Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Also, we don't need 1000 feet. What is the maximum the FAA would allow? Even an 800 footer would stand out on our skyline, and could be made just as beautiful, and be more reasonable and economical.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

It's funny that the 1988 article (20 years ago!!) claims that the buildings in the financial district have, "exchanged height for design." If it it weren't for the cap on height, those "interesting designs" wouldn't have formed a plateau of what appear to be stumps; they would have stood out more and we wouldn't be complaining about the blandness of the skyline.

As much as I'd love to see a supertall, I'd rather the priority be street level human scale and interaction with the surroundings. I liked the design for TNP, but that Plaza really didn't do it for me. Scale/interaction first, height and appearance in the skyline second.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I agree completely.
 
Re: Bye Bye Trans National Place

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.

exuberance.jpg
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Also, we don't need 1000 feet. What is the maximum the FAA would allow? Even an 800 footer would stand out on our skyline, and could be made just as beautiful, and be more reasonable and economical.

I totally agree. The renderings of TNP at 1000ft (especially a box) just dwarfed everything. Something in the 800 ft range (no more than 850) would be really good, but it needs to peak out of the tranches rather than just say "Look at me, I'm the tallest". Could you imagine something like the Transamerica Pyramid there? Not that anything like that would ever happen, but something bold like that would be fantastic.

But let me reiterate that nothing is going to happen at this location. My company has until the end of July to even decide if they want to take an 18 month lease starting in September (I am at 133 Fed). So do the math.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Wow, a renewed lease does not sound good. Strange that it?s a year and a half though. Is that normal? I?m not familiar with the ins and outs of leases. In any case, there are some other opportune spots to build a new tower (city hall plaza?) And 800 feet would definitely have an impact on the skyline. Though, I really didn?t mind the impact of the 1000 foot tower jutting up; it was sort of like a beacon, sort of like the world trade center was in NY. I guess having an airport so close to downtown does have a bad side, but I think Logan?s proximity to the city is great. There?s always Back Bay and the Fort Point Channel area.

I always thought that having a cap on height is a real thorn to development; just another hurtle you need to jump through that might deter developers from even taking an interest. Until 1985, Philadelphia had the ?Gentleman?s Agreements? that forbade a building from being built higher than the boots of the William Penn statue on City Hall. I really don?t think that benefited the city in any way, and definitely did not encourage ?interesting design?. Strange that just as Philly lifted theirs, Boston enforced one.
 
I don't like this at all there should be a 1,000 foot tall skyscraper but not in the financial district but more likely in the the back bay Menino should build a taller or 1,000 foot skyscraper in the back bay to change the skyline but i agree with a 800-9000 foot rang for a skyscraper in the financial district

the FFA does not know what they are doing
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

A one and a half year lease is not often a desireable one for anyone. It usually makes sense only for a holdover tenant, because the fitup costs for a brand new tenant could not be amortized properly in such a short term. The other sort of possible tenant is a temporary one, something like a campaign headquarters. There isn't a big pool of that sort of thing. It's not like the seasonal temporary tenants you see soaking up vacant inline retail space in shopping malls, e.g. Halloween stores, Santa and Easter Bunny photo ops, Hickory Farms hams, etc.

Your company ought to have the whip hand in this negotiation, because it appears that the landlord does not want to tie up the space for the long term, and there aren't alot of downtown tenants that would want something so short.

The fact that the landlord is entertaining such a potentially unprofitable lease means that your building ought to be a pile of rubble 2 months after the lease expires. Given the state of the capital market and the lead time for redesign and permitting, that sounds about right.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

It's funny that the 1988 article (20 years ago!!) claims that the buildings in the financial district have, "exchanged height for design." If it it weren't for the cap on height, those "interesting designs" wouldn't have formed a plateau of what appear to be stumps; they would have stood out more and we wouldn't be complaining about the blandness of the skyline.

As much as I'd love to see a supertall, I'd rather the priority be street level human scale and interaction with the surroundings. I liked the design for TNP, but that Plaza really didn't do it for me. Scale/interaction first, height and appearance in the skyline second.
A similar case in New York, Frank Gehry's Beekman Tower (903 market-rate rental apartments, 1.1m sq. ft., Bruce Ratner, developer):

0100.jpg


Will dominate its section of skyline (76 stories, 867 ft.):

0200.jpg


Financial District skyline, complete with the usual flattops. Distinguished Beaux-Arts neighbor, roughly contemporary with Custom House:

0250.jpg


Six-story base --also by Gehry-- pretends to be a separate building by someone else. It contains a public school, doctors' offices and retail:

