Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

[lexicon506]

How long can it possibly take for CBT to update the design?? All they had to do was fatten it a little....ok, I now it's a bit more complicated, but still, I'm getting kind of anxious to see what they come up with. Actually I'm kind of scared, since I doubt CBT can do anything better than Renzo Piano can.
Note to Belkin: Release some renderings so the angry public can busy themselves arguing over them during all this time devoted to so-called technical stuff!!!

 

[TheBostonBoy]

Does anybody else think the Rogers/Ratner tower looks like something out of Middle Earth in certain renderings? I half expect to see the evil eye hovering in the crown...

Haha, I completely agree. I am just expecting to see a bunch of orc's filing out of it to ravage the streets of San Francisco. Lol But I still like the design, especially the red on the building.

I look at Boston this way: It's the girl at the bar who is really good looking and you approach her, she's very flirty and you get good vibes from her. You start buying her drinks, and the night progresses and as it gets closer and closer to "last call" you realize she's just a tease who never planned to do anything past flirt.

AWESOME analogy hahah
But i don't know I think their are going to be some exciting things happening soon. And it'd be awesome to see pictures of some of the stuff being built right now like 45 Province, and W Hotel, and the others.

 

[stellarfun]

I put several more renderings of the three competing San Francisco Transbay tower designs plus a critique from the San Francisco Chronicle's urban design columnist in the Architecture and Urban Planning forum. The columnist, John King, prefers the Rogers design.

 

[stellarfun]

From an article on financing big buildings in today's Herald

Travel and credit card magnate Steve Belkin, who has proposed a 1,000-foot, skyline-topping tower in the Financial District, is also far from being ready to break ground, with a long city review process ahead.

 

[tmac9wr]

Does anybody else think the Rogers/Ratner tower looks like something out of Middle Earth in certain renderings? I half expect to see the evil eye hovering in the crown...

I like the Pelli the best, but that's ignoring the repetition issue. Honestly, none of these really caught my eye.

Yea I agree with the Middle Earth comment, maybe for the grand-opening of the tower they could have a Saroman look-alike stand at the top of the tower wearing a white robe screaming spells.

As for the tower, it'd be nice to hear some kind of news, other than "still has a long city review process ahead". That could meaning anything, from 3 months to 3 years...either way, it'll be nice to see some cold-hard facts come out soon.

 

[callahan]

Why is it that San Francisco got multiple proposals/renderings and Boston got one?

 

[budman3]

re

Why is it that San Francisco got multiple proposals/renderings and Boston got one?

Belkin owned the adjoining lot, had been looking to get in on the Winthrop Square garage for years, and thusly had the upper hand from the get go. He was the most vocal about it and could probably do the best work given that he was the next door neighbor. From everything I've heard, it was his project for the taking, even though Mayor Menino still probably would've rathered more options.

 

[callahan]

So, you're saying that Belkin allowed only one architect, to submit proposals? Why, then, did they advertise for architects to submit renderings? It's odd.

Personally, I don't think this thing will even get built, at least not for many years.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

My feeling is that it was:
A) The site was economically unfeasible UNLESS you just happened to own the adjacent parcels. Look at how large a footprint TransBay has vs TransNational.

B) It was rigged from the start by Belkin and Menino.

Both hold the same amount of water in my eyes.

 

[stellarfun]

I posted some additional renderings of the competing San Francisco tower designs in the architecture and urban planning forum.

 

[budman3]

So, you're saying that Belkin allowed only one architect, to submit proposals? Why, then, did they advertise for architects to submit renderings? It's odd.

Personally, I don't think this thing will even get built, at least not for many years.

What? Belkin scooped up Piano to design his "entry" and submitted it. It's not about architects vieing for the spot, its about investors and people who have the wherewithal to build these projects submitting their proposals. Belkin was the only guy who realistically could make a feasible proposal, I mean he's the neighbor and he can extend the footprint and he basically makes anyone else look stupid for even bothering an entry into this "contest" Menino had, and he chose Piano to design his project. Other investors or other builders would've had other designs by other architects I'm sure, but this was Belkins prize for the taking. It's about the builders and the money men, not the architects.

 

[nm88]

One Man's Humble Opinion

I have been away from this site for some time and have returned recently to find the site (and our city) somewhat changed since I last checked in. Some things, however, don't change no matter the passage of time -- among them: building in Boston remains arduous and challenging; or local leaders apparently remain mentally challenged; and still there remains a small (maybe large, certainly vocal) group among us who would challenge everyone to think taller, as in REALLY TALLER!!

