Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

underground said:
Sounds like someone's never walked down the Kudamm.
Click to expand...

Ug -- I've been there done that -- But the point remains -- the KDamm wouldn't be there if the airlift operating from Rhein-Main hadn't been successful

The reason for FRAport is that it is the direct decendent of the Berlin Airlift -- meanwhile even post the end of the Wall -- Berlin's air service was fragmented among first 3 then 2 and now finally one major airports.

Of course Berlin was a showpiece for NATO -- But it was surrounded by the Pact with no uncontested road / rail access -- as a result -- while it was a haven for espionage -- it couldn't be counted upon for major SHAEF-mission-critical functions such as communicatons, medical, logistics --- all of which were Hq'ed either near Frankfurt or further south and west (e.g. Landstuhl Regional Medical Center and Ramstein, Mainz, etc.)
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Shepard said:
While we're on the subject, here's Frankfurt's answer to our Greenway: https://maps.google.com/?ll=50.1121...2MI9tIpri2pfUJSGOop_Rg&cbp=12,110.21,,0,-1.64

Only major difference is a light rail line down the median.
Click to expand...

I clicked my way down this, and it's nothing more than train tracks in the grass. It looks nothing like the greenway. It is more like Frankfurt's answer to our greenline.

EDIT: I went the wrong way, I guess it's like a smaller version
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

whighlander said:
Ug -- I've been there done that -- But the point remains -- the KDamm wouldn't be there if the airlift operating from Rhein-Main hadn't been successful

The reason for FRAport is that it is the direct decendent of the Berlin Airlift -- meanwhile even post the end of the Wall -- Berlin's air service was fragmented among first 3 then 2 and now finally one major airports.

Of course Berlin was a showpiece for NATO -- But it was surrounded by the Pact with no uncontested road / rail access -- as a result -- while it was a haven for espionage -- it couldn't be counted upon for major SHAEF-mission-critical functions such as communicatons, medical, logistics --- all of which were Hq'ed either near Frankfurt or further south and west (e.g. Landstuhl Regional Medical Center and Ramstein, Mainz, etc.)
Click to expand...

Hijack Complete!
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

DZH22 said:
I clicked my way down this, and it's nothing more than train tracks in the grass. It looks nothing like the greenway. It is more like Frankfurt's answer to our greenline.

EDIT: I went the wrong way, I guess it's like a smaller version
Click to expand...


I'm one of the biggest critics of the Greenway and I have to agree this looks nothing like the Greenway.

I actually believe the Greenway has a future. That strip was depressing
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

TheRifleman said:
I'm one of the biggest critics of the Greenway and I have to agree this looks nothing like the Greenway.

I actually believe the Greenway has a future. That strip was depressing
Click to expand...

Riff -- But it has tracks!
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

DZH22 said:
Vancouver absolutely does not beat Boston. Vancouver is a "smoke and mirrors" skyline made up almost exclusively of residential towers with higher floor counts. Boston beats Vancouver 16-3 in 500'+ towers (one in each city uses spires, so 15-2 by roof height). Here is the diagram if you combined the 2 cities.

http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=55356188

Really KentXie? REALLY??? Boston wins the first page 20-5, and has 11 of the 12 tallest. I understand Vancouver ultimately has more under 400', but I am much more impressed with a sea of 500'+ towers than a sea of 300'+ towers. Again, there is a reason Vancouver is ranked well below Boston on this chart: http://homepages.ipact.nl/~egram/skylines.html
Click to expand...

Okay, through the parameters you stated then apparently Dubai has a superior skyline than the city of Chicago and New York City.

I mean look at the amount of supertalls (over 300m) Dubai has over both Chicago and NYC

Dubai: 18
Chicago: 6
NYC: 4 (7 if you count WTC complex coming online)

How about 700 ft+

Dubai: 49
Chicago: 19
NYC: 38

Granted that NYC has more 600 footers than Dubai but through your criteria, it's better to have a sea of 700 ft+ than a sea of 600 ft+.

