Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

[stefal]

The simple solution is to build a brand new international airport for Massachusetts 12-15 miles away from Boston (something that should have happened back in the 1970s or 1980s) and then we can have lots of tall buildings in the Financial District, Seaport and have a massive amount of to develop where Logan used to be.

Really gotta get rid of the word "simple" there...
But I like the ambition. There is a ton of land at Logan to easily solve the current housing crisis, though how much of that can you build on? How much would have to go toward environmental/marsh use.


I think we've been over this 100s of times, but why does Boston need a 1000' tower vs a 750'-800' tower? I've made models before of what it would look like with a 1000' in Back Bay, and the Burj Khalifa just for laughs, and it looks so out of place.


Back on topic though, I asked this question a few weeks ago, but I'll ask it again: Does anyone know if top-down construction is still the plan? There have been so many hurdles and delays from when I first read the construction/implementation plan that I can't follow along anymore.

Also, I'll keep repeating myself long after this is built, but I really wish we got Accordia's design here.

 

[Beton Brut]

...I really wish we got Accordia's design here.

Agreed. Even statler's hated One Bromfield would be better than this glitzy cash-cow.

 

[odurandina]

Really gotta get rid of the word "simple" there...

I think we've been over this 100s of times, but why does Boston need a 1000' tower vs a 750'-800' tower? I've made models before of what it would look like with a 1000' in Back Bay, and the Burj Khalifa just for laughs, and it looks so out of place.

Couldn't agree more. If Boston had 6 or 7, 700~760' towers Downtown, spread across the West End, and if Back Bay had achieved 2 or 3 more 700~840', the City would look appropriately tall, to it's smaller breadth.

Does anyone know if top-down construction is still the plan? There have been so many hurdles and delays from when I first read the construction/implementation plan that I can't follow along anymore.

Last time i spoke with the development team, they were still 'go' for this method.

 

[Equilibria]

Agreed. Even statler's hated One Bromfield would be better than this glitzy cash-cow.

I'm not sure that's a criticism I can get behind - are you criticizing the fact that the City is making $75M more on this than they would have gotten from Accordia (IIRC - it was discussed at length back then)? The way MP is crowing about that in the video is annoying, but it's true.

Also, let's not go comparing Accordia's design from the selection round to MP's which has gone to Hell and back aesthetically during a long negotiation process. And when people say "Accordia's Design" here they tend to mean a photoshop of a nice concept that Accordia never even proposed. I have honestly no idea what would have been built if Accordia had won, but I know the City would be $75M poorer.

 

[Beton Brut]

....are you criticizing the fact that the City is making $75M more on this than they would have gotten from Accordia?

I'm not criticizing their winning bid. I do, however, find it curious that they had the winning bid by such a wide margin.

Taking a wider view, Millennium's hegemonic positioning in large scale residential development downtown is chilling (economically, architecturally, and urbanistically).

Also, let's not go comparing Accordia's design from the selection round to MP's which has gone to Hell and back aesthetically during a long negotiation process.

I'm puzzled why the BPDA allowed Millennium's vomit-inducing revised proposal to even be released to the public. I'd have loved to have been a fly on the wall when that nonsense was revealed to Brian Golden.

And when people say "Accordia's Design" here they tend to mean a photoshop of a nice concept that Accordia never even proposed. I have honestly no idea what would have been built if Accordia had won...

Speaking only for myself, I really liked the SHoP-designed tower with the vertical green terra-cotta striations. SHoP's work is always interesting, and usually compelling. By contrast, Handel's work is entirely milquetoast.

And you're right, Accordia could have replaced a thoroughbred with a donkey. The larger discussion is why design is so under-prioritized in Boston, and why CBT and Elkus hoover-up most of large-scale work.

...but I know the City would be $75M poorer.

And it really is all about the Benjamins...

But is the promised Great Hall enough of a public amenity, based on the City's requirement for public space? I've yet to see any details (from Millennium or the City) about the mechanism for programming the space, how it can be used (public meetings, performances, exhibitions), and what organizations have been invited to participate as curatorial partners. What we've seen in renderings looks like a mash-up of a high-end hotel lobby, a luxury shopping arcade, and a first class airport departure lounge. Now that there are shovels in the ground, I'd like to know some details...

