Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

[kmp1284]

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.

How long do you think Canary Wharf has been around, since the 12th century?

 

[prodigy92]

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.

That's why I said that Boston economy is driven mostly from health and education in our city. Also honorable mentions like tourism, federal agencies, professional services. But what I'm saying was I don't want nimby's to reject every thing that will bring growth to the city, that's all. I was using Detroit as a example of a fallen city, I'm not saying Boston is gonna have the same fate as Detroit.

 

[armpitsOFmight]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Prodigy, are you Rifleman's long lost son?

 

[prodigy92]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Prodigy, are you Rifleman's long lost son?

Nah, just speaking my mind, that's all

 

[kz1000ps]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

How long do you think Canary Wharf has been around, since the 12th century?

Thank you.

 

[KentXie]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

How long do you think Canary Wharf has been around, since the 12th century?

I don't get your point. Yes London was economically powerful long before high-rises went up. In fact, NYC was economically powerful as soon as the Erie Canal was completed. But the fact remains, in order for a major city to maintain its economic competitiveness, especially in the modern era, they must build skyscrapers. London is further proof of an economically powerful city that cannot stay with traditional 20th century low-rises, starting with Canary Wharf in the 1990s and the rest of the CBD in the mid to late 2000s/early 2010s. In fact, until the development of Canary Wharf, London's population, with the exception of the 1950s, fell each decade until 1990s, when Canary Wharf rejuvenated the city as London emerged as a major financial center in the 1980s. If the logic was that London could stay competitive without building skyscrapers, then why didn't it do so? Do you think London could continue to depress commercial and residential prices without going up? Do you think major corporations would prefer to spread their offices over numerous locations, rather than being confined in a smaller, more efficient area?

Face it. You may have been able to use London as an argument a couple of decades ago but your poster boy for a low-rise city is gone. Time has changed and London (for the better) has changed as well.

 

[prodigy92]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I don't get your point. Yes London was economically powerful long before high-rises went up. In fact, NYC was economically powerful as soon as the Erie Canal was completed. But the fact remains, in order for a major city to maintain its economic competitiveness, especially in the modern era, they must build skyscrapers. London is further proof of an economically powerful city that cannot stay with traditional 20th century low-rises, starting with Canary Wharf in the 1990s and the rest of the CBD in the mid to late 2000s/early 2010s. In fact, until the development of Canary Wharf, London's population, with the exception of the 1950s, fell each decade until 1990s, when Canary Wharf rejuvenated the city as London emerged as a major financial center in the 1980s. If the logic was that London could stay competitive without building skyscrapers, then why didn't it do so? Do you think London could continue to depress commercial and residential prices without going up? Do you think major corporations would prefer to spread their offices over numerous locations, rather than being confined in a smaller, more efficient area?

With those skyscrapers they can fill up spaces withing the skyscraper and save up land finding for new companies or corporations looking for spaces

 

[armpitsOFmight]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

prodigy, how old are you?

 

[prodigy92]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

prodigy, how old are you?

20

 

[kmp1284]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I don't get your point. Yes London was economically powerful long before high-rises went up. In fact, NYC was economically powerful as soon as the Erie Canal was completed. But the fact remains, in order for a major city to maintain its economic competitiveness, especially in the modern era, they must build skyscrapers. London is further proof of an economically powerful city that cannot stay with traditional 20th century low-rises, starting with Canary Wharf in the 1990s and the rest of the CBD in the mid to late 2000s/early 2010s. In fact, until the development of Canary Wharf, London's population, with the exception of the 1950s, fell each decade until 1990s, when Canary Wharf rejuvenated the city as London emerged as a major financial center in the 1980s. If the logic was that London could stay competitive without building skyscrapers, then why didn't it do so? Do you think London could continue to depress commercial and residential prices without going up? Do you think major corporations would prefer to spread their offices over numerous locations, rather than being confined in a smaller, more efficient area?

Face it. You may have been able to use London as an argument a couple of decades ago but your poster boy for a low-rise city is gone. Time has changed and London (for the better) has changed as well.

The firms located at Canary Wharf only account for about 40% of the London finance industry. There are a ton of companies still located in the City and in Mayfair such as JP Morgan, UBS, Goldman Sachs, Lloyds, the four major accounting firms, not to mention most of the major trading houses.

And if you still don't buy London, try Zurich.

 

[statler]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I am not sure if I buy the link between between being an economic powerhouse and being a great city. Prauge isn't even a blip on the global economic map but is still one of the greatest cities in the world.

 

[underground]

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.

No, I know that. But the operative phrases here is "is building." London's was, is, and has been an economic power house regardless of those towers. They're a symptom of success, not the cause of it.

If the logic was that London could stay competitive without building skyscrapers, then why didn't it do so?

Outside the points KMP already made, that's a pretty big counter-factual.

 

[KentXie]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

The firms located at Canary Wharf only account for about 40% of the London finance industry. There are a ton of companies still located in the City and in Mayfair such as JP Morgan, UBS, Goldman Sachs, Lloyds, the four major accounting firms, not to mention most of the major trading houses.

