this out. Were they just waiting for the project to die anyway so they could be driving the last nail in the coffin and not raining on the parade? Did Belkin ask them to do this so he could get out of a bad financial situation without losing face?
That said, throwing out the current design can't really be a bad thing. The most important issue here is making this an iconic building at any height and finding more sites for height in the Downtown area. If Menino is serious about City Hall Plaza (my gut says he isn't) that site would work rather well, as would Aquarium. In fact, those two could work rather well together.
I've always thought TNP had one good angle (from the harbor) and every other angle just saw an ugly box. Every building has its good and bad sides, but this was a very 1-Dimensional building, which is silly in a city that can be approached from all 4 compass points.
Even at 800 feet this building would mean quite a bit, and maybe prove something about how well Boston can do height (either negative or positive). Frankly, we're lucky to have the FAA to shorten projects that could never succeed otherwise. Look at Signature Tower in Nashville, the several supertalls in Miami, or any of the other tall buildings failing in the recession. If this gives Belkin an excuse to build a beautiful, rational, buildable tower, I'm happy about it.
Beton Brut
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,382
- Reaction score
- 335
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
That site (along with the former site of the Garden) are the best opportunities for a supertall in Boston.
This unbuilt Paul Rudolph masterpiece would look great across the street from the Hurley:
That site (along with the former site of the Garden) are the best opportunities for a supertall in Boston.
This unbuilt Paul Rudolph masterpiece would look great across the street from the Hurley:
KentXie
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,189
- Reaction score
- 750
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
I agree. I think I suggested this in the old board of ArchBoston before the crash that they build a glass version of the Bunker Hill Monument.
I agree. I think I suggested this in the old board of ArchBoston before the crash that they build a glass version of the Bunker Hill Monument.
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
reminds me of this tower
That site (along with the former site of the Garden) are the best opportunities for a supertall in Boston.
This unbuilt Paul Rudolph masterpiece would look great across the street from the Hurley:
reminds me of this tower
Beton Brut
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,382
- Reaction score
- 335
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
^ Sure. Chalk it up to an awareness of regional values in terms of aesthetics (Rudolph's proposal was for Hong Kong). It should be noted that unlike Taipei 101, Rudolph's Sino Tower proposal (scroll half way down, after Wright's Mile High) was to be built in concrete.
Another region-specific form, the sadly scaled-back Beach Road proposal for Singapore:
Rudolph re-imagined it at 1/3-scale as The Concourse:
^ Sure. Chalk it up to an awareness of regional values in terms of aesthetics (Rudolph's proposal was for Hong Kong). It should be noted that unlike Taipei 101, Rudolph's Sino Tower proposal (scroll half way down, after Wright's Mile High) was to be built in concrete.
Another region-specific form, the sadly scaled-back Beach Road proposal for Singapore:
Rudolph re-imagined it at 1/3-scale as The Concourse:
unterbau
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
- Messages
- 546
- Reaction score
- 0
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
I don't think Boston is ready for another Rudolph quite yet...
That site (along with the former site of the Garden) are the best opportunities for a supertall in Boston.
This unbuilt Paul Rudolph masterpiece would look great across the street from the Hurley:
I don't think Boston is ready for another Rudolph quite yet...
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
We could:
Petition the FAA for another review.
Have the building constructed in another location.
Move the airport to South Weymouth and redevelope the existing airport as "Eastfield".
Move the planned film studio in Weymouth to Menino's new city hall site on the South Boston Waterfront.
We could:
Petition the FAA for another review.
Have the building constructed in another location.
Move the airport to South Weymouth and redevelope the existing airport as "Eastfield".
Move the planned film studio in Weymouth to Menino's new city hall site on the South Boston Waterfront.
Patriots_1228
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2007
- Messages
- 368
- Reaction score
- 1
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
ah that sucks. lets just hope we don't get a big glass box...
ah that sucks. lets just hope we don't get a big glass box...
Suffolk 83
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 2,975
- Reaction score
- 2,300
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
That's a very intriguing idea. I like it. I think it could look amazing. Thats a building that would be very Boston specific. Then maybe I wouldn't have to hear, 'this shot looks like Houston or Dallas' from czsz...
That's a very intriguing idea. I like it. I think it could look amazing. Thats a building that would be very Boston specific. Then maybe I wouldn't have to hear, 'this shot looks like Houston or Dallas' from czsz...
Y
Y-bot
Guest
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
I would prefer a super tall glass rendering of Mayor Mumbles standing astride Congress St. where the Gov't Center Garage is now. We could call it "The Colossus of Loads". It would have a water feature consisting of a slight trickle of water running over those blubbery pendulous lips, and "Jumbletroms" for eyeballs.
I would prefer a super tall glass rendering of Mayor Mumbles standing astride Congress St. where the Gov't Center Garage is now. We could call it "The Colossus of Loads". It would have a water feature consisting of a slight trickle of water running over those blubbery pendulous lips, and "Jumbletroms" for eyeballs.