 

[Rover]

Count me in too as one of the people who'll give the developer a gold star for managing a decent looking building through extreme NIMBY opposition. The way they handled all of that should serve as a blue print for anybody who comes afterwards. I understand having a different mayor helped, but can anyone else think of a project that got state law changed, increased shadows on the Common (granted for 1 hour in January), built up to FAA height limits, and went from design approval to breaking ground in this amount of time? How many times does it drive us nuts when developers automatically drop the height on a building in the mistaken assumption that it will appease anti-growth loons? This project stayed the course until it ran up to the immovable object - the FAA limits. No guarantee another developer would have done that.

 

[Equilibria]

But is the promised Great Hall enough of a public amenity, based on the City's requirement for public space? I've yet to see any details (from Millennium or the City) about the mechanism for programming the space, how it can be used (public meetings, performances, exhibitions), and what organizations have been invited to participate as curatorial partners. What we've seen in renderings looks like a mash-up of a high-end hotel lobby, a luxury shopping arcade, and a first class airport departure lounge. Now that there are shovels in the ground, I'd like to know some details...

Millennium has made suggestions about that - State of City Speech, fashion shows, exhibitions... they rendered pictures of the space with those uses. I'm not sure if there's a mechanism for actually scheduling/programming the space. It may not happen. Still, that's more of an amenity than most of the other proposals had - I recall Accordia having an observation deck halfway up the building - and none of them had the top-floor observation deck that Brian Golden had "required".

As for the architecture, doing a Google image search on Handel and SHoP gives me a bunch of pictures of buildings in NYC that I honestly can't tell apart.

 

[mass88]

Really gotta get rid of the word "simple" there...
But I like the ambition. There is a ton of land at Logan to easily solve the current housing crisis, though how much of that can you build on? How much would have to go toward environmental/marsh use.


I think we've been over this 100s of times, but why does Boston need a 1000' tower vs a 750'-800' tower? I've made models before of what it would look like with a 1000' in Back Bay, and the Burj Khalifa just for laughs, and it looks so out of place.


Back on topic though, I asked this question a few weeks ago, but I'll ask it again: Does anyone know if top-down construction is still the plan? There have been so many hurdles and delays from when I first read the construction/implementation plan that I can't follow along anymore.

Also, I'll keep repeating myself long after this is built, but I really wish we got Accordia's design here.

My comment was more tongue in cheek (as I am guessing you detected). I am always baffled at the fact that Massport (or whatever the agency was called) did not have the forward thinking back in the 1950s or 1960s to plan for a massive uptick in air travel over the coming decades and allow for Logan to have a large enough footprint to expand into a large, modern airport that will not have to deal with space constraints that could hinder growth (I think Logan is a fine airport, but could be a lot better).

Anyways, I too agree that Boston does not need 1,000 plus foot towers. Towers in the 700-800 foot range will do just fine in Boston. I'd rather have 10 700-750 towers than 1, or even two 1,000 plus footers.

 

[DZH22]

Anyways, I too agree that Boston does not need 1,000 plus foot towers. Towers in the 700-800 foot range will do just fine in Boston. I'd rather have 10 700-750 towers than 1, or even two 1,000 plus footers.

I'd rather add 2-3 between 850'-950'. Some spires would be welcome. I'd like Boston to have its own version of Philly's 1 Liberty Place or Cleveland's Key Tower. In fact, when Mayor Walsh wanted 1 Dalton to go higher, I don't know why they didn't at least consider some sort of lightweight crown/spire that wouldn't have required additional foundations to tack on top. Part of the reason Boston is so short from a statistical standpoint is that it really doesn't "cheat" for extra height. It's just flat roof, no crown, no spire, done.

 

[chrisbrat]

absolutely agreed and not b/c of the height thing. i just think we have way too many flat roofs. if there were 3-5 more that culminated as the old JHT does, it'd be a lot more interesting looking, overall.

 

[bakgwailo]

My comment was more tongue in cheek (as I am guessing you detected). I am always baffled at the fact that Massport (or whatever the agency was called) did not have the forward thinking back in the 1950s or 1960s to plan for a massive uptick in air travel over the coming decades and allow for Logan to have a large enough footprint to expand into a large, modern airport that will not have to deal with space constraints that could hinder growth (I think Logan is a fine airport, but could be a lot better).

Anyways, I too agree that Boston does not need 1,000 plus foot towers. Towers in the 700-800 foot range will do just fine in Boston. I'd rather have 10 700-750 towers than 1, or even two 1,000 plus footers.