And if you still don't buy London, try Zurich.

How much did Canary Wharf constitute when construction started? How much does Canary Wharf and London's CBD constitute now? You say 40% as though it is a small portion but it's likely that 40% is comparable to the size of what Back Bay accounts for in terms of Boston finance industry (the rest being in the financial district).

And Zurich, a Alpha Global city with a population of only 300,000. It serves as Switzerland's primary financial and cultural hub, which is the reason why it's given that status. However, it isn't surprising that it lacks many tall towers considering that it isn't a large city (which mean they don't have the demand in place to cause upward movement). However, just like London, this is starting to change. Prior to 2000, Zurich limited most highrises around 260ft, but since then regulation has been relaxed, allowing the construction of the Sunrise tower that topped off at 289ft in 2004 and recently the Prime Tower at 413ft in 2011. The public also recently struck down a bill restricting towers to a maximum of 40m. You can harp on Zurich now, but if the city's population continue to rise, you'll see more high-rises. It's already happening.

 

[tmac9wr]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

That's why I said that Boston economy is driven mostly from health and education in our city. Also honorable mentions like tourism, federal agencies, professional services. But what I'm saying was I don't want nimby's to reject every thing that will bring growth to the city, that's all. I was using Detroit as a example of a fallen city, I'm not saying Boston is gonna have the same fate as Detroit.

You gotta include financial services in that too. Boston is a world power when it comes to finance. Probably in the top 3 or 4 in the world in terms of raw dollar Assets Under Management.

 

[underground]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

@Kent
You're kinda making the point for him though. Zurich's success came first, then taller buildings, then population increase, then maybe more taller buildings. I mean, just on the face of it, isn't it sort of odd to think that you could just build a bunch of tall buildings and somehow that would translate to becoming an economic power? Even in a sky scraper crazy place like Dubai, oil came well before the towers.

And to get back to the original point of the discussion, Boston needs to grow, for sure, but where's the proof that it needs a 1000 ft tower to do that? That's the data point that would end the debate, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist.

 

[KentXie]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Outside the points KMP already made, that's a pretty big counter-factual.

Except that it's not. Let me ask, what's the reason behind the recent influx of towers in London? You say it's a symptom of success and that's true but the reason that they are built is to maintain that success. To keep large corporations in today's world, you need to provide them a large amount of space to operate while keeping transaction cost for them low. If London had resisted constructing large headquarters, and businesses like Swiss Re had to spread their London branch over large area because no single building can provide enough space for their offices, what are the chances that, if for example Manchester enters into a discussion to provide them a large headquarter, sufficient enough to house all their operations, that they would shift their offices to Manchester? It's probably very likely. Now, what happens if Manchester offers to build headquarters for a dozen corporations? You have a magnet, where more corporations will move out to Manchester to take advantage of the economies of agglomeration.

Again, time has changed. Stay stagnant, and you're left behind. Adapt, as London has, and the city will stay in the forefront.

 

[KentXie]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

@Kent
You're kinda making the point for him though. Zurich's success came first, then taller buildings, then population increase, then maybe more taller buildings. I mean, just on the face of it, isn't it sort of odd to think that you could just build a bunch of tall buildings and somehow that would translate to becoming an economic power? Even in a sky scraper crazy place like Dubai, oil came well before the towers.

And to get back to the original point of the discussion, Boston needs to grow, for sure, but where's the proof that it needs a 1000 ft tower to do that? That's the data point that would end the debate, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist.

I'm not disputing that point. I'm saying that it's necessary for a city to build up in today's world to maintain their economic power.

 

[DZH22]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

"Do you think Dubai is a better city than Boston because it builds tall? Boston doesn't need to be like that. Boston should strive to be more like cities X, Y, and Z........ Oh, so it turns out cities X, Y, and Z are either currently building skyscrapers, recently completed them, or both? Well, that is all completely irrelevant. Boston should strive to be more like cities X, Y, and Z were in 1910."

-75% of the forumers here

 

[underground]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

@Kent and DZH22 both

Is there anyone on this board arguing that we shouldn't build? The argument here is about whether or not we "need" a 1000 footer. That's it. Plenty of economists would tell you that we need to expand and lower the cost of living and doing business, but if there's some economist out there arguing that we need a 1000 foot tower to do it, then I'm missing it.

Except that it's not.

If you're asking what would have happened if something different had happened in the past (ie what if London hadn't build Canary Wharf), that's a counter-factual by definition, and unless you could unearth some currently unknown stat to actually prove it, making that argument based on history is going to be a fun thought experiment, but a pretty flawed proof.

 

[KentXie]

Re: Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

@Kent and DZH22 both

Is there anyone on this board arguing that we shouldn't build?The argument here is about whether or not we "need" a 1000 footer. That's it.

I'm merely responding to your post.

If tons of towers are what powers economics, then London is certainly surprised.

Not tons, but yes towers are needed to maintain and power a large economy, and London and soon to be Zurich are no exceptions.