I can't stay silent any longer about the transition this city is about to experience because of two buildings. I mean, of course, Piano's building for Belkin, and the Pelli building for Hines. To us Locals, Wintrop Square and South Station.

Both buildings will permanently alter a perfectly fine, if not exactly perfect, mid-rise sky-line with inappropriate structures. My taste is not more refined or better than anyone else's, but I'll go on the record nonetheless before I elaborate. Pelli's idea is attractive from Dewey Square, and an ungainly and homely monster from the water. Piano's is just (IMHO) plain boring, wrong-headed in every way except for the wishes of a developer.

Boston is special because of its low-rise elements, indeed in too many instances to count the space between buildings is far more valuable and important than the buildings themselves. Think about it! What has been built in the last 50 years that stands out in our minds as essentially Boston. The Zakim, maybe. Hancock, yes. Fanueiul Hall, certainly. Rowes Wharf, some might argue. Not much else. Not really. International Place? Gimme a break! You get my point.

We are a low-rise city and we are special for it. We are not a second tier wanna-be city looking for our place on the pecking order -- we are not Houston, Atlanta, Phoenix, San Diego, Newark, New Haven, the list goes on and on -- we are what they all would love to be. Authentic. Historic. Unmatched. We have what they would love to have! A specific identity. There is no other city in this country like Boston. With all its failings, and there are many, we are unique.

And yet, some among us would have us chase the same tired needy adolescent wet dream that our second-tier brethren seek with such reckless desire. BUILD SOMETHING CUTTING EDGE AND REALLY TALL! That will show everyone and finally put us on the map.

Let the lesser burgs chase childhood dreams, after all they are younger. Let us adults plan and act like adults. We have a lovely city whose skyline should not be rendered by Atlanta and Houston-like erections! We should not be building things that could just as easily be located in Atlanta. I mean, have any of you been to Atlanta?? Would you really want to call Houston home?

We have a mayor looking for a legacy. We have developers looking for a buck. We have a populace that may be simply worn out -- truth is, we're building just about everywhere just about all the time, can you blame them?

For those of us not too worn out to pay attention -- let's not harm Boston. Don't we want to stay unique?

 

[Joe_Schmoe]

I agree that this site sometimes veers towards height for height's sake and construction for construction's sake. Personally I'd prefer a shitty project not be done if a better one would be done later on. But I don't have a problem with a 1000 footer in Winthrop Sq though (although I really don't like the current design and have argued against it here) as the financial district is already full of high rises, it would be replacing a parking garage, and would look great at this location (if the design were better). But I definately don't think high rises are appropriate everywhere, i.e., residential areas.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

So... why can't we have towers downtown AND low rises elsewhere? We aren't pushing for towers everywhere, just where they belong. I love Boston for its scale diversity.

You do bring up a good point, one new tower won't change anything really. It will be a nice landmark but given the design all I see it being is a 21st century Prudential Tower.

 

[atlantaden]

We should not be building things that could just as easily be located in Atlanta. I mean, have any of you been to Atlanta??

I live in Atlanta and, yes, there is no comparison between Boston and Atlanta. Atlanta does has a beautiful skyline, especially at night, but Boston has the low rise/urban fabric/street life that Atlanta, and most cities, would kill for along with a unique skyline all it's own (though identifiable to mostly the local population). However, if we're making comparisons about cities and skylines, then I will point to San Francisco..a city that rivals Boston in it's low rise urbanity and street life but has managed to produce a beautiful and unique skyline (identifiable nationwide if not worldwide) all it's own as well.

 

[nm88]

My apologies

Atlantaden, my apologies. I did not mean to besmirch your hometown, merely to make a distinction, if a clumsy one.

I persist, unconvinced -- 1000' in Boston is a mistake. Look at the sample images someone constructed earlier in this topic. This structure doesn't fit well from any angle and looms ominously from every angle. Do we really to start making allowances where we never have before? Shadows on the Common? Call me old-fashioned, I say no. Once we cross a line we can never go back.

 

[BostonSkyGuy]

Re: My apologies

I persist, unconvinced -- 1000' in Boston is a mistake.

Really? The same thing was said about the Hancock Tower in the mid-70's and I think that building seems to be working out just fine, wouldn't you agree?

Look at the sample images someone constructed earlier in this topic. This structure doesn't fit well from any angle and looms ominously from every angle.

