Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

DZH22 said:
Don't forget the Globe article, I think by Shirley Kressel, contending that building 691' at Winthrop Square was akin to building a skyscraper directly on the Common itself!!! That was peak crazy right there.

Again, the FAA map is very clear about areas that can go tall. Back Bay (high spine portion) has a couple spots that could push over 900' (unless of course there's a sliver of shadow somewhere), particularly Hynes and Kings garage. North Station area could go 700's, even over 800 on some of those empty lots by the ramp or where that 12 story West End apartment building is next to Alcott. Hurley could probably go at least 750', and seems to require more remediation than the Winthrop Garage (ie, let's push for some height here). Kendall could get close to 1000' at many spots near the river, but then it drops to 500' a couple blocks back (ie Volpe only had 1 sliver of the site that could have gone for broke, and they're not). North Point was really the perfect location, in the 1000' zone and without any nearby NIMBY neighbors, yet they decided to blow literally the best opportunity in the whole metro and make everything short and FAAAAAATTTTTTTT.

That's pretty much it. Back Bay, North Station, or a Kendall miracle, otherwise we just might end up the world's "boomingest" city that's stuck with a tallest building over 50 years old. Not only that, but a building that went from top 20 in the world to out of the top 1000. The Hancock is beautiful, and was a marvel of engineering at the time, but it's no longer a *special* building to still be a city's tallest in 2021.

When the Red Sox won in 2004, fans didn't suddenly become richer, have nicer houses, better education, or anything like that. But what they did gain was a permanent slice of happiness that had been missing from their lives. For me, each new large tower (Millennium Tower, Four Seasons, State Street, now this) has added to my permanent happiness level, but a new (classy/tasteful) tallest building is the cherry currently missing from the top of that sundae.
Click to expand...

This gets brought up a lot but it bears repeating: You really should not care about this at all. The tallest building in Paris is 690 feet tall. The tallest building in Rome is 509 feet tall. The tallest building in Amsterdam is 490 feet tall. Hell, the tallest building in Tokyo is 848 feet tall. I'd rather spend a day in any one of these places than Houston (1008 feet tall), Cleveland (948 feet tall), or Dallas (921 feet tall).
 
Last edited:
DZH22 said:
The interesting thing about Philly is that it has notably less buildings over 500'/150m, as well as a few less over 400' than Boston, yet the skyline makes your jaw drop and the whole downtown feels like an absolute powerhouse any way you experience it.

Just nothing like either Comcast building please. The new one in particular is just.... Not.... Good..... Undeniably huge, but why did it have to look like that? Give me those Liberty Place siblings any day. Our cities are close to the same size, yet Philly has this in-your-face big city feel to it that's lacking here, and those handful of huge statement buildings are a major reason why.

By the way, that brownish building in the middle between Mellon Bank (white with triangle) and 1st Comcast (darker glass top with dark square near the top) is 738', almost 50' taller than Winthrop Square which will top downtown. The tip of Mellon Bank's triangle comes in at 792', so you can visualize the Hancock there and the Pru/1 Dalton about 1 floor taller than that brown building. For top level firepower, we are completely outclassed and just a couple buildings can make a city feel substantially bigger.

20210806027 by Joseph Schmitt, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Wow, a massive sea of parking lots and an elevated highway just two miles from downtown. What a thing for Boston to aspire to...
 
king_vibe said:
This gets brought


This gets brought up a lot but it bears repeating: You really should not care about this at all. The tallest building in Paris is 690 feet tall. The tallest building in Rome is 509 feet tall. The tallest building in Amsterdam is 490 feet tall. Hell, the tallest building in Tokyo is 848 feet tall. I'd rather spend a day in any one of these places than Houston (1008 feet tall), Cleveland (948 feet tall), or Dallas (921 feet tall).
Click to expand...

Here's Paris. They're currently building a new tallest that eclipses the Hancock, have had the supertall Eiffel Tower for 130 years, and still have plans for supertalls in the future.
1634842335919.png


Rome is like thousands of years old. Kind of a weird comparison to say that a North American city should ever be compared to Rome.

Here's Tokyo. If we pretend that the Skytree doesn't exist they're still building a supertall. In fact they're currently building their Top 3 tallest buildings simultaneously, similarly to Paris which is building 2 of its top 3.
1634842427296.png


It's not the 1990's anymore, or the early 2000's, or the 2010's. I notice you also notably leave out cities like London, Warsaw, Frankfurt, Rotterdam, Moscow, Madrid, etc etc etc. Europe is going vertical. Australia is going vertical. Canada is going vertical. Almost everywhere is going vertical. Boston is great because of its past, but does that preclude us from getting "nice things" in the future? I just don't get the argument, but for God's sake at least have some accurate data.

By the way Rome has proposed a Pru height building, so even Rome is going tall.
 
Last edited:
BronsonShore said:
Wow, a massive sea of parking lots and an elevated highway just two miles from downtown. What a thing for Boston to aspire to...
Click to expand...

