Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

TheRifleman said:
The BRA really has no clue what they are doing.
So tell me why would they focus their energy on building an iconic building in a spot that does not support massive amounts of foot-traffic on a daily basis. People have to go out of their way to find this Iconic structure that Belkin is looking to build.
Click to expand...

Wrong. I'm not entirely sure how accurate the map is in the first page of this thread but assuming that it is, the tower's front will be facing the other side of the block, not the dead space that is currently occupied by the garage. Having walked down Federal St. where the current Transnational building is located at, the location is no where dead, surprisingly fueled by Boloco which has a outdoor seating area, along with other retail stores nearby.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

The location sucks for street life NOW. Why not use this tower as a jumping off point to add street vitality to the financial district? It's dead after 6pm on weekdays and weekends don't even have many eateries open because no one lives there. Let's get the financial district hopping!
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

The building is right on the walk from South Station to Downtown Crossing and 1.5 blocks in from post office square. I am pretty sure if you put 70 floors of anything there the last thing you have to worry about is foot traffic at the base.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

KentXie said:
Wrong. I'm not entirely sure how accurate the map is in the first page of this thread but assuming that it is, the tower's front will be facing the other side of the block, not the dead space that is currently occupied by the garage. Having walked down Federal St. where the current Transnational building is located at, the location is no where dead, surprisingly fueled by Boloco which has a outdoor seating area, along with other retail stores nearby.
Click to expand...

The garage is on Devonshire Street which is like a back alley for the walking pedistrans. (actually is a perfect location to get mugged late at night)

Even if the front of the development is on Federal Street big deal we have average foot-traffic. I'm not saying Transnational won't be a great building.

(Build as high as the FAA lets you.)

I'm just saying the BRA should be focusing on Iconic structures on locations that are very supported with massive amounts of foot-traffic which become a no-brainer when constant energy is flowing in an area in-between massive unique structures on a daily basis.

3-Key city of Boston locations for Iconic structures in my opinion.
Filenes Hole
Harbor Garage
Congress Garage

I think Trans-National lacks the location to be a Iconic building. A great building..... Possibly

That is my point
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

TheRifleman said:
The garage is on Devonshire Street which is like a back alley for the walking pedistrans. (actually is a perfect location to get mugged late at night)

Even if the front of the development is on Federal Street big deal we have average foot-traffic. I'm not saying Transnational won't be a great building.

(Build as high as the FAA lets you.)

I'm just saying the BRA should be focusing on Iconic structures on locations that are very supported with massive amounts of foot-traffic which become a no-brainer when constant energy is flowing in an area in-between massive unique structures on a daily basis.
Click to expand...

Comcast Center in Philly has an "average amount of foot traffic" and yet it's iconic. Same goes for the Liberty Towers (at least when I went there). I don't see why an iconic build have to be placed in a location with an above average amount of foot traffic.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Rifleman makes a good point. Let's not build this because the foot traffic and eventual 6,000 people in the building wont be able to support the faux irish pub, chipotle, and fedex-kinkos on the ground floor. I mean if he doesn't walk by it 4 times a day, no one will.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

KentXie said:
Comcast Center in Philly has an "average amount of foot traffic" and yet it's iconic. Same goes for the Liberty Towers (at least when I went there). I don't see why an iconic build have to be placed in a location with an above average amount of foot traffic.
Click to expand...

I think the buildings around Trans-national will suffocate the building from ever standing out. It might have the height and could possibly be a great building. I just don't think the location will be Iconic. That is my opinion.

I have been wrong many times.

I have worked on Federal Street. That street is not that appealing to me.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Does anyone have the previous pictures of TNP with all the landscaping they were planning to do around thes structure? I looked in the earlier pages but they seem to be broken links (unless its because of my outdated browser).
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I don't understand this argument about foot traffic. "If you build it, they will come."

People WILL walk over to look at the building, especially if it's tall enough to become the obvious landmark in the financial district. What is needed are ways to keep them there.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I think one of the reasons why you might get something iconic there is BECAUSE of the location. We've seen the BRA's reluctance to get frisky in more visible areas of the city (Dainty Dot, Aquarium Garage, etc.). Maybe they won't be so risk averse here.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I actually have to see Rifleman's point on this one, to some extent. Not that a beautiful tall building isn't appropriate for the site, but that a nice, tall, glass office building is all it will ever be. It may become a recognizable landmark from distance, but "ground level" doesn't just mean what plazas and cafes are on the ground floor - it also refers to how much of a presence the building has to people on the ground.

My favorite example of this is the Sears Tower in Chicago. I worked near it for a while, and from any angle on the street I could never get my eyes off of it. It is incredibly imposing and functions as an icon even from the ground (and its ground level is actually pretty awful). Trump Tower in Chicago has the same qualities, as do the Pru and Hancock in Boston.

I'm just not sure from where in the Financial District you'll be able to see this building or ever know it's there. Sure, it'll look nice from the Allston tolls or the Airport, and that's great, but iconic? Maybe not.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I love how some of you are making these "iconic" arguments when there isn't even a rendering out. How do you guys pass these judgements?
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

TheRifleman said:
Something Iconic pertains in my opinion on the entire tower......the Skyline, the location, and the building inside and out.

This is what seperates 2nd & 3rd rate to 1st rate
Click to expand...

