Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

KriterionBOS said:
I'm from Nashville, and forget NYC, I doubt Music City has as much red tape as Boston does when it comes to building anything remotely tall.
Click to expand...

Who cares? Certainly not all the developers who've been putting up tower after tower in Boston's central core since, oh, 2012 or so. Obviously it's profitable for them or they wouldn't be doing it. So the notion this "red tape" (however you'd actually measure it objectively) is actually a real burden in terms of all the major new development that's happened in Boston strikes me as laughable.
 
I agree were in the biggest boom in modern history, theres really no problem right now. We havent put up an office tower over 300 ft in what 10 years? Now we have 4 over 500ft under construction. Anybody can throw up a res tower, building tall office towers is the true mark of a boom. Although I dont agree with lots of the processes, they have good intent. The review processes are there to ensure the city develops the right way and you dont just have out of place buildings springing up everywhere. Again I dont agree with all of it, but when you step back and look at the built environment the product overall is great. The city is magnitude orders improved over it was just 20 years ago. Boston in the 90s was a crappy place. Far removed from its glory days and fully built out in its urban renewal, brutalism, and the interstate highway system. Luckily from the conclusion of the big dig on, it has swung back in the other direction to reveal the truly unique city of the American landscape.
 
DBM said:
Who cares? Certainly not all the developers who've been putting up tower after tower in Boston's central core since, oh, 2012 or so. Obviously it's profitable for them or they wouldn't be doing it. So the notion this "red tape" (however you'd actually measure it objectively) is actually a real burden in terms of all the major new development that's happened in Boston strikes me as laughable.
Click to expand...
This is implausible. Boston has a stronger economy than Seattle or Vancouver, yet is building less than half as much per capita. What do you think causes that discrepancy, if regulation has no impact?
 
Of course more development will happen in a recovery/expansion/boom. The question is not if more development is happening, but the delta between how much is happening as opposed to how much would naturally happen without the red tape.

Now, as stick says, a lot of the regulation is in place for good reason, and I wouldn't want to throw it all out. But it seems like Boston has a balance tilted towards too much building regulation, which definitely slows down development to a degree not seen in most other cities.
 
Coyote137 said:
Of course more development will happen in a recovery/expansion/boom. The question is not if more development is happening, but the delta between how much is happening as opposed to how much would naturally happen without the red tape.

Now, as stick says, a lot of the regulation is in place for good reason, and I wouldn't want to throw it all out. But it seems like Boston has a balance tilted towards too much building regulation, which definitely slows down development to a degree not seen in most other cities.
Click to expand...

I would say Boston is getting out from a culture of brainless NIMBYism left over from the 70 and 80's. Its taking awhile, its way slower than it should be, but its a vast improvement from previous decades. 20 years ago Winthrop Square doesn't get built even if they offered up a billion dollars. Now instead of getting unquestioned gold plated press coverage and no review of the motivations behind the "NO to Everything" crowd there's a much more even debate. I suspect that momentum will continue as the notion that building tall buildings next to other tall buildings brings in much needed tax revenue takes hold, and if you have to exchange that for an extra half hour of a shadow in mid January you take that deal unless you're a total loon.
 
re; USA vs Boston.
DBM said:
Who cares? Certainly not all the developers who've been putting up tower after tower in Boston's central core since, oh, 2012 or so. Obviously it's profitable for them or they wouldn't be doing it....
Click to expand...

Hmm. Boston is a significantly larger office market than Seattle. But, Seattle is just another city that has gone massive to the tune of 65 skyscrapers built, u/c or approved since 2010. Seattle outdoes Boston on over 300', over 400', over 500', over 600, over 700' between 3 and 5 to 1 in every height point. You almost can't build a God damned thing over 160~200' in the neighborhoods incl the Fenway, or over 270~390' in most of Back Bay, Downtown & the West End.

i guess we just ignore that.