It seems pretty obvious you have never been to Philadelphia. Here's the view on google earth. It's the parking lots by the stadiums.
www.google.com

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
www.google.com www.google.com
 
DZH22 said:
It seems pretty obvious you have never been to Philadelphia. Here's the view on google earth. It's the parking lots by the stadiums.
www.google.com

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
www.google.com www.google.com
Click to expand...

I consider Philly my third home and, over the past two years, I've probably spent a cumulative time of about 4 months in that city. So yes, I know why the parking lots are there. But no, the fact that the parking lots exist to serve the stadiums does not negate the fact that they are parking lots.

There's a lot to admire about Philadelphia's urban environment compared to Boston's, particularly the fact that it has a fabric of densely built row houses that's far larger than what we have here. But I have never, ever thought that Center City felt more "powerhousy" or whatever than Boston's downtown. If anything, I've found it comparably sleepy, with noticeably less life on the streets. I've never looked at the census data, but I suspect that far more people live near Boston's tallest buildings than Philly's.
 
Last edited:
I'm not going to judge this building on its height once it has been completed. I'm going to judge it based on the street experience and the "Connector" or whatever they are calling it now. It was supposed to be a GRAND public space to rival the Glass Enclosed Streets of Milan. However, it kept getting reduced and cut, and I fear it will just be an enhanced lobby. I hope that I'm wrong, but I love BCE place in Toronto. I'm sure this will be NOTHING like that.

1634854882637.png
 
BronsonShore said:
There's a lot to admire about Philadelphia's urban environment compared to Boston's, particularly the fact that it has a fabric of densely built row houses that's far larger than what we have here. But I have never, ever thought that Center City felt more "powerhousy" or whatever than Boston's downtown. If anything, I've found it comparably sleepy, with noticeably less life on the streets. I've never looked at the census data, but I suspect that far more people live near Boston's tallest buildings than Philly's.
Click to expand...

I used to work for a company located in Exton, PA so I have spent MANY, MANY days and weekends in Philadelphia.

They have a much more vibrant "Gayborhood" in Central Philadelphia compared to our South End or even Dorchester. I've always really enjoyed that area of Philadelphia and it's dense, walkable, and historic too.
 
My crappy picture taken from Cherry Hill contributed to the ruckus! Another Oz shot:
42F2CC0C-E73A-4CC9-853E-EFBE32392E37.jpeg
 
Last edited:
I mean... in a conversation about buildings and super tall buildings, I am not particularly including structures like the Eiffel Tower and the Sky Tree (or even Tokyo Tower). If anything your list for Paris shows Boston's skyline as pretty good for a much smaller city. Let's also not pretend that Paris' draw as a city is not La Défense, where they have quarantined all their skyscrapers. And, yes, Rome is over 2,000 years old. There are many other very old cities in the world, too - not sure your point? Milan? Italian cities in general? As for Tokyo - they currently have 2 800 footers, and then a range in the 700s and 600s. Seems honestly pretty comparable to Boston given the vast differences in population and density. Also, like Boston is limited by the FAA in height, Tokyo is generally limited in height due to seismic activity. Still a great city to visit.

And let me restate: I am not against height or a new tallest or anything else. I am just not going to sit here and say that height has anything to do with how great or vibrant a city is. I would trade a new (or multiple) tallest in Boston in a heartbeat for the rest of the Pike air right projects, or any other number of things would add to the city itself.
 
Java King said:
I used to work for a company located in Exton, PA so I have spent MANY, MANY days and weekends in Philadelphia.

They have a much more vibrant "Gayborhood" in Central Philadelphia compared to our South End or even Dorchester. I've always really enjoyed that area of Philadelphia and it's dense, walkable, and historic too.
Click to expand...

You're right on, there. My brother-in-law used to live at 12th and Locust and I've had a lot of great times at McGillin's and Sampan. Still, though, if we're talking about the supposed way that tall buildings make a downtown area feel, I would suggest that the streets where most of Philly's talls are located (17th and JFK, mostly) are significantly less lively than Boylston by the Pru and the Copley area by the Hancock.
 
bakgwailo said:
And let me restate: I am not against height or a new tallest or anything else. I am just not going to sit here and say that height has anything to do with how great or vibrant a city is. I would trade a new (or multiple) tallest in Boston in a heartbeat for the rest of the Pike air right projects, or any other number of things would add to the city itself.
Click to expand...

This is it, right here. A city is experienced at street level. That's what matters.

I'm not against height either, but (1) it's just not that important in the vibrancy of a city, and (2) given that skyscrapers often have terrible street presences, they can actively detract from a city if they're not done right. Boston is much better served by a half a block of Newbury Street containing 20 retail spaces than it is by a tower that has the same footprint, but kills the street level with its loading docks, a giant glass lobby that sits empty most of the day, and 2-3 chain lunch spots that close at 4PM.
 
DZH22 said:
It seems pretty obvious you have never been to Philadelphia. Here's the view on google earth. It's the parking lots by the stadiums.
www.google.com

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
www.google.com www.google.com
Click to expand...

OMG, puhleez. What is the actual importance of that????? Philadelphia is so far behind Boston the past two decades in terms of investment, quality of urban life and economic growth it isn’t even funny.

