Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I specifically came to this site today to see who would post an April fools about TNP. But this exceeds all expectations. Thanks for helping me fulfill my destiny, statler!
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Hilarious. Very well done, Statler.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

an earlier posting of a Wednesday, February 18, 2009 article
http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/st...6/daily31.html
Quote:
Developer Steve Belkin has altered his plans for a controversial new tower on the site of a city-owned parking garage, telling Boston officials he still hopes to build on the site but no longer intends to tear down an adjacent office building, Belkin and a city official said.

?We?re still hopeful that they?ll be able to refine the plan and come back and talk to us in the next few months,? Boston Redevelopment Authority Director John Palmieri said.

Belkin, whose Trans National Group is moving back into his building at 133 Federal St., said through a spokeswoman: ?Our company is committed to moving forward on the Trans National Place project at Winthrop Square and believe there is still a tremendous opportunity to build an iconic tower for Boston on this site. ?

A final design for the site could include the existing building, Palmieri acknowledged.

When Mayor Thomas M. Menino announced he wanted a tower of around 1,000 feet built in the neighborhood several years ago, Belkin was the city?s pick. But the Federal Aviation Administration nixed the idea, given the proximity of the site to Logan International Airport.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I don't like the new design. it looks too much like a jack in a box.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

^ He's referring to Statler's April Fool's Joke Article, where at the bottom there is a link "Detailed rendering of the Calatrava design" and when you click it, the image is a Jack in the Box with "Happy April Fool's Day" underneath.

I admit, even after seeing Statler's post yesterday and then seeing Patriots1228's, it took me about 10 seconds to realize what he was referring to.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Getting this thread back on topic (sort of) if Belkin really, seriously has his heart set on building not only a large office tower for his company, but an iconic tower for Boston is this really the ideal place for it now?

The FAA won't let them build anything close to the original proposal in this part of the city, and also it now looks very clear that the office building they planned to knock down won't be part of the plans going forward. I guess what I'm trying to think of, is there another place this building could be built to accomodate all parties? I just don't see how it works here anymore, especially even close to the scale they have in mind.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

It's still a great place to build a skyscraper --even if not the city's tallest.

Garage must go.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

^ No, I'm not questioning the location for A skyscraper. I think it's a perfect location for one especially considering the parking garage that occupies the land now. What I'm wondering is, if this is the ideal location for what Belkin has in mind. If he wants to scale it down and have it redesigned keeping the adjacent building intact, that's fine. I'm just going under the assumption he wants to build this huge iconic tower. To me (and others, I'm sure) you can have an iconic building without being 1,000+ feet. I'm just curious if Belkin believes that as well, or if he's going to try to find a new location to build something that height.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

BostonSkyGuy said:
...and also it now looks very clear that the office building they planned to knock down won't be part of the plans going forward.
Click to expand...

This is good news. Rudolph's little Blue Cross tower is an historic early example of High-Tech Modernism. Many in the architectural press were disturbed by the possibility of its demolition. Tim Rohan, on the UMass Amherst faculty, is also actively pursuing preservation of the building; I met Tim at this event last year, and invited him to our little forum. I just found this preservation/adaptive reuse site devoted to the Blue Cross building.

ablarc said:
It's still a great place to build a skyscraper --even if not the city's tallest.

Garage must go.
Click to expand...

Word up.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

the Blue Cross building is a terrific structure.....

too bad it is in such a reclusive location....
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

BostonSkyGuy said:
^ He's referring to Statler's April Fool's Joke Article, where at the bottom there is a link "Detailed rendering of the Calatrava design" and when you click it, the image is a Jack in the Box with "Happy April Fool's Day" underneath.

I admit, even after seeing Statler's post yesterday and then seeing Patriots1228's, it took me about 10 seconds to realize what he was referring to.
Click to expand...

Awesome... I ended up getting, "April Fooled" after all.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

BostonSkyGuy said:
To me (and others, I'm sure) you can have an iconic building without being 1,000+ feet. I'm just curious if Belkin believes that as well, or if he's going to try to find a new location to build something that height.
Click to expand...

Hancock is still pretty iconic at 790 ft. or whatever it is. Too lazy to go to emporis or memorize it. 800 at this location could be iconic, and not so outof scale as the original renderings made it look.

Of course with 800 feet at the congress garage and 600+ at SS oh and 600 - 700 ft of pipe dream at the aquarium garage. 900 - 1,000 wouldn't seem to out of scale anymore.

Doesn't the Winthrop Sq. site fall within the 800 ft. limit of the last FAA map we got to see?
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

SeamusMcFly said:
Doesn't the Winthrop Sq. site fall within the 800 ft. limit of the last FAA map we got to see?
Click to expand...

I believe so. 800 feet and relatively narrow (which it would have to be given the fact that the Rudolph building will likely not be included in a new project here) would be pretty nice.

I'm excited about 710 feet at the Government Center Garage site, especially as the current renderings show it. That's an iconic building. I'm not holding my breath though.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I think a slimmer tower at around 700-800 feet with a better design would be better than the original proposal. I'm not stuck at all over the height, it doesn't mean a thing if the design of the building isn't that great.

I'm with LRFox, I LOVE the Government Center Garage proposal. I think the buildings look great, they're the perfect height(s) for that area and not to mention the gov't center garage would finally be gone. I'm hoping for something along the same lines here.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I've always liked the Rudolph building but wished it was taller. How about using the same design or somthing close for the new highrise. Isn't retro in?
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I think just about everyone agrees 800' would be absolutely acceptable and desired here, especially if the 710' at Gov't Center is built. Two new, strong additions to the downtown skyline would change the image of the city (and thousands of postcards would become outdated).
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I call for a 900' but not now as the economy is bad. I say 900' because 800' only beats out the JHT by 10'. It won't be out of place either at that height.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Yeah, to clarify, I would prefer 900'-1,000' but judging by the economy, an 800' part-standout, part-filler would do well.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

KentXie said:
I call for a 900' but not now as the economy is bad. I say 900' because 800' only beats out the JHT by 10'. It won't be out of place either at that height.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't care about the height of this building. If Belkin's plan continues to be to "build an iconic tower for Boston" then the height really doesn't matter, it's all about design. I'm not saying just build something 400-500 feet here, but something 700-800 feet with a new design would be perfect. The design originally proposed here wasn't something that great anyways. The Gov't Center designs are much, much better and the taller of those towers is 720 feet. They should see that here and try to build something just as nice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top