Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

[Rover]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

If they get this built I give them a ton of credit because I don't recall a project facing this much idiotic NIMBY opposition actually getting built. Only Harbor Towers if built has had a tougher go from what I remember although maybe some old-timers can speak of the Hancock's ordeal. A little before my time.

 

[stick n move]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

The design is not final so maybe an observation deck could still be in the cards....even though I'm 100% sure they are going to use the great hall as their out. The great hall and an observation deck makes this THE destination. I don't know why they would not want their tower to be a mega tourist attraction as the great hall is going to be geared more towards events that residents will attend/ a cut through for pedestrians. The family coming to Boston from China would absolutely put this tower on their checklist if it had one. Towers with observation decks become world famous, they are losing out by not putting one here. Yes you lose a floor of rentable office space but you can charge for observation decks and also include restaurants, gift shops...etc.


I was digging for the accordia observation deck renders and found these buried 30 pages back so figured id repost them.

enjoy

 

[stick n move]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

This thread has been ruined because photoshop shit itself but theres still a few interesting renders left, heres one.

If nothing else this helps get an idea of the massing we are looking to add to the skyline.

 

[jl326]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

The design is not final so maybe an observation deck could still be in the cards....even though I'm 100% sure they are going to use the great hall as their out. The great hall and an observation deck makes this THE destination. I don't know why they would not want their tower to be a mega tourist attraction as the great hall is going to be geared more towards events that residents will attend/ a cut through for pedestrians. The family coming to Boston from China would absolutely put this tower on their checklist if it had one. Towers with observation decks become world famous, they are losing out by not putting one here. Yes you lose a floor of rentable office space but you can charge for observation decks and also include restaurants, gift shops...etc.


enjoy

Not disagreeing that an observation deck would be a pretty cool addition here, but just want to say that I don't think most people want their homes to be main tourist attractions.

By the way, I'm also glad Millenium won this bid. That Trinity proposal looked terrible.

 

[stick n move]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

The Pru already has one so they have no choice.

 

[FenwayResident]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Not disagreeing that an observation deck would be a pretty cool addition here, but just want to say that I don't think most people want their homes to be main tourist attractions.

By the way, I'm also glad Millenium won this bid. That Trinity proposal looked terrible.

In cases like this where there's a commercial and residential component of a building, they will usually have totally separate entrances and addresses. The residents would likely never interact with people going up to the observation deck unless they ran into them on the street.

 

[JeffDowntown]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

In cases like this where there's a commercial and residential component of a building, they will usually have totally separate entrances and addresses. The residents would likely never interact with people going up to the observation deck unless they ran into them on the street.

Hancock (200 Clarendon) old observation deck had a totally separate entrance, just for the deck.

 

[Hubman]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Not disagreeing that an observation deck would be a pretty cool addition here, but just want to say that I don't think most people want their homes to be main tourist attractions.

I could see how that could be annoying, but it probably could work. There would already be alot of visitors at the retail portion, and they could make an elevator that didn't go to people's homes.

 

[navigator4]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

I could see how that could be annoying, but it probably could work. There would already be alot of visitors at the retail portion, and they could make an elevator that didn't go to people's homes.

If One WTC in NYC can make it work, I'm sure 115 Winthrop could.

 

[spaceghost]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

I am a huge fan of seeing the city from the top and actually think there is a different level of appreciation you gain when you can absorb the full thing from a high view. I moved to Boston eight years ago and one of the fondest memories I had that made me approve of our family move was of a trip I made in 1997 when I got to see the entire city from Hancock Tower. Pru has an observation deck but it dwarfs in comparison to what Hancock had.

Cheers Everyone!
Filip
Digital808.com

 

[JumboBuc]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

If One WTC in NYC can make it work, I'm sure 115 Winthrop could.

Seriously???

First off, One WTC doesn't "make it work". Their annual visitor counts are short of projections by a million people per year.

And think of the emotional, cultural, and historic significance of One WTC and its location, and of all the people that are drawn to visit that site and that building. 115 Winthrop (thankfully) couldn't be anywhere near that ballpark. I'd be surprised if it could possibly get even one-tenth the visitors One WTC does.

When considering hypothetical observation decks, remember that they require their own dedicated elevator(s). So an observation deck may only take up 1 of 55-or-so floors, but it also takes up 1 of 12-or-so elevators. That's a much bigger opportunity cost.

We architecture people love observation decks, but we are in no way representative of the general public. And even we would probably only visit the thing very sporadically (like, maybe once a year, tops). Given the price of each square foot and the even greater premium on elevator space, it's really hard to make the economics of observation decks work.

 

[stick n move]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

^ Yea but you kind of have a commitment to the public and visitors when you are building the tallest building that will probably ever be built downtown in any of our lifetimes to deliver. I think its worth it. When I go to a new city I always try to find the observation deck as one of the first places I go, millions of people would do the same here. If this was 1 Bromfield then its not worth it but a 775' tower in the middle of downtown that will probably never be topped unless Logan is moved and every nimby moves out of the city... worth it. Thats why they specifically called for it in the first place before Millennium tried to divert the attention away towards the great hall. The great hall will be pretty cool, but nobody has ever seen downtown from the top of a tower this tall and never will if its not built here. Just looking out the window from the VA office in the JFK building out towards the harbor makes me think that this is a huge missed opportunity. The Pru is literally on the outskirts of the skyline...its the last tall building in the city before you hit brownstones and the pierce, the view is great but its nowhere near the same. Either way sounds like a moot point at this stage.

