Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Boston02124 said:
Boston has alway had an issue with hieght,Was'nt Boston the 1st city to ban skyscrapers? This is from 1988.I have the rest of the article if any one wants to read it.
xcranes030.jpg
Click to expand...

I think Boston was the city where the constitutional issue of height restrictions as a valid exercise of the police power (via zoning) stemmed from in the context of prohibiting towers around Boston Common. Obviously, the answer was yes, that is a valid use of the zoning power. Also obviously, I don't think it amounted to banning skyscrapers.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

This is basically what Rifleman is saying.

"Don't bother building anything good here at all."

For the sake of argument, why should the building just fall-on-the-sword suck even if there is some remote possibility that there is no acceptable street life? How does whatever gets built anywhere else in the city have any bearing on what gets built here.
 
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...

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

What do these Landmarks all have in Common?
SPACE around it to make it stand out........
Click to expand...
Okay, two points regarding your blog:

  1. I asked about the Pyramid, because it is almost universally considered a symbol of San Francisco. This is in my opinion the definition of iconic. It is known primarily for the interesting shape and the way in which it stands out on the skyline as viewed from across the bay. The street level is neither surrounded by open space, nor is it a very interesting street. And the building itself is atrocious at ground level. Yet it is rightly recognized as iconic.
  2. More now on "SPACE around it to make it stand out." I'm sorry, but you've just described the classic tower in a park. It is an anti-urban form and should never be sought within a city. The idea that this should be iconic is quite simply baffling.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

HenryAlan said:
Okay, two points regarding your blog:

  1. I asked about the Pyramid, because it is almost universally considered a symbol of San Francisco. This is in my opinion the definition of iconic. It is known primarily for the interesting shape and the way in which it stands out on the skyline as viewed from across the bay. The street level is neither surrounded by open space, nor is it a very interesting street. And the building itself is atrocious at ground level. Yet it is rightly recognized as iconic.
  2. More now on "SPACE around it to make it stand out." I'm sorry, but you've just described the classic tower in a park. It is an anti-urban form and should never be sought within a city. The idea that this should be iconic is quite simply baffling.
Click to expand...

I can agree with that.

The Golden Gate Bridge is Iconic
Fenway Park is Iconic Boston Landmark
South Station is in my opinion a Boston Transportation Landmark.

My point is the location for Trans National Place is more difficult to succeed an Iconic Building compared to Congress, Aquarium, SST and Filenes.

The BRA should be focused on those sites for building Iconic tower.
Winthrop Garage is the worst situated location out of the 4 locations I just mentioned to really build some Iconic.

That is my point.

SeamusMcFly: makes a good point below. Can Belkin pull it off. Who Knows.

SeamusMcFly said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Hutchison said:
How do people see a large scale development of this scale impacting the (generally express) bus service that already dominate Federal St?
Click to expand...

Federal is a pretty short street. They should make it bus and pedestrian only to accommodate all of the people that work there and the other nearby towers as they walk over from South Station. It is already pretty busy and crowded.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I think the BRA should be concentrating less on any individual sites, and do their job as a body that reviews what is proposed at those sites, and make comments, recommendations, yes even demands to help sculpt a vision. They have no ability to create a vision (as has been demonstrated over and over.)

If a developer feels this is a key spot to build big, elaborate, dare we hope a beautiful tower, they should propose this and maybe studies which justify this decision. The BRA should not be saying, 'if you want to build iconic, here are your 4 possible locations, and make it bland, monochromatic, match the neighbors terra cotta, and height'. This is not their job, and I find it strange that an anti big government "blogger" wants them having a more active role in this process.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

SeamusMcFly said:
I think the BRA should be concentrating less on any individual sites, and do their job as a body that reviews what is proposed at those sites, and make comments, recommendations, yes even demands to help sculpt a vision. They have no ability to create a vision (as has been demonstrated over and over.)

If a developer feels this is a key spot to build big, elaborate, dare we hope a beautiful tower, they should propose this and maybe studies which justify this decision. The BRA should not be saying, 'if you want to build iconic, here are your 4 possible locations, and make it bland, monochromatic, match the neighbors terra cotta, and height'. This is not their job, and I find it strange that an anti big government "blogger" wants them having a more active role in this process.
Click to expand...


THANK YOU for the anti big government "blogger" comment.

We have a bunch of Political favors designing and planning our city.
I think we should get rid of the BRA. I have always said this.

But the reality to the city development is the BRA guides the Developers what should and shouldn't be built in this location (AKA the MAYOR)

This is how it is and will be until this Mayor leaves office (its only been almost 30years)
 
Last edited:
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

@Rifleman: Although I don't always agree with your comments, I always appreciate, respect, and enjoy your posts. Sometimes, I can even sympathetize. But you have totally lost me on this one. It even seems like your just making noise for the hell of it.

