Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

[Coyote137]

The problem, Rover, is that you seem wholly incapable of distinguishing between NIMBYs who show up to public meetings to demand that developments not move forward, and the generally YIMBY folks on this board who are not advocating for shorter buildings or less development, but who do want developers to put forward the best product possible (including abiding by existing commitments).

THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT GROUPS OF PEOPLE. Get it yet?

 

[shmessy]

The problem, Rover, is that you seem wholly incapable of distinguishing between NIMBYs who show up to public meetings to demand that developments not move forward, and the generally YIMBY folks on this board who are not advocating for shorter buildings or less development, but who do want developers to put forward the best product possible (including abiding by existing commitments).

THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT GROUPS OF PEOPLE. Get it yet?

Thank you. But he doesn't get it.

.

 

[Rover]

The problem, Rover, is that you seem wholly incapable of distinguishing between NIMBYs who show up to public meetings to demand that developments not move forward, and the generally YIMBY folks on this board who are not advocating for shorter buildings or less development, but who do want developers to put forward the best product possible (including abiding by existing commitments).

THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT GROUPS OF PEOPLE. Get it yet?

Sure, but answer me this. Of people in both groups 1) NIMBY's and 2) YIMBY best product possibles - how many people do you think would self identify as #1 instead of #2? Every NIMBY is trying to paint their advocacy in a positive light. You're basically asking me and others to have the ability to read minds. If I did in fact have that ability, I wouldn't be living Boston I'd be living in Vegas and cleaning up at the major casinos on a nightly basis.

The self appointed guardians of existing commitments have a role to play of course, but several of you are way, waayyyy too negative in this pursuit and then you start to adopt the rhetoric of NIMBY's. shmessy is a good example. Several pages ago he actually posted that the city should keep the 150M that the developer ponied up but then award the actual rights to a different developer over the Great Hall???? How exactly am I supposed to differential him from a garden variety NIMBY loon when he posts something like that?

We ALL would be wise to back up our views out here. As you can see, I am more than willing to do so without resorting to pithy comments like "grow up" or other such directives from anonymous people on the internet.

EDIT: For references sake, this is an example of a post from a well meaning activist:

+1.

It's not the City of Boston's problem, it is Millenium's. 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.

 

[shmessy]

....... shmessy is a good example. Several pages ago he actually posted that the city should keep the 150M that the developer ponied up but then award the actual rights to a different developer over the Great Hall???? How exactly am I supposed to differential him from a garden variety NIMBY loon when he posts something like that?

Very simple: The building WOULD be getting built - - BIGGER and with MORE human activity in its lobby and surrounding streets. As a result, the city would be MORE dense, and MORE active at the street level. If I should be accused of anything, it is being for HYPER-development.

On the other hand, a NIMBY is someone who doesn't want something built at all in their back yard.

Everyone here understands that clearly, except you.

You're wasting everyone's time here with your lack of even a remedial comprehension.

The rest of us all walked away, for the good of the forum, from responding to your ignorant blatherings 2 weeks ago, hoping it would just go away - - - until your off-topic, ad hominem Post #4736 today in response to Beeline's pictures. In apology to the other members of the forum, this is my last post in response to anything Rover posts in this thread. At some point some Moderation would be welcome.

 

[Rover]

I'm sorry shmessy but my opinion is that your proposal to take away development rights from one group, keep their 150M, and then give it a different developer is as unworkable a proposal as I've ever seen written by someone purporting to be serious.

Yet I'm the one who doesn't comprehend. Huh. I'll close by saying if you don't like someone's opinion about the subject matter of the thread (Winthrop Sq), running to a moderator isn't something I'd ever think of doing but to each his own I guess.

 

[KentXie]

Yet I'm the one who doesn't comprehend. Huh. I'll close by saying if you don't like someone's opinion about the subject matter of the thread (Winthrop Sq), running to a moderator isn't something I'd ever think of doing but to each his own I guess.

Your reaction may not be running to a moderator but taunting isn't much better. In fact, it's downright immature. You already made your point that you disagree with people who want to keep the Great Hall. Fine. What's the point of posting a taunt on a picture post? To get a a rise from people? And then you're offended when people actually do?

Like what many people have already said here, grow the fuck up.

 

[TheMagicMan]

+1 to what Suffolk and Beton Brut wrote to you.

This is a forum to exchange ideas and opinions. It's not Game of Thrones. Some folks had opinions on something that was not in lock step with yours. Most of the adults on this forum do not feel an immediate need to smite their enemies when someone dares put forth a different viewpoint.

Regarding your completely unnecessary and off-topic mention of "President Chump", I'm 100% opposed to him too. But the answer isn't to do the "Rover Thing" and hit back with Kerosene Maxine, AOC or Angry Elizabeth Warren. The US, like this forum, benefits most when it moderates and respects each other by remembering E Pluribus Unum instead of "I need to smite my enemies on the other side". Everyone loses a contest to see who can be the strongest Fascist.

