Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

unterbau said:
If building high isn't an option in the financial district, maybe developers will be encouraged to build 'iconic' to attract large tenants.
Click to expand...

We can only dream...however we're probably going to get the max height the FAA will allow, and then Belkin will max the possible square footage on the site. So it looks like we're getting a big fat box! Maybe precast?
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

To be honest, I am so relieved that this is coming out now, because the more I thought about it the more I did not want that thing built. Yes it is true, I was excited at the idea for a supertall, but then I really lost interest bacause I grew up. Who cares if there is a supertall built there? Whatever goes there does have to stand out (in height and design) and it now we have the opportunity to actually get something iconic and not that lame Piano box. A nice 800-850 footer would be perfect. Something that stands out, but doesn't dwarf everything else. And supertalls don't make a city. Heck, 3 of the 4 world alpha cities have 0 supertalls.

That being said, you are not going to see any changes at that site anytime soon. TransNational just offered my company to resign our lease for 18 more months starting in September at a lower rent than we are paying now, and I think we are going to accept.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I wouldn't be surprised if the FAA decides there will be nothing new over 500 feet. Why expect anything reasonable in a unilateral decision made by an inept, government bureaucracy ?
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

As long as something over 700 ft is built at the site than it should be okay. The Boston financial district just really needs something fresh in there...
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

For what its worth, and I'm sure this has been mentioned at some point in time, but the FAA has no legal right regulate heights that don't directly interfere with normal take-off and landing operations. All they can do is strongly advise, which is the case here, but final discretion is left to the local municipalities.....that said, I doubt the Mayor is going to blatantly disregard their opinion, but the truth is, there will be behind the scenes negotiations and a lot of politcal posturing to reach a conclusion, more than some scientific formula or statistical analysis.....everyone wants to seem relavent and special.

That said, this whole project/process is a political joke....it will be built at whatever height is economically feasible, at whatever time is economically ideal, and we will be given 10 reasons why things happened the way they did, and the appropriate bodies will publically pat themselves on the back (FAA, FoPG, etc.)......

Looks like Piano realized this earlier than most.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

^^

That isn't actually the only thing they do... the FAA has no power to actually ban buildings, but if they declare a given building a hazard, good luck getting financial backing and insurance coverage.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

atlrvr said:
That said, this whole project/process is a political joke....it will be built at whatever height is economically feasible, at whatever time is economically ideal, and we will be given 10 reasons why things happened the way they did, and the appropriate bodies will publically pat themselves on the back (FAA, FoPG, etc.)......

Looks like Piano realized this earlier than most.
Click to expand...

Welcome to Boston!
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I was just looking at this article in ENR magazine and was thinking what building shape would look good in Boston with out looking like all these other tapered towers,I think you guys got it right with a glass and steel obelisk tower,but only in the middle of downtown,can't see this working in the Back Bay ,click on pix to enlarge,can,t seem to do that one last step that just posts the pixs?
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Equilibria said:
^^

That isn't actually the only thing they do... the FAA has no power to actually ban buildings, but if they declare a given building a hazard, good luck getting financial backing and insurance coverage.
Click to expand...

The FAA could close the runway, e.g., limit its use to takeoffs in an easterly direction. I also believe they have power over building heights if the building(s) interferes with their radar.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Boston02124 said:
I was just looking at this article in ENR magazine and was thinking what building shape would look good in Boston with out looking like all these other tapered towers,I think you guys got it right with a glass and steel obelisk tower,but only in the middle of downtown,can't see this working in the Back Bay ,click on pix to enlarge,can,t seem to do that one last step that just posts the pixs?
Click to expand...

You can use photobucket where you can resize your photos, save your images in an account, direct link them both in thumbnails and full-size, and edit your images right on the website. Go to http://photobucket.com Thanks
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

The FAA can indeed close the runway, but doing so would force flights onto other approaches. Any solution that involves moving flights to other runways would be politically impossible, given the vocal and often irrational residents around the airport.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Boston02124 said:
Click to expand...

I'm surprise that they didn't include this 1 mile tower:
5445hk4.jpg
I think ever since BD got started, people are just racing to the sky, proposing supertalls without any real needs to do so. I think it will be great for Boston to have a 1000ft tower but it might just be a little bit too tall for the surrounding. Whatever the the height of the next proposal is, it must stand out however.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Equilibria said:
The FAA can indeed close the runway, but doing so would force flights onto other approaches. Any solution that involves moving flights to other runways would be politically impossible, given the vocal and often irrational residents around the airport.
Click to expand...

Restricting the use of Runway 27 for departures would signficantly reduce the capacity of Logan Airport. Is having a 1000 footer or taller buildings in the Seaport district important enough to reduce the airport's capacity?

The obvious solution would be to locate a new airport in Boston's suburbs (Hanscom, Weymouth, Devens, etc) and linking it into Boston with a high speed rail connection. Unfortunately this solution was polically impossible, given the voal and often irrational residents in suburbia.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

^^

Are you arguing with me? That's essentially my argument: if operations on any Logan runway are reduced (operations = take-offs + landings, for those who don't know), the airport as a whole will suffer, since those ops would either simply be eliminated (reducing the capacity of the airport) or moved to other runways (Winthrop folks riot in the streets). Any movement of traffic around the airport or changes in capacities is usually shot down, regardless of the actual effects.

Yes, one solution would be to beef up Hanscom or SWNAS. Another would be a completely new airport at Fort Devens. All of these options were fully explored by the FAA in the '90s and local opposition was so vehement that they had to be summarily dropped. I don't mean to say that Winthrop and E. Boston residents are more irrational than others, merely that everyone is beyond reason when in comes to airports.

Frankly, Logan is a huge asset both to Downtown and South Boston, with the BCEC and future entertainment destinations. Yes, that limits the height of some buildings, but it grants Boston one of the most easily accessible CBD's in America, if not the world. It also encourages businesses to stay in Downtown, as opposed to office parks around the airport (as in Chicago and Dallas).
 
Re: Bye Bye Trans National Place

stellarfun said:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/05/16/1000_feet_too_tall_for_hub_tower_faa_rules/
Click to expand...
What!!! I can't believe this!! Why in the hell do they want to replace a 1000 ft tower with something shorter. Menino you are stupid for listening to those FAA. You should built a newer airport outside of Boston (Not far as I-95/Rt. 128) and there will be two airports. Then everything would be fine and we will still would have 1000 ft tall building that you want for. This 1000ft tower would change and make Boston skyline better than now. There should look for some Parking Lot,Abandoned buildings or a building that someone selling in Downtown or the back bay.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Do you even think before you post?
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Must be BBoy's younger bro
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Content and substance aside, a quick proof-read (especially for a relatively-short posting) wouldn't hurt either.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Boston has alway had an issue with hieght,Was'nt Boston the 1st city to ban skyscrapers? This is from 1988.I have the rest of the article if any one wants to read it.
xcranes030.jpg
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Yes, skyscraper limits do just that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top