Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

This tower needs to be built asap. That entire block is so empty every day. Could use some foot traffic.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

JohnAKeith said:
I can't tell if you're serious or being sarcastic. Yes, I said - 30 - but in response to your response, Boston's government (with the state) was responsible for the Back Bay!, hardly a worst decision.
Click to expand...
Fair qualification that I forgot to include! Land expansion that could not be feasibly accomplished with private capital was a good idea that will never happen (ironically due to other levels of govt) in 2016. But in the market itself, the general trend is in favor of increased centralized control (from zoning, parking regs, setbacks, etc...), and I'm not really seeing what benefit could outweigh the corresponding massive decrease in unit production. When private sector developers screw up, we get shadows over parks. When the government screws up, we bulldoze tens of thousands of homes and completely destroy a neighborhood for a pollution-spewing highway that never gets built.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

All of this makes me think that the 775' was standard negotiating overshoot tactic...Millennium will end up building this at 710' after creating the appearance that they graciously conceded 65'. Always start by asking for more, so they say...
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

What happens at 1 Bromfield will prove interesting if not disappointing.

their current proposal rises to about 709~714'.



here's Winthrop Garage on the map ....right on the 725' line.

 
Last edited:
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Why would the RFP ask for 725' if Massport wouldn't allow it? We need better coordination in this city between departments. Frankly, the results of this are becoming absolutely pathetic.

So they ask for something iconic here, yet allow Boston Properties to build a total underwhelming piece of dogshit going up at North Station, which doesn't have the same FAA or "shadow on the common" problems of this site.

What a joke. One of these days I am going to start showing up at these meetings and I am not going to pull any punches when I am there. Everybody at the BRA should be fired over this.
 
Last edited:
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Whoa, whoa...this is apples/oranges with regard to North Station. The Hub on Causeway parcel was not city-owned. There was no city RFP to the developer community. The city cannot force a developer to build to a certain height. Now, you can argue that BP eff'd that up to get through the community vetting process quicker...

Meanwhile, here at 115 Winthrop, you can argue that the BPDA should have better vetted the spec numbers they put in the RFP (for aviation, shadows, etc..)...but they were in a tough spot there too. If they made a big spectacle about the parcel's limitations, it could have compromised their prospects of getting a large bid for the parcel...

I know its easy to get mad about this, but the true test for the BPDA/mayor's office is how well they get the developer's back and lobby the state legislature and aviation folks to preserve the value of this parcel...

If they don't, then MP gets most of their money back. So there's serious pressure on the city to make this work.

(& if the BPDA eff's this up and has to give MP the money back, then I will agree with you that this was a royally botched operation)
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

The City has already accounted for and is waiting for each and every dollar. The top ~80' of this tower pretty much all goes to the city. .....Now Massport wants to take at least half of that away. Tell me this isn't a government run operation in Massachusetts. They're gonna tell Massport to stick it up their ass.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Didn't the RFP state 725" as the max per the FAA? Pretty sure Millenium went over at 775" as a normal thing - the hey, maybe it will work/slide, but really, now we can say we negotiated on everything and were good (but really ended up at the actual 725" that was allowed in the first place).
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

This is easily the worst thread on the entire site since the aquarium thread was locked. The height fetish crew is going to town on this one
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

BuilditDenser said:
This is easily the worst thread on the entire site since the aquarium thread was locked. The height fetish crew is going to town on this one
Click to expand...

I'm honestly tired of forum members insinuating that there are only two types of people on this forum...height-obsessed, and anti-height-obsessed.

Some of us are in the middle. We want smart height. Height where it belongs. No height where height doesn't belong etc. It's not some simple dichotomy among forum members.

This development is great for its location, period. Other sites are better for infill. Etc, etc, etc, etc.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Fall 2015, i lobbied Mayor Walsh and the BRA Board hard NOT TO BLINK and just approve the Garden Garage.

That project was in serious jeopardy. Board and Mayor's office was very worried about a p/r disaster.

APPROVED.

People couldn't frigging believe it.

Just around that time, Harbor Garage is declared DEAD by the BRA and media. ...and if we're honest; by Martin himself in a press statement.

i lobbied Walsh and the Director furiously behind the scenes (for months) to take a 2nd look at the HG project from a blank sheet: "i believe you all missed the positive benefit of a scaled down project (1 tower), massing, etc..."