See how ridiculous it is if you base it only on height? I'll take Vancouver's numbers and slightly more interesting design over a bunch of uncreative boxes.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

KentXie said:
Okay, through the parameters you stated then apparently Dubai has a superior skyline than the city of Chicago and New York City.

I mean look at the amount of supertalls (over 300m) Dubai has over both Chicago and NYC

Dubai: 18
Chicago: 6
NYC: 4 (7 if you count WTC complex coming online)

How about 700 ft+

Dubai: 49
Chicago: 19
NYC: 38

Granted that NYC has more 600 footers than Dubai but through your criteria, it's better to have a sea of 700 ft+ than a sea of 600 ft+.

See how ridiculous it is if you base it only on height? I'll take Vancouver's numbers and slightly more interesting design over a bunch of uncreative boxes.
Click to expand...

Dubai is surrounded by nothing, and lacks the density to truly compete with NYC. Boston is nothing like Dubai. Boston is dense as hell, and the main skyline is surrounded by an established built city. I find it hard to believe that you would compare Boston to Dubai, or Vancouver to NYC.

My criteria is that Vancouver is too short, period.
Over 700':
Boston - 2
Vancouver - 0

Over 600':
Boston - 5
Vancouver - 1

Over 500':
Boston - 16
Vancouver - 3

Over 400':
Boston - 27
Vancouver - 17

After that, does it really matter anymore? How much of an impact do these shorter towers actually make? For Vancouver, they define the skyline, but for Boston they have very little impact. Not only that, but using this site AGAIN

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

NYC still creams Dubai, 36,915 to 21,018 points.
Boston beats Vancouver pretty substantially as well, 2360 to 1686. As in, Boston's skyline is 40% bigger than Vancouver (or Vancouver is 28% smaller, whichever way you prefer). There's a point where these short towers just don't matter to me anymore. They aren't that impressive, and they're Vancouver's "answer" to our Back Bay, North End etc (something Dubai does NOT have so... seriously, how could make that comparison?!?!).

If you put them across the bay from each other, I think the one with the 2 tallest (by far) and 11 of the 12 tallest would look more impressive and imposing.

Also, we may have a bunch of "uncreative boxes", but Vancouver has the exact same 25-30 story glass residential highrise cloned about 300 times. What's so creative about that?
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

As you can tell, this is not exactly my first time making this argument. F*ck Vancouver.

EDIT: The worst part is I normally agree with 90% of what you have to say. However, I (currently) find Vancouver > Boston to be completely unacceptable.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Shepard said:
Only major difference is a light rail line down the median.
Click to expand...

ANOthER bein thaT WE have OUR MAYO und Berlin HAving only this HEIDLER!!!!
BOSTON RULES!!!!
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Vancouver may lack height, but they have as solid a skyline as any city in North America. I was very impressed when I was out there. Everything looks nice and clean and modern.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

DZH22 said:
As you can tell, this is not exactly my first time making this argument. F*ck Vancouver.

EDIT: The worst part is I normally agree with 90% of what you have to say. However, I (currently) find Vancouver > Boston to be completely unacceptable.
Click to expand...
Also, we may have a bunch of "uncreative boxes", but Vancouver has the exact same 25-30 story glass residential highrise cloned about 300 times. What's so creative about that?
Click to expand...
I completely agree with you. I have always felt the same about Vancouver. It reminds me of like SimCity. Like I said before, I'll take 1 790' Hancock over 3 250'-300' stumps any day.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

mass88 said:
Vancouver may lack height, but they have as solid a skyline as any city in North America. I was very impressed when I was out there. Everything looks nice and clean and modern.
Click to expand...

Also, the street level interaction is actually pretty good in downtown Vancouver. Less so nearer South Creek and Coal Harbor though. And SkyTrain has been extremely successful in encouraging dense new developments in Metro Vancouver, which hasn't been as true with the MBTA here.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

metasyntactic said:
Also, the street level interaction is actually pretty good in downtown Vancouver. Less so nearer South Creek and Coal Harbor though. And SkyTrain has been extremely successful in encouraging dense new developments in Metro Vancouver, which hasn't been as true with the MBTA here.
Click to expand...