And too all, please no more mention of the term "iconic". I don't even think the true concept of the term should even apply here. I just want to see something freakin' awesome built here. It will have no negative influence on what gets built anywhere else.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

type001 said:
@Rifleman:. It even seems like your just making noise for the hell of it.

And too all, please no more mention of the term "iconic". I don't even think the true concept of the term should even apply here. I just want to see something freakin' awesome built here. It will have no negative influence on what gets built anywhere else.
Click to expand...

Agree with the Noise part.

The only thing I wrote was I thought this location lacked a development to be something of Iconic. The other buildings around this building would suffocate itself from ever standing out.

Could it be a great building......Yes
should the developer try to build something Iconic? Go for it.

I think the Developers should choose what they want to build on their own land with insight from the NIMBYS, city zoning and building Depts.

Fuck the BRA & Mayor
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I can actually feel myself getting dumber just reading this thread.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Why don't we photoshop some "iconic" structures like we earlier in the thread and see whether or not it would actually be "suffocated?" Cap the structure at 700 ft tops.

Nashville.png


Now imagine it peaking a little bit more above the BOA building instead.

Here's a modify version that I quickly whipped up.

TNP.png


Or better yet, someone Google Sketchup it so we can see how it looks like from the ground.
 
Last edited:
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Didn't the FAA say 850' for this site? That would be a good height, as long as it's legit and not just passing the Hancock cause of a big spire.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I like this taller one better. Buildings significantly higher than the existing plateau would help the skyline look fuller, deeper and more interesting IMHO.

When the globe ran the story fear of heights they should have compared the Boston's skyline to other cities rather than only to itself to show how stunted it is.

Nashville.png


xcranes030.jpg
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

tocoto said:
When the globe ran the story fear of heights they should have compared the Boston's skyline to other cities rather than only to itself to show how stunted it is.
Click to expand...

Compared to what, Manhattan and Chicago? If you look at other large American cities, they don't have much more than Boston. Maybe 1 building that beats the Hancock, but I'll take the depth of Boston's skyline over a single 850-footer any day. Not that an 850-footer wouldn't make Boston's skyline better, but I don't think SF, LA, Dallas, etc. are beating us.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Equilibria said:
Compared to what, Manhattan and Chicago? If you look at other large American cities, they don't have much more than Boston. Maybe 1 building that beats the Hancock, but I'll take the depth of Boston's skyline over a single 850-footer any day. Not that an 850-footer wouldn't make Boston's skyline better, but I don't think SF, LA, Dallas, etc. are beating us.
Click to expand...

I removed New York and Chicago for you. The JHT is the 21st tallest building (to the roof) in the country outside those cities.

http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=55350978

Cities with taller buildings (to the roof) are:
Los Angeles: 2
Houston: 3
Philadelphia: 4
Atlanta: 3
Seattle: 1
Dallas: 1
Cleveland: 1
Charlotte: 1
San Francisco: 1
Oklahoma City(!!!): 1
Pittsburgh: 1
Minneapolis: 1

If we're talking overall size of skyline, LA, Houston, Philly, Atlanta, San Francisco, and Dallas have us beat. Seattle is technically right on our heels.

When I first saw this site, I think Boston was 24th.

http://homepages.ipact.nl/~egram/skylines.html

Where Boston really fails is on the world scale, which puts an emphasis on the 200 meter mark (we have 2).
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Does anybody know the specs of the garage at 115 Federal? I am trying to get this guy to make a render for me, but don't know the specs of the site and it's kind of putting a damper on the whole thing. Thanks!
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

^^ all posters

Height is not what Boston is about. I submit that this doesn't make it any lesser than say, Philadelphia or OKC.

Your yearnings for height will never be satisfied when you compare it to other cities.
GET OVER IT
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

DZH22 said:
If we're talking overall size of skyline, LA, Houston, Philly, Atlanta, San Francisco, and Dallas have us beat. Seattle is technically right on our heels.

When I first saw this site, I think Boston was 24th.
Click to expand...

Firstly, I agree that quality and pedestrian experience matter more than height.

However, I also agree that a skyline does have something important to say about economic vitality ... or at least perceived growth prospects (obviously this is less so in places like China or the MidEast where it's also about government-financed pissing contests to build uneconomical, empty buildings).

That said, you left out Miami and even Vegas, which according to the link have larger skylines. Also on the continent are Toronto and Calgary (we beat Vancouver and Montreal), which are in an economy that is largely part of the US economy ... or at least *was* until Canada over the last 10 years exploited its resources wealth while the US dithered in that and Canada began seeking out more-reliable markets farther afield.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top