Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

[vanshnookenraggen]

^^ 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.

I'm sorry DarkFenX, but I think you are being WAY TOO optimistic. A few tall buildings won't save the city. Imagine if the same time and energy (not to mention monies) were going into expanding the T or to finding ways to encourage new businesses, or to lowering the costs of living in the city, or even cleaning up our parks and streets. All those, even just one, would have a better impact than a 1,000 foot tower.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see it built, but don't for a minute think this is the cure to the cities ills.

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.

I wouldn't call him a NIMBY, more of a realist. Boston is a low rise city. Look at pictures from even the early 1960's and you will see two "skyscrapers", the old Hancock and the Customs Tower, that is it. Walk through the North End, Beacon Hill, Back Bay, Roxbury, Dorchester, and Brighton and tell me this isn't a low rise city.

I can tell you from personal experience that while the high rise has made New York what it is, I would never want Boston to become a high rise city. And I want to further explain that. The most beloved neighborhoods in New York are TriBeCa, Soho, the Villages (East, West, Greenwich), Chelsea, Park Slope, Carol Gardens, and a few more. All of these are low rise. Places like Kips Bay, the Upper West Side, Yorkville, East Harlem, etc are much higher (rise) and lack any real charm. There is no humanity there, but there is in a low rise city where people feel connected to buildings.

Now I'm not saying Boston shouldn't have tall buildings but we shouldn't destroy who we are just because someone else did it. Boston is NOT New York, never was and never will be, and we shouldn't strive to be New York.

 

[JimboJones]

Highrises

Can we put all the high-rises on the waterfront, and make it look like Miami or Vancouver? PLEEEEEEEZE?

(Yes, I know there are height limits due to the airport.)

 

[KentXie]

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.

I wouldn't call him a NIMBY, more of a realist. Boston is a low rise city. Look at pictures from even the early 1960's and you will see two "skyscrapers", the old Hancock and the Customs Tower, that is it. Walk through the North End, Beacon Hill, Back Bay, Roxbury, Dorchester, and Brighton and tell me this isn't a low rise city.

I can tell you from personal experience that while the high rise has made New York what it is, I would never want Boston to become a high rise city. And I want to further explain that. The most beloved neighborhoods in New York are TriBeCa, Soho, the Villages (East, West, Greenwich), Chelsea, Park Slope, Carol Gardens, and a few more. All of these are low rise. Places like Kips Bay, the Upper West Side, Yorkville, East Harlem, etc are much higher (rise) and lack any real charm. There is no humanity there, but there is in a low rise city where people feel connected to buildings.

Now I'm not saying Boston shouldn't have tall buildings but we shouldn't destroy who we are just because someone else did it. Boston is NOT New York, never was and never will be, and we shouldn't strive to be New York.

I never said Boston wasn't a low-rise city. However, i meant to say that nm's view is that of a city that has become stagnant, like Pittsburgh. And I'm not saying Boston should become NYC. It's impossible for a city like Boston and its narrow street to be able to support the extra traffic load. What I am saying is Boston needs to change, needs to take bigger risk in order to achieve more. Boston should look SF as an example. A dense city smaller than Boston in size yet larger in population has achieved notoriety in a state full of well known city such as LA SD and the likes. SF is willing to take risk, so should we.

 

[nm88]

I won't beat a dead horse. A city is more than its buildings. 1000' towers do not necessarily move a city, its commerce, its well-being, forward. Does a signature tall building attract business? Yes, it can. Are there other ways to attract business? Yes, there are. Can a signature building become a landmark and an emblem of a city. Yes, it can.

My point is Boston does not need that definition, so why play that game? Artful, well-placed, thoughtful tall buildings, fine. Ego statements to show we are keeping up with the Jones, not so fine. That seems plain enough.

I believe our moderator said it perfectly, our best places are our low-rise places. What people yearn for, recall fondly, enjoy themselves most at are Fenway Park, The Back Back, Haymarket, North End, South End. No one I know says, "Man, I just can't wait to go to that International Place."

Tall buildings are best appreciated from a distance, or the penthouse, which most of us never step foot into. Fenway Park you enjoy with 33,000 other Bostonians, beer in hand, up close and personal. Cities are to be lived in, not just viewed from a distance.

If I sound like a NIMBY (I can't imagine why), so be it -- though I don't live near Winthrop Square or The Common. I simply wish the best for our city. Playing a height game, height for the sake of height, seems beneath us.

 

[kz1000ps]

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.