Meta -- last few days I've been commuting from Lexington to some meetings at the Westin @ Copley

One day I took the Red Line from Alewife the last few days I took the Green Line from Science Park -- in both cases there are major complexes of development in the immediate vicinity of the ends of the T Lines

When I first took the T from Lechemere to Fenway with my father and uncle -- essentially no one lived near to Lechemere -- eveyone arrived by bus (electric in those Halcyon (love that word) days of the late 50's and early 60's) -- Today there are lots of people who can walk to Lechemere and more residences in the pipeline

When Alewife first opened in the 1980's it was in the midst of some old industrial R&D (Arthur D. Little) -- Today there is a major development of new R&D and residences with more in the pipeline

Sounds as it the TOD in Cambridge has been fairly successful and extensive
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

DZH22 said:
Dubai is surrounded by nothing, and lacks the density to truly compete with NYC. Boston is nothing like Dubai. Boston is dense as hell, and the main skyline is surrounded by an established built city. I find it hard to believe that you would compare Boston to Dubai, or Vancouver to NYC.

My criteria is that Vancouver is too short, period.
Over 700':
Boston - 2
Vancouver - 0

Over 600':
Boston - 5
Vancouver - 1

Over 500':
Boston - 16
Vancouver - 3

Over 400':
Boston - 27
Vancouver - 17

After that, does it really matter anymore? How much of an impact do these shorter towers actually make? For Vancouver, they define the skyline, but for Boston they have very little impact. Not only that, but using this site AGAIN

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

NYC still creams Dubai, 36,915 to 21,018 points.
Boston beats Vancouver pretty substantially as well, 2360 to 1686. As in, Boston's skyline is 40% bigger than Vancouver (or Vancouver is 28% smaller, whichever way you prefer). There's a point where these short towers just don't matter to me anymore. They aren't that impressive, and they're Vancouver's "answer" to our Back Bay, North End etc (something Dubai does NOT have so... seriously, how could make that comparison?!?!).

If you put them across the bay from each other, I think the one with the 2 tallest (by far) and 11 of the 12 tallest would look more impressive and imposing.

Also, we may have a bunch of "uncreative boxes", but Vancouver has the exact same 25-30 story glass residential highrise cloned about 300 times. What's so creative about that?
Click to expand...

Please stop using that site as a way to enhance your argument because it really doesn't.

As soon as I see Atlanta as higher on the list than both Boston and San Francisco then I know the entire list is utterly flawed. And I find it incredulous that Shanghai will be that far behind NYC, considering that it probably has more towers than Hong Kong (it's probably due to the fact that there hasn't been a database that has been able to record all the towers in Shanghai). I'll stick with Vancouver since it resembles more like Manhattan than Boston does.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

KentXie said:
Please stop using that site as a way to enhance your argument because it really doesn't.

As soon as I see Atlanta as higher on the list than both Boston and San Francisco then I know the entire list is utterly flawed. And I find it incredulous that Shanghai will be that far behind NYC, considering that it probably has more towers than Hong Kong (it's probably due to the fact that there hasn't been a database that has been able to record all the towers in Shanghai). I'll stick with Vancouver since it resembles more like Manhattan than Boston does.
Click to expand...


Ok well in that case let me reframe my argument a little.

If we wanted to make Boston's skyline look like Vancouver's, what would we have to do?

First, we are going to build the Copley Place Tower. So far so good!

Next, we are going to get rid of every single other building over 500' (goodbye JHT, goodbye Pru, goodbye top of the plateau like IP, Fed, BOA, 1 BP, 1 Financial, 2 IP, also 111 Huntington) except we'll leave Exchange Place and the State Street Tower. 3 500' towers total, 2 of them barely over and the last only due to spires. So now the top of our skyline is basically made up of Exchange Place, State Street, Custom House, Old State Street, Millenium Place, 33 Arch.... with the Copley Place Tower the only thing that pokes above this.

Last, we will replace all of these tall towers with a sea of about 50-60 cheap glass buildings all approximately 350' tall.

