Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Mark me down as consistent overall that Ive generally liked it the whole time.
 
I have been consistent in thinking the design was ehh, but the urbanism benefits here don't come from the great hall. IIRC this will be the densest building in Boston at 34 FAR when completed- central business districts need to make the most of land, and this does that more than any other building in the city.
 
I think complaining about minor details and trying to blow them into same grand conspiracy is a hallmark of self styled activists with too much time on their hands. In this discussion we've dealt with weird tangents about local sports teams and the development climate in 1979. :confused: :rolleyes: What we've yet to see is a coherent argument that 1) this changes the overall positive impact of the project much, 2) that making the Great Hall the Great Connector is a significant departure from what was permitted, and 3) that any of the people whining about this actually planned on visiting it, since some live out of state!

Good pushback people and I walked by there again today like I do most mornings, and I must have missed the protestors chanting "Save the Great Hall"! ;)
 
It continues to blow my mind when people defend multi-billion dollar multinational corporations like they're some cuddly innocent teddy bear that's going to give us free candy.
 
Suffolk 83 said:
It continues to blow my mind when people defend multi-billion dollar multinational corporations like they're some cuddly innocent teddy bear that's going to give us free candy.
Click to expand...
Serious question: can you point to someone 'defending' the corporation? Saying they support the project going forward in its present state, didn't care about the great hall, or thinking the contract negotiation was fair isn't equivalent to this.
 
Ah, Rover. Millennium clearly slithered their way out of the deal with the city, if you can't see that I cant help ya
 
Rover said:
I think complaining about minor details and trying to blow them into same grand conspiracy is a hallmark of self styled activists with too much time on their hands. In this discussion we've dealt with weird tangents about local sports teams and the development climate in 1979. :confused: :rolleyes: What we've yet to see is a coherent argument that 1) this changes the overall positive impact of the project much, 2) that making the Great Hall the Great Connector is a significant departure from what was permitted, and 3) that any of the people whining about this actually planned on visiting it, since some live out of state!

Good pushback people and I walked by there again today like I do most mornings, and I must have missed the protestors chanting "Save the Great Hall"! ;)
Click to expand...

If they vetted the change with the city then, fine, I don't care. If this is them just blowing off this requirement as no big deal, than, that is a problem. I have consistently thought this build was pretty ugly/shit design (although better than the initial monstrosity), and the Great Hall a cop out (vs observation deck), but, the $150+ million for the city I am more than happy to look passed those concerns. Also, for the record, I live in state - in fact, in the City of Boston.
 
Suffolk 83 said:
Ah, Rover. Millennium clearly slithered their way out of the deal with the city, if you can't see that I cant help ya
Click to expand...

Great. I look forward to reading about you leading the protest to get the Great Hall built and named according to the original renders! Should be no problem if they've violating their permits.

Keep us updated on your progress. ;)
 
we do an awful lot of arguing on this forum without having all the pertinent facts
 
FitchburgLine said:
Serious question: can you point to someone 'defending' the corporation? Saying they support the project going forward in its present state, didn't care about the great hall, or thinking the contract negotiation was fair isn't equivalent to this.
Click to expand...


https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2019/04/01/hall/Ymu84WBfCENL7mT7liF2HO/story.html#comments

Comments section #1:

tosh33
04/01/19 10:31 PM

MP and Joe Larkin,
Your development team has done an amazing job bringing the Twin Peaks through a minefield of design challenges and Article 80 review. It's great to see the site prep advancing! The community looks forward to more great things from MP in the future.

-----------

That's even more than "defending a corporation". Hell, right there, Odurandina's lips pushed right through into the corporation's lower colon.


.
 
bakgwailo said:
If they vetted the change with the city then, fine, I don't care. If this is them just blowing off this requirement as no big deal, than, that is a problem. I have consistently thought this build was pretty ugly/shit design (although better than the initial monstrosity), and the Great Hall a cop out (vs observation deck), but, the $150+ million for the city I am more than happy to look passed those concerns. Also, for the record, I live in state - in fact, in the City of Boston.
Click to expand...