In line with his thoughts, think of the Pru when it was originally built.. that thing was THE definition of "sore thumb" for the first ten years of its life.

..And the Hancock coming along just ten years later has proven to be the abberation.. it's now been some 33 years (over a generation!) since anything has risen to make those two fit into the skyline any more.

Not to say I'm against TNP -- I want to see that decrepit garage and (to a lesser extent) the little office building gone as much as the next pro-development blowhard -- but that doesn't stop me from recognizing that, as planned, it will stick out an awful lot, and it will be a long time before some other buildings come along to make it fit in.

But the above is just an aesthetic concern. The whole "Boston needs to take a risk" is probably true, but I'm not convinced it needs to take the form of an 1100-foot tower.

And the thought that "TNP will attract more companies and business into Boston and possibly lower the cost of office space in Boston" is pure speculation.. vacancies may be low and rents high at this moment, but for all we know TNP could come online to a market the exact opposite from today's (think of how fast things went downhill from 2002 to early '04), and instead of luring new companies to town it cannibalizes the market. We simply can't make predictions like that right now.

So let's not start putting out eggs all in one basket just yet.. otherwise, I might burst out singing the Monorail Song :wink:

 

[BarbaricManchurian]

I won't beat a dead horse. A city is more than its buildings. 1000' towers do not necessarily move a city, its commerce, its well-being, forward. Does a signature tall building attract business? Yes, it can. Are there other ways to attract business? Yes, there are. Can a signature building become a landmark and an emblem of a city. Yes, it can.

My point is Boston does not need that definition, so why play that game? Artful, well-placed, thoughtful tall buildings, fine. Ego statements to show we are keeping up with the Jones, not so fine. That seems plain enough.

I believe our moderator said it perfectly, our best places are our low-rise places. What people yearn for, recall fondly, enjoy themselves most at are Fenway Park, The Back Back, Haymarket, North End, South End. No one I know says, "Man, I just can't wait to go to that International Place."

Tall buildings are best appreciated from a distance, or the penthouse, which most of us never step foot into. Fenway Park you enjoy with 33,000 other Bostonians, beer in hand, up close and personal. Cities are to be lived in, not just viewed from a distance.

If I sound like a NIMBY (I can't imagine why), so be it -- though I don't live near Winthrop Square or The Common. I simply wish the best for our city. Playing a height game, height for the sake of height, seems beneath us.

This tower won't be in a low rise area so what are you complaining about? Plus the tower looks way better than any other tower in downtown. And the best parks are a plot of nature in the middle of a super dense city, such as Central Park and Victoria Park in Hong Kong. But Boston Common, you can't build anything around it because of the shadow law, but if there were super high rises all around it, more people will use it, and it will be more neccesary. Right now it's a trashy park for tourists in the middle of the city. What I'm saying is that the Common would be more of an urban than suburban park if the area around it was more dense and that would only happen if they repeal the shadow law. Heck, I don't know why it was even passed, why would the legislature even pass this crap? It doesn't make any less shadows on the Common and just restricts development. And no one says they want to go to International Place? It's because it's an OFFICE TOWER, you work there, not eat there and stuff. Plus many people don't even know what it is because there are a lot of towers and people can't memorize all the names. Boston is going backwards, it's losing in a globalized world, it has the slowest bereaucracy in the world, and nothing new happens in it. It's not a happening town, and it's best to go to a place where at least new things happen once in a while. And Boston needs this tower; if NIMBYS block this and block supply and demand, no new towers will be built ever because developers don't want to build and Boston will become a meuseum relic town in 50 years. That's what I don't want, I want Boston to move forward, and building this tower is a way to move forward.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

Playing a height game, height for the sake of height, seems beneath us.

If Boston was improving itself in education, safety, transportation, commercial, etc AND then wanted to build a 1,000 ft tower just to cap it all off I'd be elated but the idea that a 1,000 ft tower will change anything other than ego is laughable.

But, I do have an ego, so I'm all for it. It just won't change anything.

 

[KentXie]

And the thought that "TNP will attract more companies and business into Boston and possibly lower the cost of office space in Boston" is pure speculation.. vacancies may be low and rents high at this moment, but for all we know TNP could come online to a market the exact opposite from today's (think of how fast things went downhill from 2002 to early '04), and instead of luring new companies to town it cannibalizes the market. We simply can't make predictions like that right now.