Vancouver everybody!

So the question for everybody is (in terms of skyline only): All else being equal, would you rather have those 14 office buildings between 500'-790', or 50-60 condos between 300'-400'?




Edit: Also Atlanta has a heck of a skyline, though it severely lacks the density of those other cities. It has a supertall, 3 buildings taller than the JHT, 5 over 700', 6 over 697, 11 over 600' (vs our 5). It's a strong skyline. I would take Boston as a city any day, but Atlanta is where it is for a reason: http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=55383626&page=1

That site you want to discount so much is based on simple math. First, only buildings over 90 meters count (about 295'), since anything below that really has zero SKYLINE impact. Second, you get 1 point for every meter a building is above 90. Vancouver suffers because so much of its bulk is made up of towers like 100-110 meters, so each doesn't provide many points. Also, since spires "officially" count, spire cities like Atlanta end up getting more points. However, both Boston and Vancouver have very few spires, so the scores are much more accurate.

Shanghai suffers because of what you said, there are no actual accurate counts of the towers.
 
Last edited:
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

DZH22 said:
That site you want to discount so much is based on simple math. First, only buildings over 90 meters count (about 295'), since anything below that really has zero SKYLINE impact. Second, you get 1 point for every meter a building is above 90. Vancouver suffers because so much of its bulk is made up of towers like 100-110 meters, so each doesn't provide many points. Also, since spires "officially" count, spire cities like Atlanta end up getting more points. However, both Boston and Vancouver have very few spires, so the scores are much more accurate.
Click to expand...

That's just it. A skyline is not based on simple math. It's more than who's tower is tallest or who has the tallest if its not surrounded by Fillers. Again, stop referring to the site. The day Panama City is given full consensus to have a better skyline than Toronto, is the day I'll eat my socks. Look, I feel that the way Vancouver fills out it's city with high-rises and towers, whether it's cheap or not, a term that is being tossed around here too often especially when the city of Boston is starting to get plastered with Alucobond and Pre-Cast, gives a better skyline IN MY OPINION. I prefer a skyline where a majority of the skyline consist of towers with multiple setbacks, non-flat top roofs, and layers of density. While Boston does have a small layer of density in the Financial district and maybe the Pru, the rest is like a single line of skyscrapers.

When I look at NYC, what I enjoy the most about it is being able to see 5-7 blocks down each way and not being able to see a single gap in the skyline. That's how Vancouver's skyline looks like. Does that mean Vancouver is the definitive winner? No. But that's how I see it. Occasionally if the skyline that is not as dense but is dotted by a few signature skyscrapers, I see that more attractive than a dense skyline. For example, while I don't think Minneapolis and Seattle beats Boston yet, I find the shape of the skyline as well as their tallest towers very aesthetic pleasing and that with a few more addition, both skyline would be superior to Boston. While I do enjoy seeing the JHT or the Pru, if I was from anywhere else than Boston, I would find the Pru hideous and the JHT moderately exciting.

You can stop trying to convince me because that's not going to change how I find skylines attractive.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

KentXie said:
You can stop trying to convince me because that's not going to change how I find skylines attractive.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to convince you. I'm trying to convince everybody else. When you make a blanket statement like "Vancouver has a better skyline than Boston" I will make sure all the KentXie followers hear both sides of the argument. I like NY too. It has tons of TALL buildings. Vancouver is more like the Canadian Sao Paulo. Everything looks taller because no tall buildings are there to prove otherwise. (well, Vancouver has 1) I still smile every time I think of those losers rioting in the streets, surrounded by their short short buildings.

I think Panama City is disgusting. Toronto is going to blow it out of the water (statistically) very soon, once many of those U/C's turn into completed's. Personally I think it's significantly better right now. Although, when I went there in 2002 Boston was actually very on par with it, and most of the buildings outside the very center of downtown were really quite ugly. Now at least they are being dwarfed by better stuff.
 
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

As Susan Powter said, "STOP THE MADNESS!"
this thread is supposed to be about putting a building where there is now a garage on Federal Street - remember?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top