Grow up, take a deep breath and examine what in your life compelled to write your ad hominem Post #4736.

.

This post has nothing to do with Architecture. Please stop the attacks and lets focus on the project.

Reading some of these attacks I'm starting to find this site very offensive.

What does Archboston mean? Architectural forum.
Keep your political views to yourself.

 

[stick n move]

Welp we had a couple days of this thread not being a shitshow... its still progress.

 

[Rover]

Your reaction may not be running to a moderator but taunting isn't much better. In fact, it's downright immature. You already made your point that you disagree with people who want to keep the Great Hall. Fine. What's the point of posting a taunt on a picture post? To get a a rise from people? And then you're offended when people actually do?

Like what many people have already said here, grow the fuck up.

People, lighten up. It was a lighthearted comment made in jest and some people are acting like I insulted their mother. I can assure you my intention wasn't to taunt anybody and some of you are a little too hard wired in my humble opinion. Now maybe we can in fact go back to discussing the merits of the project now that that's out of everybody's system.

 

[BeeLine]

https://flic.kr/p/251QD4R

https://flic.kr/p/Tu8rb9

A different type of basket weaving.

https://flic.kr/p/2fxLv9U

 

[odurandina]

Thank you. But he doesn't get it.

.

Is this endless bullshit of always having to get the last word in really
all it's cracked up to be?

Grow up. You're not fucking God.

What Rover said in regards to posters on a forum is subject to interpretation.

i don't agree with all of it. However, every last damn word he said about the City's nimby's at large is spot on.

Frankly, fuck them all. They're a huge reason Boston has a poor tax base, and can't add affordability for the desperate people who need a place to live..... they've done nothing but degrade the process, harm good urban policy, demonize height, freeze the zoning process from (land screaming for sporadic, spot zoning), irreversibly harm the built environment and prevent a more appropriate outcome and unique aesthetic ie; height and architectural significance.

ALL of these great things people have been talking about sound good in their conceptual form. Then you have to add the costs. Around the City, the height simply isn't there. At Winthrop Square, there's barely enough f.a.r. for public amenities. You want to see some cash maybe for the art school to build an extra floor (re; realistic future planning)? Add 12 floors to the tower at 1000 Boylston. That parcel should have gone 875'. I said it at the public meetings and 85 year old rejects were gasping like i'd shot a cat.

Summarily unsustainable.

They build it squat after some silent edict.... as if spot zoning should even be controversial. Every gd proposal in the City between ~140' and 500' gets built 90~160' too short: and that's factoring in everything. Shadow, FAA, traffic, you name it. Start with the New York Streets. Every other gd one of them should have gone 320' (FAA), w/ a proper mix of height and NO additional parking spaces (above what were already planned). Want to live close to your job: No car for you. You're young; stfu & walk.

Lincoln Street Garage needs to go 685'. Why is it going 360'? Why can't this City lead the replacement of the Harbor Garage? Why isn't even 1 of the 8 towers (currently) approved in Back Bay between 388~625' built or u/c? 1 Dolly and 111 Huntington makes us 2 for 12 for Back Bay dating back 48 years! (Boylston Square and Columbus Ctr died on the vine) Why isn't Dock Square already approved at 280'?

What major US city builds like this? I can name you 60 parcels where they blew it. There's not many more left to do it right. They do it sorta right on 15 of them in the current cycle, (only a few ever go u/c) and we're supposed to be ecstatic? FUCK THAT when your City goes broke.

.

 

[TheMagicMan]

If the city wanted something iconic in this location then why didn't they sell it with a stipulation clause in the negotiation process? Then the developers could have been held accountable.

I don't believe we can hold the private developer responsible for adjusting their plans after paying the city their full amount for the garage.

 

[Rover]

If the city wanted something iconic in this location then why didn't they sell it with a stipulation clause in the negotiation process? Then the developers could have been held accountable.

I don't believe we can hold the private developer responsible for adjusting their plans after paying the city their full amount for the garage.

Thank you for making my point much more succinctly than I have! I agree that we have a choice to make. We can either 1) demand iconic structures, or 2) get a large windfall for various public uses. With the cost of land, its unrealistic to ask for both, a concept way too many people are struggling with.

Tosh, keeping fighting the good fight. To sum up, the opportunity cost of NIMBYism is way underreported but will strangle the city if gone unquestioned.

 

[stick n move]

Is this endless bullshit of always having to get the last word in really
all it's cracked up to be?

Grow up. You're not fucking God.

What Rover said in regards to posters on a forum is subject to interpretation.

i don't agree with all of it. However, every last damn word he said about the City's nimby's at large is spot on.

Frankly, fuck them all. They're a huge reason Boston has a poor tax base, and can't add affordability for the desperate people who need a place to live..... they've done nothing but degrade the process, harm good urban policy, demonize height, freeze the zoning process from (land screaming for sporadic, spot zoning), irreversibly harm the built environment and prevent a more appropriate outcome and unique aesthetic ie; height and architectural significance.