Tweeted in the Globe starting in the fall of '15 that EVERYONE including the developer himself missed the (1 tower + green space) formula. They did. i'll be proven right on that someday.

The BRA brings Chiofaro back throughout the spring and summer and they hammer out what amounts to 'something of substance.'

September meeting of the Board, Brian pulls me aside; "We're gonna do it...."

TURNED THE TIDE

2 days later, out of left field, Globe starts running odd; 'time to do the Harbor Garage' pieces....

it's been a busy year. Like, 2 dozen public meetings. i suck at speaking in public (God), but there's nimby bullshit being spewed that requires a response. Obstructionists must be met head on, challenged, and shut down. i've been to almost every meeting for the Harbor Garage, 111 Fed, 1 Bromfield, and Parcel 15.

The push back from 'yimby' has resulted in 'really good' discussions with the Boston Preservation Alliance. They've come to see that 'maybe there's not so much to fear, after all.' save for watching out for poor designs. They're right. We're going to put forth a solid but reasonable challenge to the neighborhood groups, including 2 Charlesgate W and the CLF at 150 Seaport and Harbor Garage.

There's not much height being done in Boston. Not likely to be much additional 'serious height' proposed in the near term. This is it. Chiofaro needs 1~1.1M sq ft. We're gonna lose this project over 100~200k sq ft? We need the 'gifted' contributors of AB to come and speak in favor.... These projects need to be tall, iconic and well executed. Not VE'd garbage.

Let Boston Rise.
 
Last edited:
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Oh this is pretty neat! I didn't realize we had people here who have so much clout in the project development process.

odurandina, what do you do for a living that gives you so much sway in these meetings?
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

odurandina said:
115 Winthrop Square Public Meeting

when; Jan 05, 2017, 6:30–8:30 PM

Contact; Christopher Tracy, Christopher.Tracy@Boston.gov

Phone; 617.918.4259
.........The public comment period is also being extended, based on community request, until January 16, 2017.
Click to expand...

Almost waited too long, but I just sent the following email to Christopher:

To Christopher Tracy and whomever else it may concern,
I am writing you mainly to voice my support for the new proposal at Winthrop Square, although I am not fully without criticism for Millennium. I also would like to share some of my other opinions about Boston's development process, loosely related to this proposal. As to my background, I am a local resident who has grown up in the area and lived here most of my 30-something years. I am a mostly fervent supporter of smart, dense development, and am a longtime poster on archboston.com. (DZH22)
Before I zero in on Winthrop Square itself, I would like to discuss part of the spirit of the RFP, and how I believe the city is being done a disservice on this front. As we all know, ex Mayor Menino originally tabbed this location as the site for a new city tallest, a Supertall Tower over 1000' which would become the new beacon of Boston. This was ultimately shot down by the FAA, but it begged the question: Can Boston build a new tallest building, and is this the site to make it happen?

Regarding a New Tallest
The short answer is maybe Boston can build a new tallest, somewhere, but it isn't here. The FAA is seeing to that. So even with this RFP requesting a bold new tower and new focal point in Boston, we are still going to be looking at likely the 4th tallest building in the city. (behind the tower formerly known as the Hancock, the Pru, and the upcoming 1 Dalton)
If Boston is ever going to get a new tallest, and rise above what it attained 40 years ago, there are precious few places to do it. 2 prime locations are North Station and the Back Bay Garage, both of which are being squandered with underwhelming towers planned, courtesy of Boston Properties. I would like to see more consideration regarding these general locations for height, and a chance for a genuine new icon.
I know many people don't want Boston to become like NYC, but there is no chance of that truly happening. In terms of scale, NYC has 16 buildings simultaneously under construction right now that all eclipse our tallest. In fact, many peer and smaller cities can boast at least one taller building than Boston, including San Francisco, Seattle, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, , Chicago, LA, Miami, Pittsburgh, Minneapolis, Cleveland, Charlotte, Oklahoma City, Indianapolis.... That list continues to grow, and it sells our city short because a skyline is basically an outsider's first impression. We are stuck with large, 70's boxes as the focal points on our mostly beautiful landscape.

