- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Messages
- 5,078
- Reaction score
- 1,657
Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District
- Thread starter vanshnookenraggen
- Start date
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
I think you're the one who is going to be surprised. London is building like gangbusters. This mostly just shows one section of the city, but the construction is everywhere.
I think you're the one who is going to be surprised. London is building like gangbusters. This mostly just shows one section of the city, but the construction is everywhere.
London Skyline by st_hart, on Flickr
London Skyline by st_hart, on Flickr
London Skyline by st_hart, on Flickr
London Skyline by st_hart, on Flickr
stick n move
Superstar
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 11,121
- Reaction score
- 15,037
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
Not always true a lot of tall buildings have no retail in the bottom floors, and some take up whole city blocks of empty glass walls, or a lobby. Boston has no chance of this every happening unless we demolished all of the old buildings. Another thing that makes cities look like shit is above ground parking garages, yea you can have retail in the bottom but it just makes the street level feel cheap. Not to mention most of our buildings are extremely old and buildings are not built like that anymore, but we will also have the new style buildings other cities get so they will not have the very different street scapes that make it interesting like Boston, NYC, Chicago, Philly have. The thing boston has over those cities is the really small roads make it so you can walk around with ease and get where your going with or without a car.
Not always true a lot of tall buildings have no retail in the bottom floors, and some take up whole city blocks of empty glass walls, or a lobby. Boston has no chance of this every happening unless we demolished all of the old buildings. Another thing that makes cities look like shit is above ground parking garages, yea you can have retail in the bottom but it just makes the street level feel cheap. Not to mention most of our buildings are extremely old and buildings are not built like that anymore, but we will also have the new style buildings other cities get so they will not have the very different street scapes that make it interesting like Boston, NYC, Chicago, Philly have. The thing boston has over those cities is the really small roads make it so you can walk around with ease and get where your going with or without a car.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Messages
- 5,078
- Reaction score
- 1,657
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
How tall are those London towers? Just out of curiosity.
How tall are those London towers? Just out of curiosity.
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=60743893
Ignore the Riverside Towers in that link because they're really still on hold.
Shard is 1016'
Leadenhall (big one in middle of first and last pic) 738'
Fat one in first and last pic (20 Fenchurch) is 525'
Also there is a 593' not pictured, and the Heron Tower completed in 2011 is 664' roof and 755' spire.
Lots more U/C, on the way in the near future, or recently built.
http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=60743893
Ignore the Riverside Towers in that link because they're really still on hold.
Shard is 1016'
Leadenhall (big one in middle of first and last pic) 738'
Fat one in first and last pic (20 Fenchurch) is 525'
Also there is a 593' not pictured, and the Heron Tower completed in 2011 is 664' roof and 755' spire.
Lots more U/C, on the way in the near future, or recently built.
stick n move
Superstar
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 11,121
- Reaction score
- 15,037
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
Tallest one the shard is 87 stories 1,012 ft (its the triangle one that is finished) so no supertalls other than that. That one being built that bows up on top is UUUUGLY. The London skyline had dubai syndrome every building is a wacky design and every single one tries to be a stand out with no filler and it just makes a shitty skyline other than a couple including the gherkin and the shard and that new triangle one.
Tallest one the shard is 87 stories 1,012 ft (its the triangle one that is finished) so no supertalls other than that. That one being built that bows up on top is UUUUGLY. The London skyline had dubai syndrome every building is a wacky design and every single one tries to be a stand out with no filler and it just makes a shitty skyline other than a couple including the gherkin and the shard and that new triangle one.
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
The ESB ground level is not so bad. It was built in the era before architect egos and parking NIMBYs drove out every sign of life. Actually the biggest problem with the ESB is the line of tourists snaking around it waiting to go up.
Tall buildings became associated with shitty streetscape in the last 50 years or so thanks to some really poor architecture and planning. It doesn't have to be that way.