ALL of these great things people have been talking about sound good in their conceptual form. Then you have to add the costs. Around the City, the height simply isn't there. At Winthrop Square, there's barely enough f.a.r. for public amenities. You want to see some cash maybe for the art school to build an extra floor (re; realistic future planning)? Add 12 floors to the tower at 1000 Boylston. That parcel should have gone 875'. I said it at the public meetings and 85 year old rejects were gasping like i'd shot a cat.

Summarily unsustainable.

They build it squat after some silent edict.... as if spot zoning should even be controversial. Every gd proposal in the City between ~140' and 500' gets built 90~160' too short: and that's factoring in everything. Shadow, FAA, traffic, you name it. Start with the New York Streets. Every other gd one of them should have gone 320' (FAA), w/ a proper mix of height and NO additional parking spaces (above what were already planned). Want to live close to your job: No car for you. You're young; stfu & walk.

Lincoln Street Garage needs to go 685'. Why is it going 360'? Why can't this City lead the replacement of the Harbor Garage? Why isn't even 1 of the 8 towers approved in Back Bay between 388~625' u/c? Why isn't Dock Square already approved at 280'?

I can name you 60 parcels where they blew it. There's not many more left to do it right. They do it sorta right on 15 of them, and we're supposed to be ecstatic? FUCK THAT when your City goes broke.

.

I mean pretty much yea. They said themselves they need 150,000 housing units just to meet demand and only have built 38,000. So clearly what theyre doing isnt working. We need to be building 3.5x as much as we are. Theres some substantial projects that have gone up yea, but not that much in the grand scheme. Half of the projects are 10-20 years old and just being built now we should be on to the next ones. MT was stalled for a decade, thats not even this cycle its a holdover from last, just like most other things. There needs to be a massive shift in the way this city approaches development. A city is not a museum. There is a responsibility to retain important buildings but no responsibility to keep the city itself the same. Thats stupid and people really think that way. A city is for jobs and housing its not a museum. You cant have it both ways, when Boston gets ALL the jobs. Either keep it the same or dont, but when its the economic engine of New England theres a bigger responsibility to the region and people.

 

[Padre Mike]

Just for some perspective: There are parts of Florida that continue to boom non-stop. I live in Hillsborough county, where Tampa and St. Petersburg are located. Next door, in Pasco County alone (relatively small; there are 67 counties in FL, few cities and towns, lots of unincorporated land) they are working on approx. 150,000 apartments, most of which will not be inexpensive. Along with housing comes...wait for it...strip malls...big box stores...gated communities... New single family houses are lagging behind and real estate agents are having to make do with re-sales in some sectors. Of course FL is not MA. 1000 people A DAY move to FL, straining every possible resource. Public transportation is 100 years behind Boston no matter where you go; dependence on cars is choking the environment; county and state governments still think building wider roads and highways will solve the gridlock (Gov. Sargent, where are you? Oh, back in the seventies!). Many contractors by law have to build schools for their huge developments, which takes some strain off of property taxes. A huge issue is that many of the 1000 are elderly and have paid their share to educate the young and now live on fixed incomes. So it seems to me that Boston continues to look to the past and not the future, especially regarding affordable housing. Hopefully Boston will not turn out to be like San Francisco and other parts of CA which have become unaffordable to everyone but high tech, double income families. Just some reflections; I don't pretend to be an expert, just an observer with opinions to add to the pot.

 

[odurandina]

^^yeah, perspective. i got a huge dose of it this day; It looks like a stretched out version of Chicago's 'Northside.' ...just took photos of the Hard Rock this same afternoon.... 5 years since my last visit here, I'm abolutely astounded by the urbanization and proliferation of height of the S. Florida zone.

Boston and surrounding metro deserves a sober, reality-based accounting of the region's so-called progress. Despite the added density, what's been pushed back, cut down, reduced, and flattened adds up to a lot of fail. And that's being generous.

 

[stevebikes]

Including views of the cut-through/lobby next door for comparison, as well as the one across the street at 160 Federal that I used to use to get over to High St in the winter:

 

[BeeLine]

^^^ Very nice! Thanks for sharing.

 

[cden4]

Anyone know what the website is for the webcam for this project that they recently set up?

 

[DBM]

Anyone know what the website is for the webcam for this project that they recently set up?

I went trolling around the Suffolk Const. website and couldn't find anything... are you sure this isn't a rumor--or did you hear there was one from an actual Suffolk Const. employee?

Meanwhile, I went back to look at the MTower thread. Looks like it took MTower exactly 5 months (Feb. 2014-June 2014) to "get out of the pit," that is, to finish pouring the foundation/garage substructure and starting with above-grade floors.

In comparison, we're now in the 8th month (they began foundation work in Oct. 2018, it looks like) since 115 Winthrop Sq. has been "in the pit." Seems extremely likely it's going to be twice as long as MTower (more than 10 months, that is) until they get above-grade and start pouring everything above the garage. If not considerably longer...

A pretty good measure of the relative structural complexities of the two projects, eh?