Philadelphians would gladly give up all of their tallest skyscrapers just to be Boston in the 21st century:
----------------------------------------------------------------


BOSTON V. PHILLY
It’s more than a sports rivalry. Boston and Philly share DNA as the country’s most historic cities. But only one has shown the will and vision to be an innovative 21st century leader

"........But despite these facts, only Boston has blossomed as a commercial powerhouse of biotech and life sciences. For years, blue chip Big Pharma companies and startups alike have found a welcome reception and fertile ground for investment in southeastern Massachusetts; indeed, some 32 percent of all recent biotech IPOs came from Boston or Cambridge-based firms and biotech firms are responsible for over $12 billion in Massachusetts wages and employ over 75,000 people. Philadelphia barely registers on this metric.

The question is then, what is Boston doing that Philadelphia isn’t? Between two cities bursting with scientific resources, why has only one been able to convert those raw materials into the leading economic drivers of its region?....."

".....But to be clear, this is a biopsy, not an autopsy. Both Boston and Philadelphia are great American cities, steeped in history. But today, Boston has re-imagined and reinvented itself as a region of the future, taking a concerted, top-down approach to engender an environment, a workforce and a capital base to thrive by looking ahead.

I still believe that Philly has what it takes to do the same, but there’s a lesson to be learned from Boston’s experience: we can’t keep living in the past."

---------------------------------------------------------------

So, please, put it all in perspective. Pining after Philadelphia because they have taller buildings is like an Apple shareholder wishing its stock symbol of AAPL was something"catchier" like WANG.
 
Last edited:
shmessy said:
So, please, put it all in perspective. Pining after Philadelphia because they have taller buildings is like an Apple shareholder wishing its stock symbol of AAPL was something"catchier" like WANG.
Click to expand...

Actually the argument is more like... If our city is so much better, which it is, why can't we also have "nice things" in the form of a few trophy towers like all these other national and international inferior cities? The demand would be there if the bureaucrats would actually allow the things to be built. From an aesthetics perspective, I really think every neighborhood should push max FAA for that area in 1-2 spots, with a pleasing height variation across each neighborhood instead of the monolithic giant wall-like buildings we so often end up with. It just feels like, if the powers that be didn't arbitrarily demand such low heights, we would have passed the Hancock multiple times already.
 
I don’t prefer Philadelphia, Dubai, Bangkok etc. But it would be fun to have a couple of tall boys for the Oz effect. They wouldn’t make Boston a hellscape of parking lots and Waffle Houses, or appreciably lower the local IQ. So a bit of a false dichotomy being projected.
 
tobyjug said:
I don’t prefer Philadelphia, Dubai, Bangkok etc. But it would be fun to have a couple of tall boys for the Oz effect. They wouldn’t make Boston a hellscape of parking lots and Waffle Houses, or appreciably lower the local IQ. So a bit of a false dichotomy being projected.
Click to expand...

Boston vs Philly is liken to a (1) vs (16) seed, respectively, in the NCAA Tourney. It's not a contest.
 
If you were able to take the taller buildings (let's say, 15 stories and up) in Cambridge, Back Bay, and The Seaport, and spread them within downtown Boston by replacing some low-rise bores, I would say that that downtown skyline would be quite impressive, or certainly more than Philadelphia's. And when factoring in the importance and dynamism going on within the buildings, which is making Boston into one of the most important cities in the world, even more so. And, don't forget, this exciting new downtown would be a 5 minute drive to the airport!
 
I think the crux of my argument has been lost in the shuffle. I'll use the Hurley site as an example, which similarly to this one is owned by the city and would require substantial remediation. More importantly, that site has almost 100 extra feet to work with on the FAA map, and no shadow on the park/harbor laws to contend with.

So why is the city, arbitrarily and not based on actual demand, asking for the equivalent of the first building below and not the second?

1635001981411.png


1635002009126.png


Here's the difference in the skyline view and really, how it visually redefines (or doesn't) the city around it. Keep in mind they are essentially trying to add a 5th building to this cluster that's within that height window of the other 4.

IMG_4020 by David Z, on Flickr

As opposed to what's possible.... I mean, why are we so cavalier about throwing away the (FEW AND FAR BETWEEN) opportunities we have for something like the building below, in favor of adding another fat squat tower to the already meh plateau above?

1635002230795.png

 
DZH22 said:
I think the crux of my argument has been lost in the shuffle. I'll use the Hurley site as an example, which similarly to this one is owned by the city and would require substantial remediation. More importantly, that site has almost 100 extra feet to work with on the FAA map, and no shadow on the park/harbor laws to contend with.

So why is the city, arbitrarily and not based on actual demand, asking for the equivalent of the first building below and not the second?
Click to expand...

Because Boston isn’t simply a Thomas Sowell libertarian manifesto in city form. That’s the scale that the planning agencies felt was appropriate for the location(skyline “aesthetics” are not the be-all and end-all of urban planning in Boston). Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp? Unfortunately for you Boston is not the kind of city that feels it needs to build tall buildings to gratify bored and insecure suburbanites and keep up with the skyscrapercity rankings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top