One thing I could guess is that back then they might have figured that if they need more land they could always keep filling it in (which obviously is never going to happen nowadays).

 

[KriterionBOS]

I think we've been over this 100s of times, but why does Boston need a 1000' tower vs a 750'-800' tower? I've made models before of what it would look like with a 1000' in Back Bay, and the Burj Khalifa just for laughs, and it looks so out of place.

It is true that the total # of skyscrapers in a city is more important to give the skyline a more massive/dense feel than just having one or two really tall buildings.

That being said, I feel there is prestige with having a 1000' or at least a 300 meter plus tower. For that reason, I'd like to see Boston with 1 of those. But yes, having ten or more 750 footers is ultimately better.

But I'd also like to point out, Boston having a 1000 footer would be just as out of place as Chicago's Willis (Sears) Tower out in the West Loop. WT is around 1450' the next tallest anywhere near it is around 950.

 

[KriterionBOS]

Awesome to see this is finally U/C...wonder if wiki has updated the status from proposed to under construction yet.

 

[tobyjug]

Airplanes and trees suck.

 

[statler]

Uh oh. The puppy got into the liquor cabinet last night.

 

[stellarfun]

One thing I could guess is that back then they might have figured that if they need more land they could always keep filling it in (which obviously is never going to happen nowadays).

The first Boeing 707 entered commercial service in October 1958. The old close to the city center airports (LGA, BOS, DCA. MDW) were built during the age of piston and turboprop airplanes. Planes such as the 707 and DC-8 were relegated to airports more distant from the city center. Dulles was purpose built for jet aircraft. From Wiki

in 1965 Dulles averaged 89 airline operations a day while National Airport (now Reagan) averaged 600 despite not allowing jets.

 

[DBM]

Taking a wider view, Millennium's hegemonic positioning in large scale residential development downtown is chilling (economically, architecturally, and urbanistically).

This is a bit much. Unquestionably, Millennium's gravitational field has warped downtown development politics/culture. But "chilling"? Really? Here are a bunch of massive downtown residential towers put up by folks Not-Millennium:

120 Kingston
100 Stuart
45 Province
660 Washington
Kensington (665 Washington)
45 Stuart
1 Canal
101 Beverly
Motor Mart Garage (upcoming)
212 Stuart (upcoming)
47 LaGrange (upcoming)
1 Congress (upcoming)

One could go on. Aside from the fact that Millennium is obviously not "crowding out" rival large-scale developments, do you really think any of those developers stay up nights worrying about how they can get their concepts to conform/acquiesce to Millennium's "chilling" template for urbanistic/architectural vision?

 

[reverend_paco]

Airplanes and trees suck.

I appreciate your performance art as a critique of our current climate of drive-by blanket posting.

Seems like every day I log into archboston to see 10 new activated threads all by same poster/posters which that all roughly the same value of a "I still hate this guys."

I think the parallel "Water sucks" post actually made me laugh out loud.

Plus, maybe you got into the liquor cabinet.

 

[Beton Brut]

Unquestionably, Millennium's gravitational field has warped downtown development politics/culture.

120 Kingston
100 Stuart
45 Province
660 Washington
Kensington (665 Washington)
45 Stuart
1 Canal
101 Beverly
Motor Mart Garage (upcoming)
212 Stuart (upcoming)
47 LaGrange (upcoming)
1 Congress (upcoming)

Of your list, only 1 Congress approaches the scale of Millennium's most recently completed project and/or Winthrop Square; not that it really matters for the sake of this discussion, but One Congress (along with the others I've marked in orange) at best on the fringes of what I consider "downtown." And several of the smaller potatoes (marked in red) were already in the pot while Filene's was still an empty hole.

...do you really think any of those developers stay up nights worrying about how they can get their concepts to conform/acquiesce to Millennium's "chilling" template for urbanistic/architectural vision?

No idea, and as a taxpayer in Boston, that's not really my main concern. I think you'll agree, this is more a conversation about public policy than architecture and urbanism (though there are certainly a web of connections). Personally, I take no comfort in Millennium's progressively tighter hold in Boston. I don't expect anyone else to share my discomfort...

 

[617]

I am super excited about this project. All of millenniums projects downtown came out great and/or have aged gracefully.

That being said, I bet if MP owned 1 Bromfield there would be traction at that site.