Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Well, that was fun.. Sixteen years since the city's first official announcement: design competitions, bidding wars, actual wars, terrorism, pearl clutching, pandemic, financial calamities, and here we are with the crane coming down on a glass box. Tommy Menino's dream really has inspired a bright confident future of Boston! 🙃

Somehow through all of this the FAA flight maps NEVER changed. 🏗
 
Bos77 said:
and here we are with the crane coming down on a glass box.
Click to expand...

yeah, it's really hard not to be aggressively underwhelmed by this. the height nonsense/FAA stuff is very frustrating, especially b/c there would seem to be work-arounds that could extend the range of radar *without* putting a cap on how tall folks can build in a major city. but even with the height limitations, there should have been a more adventurous design than just another boring, rectilinear, flat-roofed, bleh nothing. literally every other proposal was more interesting, but millenium is deep in bed with the city, so we get... this.
 
Last edited:
citydweller said:
Mayor Memino would never approve...
Click to expand...

Mayor Menino also had access to an FAA map and should have known what was and wasn't possible, in both this as well as other locations around the city. If he actually had the foresight to check then we'd be having similar competitions at the Hurley, Hynes, and other sites that could actually support something approaching or exceeding the scale of a new tallest.
 
Except this site was a condemned parking garage slated to be demolished. If Hurley, Hynes, and other sites were designated the same, I'm pretty sure Menino would have pushed for it. This isn't about a lack of foresight, but rather taking what opportunity was given to him.
 
Also add that afaik, the FAA objections were more than just radar issues and not easily remedied. It was never going to go past this height. I think the real disappointment is in not getting a real observation deck, and then getting bait and switched on the grand hall nonsense. At least we didn't get the terrible twin towers iteration. If the city does end up completing the Emerald Necklace and all of the other projects this was supposed to fund, though, in the end, it will probably balance out in favor of it.
 
Last edited:
Wasnt it allowed to go up to 720’ but they only went to 690’, that extra little bit could have helped a lot. I cant remember if they were allowed to go 720’ above sea level or ground level and if thats why the tower was 690’.
 
I believe the tower is built on a slope, and having walked through the neighboring building many times to cut through I can easily picture it being 691 from the ground on one side and 700 on the other.

Regardless of all that, the way the developers handled this was brilliant. They never compromised on height, not to appease NIMBY'S or comply with the idiotic shadow law, until they absolutely had to with the FAA limits. Furthermore, instead of death by a thousand payoffs, they offered up one major lump sum which helped drive the narrative about the benefits of the project. If you don't like the design, there's a direct link to what it cost to get the building approved in the first place (150m).
 
Rover said:
I believe the tower is built on a slope, and having walked through the neighboring building many times to cut through I can easily picture it being 691 from the ground on one side and 700 on the other.

Regardless of all that, the way the developers handled this was brilliant. They never compromised on height, not to appease NIMBY'S or comply with the idiotic shadow law, until they absolutely had to with the FAA limits. Furthermore, instead of death by a thousand payoffs, they offered up one major lump sum which helped drive the narrative about the benefits of the project. If you don't like the design, there's a direct link to what it cost to get the building approved in the first place (150m).
Click to expand...
I personally think that's a cop out and I'm not going to give developers that much leeway
 
stick n move said:
Wasnt it allowed to go up to 720’ but they only went to 690’, that extra little bit could have helped a lot. I cant remember if they were allowed to go 720’ above sea level or ground level and if thats why the tower was 690’.
Click to expand...

From what I heard it could have gone to 697' so the 691' only left 6' on the table. FAA maps are always to sea level, not ground level.
 
393b40 said:
Real problem with this tower is Millenium Partner's choice of the same blue glass as used on its older sister. This could have been better had they done something with any other kind of colored glass.
Click to expand...

That would've helped a bit, i agree, but it still would've been a giant, glass filing cabinet sticking out of the ground. Merely being "all glass" hasn't made a tower interesting or unusual for going on 50 years.

Boston's got way, way, WAY too many box-buildings. Folks may not absolutely love 111 Huntington's crown (count me among them) and plenty residents had issues with Menino (mixed feelings here), but the guy at least understood that, going forward in Boston, "flat roofs don't make it." Shame nobody still in positions to impact things like tower design approval shared his sentiment.
 
bakgwailo said:
Also add that afaik, the FAA objections were more than just radar issues and not easily remedied. It was never going to go past this height. I think the real disappointment is in not getting a real observation deck, and then getting bait and switched on the grand hall nonsense. At least we didn't get the terrible twin towers iteration. If the city does end up completing the Emerald Necklace and all of the other projects this was supposed to fund, though, in the end, it will probably balance out in favor of it.
Click to expand...

So well said. Those are my thoughts exactly.
 
chrisbrat said:
That would've helped a bit, i agree, but it still would've been a giant, glass filing cabinet sticking out of the ground. Merely being "all glass" hasn't made a tower interesting or unusual for going on 50 years.

Boston's got way, way, WAY too many box-buildings. Folks may not absolutely love 111 Huntington's crown (count me among them) and plenty residents had issues with Menino (mixed feelings here), but the guy at least understood that, going forward in Boston, "flat roofs don't make it." Shame nobody still in positions to impact things like tower design approval shared his sentiment.
Click to expand...

I'm hopeful that the new energy codes will result in more interesting facades (meaning not all glass).
 
I love this building. It's the perfect addition to the skyline--especially approaching from the south via 93N. The vertical stripes really add to its prominence among other downtown skyscrapers (very few of which are glass).
 
DwnTwnr said:
I'm hopeful that the new energy codes will result in more interesting facades (meaning not all glass).
Click to expand...

Me too. Weve seen huge progress recently in the quality of precast facade paneling in many cases looking as good as the real thing. Robert stern has been putting up a lot of neo art deco towers in nyc, Id love to see a couple go up in Boston to break up the massing. He hasnt built any with a copper roof and/or spire, so Id really love to see that. We also have mass timber starting to make waves in the industry, I think with the changing energy codes and advances in facade materials the time is right to put blue glass boxes in the history books. Were beyond saturation at this point. Hopefully soon they will become period pieces of a bygone era, like pomo buildings today.
 
Patrick Winn said:
I love this building. It's the perfect addition to the skyline--especially approaching from the south via 93N. The vertical stripes really add to its prominence among other downtown skyscrapers (very few of which are glass).
Click to expand...

JHT, 1 Dalton, Winthrop, Milleniium Tower -- four of the five tallest in Boston are glass-clad.

One Congress, 111 Huntington, One Post Ofice Square (when it's done), Hub on Causeway/Verizon, Exchange Place, Hub50House, 33 Arch, Atlantic Wharf -- eight of the next 30 tallest are glass.

How many would it take for you to not feel that "very few" downtown skyscrapers are glass?
 
75553361-380D-4CD6-BEE2-9DD0DA52990F.jpeg
BCD7F5AF-C2EC-40F7-8266-73DEBFF489CD.jpeg
7BEFB0F9-2E00-449D-BAA0-E942A92C8434.jpeg
8B3ECA86-32A6-492C-A4D9-A3CEE8A95282.jpeg
 
chrisbrat said:
JHT, 1 Dalton, Winthrop, Milleniium Tower -- four of the five tallest in Boston are glass-clad.

One Congress, 111 Huntington, One Post Ofice Square (when it's done), Hub on Causeway/Verizon, Exchange Place, Hub50House, 33 Arch, Atlantic Wharf -- eight of the next 30 tallest are glass.

How many would it take for you to not feel that "very few" downtown skyscrapers are glass?
Click to expand...
Also South Station tower will be yet another tall all-glass addition to downtown.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top