Iconic Architecture and Preservation
The demands for this proposal called for something iconic to be built here. I would like to bring up another tower, 1 Bromfield, which I thought was maybe the boldest, coolest looking proposal I have ever seen for Boston. Now, to be fair, I was very unhappy with the base and believe the Payless Building should be saved on that corner, perhaps via facadectomy. But the tower itself is spectacular and I hope it can retain most of its original design and all of its height. The shape is sleek and daring, and the color scheme adds more variety to Boston's palette. As the financial district already has a dense canopy of 500-600' buildings, this would be an incredible piece of the puzzle at over 700', right across from the 685' Millennium Tower.
This next paragraph may seem a little bit scathing, but I am extremely disappointed with the way large projects such as this continue to fail (Harbor Garage and many air rights projects are current examples) while our city agencies so callously approve the destruction of gems such as the Dainty Dot and Times Buildings. The Dainty Dot in particular was a travesty, as the original proposal, which would have preserved the building, was deemed "too iconic" to be on the greenway. So we lost the Dainty Dot, and 50' off the proposal, and better architecture. Who wins? There needs to be more done to preserve the soul of Boston, emulating projects such as Atlantic Wharf. I know 2 more gems on Stuart Street will eventually be replaced by the new "bubble" Hancock, and the Trinity Hotel, while there are still empty lots in the area. More effort needs to be made to save our historic urban fabric.

Millennium Praise and Criticisms
Before I truly support the current project, I want Millennium to add some sort of roof to the new Millennium Tower. From points all over the South and Southwest you can see the opening in the roof. (see attached picture) From most angles this is bar-none the most beautiful tower built here in my lifetime, and was a great win for the city of Boston. However, from certain angles the top is literally an eyesore. Seeing the white grid inside is jarring and looks unfinished. The renders showed a roof here, with a slit for the window washing equipment to extend through. Please ask them to finish this roof the same way they finished the roofs on Millennium Place. There is no reason to have this tower be 1% eyesore, right at the very top no less, when the rest of it is so gorgeous.
Now, if they will finish the roof, I have ever ounce of faith that Millennium will deliver a top-notch product at Winthrop Square. The current iteration reminds me of IDS Tower in Minneapolis, only for the 21st century. Despite its heft, it is sleek, modern, and powerful. I am excited about the prospect of the Great Hall to enliven the area, and hope they light the crown at night. The developer has already done so much already to revitalize DTX and the Theater District, and I am confident they will be able to complete this project and inject yet more life into downtown. Obviously, Boston is also due a windfall if this succeeds, and after will annually receive an impactful amount of taxes for the city budget.

Shadow Concerns and the FAA
I am going to admit that the FAA will be difficult, if not impossible, to circumvent. I do wonder if it is feasible to add additional radar coverage to Logan, allowing an increase in development potential across large swaths of downtown. I hope something can be done to get this tower to at least the 725' original target or a lot of people might end up looking rather foolish on this front.
Regarding shadows, it's important to note that this tower won't be blocking any of the pleasant, overhead sun during the day. It certainly wouldn't have an effect on the horticulture of the Common and Gardens. Instead, it will be blocking out an essentially horizontal, blinding sun for a few minutes in the morning. I, for one, would welcome this sweeping sliver of shade to block out the extreme glare. We are supposedly a powerhouse city, with both a top 10 metro and GDP for the country, and shouldn't let a little bit of shade scuttle such a promising, positive project. Contrary to what a vocal minority may scream at the top of their lungs, the sky is not falling and this will have essentially zero impact on people's enjoyment of our parks over half a mile away.

Final Thoughts, Thank You for Reading
In closing, I would like to reiterate that I am for this proposal and believe "Let Boston Rise" is an appropriate slogan for 2017 and beyond. I have a lot of pride for our city's history, but also want to have pride in the way we continue to blend our past into the future. I believe the city has a ton of potential, but we need to make sure we don't squander it, particularly in the specific locations where we can conceivably "reach for the stars."
Thank you very much for taking the time to read this. I wish you luck in your role of shaping Boston's success, and hope you will pass along my letter of support.

Respectfully,
(DZH22) <---Real name provided in the email.

Here is the picture I attached.

IMG_3767 by David Z, on Flickr
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Note that Christopher Tracy just left his role. The new point of contact is Casey Hines: casey.hines@boston.gov

The contact for all other projects is Jonathan Greeley: jonathan.greeley@boston.gov

I forwarded my message along to Casey, and CC'ed Jonathan.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

DZH22 ++++1 Great job!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top