 

[odurandina]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

This nut (Bill Galvin) isn't yet giving up his fight to stop Winthrop Square (which, of course, was his aim all along).

https://boston.curbed.com/2017/8/2/16074894/boston-shadows-winthrop-square-galvin

Calling the relaxation of the shadow laws “unfortunate,” Galvin told WGBH on July 31 that that change “doesn’t necessarily mean the building is going to be built. There’s still a process to go through, and we’re certainly going to be part of that process.”

Galvin seems ready for a long, drawn-out review of the Winthrop Square tower, which would become New England’s tallest primarily residential building and one of the three tallest in Boston.

His historical commission cannot really eighty-six the plans—which, we should note, enjoy support from other officials, including Boston Mayor Marty Walsh—but it can delay them long enough to jeopardize financing for the project.


His openly declared method to delay the process in an effort to run out the clock has left a dozen skyscrapers unbuilt in the past few years that should already be u/c or up. How surprising that a pathetic figure given a little power promises to do all he can do to stop Boston from conducting its business affairs about a project that has been deliberated, disputed, killed, revived and re-litigated going on past a decade.

 

[JohnAKeith]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Bill Galvin was first elected to office in 1975 and has been Secretary of State since 1994, re-elected five times since then with 54 - 82 percent of the general election vote. If there's opposition to what he's doing, it hasn't presented itself.

This nut (Bill Galvin) isn't yet giving up his fight to stop Winthrop Square (which, of course, was his aim all along).

... How surprising that a pathetic figure given a little power promises to do all he can do to stop Boston from conducting its business affairs about a project that has been deliberated, disputed, killed, revived and re-litigated going on past a decade.

 

[dotdude78]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Bill Galvin was first elected to office in 1975 and has been Secretary of State since 1994, re-elected five times since then with 54 - 82 percent of the general election vote. If there's opposition to what he's doing, it hasn't presented itself.

Um, I don't think anyone considered this topic when voting for him. Stick to elections and public records, Bill.

 

[dirtywater]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

There is a reason that Bill Galvin is referred to as the "Prince of Darkness". He is known to be particularly difficult when someone attempts to build something in his neighborhood that he objects to. Here is one example.

 

[Rover]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

This nut (Bill Galvin) isn't yet giving up his fight to stop Winthrop Square (which, of course, was his aim all along).

https://boston.curbed.com/2017/8/2/16074894/boston-shadows-winthrop-square-galvin

Calling the relaxation of the shadow laws “unfortunate,” Galvin told WGBH on July 31 that that change “doesn’t necessarily mean the building is going to be built. There’s still a process to go through, and we’re certainly going to be part of that process.”

Galvin seems ready for a long, drawn-out review of the Winthrop Square tower, which would become New England’s tallest primarily residential building and one of the three tallest in Boston.

His historical commission cannot really eighty-six the plans—which, we should note, enjoy support from other officials, including Boston Mayor Marty Walsh—but it can delay them long enough to jeopardize financing for the project.


His openly declared method to delay the process in an effort to run out the clock has left a dozen skyscrapers unbuilt in the past few years that should already be u/c or up. How surprising that a pathetic figure given a little power promises to do all he can do to stop Boston from conducting its business affairs about a project that has been deliberated, disputed, killed, revived and re-litigated going on past a decade.

Bill Galvin has a lot less power to do anything than he appears to think or that the reporter ascribes to him. He doesn't even have the ability to delay it aside from making noise because its out of scope to what the MHC does. Think about it, if the dude had a compelling case, why are we only hearing about this now even though he gave this interview 3 weeks ago? Its because he's actually a toothless hack. I'd also say it helps that he's considered a laughingstock after his time in the state house. His being involved in the opposition is actually good news given how little regard there is for him.

 

[JohnAKeith]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Opinion piece by Jim Aloisi on "unintended consequences" of building the Winthrop Square tower.

... Massport has provided comments on the Winthrop Square project in a letter to Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Matthew Beaton. In those comments, Massport makes the following points: a 775 foot tower at Winthrop Square would penetrate the FAA’s departure corridor for Runway 27, leading airlines to move departures from that runway to Runway 33L. This shifting of operations will shift overflights from communities south of Boston to communities west and north of Boston, thus increasing noise impacts in places such as East Boston, Winthrop, Revere, Chelsea, and Everett.

Let me put this in plain English: the proposed 775 foot tower will degrade quality of life in places such as East Boston – and in communities to the west and north of Boston – because it will require flights to shift to Runway 33L, thus increasing noise impacts in those communities. The tower will also likely cause cascading delays for travelers in and out of Logan because it will put inordinate stress on one runway at the expense of another.

More: https://commonwealthmagazine.org/economy/boston-tower-law-unintended-consequences/

 

[chrisbrat]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

yeah... as frustrating as it is for anyone who's *not* anti-height at all costs, i'll just be really surprised if this thing ever happens at even kind of the proposed height. millenium (or someone else, eventually, if this current proposal dies) will put up something around 700' instead and nothing will ever really break the financial district plateau (unless you feel that MT already did -- which, from some angles, it has, but not dramatically).

 

[bigpicture7]

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

We should have no issue with a 700', or a 675', or a 650' tower at this site. The point is to maximize use of a blighted, abandoned garage parcel...with a public realm, and dense multi-use development. I'm surprised Millennium has sustained the 775' rhetoric as long as it has...I thought that was just gamesmanship to make it seem like they were giving something up when they announce its actual height. Maybe it still is.

Meanwhile, there are other places in the city much better suited for skyline-altering height. To the west of gov. ctr, and in the back bay high spine.

We need to move on from thinking about dramatic height at this parcel.