Would you consider the Trans America Pyramid to be first rate iconic?
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

HenryAlan said:
Would you consider the Trans America Pyramid to be first rate iconic?
Click to expand...

I hardly visit SF so I cant really judge areas I don't really understand.

Think of this. First Rate Landmarks: PRU, Hancock, IP, Federal Reserve, The Custom House, Fenway Park, South Station.
It also doesnt have to be HUGE with a Massive structure either and small structures can symbolize off each other (Rowes Wharf & IP)

Would the PRU be an Iconic structure in the location of (Winthrop Square) Location? Probably not.

What do these Landmarks all have in Common?
SPACE around it to make it stand out........

That is my point (location is key for Iconic structures)

If the tower is built 1000FT in the area it will defintely be the spot-light of the skyline. I just don't think this is the area for that tower.

Add SST to the list of locations for a 1000ft tower......SST location is a probably better than my orginal list. That might be ICONIC location everyone is really looking for.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Hmmm iconic seems to be thrown around a bit too much it seems. However, the basic idea of the word in this context means, that it would represent Boston, as an icon that is easily recognizable and immediately associated with Boston.

I see know reason why it wouldn't be that if it were head and shoulders above the plateau of mediocre to awful buildings that comprise the downtown areas high rises. It is literally the heart of the downtown area and the geographic center of the old peninsula (give or take). Every postcard, banner, or poster of the city would have it dead center.

As for location. Once I ventured to Winthrop Sq. I found it to be a great little, hidden away square where old meets semi-modern. Otis, Devonshire, and Snow come together with great old buildings and even a tiny old alley, but then it opens out towards the main streets like Franklin, Federal, and over towards Congress. It is within easy walking distance of all 4 major subway lines, also easy walks to PO Square, Faneuil Hall, DTX for shopping, and the Common and Beacon Hill for lunch time walks. The best collection of affordable lunch joints are all centered around here, as well as a fair amount of restaurants and bars. Newer upscale ones would follow a development of this nature. The Sq. would be packed, but the nature of the area, and it's not so easy to get to-ness should limit vehicular traffic. I see that as a major plus.

As far as impact on the street, I'm picturing walking from Summer St. down Devonshire or Otis, and all a sudden having this thing rising in front of you would leave an indelible mark on the first time viewer. Even more so from Snow, and the juxtaposition with that old alley is great to imagine.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

KentXie said:
Wrong. I'm not entirely sure how accurate the map is in the first page of this thread but assuming that it is, the tower's front will be facing the other side of the block, not the dead space that is currently occupied by the garage. Having walked down Federal St. where the current Transnational building is located at, the location is no where dead, surprisingly fueled by Boloco which has a outdoor seating area, along with other retail stores nearby.
Click to expand...

Technically, I think the outdoor seating is Cosi's and not BOLOCO but it is not as if anyone cares if you take your burrito over there to sit down. I have worked at 75/101 Federal for well over a decade now and while the area is far from dead between 7:00am and 7:00pm, it is a virtual ghost town here off hours and on the weekends. I have serious doubts about whether a significant (i.e. more than 100 or so units) residential component could be successful at this site. But it would sure be nice having some activity in the area on the weekends.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

TheRifleman said:
The garage is on Devonshire Street which is like a back alley for the walking pedistrans. (actually is a perfect location to get mugged late at night)
Click to expand...

If they build this, where will all of the bike messengers go to hang out and smoke pot?
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

TheRifleman said:
I hardly visit SF so I cant really judge areas I don't really understand.

Think of this. First Rate Landmarks: PRU, Hancock, IP, Federal Reserve, The Custom House, Fenway Park, South Station.
It also doesnt have to be HUGE with a Massive structure either and small structures can symbolize off each other (Rowes Wharf & IP)

Would the PRU be an Iconic structure in the location of (Winthrop Square) Location? Probably not.

What do these Landmarks all have in Common?
SPACE around it to make it stand out........

That is my point (location is key for Iconic structures)

If the tower is built 1000FT in the area it will defintely be the spot-light of the skyline. I just don't think this is the area for that tower.

Add SST to the list of locations for a 1000ft tower......SST location is a probably better than my orginal list. That might be ICONIC location everyone is really looking for.
Click to expand...

The Pru doesn't have much "space around it" considering that it's surrounded by two office towers and numerous residential towers. It stands out because it's tall. Regardless, this factor is incredibly flawed. To use this definition, if apply to a city like NYC, means many of NYC's iconic towers are no longer iconic.

Would the Singer Building, had it not been demolished, not considered iconic because of the lack of "space" around it today?
Would the Hearst Tower not be considered iconic simply because it's surrounded by towers?
And how about Time Square?

As I stated before, in Philly, none of their three iconic towers, Liberty Place and Comcast Center, see much traffic besides the people that work nearby. All three of them are surrounded by towers and lack the "space" you speak of.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

This whole argument about foot traffic is flying over my head. Federal Street already gets plenty of foot traffic thanks to 100, 101 and 150 Fed (and not just at lunch hour), and the Devonshire Street side is certainly less trafficked but still nowhere near being dead, at least not from 8am-7pm. That's how conditions are today, so how is adding 6000 potential pedestrians something worth moaning about? Because it won't be "iconic" enough from the street level? Really?
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

How do people see a large scale development of this scale impacting the (generally express) bus service that already dominate Federal St?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top