Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I'm glad you brought up Trinity's 40% IDP/affordable housing too. I meant to make that point last night. That's a huge overlooked point as people ogle and scoff at towers.

Overall Whigh, great insightful analysis in these last couple posts.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

datadyne007 said:
I'm glad you brought up Trinity's 40% IDP housing too. I meant to make that point last night. That's a huge overlooked point as people ogle and scoff at towers.

Overall Whigh, great insightful analysis in these last couple posts.
Click to expand...

Thanks Data -- I do try even if at times I might seem to be getting lost in the weeds
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Wow, stay off the interwebs for one day and you miss everything.


Here's my 2 cents on each proposal after giving them a quick skim..

Accordia, is still a good design, although I'd much prefer the sleek tower they originally proposed than the randomly stacked blocks of the current design. I also still would really like to see a SHoP designed tower in Boston.

Trinity doesn't really add anything meaningful to the skyline or the street level.

Transnational's twin tower design is interesting, but I already feel like putting a tower on top of the garage site is going to make things feel cluttered, adding two would just make it worse. The design is Ok, but it's nothing iconic.

Millennium: I love the great hall idea & design. The overall tower design has potential and I think could wind up playing a bit like the Hancock tower. Slim from certain angles, wide from others.

HYM: The overall site plan is still such a huge positive in my opinion that I think it almost as much of a factor as the overall tower design. I feel like in this location, the tower would work better with surrounding buildings, and fill in a whole in the skyline. (Refer to pg. 48 in their proposal). From the Otis street & similar elevations, this tower appears to be just a wide box. I think from this view, there needs to be some sort of Peak, whether at the sides or center. Just can't have a flat roof here. From the side view, it has a nice slim profile with a little bit of a taper that works well. The time frame is a drawback, but may be worth it for what we get in terms of benefit back to the city, so long as they can weather the next downturn.

Lend Lease is definitely the best overall design, and the embedded LED strips would be a great addition to the skyline at night. Again, I'd just like to see something other than a flat roof. The cultural pavilion is also a nice addition and I believe it would have a fairly open street level between devonshire & federal streets.


Final Ranking:

1T. Lend Lease - best tower design and probably best overall development/construction team.
1T. HYM - best site layout & most public good.
3T. Millennium
3T. Accordia

The rest I'd just send back to the drawing board.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

To begin with, I am very excited that something is actually happening. The "Tommy Tower" was an inspiration, but maybe too much of an aspiration.

I love the Lendlease proposal. It really says to me, as an outsider, that Boston is moving into the future. Imagine that web-like stuff lit up with LEDs. Fantastic.

Accordia sort of reminds me of 2 WTC designed by Bjarke Ingels, but sort of gone sideways, not quite the same level of refinement.

Millennium might get the nod, IMO given they have an amazing track record in downtown.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

whighlander said:
The RFP clearly wants mixed use -- which means significant office and retail as well as residential -- essentially a neighborhood in a building
Click to expand...

Neighborhood in a building -- mmmmm, needs more arcology.

arcology.jpg
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I also like Lendlease for the impact it will have from many viewing angles in the city. The HYM proposal is great too but as a seperate proposal. Perhaps they could relocate the ministry center to the government garage project they are building and procede with this tower.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

whighlander said:
The RFP clearly wants mixed use -- which means significant office and retail as well as residential -- essentially a neighborhood in a building
Click to expand...

Accordia is clearly mixed use it has retail a hotel and residences. There is no reason mixed use buildings have to include offices as well. That is not a disqualifying factor and they are the only ones with a top level observation deck as was asked for. Also for a city trying to increase residential presence downtown I don't see why a focus on residences and some hotel space wouldn't be a major advantage for them.

Also the neighborhood in a building concept only works with very large buildings hence Millennium's ridiculous podium and some of the other towers much wider format. If this were going to be a supertall that would be much easier and more reasonable to expect but a 725 foot tall neighborhood in a building concept is pretty hard to expect or require.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

datadyne007 said:
I'm glad you brought up Trinity's 40% IDP/affordable housing too. I meant to make that point last night. That's a huge overlooked point as people ogle and scoff at towers.

Overall Whigh, great insightful analysis in these last couple posts.
Click to expand...

I saw this at first as well and am with you, this is a huge plus. There has yet to be a tower in Boston with this much affordable housing and I think it would be great to have! I know I'd love to live there!
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

datadyne007 said:
The first round were RFI (Request for Interest) responses. These are RFP (Request for Proposal) responses, marking the second phase...
Click to expand...

Thanks Data, as usual!

I'll stir things up a bit and say that I would be happy with any of these except for HYM. I don't think that moving things around in order to get a new open space is worth it. PO Square, the Greenway, and the Common are all close enough.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

whighlander said:
Millennium with the Great Hall -- "14,620-square-foot startup accelerator to be developed in partnership with the city" -- but no other office space
Click to expand...