The reason the structure looks awkward and "ominous" is really easy to point out: The BRA/NIMBY's/The Building Process kills any building that isn't a 500-foot box. If you had a few 700-footers downtown, this building wouldn't stick out like a sore thumb.

At some point there is going to have to be a building that breaks away from the norm in Boston or else we're going to be stuck in the same trend for decades. Everyone talks about the great street scape in Boston and I agree 100%. These newer cities can't compare because they don't have the history of progression that truly great cities have. I'm not willing to forgo the future to live in the past. It's not going to kill the traditon of Boston to have a handful of large buildings. It's not like the designs of these buildings are earth shattering and "out there" either, they're just larger than what we're all normally used to around here.

Do we really to start making allowances where we never have before? Shadows on the Common? Call me old-fashioned, I say no. Once we cross a line we can never go back.

Please. I now realize what your intentions were/are in this thread. Shadows on the Common? Give me a break. If you want to live in the 1600-1800's go work at King Richard's Fare or Plymouth Plantation and leave the rest of us who seek to make Boston a better overall city, to see what happens without blasting every project that is different.

 

[nm88]

I don't believe I blasted every project that appears different. I mentioned only two buildings.

Yes, I would prefer not to have shadows on the Common. Why is that a bad thing? However, shadows is not my hidden agenda, I assure you. I have no agenda. Posting here is a diversion for me, nothing else.

Re: The Hancock building -- you're absolutely correct, it was greeted as an interloper when it first arrived by many and since then feelings and times have changed. As I stated in my post the Hancock is an identifiable piece of Boston. And yes, I think it is working out...from about the 4th floor up. (Small point. Like most Bostonians, I'm fond of the Hancock. Some of the prettiest pictures of Boston include it.)

However, Henry Cobb accomplished something that Piano has not come close to in my mind. He made something that was too big and really didn't fit appear to actually fit. And he did it next to an irreplaceable landmark. How's that for a challenge?

If your argument is that Piano's building will fit as soon as we have more towers of equal height, I simply don't know how to respond to that.

In this city it is not months or even years between towers, it is decades, it is generations. I fear this will be a sore thumb for a long, long time. To say that it doesn't stick out is to ignore the obvious.

I have nothing against tall buildings. Hell, I've even grown fond of the Prudential. Go figure. Would I change it or lose it if I could? Don't know. Maybe.

My argument, perhaps poorly stated, is that one or two 1000' buildings does not make Boston 21st Century. This is the mistake 2nd tier cities make. We are 21st C, and we got there long before much of the rest of the country and buildings had nothing to do with it, our population takes credit. Our people and our 3 remaining (dominant?) industries -- education, medicine and finance pushed us forward.

I would add that these industries prove that we don't live in the past, but they, like many of us, simply honor it.

It is disappointing (and has been for years) that our BRA and local development community are not as resourceful as some of our industry. It seems to me our politicians and builders may be the ones living in the past.

But then that's the oldest story of all, money trumps everything.

 

[KentXie]

^^ The thing is putting the Winthrop Tower in Boston will attract more companies and business into Boston and possibly lower the cost of office space in Boston. This is a line I'm willing to cross not too mention, I wouldn't want to cross back. Why? Because then more towers in the 600-900ft level may have a chance to be built, thus the Winthrop tower will not stick out alone. Hopefully, with the construction of these new highrises, Boston will start to grow in population more drastically and bring into the city a new wave of people.

 

[KentXie]

Re: One Man's Humble Opinion

We are a low-rise city and we are special for it. We are not a second tier wanna-be city looking for our place on the pecking order -- we are not Houston, Atlanta, Phoenix, San Diego, Newark, New Haven, the list goes on and on -- we are what they all would love to be. Authentic. Historic. Unmatched. We have what they would love to have! A specific identity. There is no other city in this country like Boston. With all its failings, and there are many, we are unique.

This is the a thought a NIMBY will think. I'm sorry but why doesn't Boston want to be a second tier city? Doesn't a city strive to be more and more important instead of staying static? We can do both an preserve history as we normally do. But we need to move ahead. I don't want to live in a city that doesn't grow. Nobody strives to be second place. People try to be first and the first thing to do that is change. We are not special for being a low-rise city because then you can include Baltimore, Phoenix, and Louisville for being a low-rise city. Plus Baltimore is nearly the same as Boston. We are actually falling behind many other city.