But put me in the crowd that doesn't care how tall it goes, so long as the streetscape is good and it attracts a diverse selection of people. Height is only good insofar as it helps the goal of vibrancy.
The ESB ground level is not so bad. It was built in the era before architect egos and parking NIMBYs drove out every sign of life. Actually the biggest problem with the ESB is the line of tourists snaking around it waiting to go up.
Tall buildings became associated with shitty streetscape in the last 50 years or so thanks to some really poor architecture and planning. It doesn't have to be that way.
But put me in the crowd that doesn't care how tall it goes, so long as the streetscape is good and it attracts a diverse selection of people. Height is only good insofar as it helps the goal of vibrancy.
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
If you'd like we can move along to Paris and talk about the shit ton being built there (including twin supertalls on the way). Or all of San Francisco's recent developments (including their own Millennium Tower, looks like ours, and also they have a supertall on the way). Pretty much every city that people here quote as appreciating or wanting to emulate has recent, substantial levels of (tall) construction.
If you'd like we can move along to Paris and talk about the shit ton being built there (including twin supertalls on the way). Or all of San Francisco's recent developments (including their own Millennium Tower, looks like ours, and also they have a supertall on the way). Pretty much every city that people here quote as appreciating or wanting to emulate has recent, substantial levels of (tall) construction.
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
Also let's be honest, Boston's street level is absolutely beyond amazing because of everything that has been there for 80-100+ years. Of course it's better than most cities. I have probably walked it (along with Cambridge, Somerville, etc) as much as anybody on this forum. I don't deny how amazing it is and that's why I tout it as the greatest urban area in the country, but 90% of that predates any of us. Doesn't change the fact that when you see the city outside of being in it, it looks extremely dated. I look forward to that changing a bit with Millennium, Copley, this, etc.
Also let's be honest, Boston's street level is absolutely beyond amazing because of everything that has been there for 80-100+ years. Of course it's better than most cities. I have probably walked it (along with Cambridge, Somerville, etc) as much as anybody on this forum. I don't deny how amazing it is and that's why I tout it as the greatest urban area in the country, but 90% of that predates any of us. Doesn't change the fact that when you see the city outside of being in it, it looks extremely dated. I look forward to that changing a bit with Millennium, Copley, this, etc.
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,999
- Reaction score
- 1,736
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
Dude read a history book. It was built at the HEIGHT of architectural egos.
Dude read a history book. It was built at the HEIGHT of architectural egos.
KentXie
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,192
- Reaction score
- 756
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
I love how people always refer to London as an example of an economically powerful city with no skyscrapers. Even before the recent boom that brought these new towers, London had Canary Wharf.
I love how people always refer to London as an example of an economically powerful city with no skyscrapers. Even before the recent boom that brought these new towers, London had Canary Wharf.
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
Maybe I should clarify. For whatever reason, the egotistical architects back then did not seek to create a barren moonscape around their "masterpieces" in order to highlight their own work. Or maybe they were just not allowed to do so.
Maybe I should clarify. For whatever reason, the egotistical architects back then did not seek to create a barren moonscape around their "masterpieces" in order to highlight their own work. Or maybe they were just not allowed to do so.
statler
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 7,927
- Reaction score
- 525
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
I've said this in a about a thousand threads, but nobody (outside of a handful of skyscraper nerds) loves Paris because of La Defense.
Just like nobody visits San Fran just to see the Transamerica Pyramid.
I've said this in a about a thousand threads, but nobody (outside of a handful of skyscraper nerds) loves Paris because of La Defense.
Just like nobody visits San Fran just to see the Transamerica Pyramid.
KentXie
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,192
- Reaction score
- 756
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
I'm not necessarily talking about the base of the tower being built, I'm talking about the surrounding area. Not every tall building should have multiple retails dotting the entire base because that would over saturate the market. HOWEVER, seeing how tall buildings are essentially human magnets (if near full occupancy), this means it attracts pedestrian activity to the area, increasing the size of the market for the surrounding retail.
