1. Who said it has to be an office tower, when obviously residential (or mixed use) are in the most demand? The demand IS there or we wouldn't be building everything else nonstop.
2.
Why do people act like adding a couple tall buildings to Boston will suddenly make Boston less walkable, or similar to Dallas or something? I mean, isn't Boston already Boston? I'm talking about enhancing Boston, not changing it into these other cities.
3. Speaking about preservation, wouldn't facadectomies with additional height be totally preferable to what we HAVE been getting in a lot of spots, like losing the Dainty Dot, or Times Building, or that one in Kenmore, or the upcoming Shreve Crump and Lowe?
Let's go back to #2 some more. Seriously, Boston is Boston. If 1 person here can explain why making the Hurley building 700'+ instead of 400' would somehow make our city more like Dallas and lose all its charm, I'll eat my hat. Seriously, I'll buy a hat, and post a youtube video of me eating the whole thing. Because 90% of the answers to me are complete non sequiters. Boston IS Boston. I'm talking about a couple taller buildings to enhance the existing city of BOSTON. Nothing requires demoing the rowhouses, or creating more parking lots, or anything that would possibly make Boston less of a city than it is today. I would like Boston,
in its current form, to add a handful of taller buildings in places that are either currently parking lots, or those spots screaming for redevelopment like the Hurley, certain parking garages, etc, and also as a way to prevent future demolitions of historic structures by instead turning to facadectomies + height.
Everything else is just twisting what I am saying, or putting words in my mouth that aren't there. If I wanted Dallas I'd move to Dallas. I just want Boston to build some buildings today that would blow my mind like the Custom House would have done in 1915, Pru in 1964, and Hancock in 1976 once they finally fixed the Plywood Palace fiasco. Again, EVERYTHING ELSE IS ALREADY THERE. Why do I have to be in favor of getting rid of any of Boston's charm in order to accommodate those few larger buildings that will give it a 21st century pop? I say over and over that Boston is already better than most/all other cities, and I don't want to change any of what makes it great. I never asked for that. Certain people love to somehow quote me out of context, or act like I'm in favor of a bunch of things which I am not. Honestly, how dare you. I'm frankly offended by those who would put words in my mouth, or extrapolate anything I did say into so many things that I didn't. I already agree with most of you who think you are "opposing" what I have to say, except for the narrow piece of wanting to add a few taller buildings into the mix to stimulate my visual appetite.
By the way since I have been following this stuff, I can think of 4 specific projects that have "stirred the masses" in terms of witnessing random people on the ground pointing, discussing, gaping at, etc. Those are Millennium Tower (so many people actually thought this was going tallest in the city by their conversations), 1 Dalton (as one random passerby called it, the "perfect building"), the Hub on Causeway (mainly for the whole spectacle, especially having those active podiums but also adding height where there was nothing), and State Street (multiple people have commented, but best thing I saw was a family with kids staring up and one of the kids saying "this is going to be awesome!!!!!"). The large projects stir the imagination, while the others are more utilitarian than anything. Random people like tall buildings. Random people gravitate towards tall buildings. I haven't witnessed this type of buzz around the hundreds of other projects I have followed through the years. Best of all, these 4 projects replaced a 5 year hole in the ground, a virtually unused/unusable pocket park, a huge deadening parking lot, and part of a parking garage.
One last time, please review point #2 above. What the heck are you all even talking about? Will a 900' tower turn us into Dubai, placing us in an inhospitable desert? Will an 800' tower turn us into Dallas and spell the end of one of our historic neighborhoods? I mean, this whole thing is frankly bizarre. It's a complete non sequitur. Boston is already Boston; we're in the refining while preserving stage. That's it.
So again, WITH ALL ELSE BEING EXACTLY THE SAME, why settle for Building A below when we could feasibly get Building B?