That's exaclty why Boston needs to take a risk. Look here, according to what you said, the possibilty that the office market will sink like a rock can happen in 2 years. Every office tower being under construction probably won't open its door in 2-3 years and thus are subjected to a possible downhill slide in the office market. However, we must take advantage of this while we can. If we keep building towers when the office market is good and have it finish when it is bad, then we will never grow. Build it when the signs of the office market is starting to go up and have it finish when the office market is peaking can help retain the business that decided to move to Boston and have them stay here. Too long has many Boston based companies move out of Boston to find a better location.

 

[nico]

^I couldn't agree more concerning Winthrop Sq.
But the S. Station doesn't seem so out of place.

 

[KentXie]

I won't beat a dead horse. A city is more than its buildings. 1000' towers do not necessarily move a city, its commerce, its well-being, forward. Does a signature tall building attract business? Yes, it can. Are there other ways to attract business? Yes, there are. Can a signature building become a landmark and an emblem of a city. Yes, it can.

My point is Boston does not need that definition, so why play that game? Artful, well-placed, thoughtful tall buildings, fine. Ego statements to show we are keeping up with the Jones, not so fine. That seems plain enough.

I believe our moderator said it perfectly, our best places are our low-rise places. What people yearn for, recall fondly, enjoy themselves most at are Fenway Park, The Back Back, Haymarket, North End, South End. No one I know says, "Man, I just can't wait to go to that International Place."

Tall buildings are best appreciated from a distance, or the penthouse, which most of us never step foot into. Fenway Park you enjoy with 33,000 other Bostonians, beer in hand, up close and personal. Cities are to be lived in, not just viewed from a distance.

If I sound like a NIMBY (I can't imagine why), so be it -- though I don't live near Winthrop Square or The Common. I simply wish the best for our city. Playing a height game, height for the sake of height, seems beneath us.

This tower won't be in a low rise area so what are you complaining about? Plus the tower looks way better than any other tower in downtown. And the best parks are a plot of nature in the middle of a super dense city, such as Central Park and Victoria Park in Hong Kong. But Boston Common, you can't build anything around it because of the shadow law, but if there were super high rises all around it, more people will use it, and it will be more neccesary. Right now it's a trashy park for tourists in the middle of the city. What I'm saying is that the Common would be more of an urban than suburban park if the area around it was more dense and that would only happen if they repeal the shadow law. Heck, I don't know why it was even passed, why would the legislature even pass this crap? It doesn't make any less shadows on the Common and just restricts development. And no one says they want to go to International Place? It's because it's an OFFICE TOWER, you work there, not eat there and stuff. Plus many people don't even know what it is because there are a lot of towers and people can't memorize all the names. Boston is going backwards, it's losing in a globalized world, it has the slowest bereaucracy in the world, and nothing new happens in it. It's not a happening town, and it's best to go to a place where at least new things happen once in a while. And Boston needs this tower; if NIMBYS block this and block supply and demand, no new towers will be built ever because developers don't want to build and Boston will become a meuseum relic town in 50 years. That's what I don't want, I want Boston to move forward, and building this tower is a way to move forward.

Exactly my point. This tower is in the densest part of the Financial District surrounded by a bunch of skyscrapers. It's not like we are randomly placing this in a low rise neighborhood. It will not affect nor destroy a low rise neighborhood.

 

[BarbaricManchurian]

Also, if you say it's going to stick out like a sore thumb, if we didn't have this ridiculously slow bureaucracy and massive amount of NIMBYs, other towers will go up quickly and it won't stick out within 5 years.

 

[KentXie]

Playing a height game, height for the sake of height, seems beneath us.

If Boston was improving itself in education, safety, transportation, commercial, etc AND then wanted to build a 1,000 ft tower just to cap it all off I'd be elated but the idea that a 1,000 ft tower will change anything other than ego is laughable.

But, I do have an ego, so I'm all for it. It just won't change anything.

Your right, 1 tower won't. But with the amount of project going on and having TNP at its centerpiece, it can attract more people and thus probably more fund into Boston. However, with all that is spent on the Big Dig and such, i doubt we can afford any improvement in education, safety, and transportation.

 

[kz1000ps]

Too long has many Boston based companies move out of Boston to find a better location.

But is that because of a lack of space? No. This is just how the dice have rolled between the last (1997-2004) boom/bust cycle and now. The previous boom (late '80s) left Boston overbuilt for many years afterwards (much of the 1990s), and did this make companies come streaming in for all those years? I wouldn't say so.