0300.jpg


NIMBYs doubtless find this contextual. Admirers of fancy hats on skyscrapers will be gratified to find that though Beekman Tower is a flattop, it doesn't seem that way from street level; its wrinkles and T-shaped massing resolve into an articulated form where building meets sky. Implied crenellations, vaguely Gothic:

0400.jpg


Like this:

0500.jpg

Photo by Zippy the Chimp, Wired New York

Site plan shows about half of site is landscaped plazas. NIMBYs wangled these and semi-inadvertently made the building taller and more slender in the process:


0600.jpg

Photo by Zippy the Chimp, Wired New York

Full-size mockup of a section of stainless steel skin:

0700.jpg


The 79-year-old architect in a moment of gravity:

0800.jpg


A collection his discarded models for this building:

0900.jpg


From an uncredited source posted on WNY:

Renderings depict a gleaming, stainless steel?clad skyscraper of the old school with muscular?almost six-pack-style?undulations rolling up its 76-story sides and setbacks that, Gehry said, ?respect the New York building type.? In spite of the shiny envelope, the 1.1-million-square-foot Beekman Tower is not all luxury: the 903 studio, one-, two-, and three-bedroom apartments (from 500 square feet to 1,600 square feet) are all market-rate rentals, a rarity among new buildings in Manhattan. Gehry said that he would have liked to use titanium, but it seems that the wonder material is too fragile for New York window-washing equipment.

A six-story industrial brick podium (Gehry said to think ?Starrett-Lehigh?) will include space for a 630-student public school for grades Pre-K through 3; offices for doctors from New York Downtown Hospital; and 1,300 square feet of retail, for dry cleaners and drug stores, not Jean Georges and Chanel. Two plazas on William and Nassau streets will be landscaped by Field Operations. Gehry himself is still working out the details of the kitchen and bath designs, and the lobby will be beribboned with signature wavy bits of steel, reminding residents that they are indeed renting a real Gehry.

As questions about the tower petered out?Gehry himself said there was no architectural derring-do, just ?a typical T-shaped apartment block and very efficient??the conversation picked up when the architect answered a newsgal?s question about ?green? with a spirited rejection of eco-friendly fashion. Features like gray water were often just a gimmick, he said, adding that photovoltaics were too ugly and expensive to use all the time.


A recent photo of the building under construction:

1000.jpg

Photo by econ_tim, Wired New York
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

That building is simply amazing.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

It's amazing how nice Gehry's buildings can be if you reign him in.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

^I was thinking the same thing. I have never been a fan of Gehry's work, but that tower is fantastic. It's Iconic (and the design has longevity, there is only one Gehry), and the base appears as if it will function well in it's surroundings. It's truly a building that will blend in and stand out at the same time.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

This building is gorgeous! I would absolutely take something similar to this in Boston, gladly sacrificing a 1,000 foot, uninspired tower. This would be so out of the norm for Boston, it would be a sight to see this peeking up over the other towers in downtown.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I dont know if anyone remembers, but before the old board crashed, around the time that the Winthrop Sq. tower was announced but before the design was unveiled, I posted a simple extrusion of the project's site with some setbacks, placed it in Google Earth, and posted a few images.Those posts were lost with the old board, but I still have a few images from the post in my Photobucket album.

I never saw this Gehry design before, but when I saw Ablarc's post it immediately made me think of those pictures:

0200.jpg


skchp2.jpg
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Wow very simular! I take your design over what(was) proposed in Boston!
 
Last edited:
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

A 1000" tower may dwarf the other buildings downtown, but i think it may pave the way for more 700-900' buildings to pop out of our mediocre downtown plateau. A 1000 footer and a few 7, 8, & 900 footers would make for an interesting skyline. SST at 621' will be an ok start to a visually appealing skyline.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I'm with YOU. It's time to break through that anemic plateau.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

How much will it cost to make a stainless steel skyscraper?! It must be unbelievably expensive.

I want one for Winthrop Sq, but with red chrome instead of stainless steel.

Makes the proposal for Winthrop Sq look instantly dated in comparision.
 
Last edited:
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

And then, in his late 70's Gehry discovered subtlety.

I've always found the great man to be little more than a charlatan, but I can't say that I dislike this building. Maybe he's been cribbing off Jean Nouvelle?

How much will it cost to make a stainless steel skyscraper?! It must be unbelievably expensive.

^ The elephant in the room. Seems a bit self-indulgent (in this real-estate environment) for a market-rate building to have this level of finish. Maybe Ratner feels he owes Gehry something for the botch-job with the Brooklyn Yards.

I wonder how it'll look after 25 years worth of New York winters?
 

Back
Top