????

Their proposal shows 14+ levels of office at 31,600 SF/level; along with 7 "Office Solaria" that are double height space connecting 2 levels of office each.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

stick n move said:
Thats what Im saying too. A couple of them are good, some are OK, and the rest suck. Thats not good enough here. Not one of them are great. Accordia was...... No idea what theyre smoking over there. NYC is popping out icons like candy, hell even China has a suprising amount of very nice towers going up. What is the problem here? I was hoping we would have a hard time deciding between all of the great proposals which one is best. Instead we get a bag of turds and whichever one blows the least is what were going to have to be happy with. How can you work at the BRA and not slap somebody for trying to slide the trinity proposal across your desk. That is straight up disrespectful to propose that being built here.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree, and I am posting this as I leave a 3 day trip from NYC now. When viewing things in person, not much of what has gone up recently in NYC looks iconic. Most of the new buildings look cool (not game changing though), but definitely not iconic.

And 432 Park ruined the skyline, as many tour guides and residents have confirmed over the last year. Actually 432 Park and One57 are inescable from within the entire bottom half of the park, and I don't like it. And after 3 days straight of looking at the NYC "icons", as is typical with me, I yearn to get home to Boston.

I don't mean this at all to be another city vs city argument, because they are both incomparable yet champion in their own respects. My point is that what these developers proposed things that will work well with our city, and they look fine in any US or European city. Trinity may be the weakest aesthetically, but that is a damn respectable proposal overall.

Lastly, there is no such thing as icons popping everywhere in a city. That's a paradoxical statement, but I see what you mean.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Iconic stand it anymore.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

type001 said:
I respectfully disagree, and I am posting this as I leave a 3 day trip from NYC now. When viewing things in person, not much of what has gone up recently in NYC looks iconic. Most of the new buildings look cool (not game changing though), but definitely not iconic.

And 432 Park ruined the skyline, as many tour guides and residents have confirmed over the last year. Actually 432 Park and One57 are inescable from within the entire bottom half of the park, and I don't like it. And after 3 days straight of looking at the NYC "icons", as is typical with me, I yearn to get home to Boston.

I don't mean this at all to be another city vs city argument, because they are both incomparable yet champion in their own respects. My point is that what these developers proposed things that will work well with our city, and they look fine in any US or European city. Trinity may be the weakest aesthetically, but that is a damn respectable proposal overall.

Lastly, there is no such thing as icons popping everywhere in a city. That's a paradoxical statement, but I see what you mean.
Click to expand...

To piggy-back on this, outside of Telus Sky in Calgary, I can't think of a single "iconic" tower going up in ANY CITY ANYWHERE that's on par with some people's expectations for this site. I'd like to see some more examples than just that 1. Keep in mind the 725' height limit, so trying to compare this site to Tower Verre, Shanghai Tower, etc. is a non-starter.

Where are all of the world's great 725' buildings that have caused such dismay with some of the posters here?
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Globe Article.

As you can imagine, the comments complaining about the lack of street activation, "dumb architects," luxury units, height, wind, and shadows are starting to roll in. (did they even read the article? 40% affordable housing promised for Trinity, affordable units promised in the others, street activation/public space proposed in EVERY single proposal, only minor additions in shadows, from what I've read).

Its like the NIMBYs are just copying and pasting their arguments about every building proposed above 50 ft.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

DZH22 said:
To piggy-back on this, outside of Telus Sky in Calgary, I can't think of a single "iconic" tower going up in ANY CITY ANYWHERE that's on par with some people's expectations for this site. I'd like to see some more examples than just that 1. Keep in mind the 725' height limit, so trying to compare this site to Tower Verre, Shanghai Tower, etc. is a non-starter.

Where are all of the world's great 725' buildings that have caused such dismay with some of the posters here?
Click to expand...

It's funny you'd mention that, since Telus Sky's glass brick facade is mimicked on the HYM proposal...

maxresdefault.jpg


B0v8a0lh.jpg
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

stefalarchitect said:
Globe Article.

As you can imagine, the comments complaining about the lack of street activation, "dumb architects," luxury units, height, wind, and shadows are starting to roll in. (did they even read the article? 40% affordable housing promised for Trinity, affordable units promised in the others, street activation/public space proposed in EVERY single proposal, only minor additions in shadows, from what I've read).

Its like the NIMBYs are just copying and pasting their arguments about every building proposed above 50 ft.
Click to expand...

Fortunately this is right in the middle of downtown, so no one's opinion on any of it should matter except for the city, developer, BRA, and BDCC.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

^ and the FAA unfortunately.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

type001 said:
Fortunately this is right in the middle of downtown, so no one's opinion on any of it should matter except for the city, developer, BRA, and BDCC.
Click to expand...

I think abutting building owners are allowed to have opinions, as it can impact their building economics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top