There are about 2 dozen sites left capable of supporting highrises over 450'. Except, that you won't see anything proposed, or built on any of them.

i guess we just ignore that. Can't be critical of anything Boston, including the stupid, market/job killer tax they want to impose;

https://www.bostonglobe.com/busines...ty/mzMWWug6SWJno2O9VyXRGI/story.html#comments


In terms of sq. ft. our numbers are very good. The Seaport is building to the limit of what is possible. But Boston isn't building near tall enough everywhere else--and is squandering valuable land in such a way that it will be unfeasible to go back and fix down the road. Boston does add years of red tape compared to every city in USA for anything taller than about 260~280'.... and it IS hurting the bottom line.
 
Last edited:
stick n move said:
Boston in the 90s was a crappy place. Far removed from its glory days and fully built out in its urban renewal, brutalism, and the interstate highway system. Luckily from the conclusion of the big dig on, it has swung back in the other direction to reveal the truly unique city of the American landscape.
Click to expand...

That's a bit of an extreme statement. Did you live here in the 90s? I did, and Boston was already pretty great. I'm no less enthusiastic about the past 20 years, but there was already much that was magical about this place in the 90s.
 
HenryAlan said:
That's a bit of an extreme statement. Did you live here in the 90s? I did, and Boston was already pretty great. I'm no less enthusiastic about the past 20 years, but there was already much that was magical about this place in the 90s.
Click to expand...
The absolute level of how the city was doing in 1990 is debatable, but it's hard to argue the city isn't a much more vibrant, diverse and interesting place now.
 
DBM said:
Who cares? Certainly not all the developers who've been putting up tower after tower in Boston's central core since, oh, 2012 or so. Obviously it's profitable for them or they wouldn't be doing it. So the notion this "red tape" (however you'd actually measure it objectively) is actually a real burden in terms of all the major new development that's happened in Boston strikes me as laughable.
Click to expand...

I must apologize. I actually know very little about urbanism/development so I am probably just parroting a lot of stuff I've read here. And although I was born in Boston, I only lived there for 2 or 3 short months, visited only twice thereafter, and only recently become a fan of the city. So I know very little. What I meant by "red tape" was actually NIMBY-ism rather than official regulation. I apologize for the confusion and any ensuing arguments I might have caused due to it.
 
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...ributors from earlier today on another thread.

Coyote + Rover; i reposted your lucid exchange (from earlier today) in the Globe article featuring the departure of Josh Zakim. The algorithm filtered out the 'quote brackets' when i left out the contribotors aB names. Your posts appear below where i wrote, 'we must not fear the skyscraper.'

Unfortunately, the post appears as if my own idea/s. i did post below--to clarify that the words are not my own. Please accept my apology.
 
Anyways between all the bs the developers go through... at the end of the day downtowns new king is still u/c and thats whats important.

Cue Lion King soundtrack..

Its the ciiiiiiiircle of liiiiifeee, and it mooooves us allllllll... himinana hima nimanana
 
odurandina said:
re; USA vs Boston.


Hmm. Boston is a significantly larger office market than Seattle. But, Seattle is just another city that has gone massive to the tune of 65 skyscrapers built, u/c or approved since 2010. Seattle outdoes Boston on over 300', over 400', over 500', over 600, over 700' between 3 and 5 to 1 in every height point. You almost can't build a God damned thing over 160~200' in the neighborhoods incl the Fenway, or over 270~390' in most of Back Bay, Downtown & the West End.

i guess we just ignore that.


In terms of sq. ft. our numbers are very good. The Seaport is building to the limit of what is possible. But Boston isn't building near tall enough everywhere else--and is squandering valuable land in such a way that it will be unfeasible to go back and fix down the road. Boston does add years of red tape compared to every city in USA for anything taller than about 260~280'.... and it IS hurting the bottom line.
Click to expand...

Seattle's layout makes it easier for taller towers to get built. First off, Sea/Tac is located 15 miles or so south of downtown. Logan is less than 5 miles from downtown Boston. Seattle's central core is more removed from its neighborhoods. In Boston, you have to contend with Beacon Hill, the North End, South End, etc. being adjacent to the Financial District and also Back Bay. In Seattle, its prime neighborhoods like Ballard, Queen Anne Capitol Hill, etc. are much more removed from its central core. To the south of downtown Seattle, you have the stadiums and all industrial. To the west you have Puget Sound. To the east you have the 5. Seattle also doesn't have any central parks (like the Public Gardens) right next to its downtown either.
 
stick n move said:
Anyways between all the bs the developers go through... at the end of the day downtowns new king is still u/c and thats whats important.