Take for example, the towers near South Station. Of those, which one them has a large portion of their lobby dedicated to retail? None, not 1 Lincoln, not Federal Bank, and not 1 Financial. Yet that area is vibrant because of the low-rise buildings that do have retail and because these three towers + south station supply a large number of customers. The vibrancy only increases the more people a building supplies plus a good mix of residential space and retail space that doesn't necessarily have to take up all of the first floor of a tower.
Actually you'll be hard press to find many towers in Boston with a large portion of the lobby dedicated to retail outside the Prudential Center, 75/101 Federal St., One International Place, Millennium Place, and maybe the W Hotel and even then, some of the towers mention are marginally better than the rest. Yet the vibrancy in the city still exists.
I'm not necessarily talking about the base of the tower being built, I'm talking about the surrounding area. Not every tall building should have multiple retails dotting the entire base because that would over saturate the market. HOWEVER, seeing how tall buildings are essentially human magnets (if near full occupancy), this means it attracts pedestrian activity to the area, increasing the size of the market for the surrounding retail.
Take for example, the towers near South Station. Of those, which one them has a large portion of their lobby dedicated to retail? None, not 1 Lincoln, not Federal Bank, and not 1 Financial. Yet that area is vibrant because of the low-rise buildings that do have retail and because these three towers + south station supply a large number of customers. The vibrancy only increases the more people a building supplies plus a good mix of residential space and retail space that doesn't necessarily have to take up all of the first floor of a tower.
Actually you'll be hard press to find many towers in Boston with a large portion of the lobby dedicated to retail outside the Prudential Center, 75/101 Federal St., One International Place, Millennium Place, and maybe the W Hotel and even then, some of the towers mention are marginally better than the rest. Yet the vibrancy in the city still exists.
Last edited:
KentXie
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,192
- Reaction score
- 756
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
It's not about whether people love the skyscrapers, it's about how they exist in economically powerful city, despite the fact that many people seem to say that "skyscrapers are not necessary for a city to become economically powerful." The only case I see is DC, but that's due to the special environment that it exists in.
It's not about whether people love the skyscrapers, it's about how they exist in economically powerful city, despite the fact that many people seem to say that "skyscrapers are not necessary for a city to become economically powerful." The only case I see is DC, but that's due to the special environment that it exists in.
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
True for every major city, as for DC is the nation's capital which is a government and political powerhouse.
True for every major city, as for DC is the nation's capital which is a government and political powerhouse.
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
Doesn't mean they're not part of their respective cities. They exist, whether or not you personally care.
Doesn't mean they're not part of their respective cities. They exist, whether or not you personally care.
tmac9wr
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 1,445
- Reaction score
- 63
Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
I know you're probably a young guy, so I won't go too hard on you...but NIMBYism had absolutely nothing to do with the fall of Detroit and Boston's economy is nothing like that of Detroit structurally. Detroit was incredibly focused on manufacturing, primarily automotive manufacturing. On top of that they were totally strangled by unions. Granted Massachusetts has strong union influence, but it's nothing like what Michigan/Detroit had going on. It was just insane there.
Boston's economy is greatly diversified and strong. It's packed to the gills with skilled labor positions because it's one of the most desirable cities in the world when it comes to talent pools. We don't have anything to worry about when it comes to turning into Detroit.
With all that said, we all want larger, better buildings to be built.
I know you're probably a young guy, so I won't go too hard on you...but NIMBYism had absolutely nothing to do with the fall of Detroit and Boston's economy is nothing like that of Detroit structurally. Detroit was incredibly focused on manufacturing, primarily automotive manufacturing. On top of that they were totally strangled by unions. Granted Massachusetts has strong union influence, but it's nothing like what Michigan/Detroit had going on. It was just insane there.
Boston's economy is greatly diversified and strong. It's packed to the gills with skilled labor positions because it's one of the most desirable cities in the world when it comes to talent pools. We don't have anything to worry about when it comes to turning into Detroit.
With all that said, we all want larger, better buildings to be built.