To bring it back to Winthrop Sq, I think the location is perfect for the tower, but I just don't see a need for a tower of this size right now, expecially when the entity stroking its ego isn't a company (e.g. Prudential, John Hancock) that could occupy a huge block of space, but a mayor, who at most could rent a couple thousand square feet in the new building.

 

[KentXie]

I posted an article earlier that I can't seem to find but i remember seeing about 5 companies or looking for a large swath of office space that might be able to fill Winthrop now that Russia Wharf is no longer available. Possibly more will come.

 

[kz1000ps]

Also, if you say it's going to stick out like a sore thumb, if we didn't have this ridiculously slow bureaucracy and massive amount of NIMBYs, other towers will go up quickly and it won't stick out within 5 years.

Yes and no. Yes in that I agree there's too much red tape. No in that more towers will make it less of a sore thumb. My earlier point is that Boston's office market doesn't DEMAND towers over roughly 600 feet in height, and that it'll be quite some time before developers really have to push up and over that barrier, thus probably leaving TNP a sore thumb for several decades. But I admit that a much worse fate could befall the city...

 

[KentXie]

Well Boston didn't have the demand to build 2 700+ft towers back in the late 60's and mid 70's (and both weren't even in the Financial District) but were built anyways and it turned out great. Winthrop could be the same.

 

[BarbaricManchurian]

Yes and no. Yes in that I agree there's too much red tape. No in that more towers will make it less of a sore thumb. My earlier point is that Boston's office market doesn't DEMAND towers over roughly 600 feet in height, and that it'll be quite some time before developers really have to push up and over that barrier.

Well if we had faster bereaucracy then the time until developers really have to push up and over 600 feet will be accelerated. And there will probably be someone else with a big ego proposing a 1,500 ft tower within 20 years, so TNP won't stick out as a sore thumb anymore and the new tower will.

 

[KentXie]

Yes and no. Yes in that I agree there's too much red tape. No in that more towers will make it less of a sore thumb. My earlier point is that Boston's office market doesn't DEMAND towers over roughly 600 feet in height, and that it'll be quite some time before developers really have to push up and over that barrier.

Well if we had faster bereaucracy then the time until developers really have to push up and over 600 feet will be accelerated. And there will probably be someone else with a big ego proposing a 1,500 ft tower within 20 years, so TNP won't stick out as a sore thumb anymore and the new tower will.

Doubt the FAA will aprove it and even then I doubt Boston will grow quickly enough for a 1500ft tower to be built with a 1000ft tower already there. However 1000 ft seems legit now with the high demand for office.

 

[BarbaricManchurian]

And what's so bad about it sticking out like a sore thumb? The Prudential and Hancock buildings stick out WAY more because it's mostly low rise around it, while downtown is already high rise and this is only 1.5x higher then the buildings around it.

 

[tmac9wr]

I understand what nm is getting at when talking about how much this thing is going to stick out, because there's no question that it absolutely will. As kz mentioned, this building isn't being built because of the overwhelming demand for office space, but at the request of the Mayor and his ego. However, I still think this building is much more than all that and will be beneficial to the city. As DarkfenX mentioned, it will help lower rates of rent in the city (although we're not that desperate for space), and possibly lure new companies to the city.

Aside from that possibility, nm mentioned that there's no point in dropping to the level of other cities that are building big, b/c we are a special city. I think what you may be overlooking is that this is a special building. It would be the greenest building on the planet (right?). Collecting rainwater from the roof, solar panels on the spine to help power the building, heliostats (or just plain ol' mirrors) to keep the streets below full of sunlight. More than an acre of new parkland including a rooftop garden at over 1,000 feet high! How is this not progressive?

You're right, nobody who visits Boston says "I can't wait to go to International Place!", but I'd be willing to bet the house that they'd say "I can't wait to go to Winthrop Square Tower! They've got a park on the roof overlooking the entire city!? I've never heard of anything like that!" Along with all those things there's also a restaurant/bar on the floor below the garden and retail at the bottom of the tower...don't kid yourself into thinking that this wouldn't be a destination.

Sure this thing will stick out like a sore thumb, but at least it's a good looking building. If it were some piece of trash tower that looked terrible, I could understand, but I think it's a really attractive building. Concerning shadows on the common, they would last for 15 minutes very early in the morning and would only appear at certain times of the year....I think we can manage that for an iconic tower.

As for South Station Tower, it won't stick out at all...it's slightly taller than the other buildings in downtown so I wouldn't worry about that.