Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

I've been out there hammering her too, which is good because she reads the comments and gets pissed (big surprise). The woman is certifiable. Lets say she does on occasion bring up a good point. Its almost by accident, or all for the cause of making a spectacle of herself. Don't legitimize crazy people. I'm sure there are plenty of people opposed to this for legitimate reasons that can speak intelligently and not with the goal of exciting the 5 people who voted for Maura Hennigan in her mayoral race against Menino.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

First, it will not be 775' or 750' if the FAA limit is 725'. I don't know why that is still being bandied about. I am also surprised at the comments at various places (UHub, reddit, etc) on how negative people seem to be about it now. Hopefully not representative of the public at large.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

^^Even the Globe posts are getting really negative on all development. Talking it up against big business is like handing out Mandrax laced candy at an old Led Zep concert.

It's noticably worse than in months past.

The nimby's are massing at the border.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

bakgwailo said:
First, it will not be 775' or 750' if the FAA limit is 725'. I don't know why that is still being bandied about. I am also surprised at the comments at various places (UHub, reddit, etc) on how negative people seem to be about it now. Hopefully not representative of the public at large.
Click to expand...

Because Millennium proposed a 775-foot tower in their filing with the BRA?
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Get back out to the comment section that Globe article. Shirley just wrote a screed where she says next they'll be building tall buildings ON the Boston Common!
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

New drinking game: drink every time any concern, no matter how legitimate, is disregarded as "NIMBYism." How fast do you think you'd get drunk on this board?
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Man about town said:
Because Millennium proposed a 775-foot tower in their filing with the BRA?
Click to expand...

Because developers never propose something that can't happen to make them look like the compromised at the end of everything, right? Just saying, if the FAA limit is really 725' on that lot as others have said it is, then this is all just a moot point.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

bakgwailo said:
Because developers never propose something that can't happen to make them look like the compromised at the end of everything, right? Just saying, if the FAA limit is really 725' on that lot as others have said it is, then this is all just a moot point.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, do you really think they would go through the whole dog-and-pony show to change the shadow law if there wasn't already a deal/understanding in place with the FAA? This law could limit future developments so it would be quite the double whammy to have this tower pared down after the change.

While I don't like that future projects could be limited, I do think we will never get a higher peak in the financial district anyway. I'd rather get that one peak to stand out, and have future 550' towers cut down to 450', than continue the plateau forever.

Regarding a new tallest, potential still exists near the Pru or in the developing area close to North Station. I also think if we can convince MIT to build 800' on the one parcel it would be able to on Volpe, it might spur Boston to answer with a tower of its own.


TheRifleman said:
If the city of Boston can't build a 1,000ft tower here the city will never see one.
Click to expand...

Why does it have to necessarily be here? There are other sites that don't fall under the same strict FAA and/or shadow restrictions that hamper this one. Visually, this site might make the most sense, but Boston's skyline has never been about making sense.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Gameguy326 said:
New drinking game: drink every time any concern, no matter how legitimate, is disregarded as "NIMBYism." How fast do you think you'd get drunk on this board?
Click to expand...

Sooo...when the head NIMBY publicly states that this will lead to buildings being built on the Common itself....do we drink on that in your opinion or no?
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

bakgwailo said:
Because developers never propose something that can't happen to make them look like the compromised at the end of everything, right? Just saying, if the FAA limit is really 725' on that lot as others have said it is, then this is all just a moot point.
Click to expand...

I agree it's a moot point and isn't likely to get to 775. But, right now, Millennium is formally proposing a 775-foot tower. And no one knows exactly where the FAA limit is going to wind up. So how else would you describe it?
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

i was told by the BRA a year ago, the RFP left a bit of wiggle room to reach about 735'~740'. Recall that Tom O'Brien's original RFA for HYM was 740'. Massport would likely be willing to walk up to that minor increment of height before they slam the door shut.

DZH22 said:
While I don't like that future projects could be limited, I do think we will never get a higher peak in the financial district anyway. I'd rather get that one peak to stand out, and have future 550' towers cut down to 450', than continue the plateau forever.
Click to expand...

This.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

The irony of this is that if the tower was a few blocks CLOSER to Boston Common it would be allowed, right, since it would then be in the Midtown District?
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

odurandina said:
i was told by the BRA a year ago, the RFP left a bit of wiggle room to reach about 735'~740'. Recall that Tom O'Brien's original RFA for HYM was 740'. Massport would likely be willing to walk up to that minor increment of height before they slam the door shut.
Click to expand...

HYM's project was a block further from the harbor, where the St. Anthony Shrine sits. Wouldn't be surprised if the FAA limit is a bit higher there.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Gameguy326 said:
New drinking game: drink every time any concern, no matter how legitimate, is disregarded as "NIMBYism." How fast do you think you'd get drunk on this board?
Click to expand...

New drinking game: Every time a height fetishist on this board cites "density" to hammer a so-called NIMBY.

To verify who is a height fetishist and who is a density advocate, search this board to see how eagerly said height fetishist participates in fora when BPDA is responsibly planning for the eventual rezoning of large swaths of land as opposed to spot zoning another one-off.

How many height fetishists on this board participated in the "PlanDotAve" process (where Washington Village is already moving forward with 650+ housing units)? From my experience, height fetishists are AWOL when participation in the trenches matters towards creating serious density. Meanwhile, the so-called "NIMBYs" who raise concerns about spot zoned projects can be counted on to roll up their sleeves with BPDA.

So carry on Winthrop Square height fetishists. You're busy cheerleading the creation of a new neighborhood 250 units at a time, in a district that for 10 years has desperately needed a master plan and 5,000-10,000 housing units created via broad rezoning.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

This thread should be re-labeled, "151 pages of nothing".

Sorry, I very much want to see Boston get something special on this site.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Sicilian said:
From my experience, height fetishists are AWOL when participation in the trenches matters towards creating serious density....
Click to expand...

This post blows. In addition to the SST skyscraper, i've spoken in favor of 5 density projects at the BPDA EDIC Board Meetings for > 1000 housing units along the Albany/Harrison Streets area of South End and several hundred more in Charlestown, etc.

And the 115 Winthrop Square, 1 Bromfield, Parcel 15, Garden Garage and Harbor Garage projects are big density deals. Been all over these meetings dumping on nimbys all over the City.

i've been saying for 18 months we're in a skyscraper countdown working our last parcels for what is likely to be a 10-25 year pause. Damn right we need to put those >180m towers where those proposals lay. They're all home runs that will transform the City's ability to pay it's Goddamned bills (for the next 25 years and beyond).

Is anyone proposing 600' at 2 Charlesgate W? That God damned parcel can handle that height with ease. You balance out the Downtown turds with a 700' tower at 1 Bromfield and 677' SST and we're into a new realm–with almost nil negative impact against the Crowned Heads of Beacon Hill and Back Bay.
 
Last edited:
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Not sure I get the bleating about this being the "last tower" (cue ominous music please). IF Winthrop Square goes up at 750 or whatever, could you not build a tower somewhere behind it who's shadow would be blocked by the current project? Same thing with MT.

Beyond that, it was highly unlikely too much was going up near Copley anyway. Your best bet for new tallest or even really significant tall building will be around One Dalton. Doesn't half the board have it out for the Hilton down there? :eek:

Regarding a height fetish, if some developer offered 153M to put the thing at 600 ft or 500ft that would be a good deal for the city too. If you've ever seen a municipal budget up close you just don't blow off that kind of money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top