Cue Lion King soundtrack..

Its the ciiiiiiiircle of liiiiifeee, and it mooooves us allllllll... himinana hima nimanana
Click to expand...

That's a really great shot - I love it (but hate to think "what if" we got the original 775')
 
I think there is something to be said for not dwarfing your neighbors
 
odurandina said:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...ributors from earlier today on another thread.

Coyote + Rover; i reposted your lucid exchange (from earlier today) in the Globe article featuring the departure of Josh Zakim. The algorithm filtered out the 'quote brackets' when i left out the contribotors aB names. Your posts appear below where i wrote, 'we must not fear the skyscraper.'

Unfortunately, the post appears as if my own idea/s. i did post below--to clarify that the words are not my own. Please accept my apology.
Click to expand...

No worries keep fighting the good fight.

Regarding Boston's office space/new skyscrapers I was under the impression that a lot of expansion to meet demand is being filled by the Seaport buildout. As in those aren't skyscrapers due to FAA restrictions but its a lot of office space being added even if it technically isn't downtown.
 
My original comment was not about Boston to other cities, there is more than enough self-loathing here. I was speaking strictly about South Station vs Hudson yards:

The complexity of building something truly transformational in a dense city over active train tracks with lots of different stakeholders.
 
Czervik.Construction said:
My original comment was not about Boston to other cities, there is more than enough self-loathing here. I was speaking strictly about South Station vs Hudson yards:

The complexity of building something truly transformational in a dense city over active train tracks with lots of different stakeholders.
Click to expand...

Does a lot of that have to do with the value of land in Boston vs New York though? As in the payoff to do a complicated project is much higher in NYC than it is in Boston so there's less trepidation and more willingness to plow ahead?

On a macro level I think that's why we're seeing a greater inability for NIMBY's to kill projects. The financial payoff is getting so much greater that its worth it to either buy politicians off with a killer deal (Winthrop Square) or just go through court and wait them out (Whiskey Priest development). Obviously we're not at NYC levels but seems its moving in that direction.
 
Rover is correct. All of our tower dreams will come to pass; the question is whether any of us will be around to see them. The argument over height doesn't make a ton of sense to me because it's clear that height is one of the things you solve for in a very complex equation that approximates the question, "Is this worth it?" So far, the answer has been no. Was it worth it to build taller when the seaport was just parking lots waiting to be developed? No. Is it worth it to build taller when the inner and near-middle suburbs have a ton of transit-oriented capacity to unlock? No. Is it worth it to build taller when there's a ton of older housing stock that could simply be upzoned a few floors, parking minimums to be removed? Still no.

For all the aching that some do on this forum about Boston running out of space, it really isn't. But one day it will be. One day it'll make sense to build over the Pike, over Widett. Until then the path of least resistance is going to be the less glamorous one, where triple deckers turn into 5-over-1s and where we argue about which regional rail scheme will get people more efficiently to developments farther afield. You can't just magically make the numbers work if they don't.

Here I must disclaim that I am a card-carrying height enthusiast just like you and perform my ritual weeping and gnashing of teeth whenever floors are lopped off any proposal. But let us not be under any delusions about why: as soon as the money's right, anything is possible.
 
^^i agree there's ample space for years for 160~280' resident bldgs all over the City. The Dot Ave, West Station/Allston/ Fairmount, & Needham Lines show much of that potential.

But, those tall residential buildings (by Boston standards) such as The Huntington, Pierce, Clarendon, 45 Province St type stuff on up; we are running very low on land where you can realistically push those. Maybe something can happen on the other side of the Fenway, and up Beacon St. But, go a bit further out, and activists cut proposals down 30, 40, 50% from where they could go. 45 Worthington St becomes a 12 story bldg (Tremont Crossing lost over 90 affordable units) You'll nearly double that loss at 45 Worthington. Places where you can put a 200' building get chopped to 140, or 5 over 1. Everywhere, you're crushing the 'breakout' you get via those last few floors that allow developers to significantly increase the # of affordable units.

Start funding major transit improvements Now, including but not limited to pushing increased density now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top