+1.

If MP vetted this with the City, and got permission from the city to make this change, then they have done nothing wrong.

If they unilaterally are making this change and threatening to pull out at this late date if they don't get their way, then they are slimy and the city needs to stop developers from planning this as a standard way of doing business.
 
shmessy said:
+1.

If MP vetted this with the City, and got permission from the city to make this change, then they have done nothing wrong.

If they unilaterally are making this change and threatening to pull out at this late date if they don't get their way, then they are slimy and the city needs to stop developers from planning this as a standard way of doing business.
Click to expand...

Can't disagree with this logic,
However, I will add: the city owes it to its constituents/taxpayers not to hold sham public input events where we get a so-called say on projects, then the city gets to ignore that entire process and agree to whatever complete design overhauls it wants.

(and mark me down as a supporter of the overall project / huge supporter of the $150m toward parks. I think we can rightly support the concept of this project without being satisfied with a sham public process. I, for one, live in Boston and attended multiple events associated with this, yet barely recognize any design features now, And, no, I don't hate the current design, but that's not the point of my rant...).
 
shmessy said:
+1.

If MP vetted this with the City, and got permission from the city to make this change, then they have done nothing wrong.

If they unilaterally are making this change and threatening to pull out at this late date if they don't get their way, then they are slimy and the city needs to stop developers from planning this as a standard way of doing business.
Click to expand...

I'll ask again - what exactly changed? Aside from aesthetics and the name, I don't see any change at all.
 
fattony said:
...Aside from aesthetics and the name...
Click to expand...

^This is not a change?

It now looks like an office building lobby.
It was briefed as an inviting, public space; one clearly disambiguated from a private lobby space. Were you at any of the events to hear how grandly it was briefed? I was.

Are you not concerned it is strategic that privately-owned public spaces gently slide toward being unwelcoming? Clearly there are others concerned about this being a trend.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

posted 6-20-16
bigpicture7 said:
Or hope that their early early-stage design will be refined over time...

Interestingly, while at the open house, I heard the Trinity group reps snickering about how certain competitor's designs were "all show and no go". They were literally bragging that they'd spent the least on the up-front design, with hopes of "offering the city a stronger value proposition" going forward. "Some developers spent a lot of money on a sexy design. We didn't," they said*. I found it funny that they felt the need to divulge that as if it were a secret.

*These are obviously approximate paraphrases.
Click to expand...

i was back reading hundreds of posts starting around page 75. So many prescient posts, snarky and instinctive initial reactions that turned out to be spot on. This is one of dozens that causes a chuckle. Aren't these the same developers who undersized the tower at 40 Trinity, then couldn't secure the financing? We had 5 serious proposals, and that last one that more fitting for Cincinnati.
 
From this:

shmessy said:
They can't just unilaterally go back on what they promised. Screw those two-faced bastards . The City should take their $153 million and go to the runners up to build this - - with an observation deck.

The City and its residents are in demand and are the boss, not the developers.
Click to expand...

To this:

shmessy said:
If MP vetted this with the City, and got permission from the city to make this change, then they have done nothing wrong.
Click to expand...

That's a BIG change, all in a matter of a couple of days! :eek:
 
So you are proud that MP won the contest with a showier grand hall that looks nothing like the present one?

I can't decide what's worse: showing a shitty design, then losing, vs. showing a somewhat more effective design, then changing it.


All I know is that I'll never get back the time I spent actually caring about this project.
 
bigpicture7 said:
So you are proud that MP won the contest with a showier grand hall that looks nothing like the present one?
Click to expand...

It also won the contest with a tower between 750'-775' before it was chopped down to 691'. Interestingly, the contest was supposed to be for a 725' tower so the city spit the bit on that one if that wasn't a truly attainable height.
 
^ sure; again back to my point: this was not an effective public process.
(I say this knowing there are quotes from me sprinkled throughout this thread cheering the $150m and glad the thing got off the ground). I just feel...sad/tired/apathetic/whatever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top