Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Theres plentyyyy of room left downtown and the back bay when you knock down turds. Theres plenty of room without even doing that too, but ppl forget you dont only have to build on empty lots, so that fact literally means there is infinite space left. Right now for the most part theyre filling in, but later on they can replace buildings. If you look at old pictures of Boston it was already pretty much completely built out by the 50s and then lots of stuff got demolished. Were not going to run out of room in anyone heres lifetime, so we can put that to rest. If we didnt before when the city was much denser we wont now.
 
The problem is, everyone has a different definition of what qualifies as a 'turd'.
 
The point is theres plenty of room and then buildings can be replaced too pretty much indefinitely. Even lots of the historic buildings we have in Boston now replaced even older more historic buildings. Everyones definition of a turd is different yes, but theres lots of anonymous buildings without any historical significance all around the city. The revere or hyatt regency would even be good candidates imo at some point and even then theres plenty of buildings only a couple stories tall that can go first. I cant remember the name but an example is that corrugated sheet metal building with the christain science reading room and bodega near berkley on mass ave is slated to be demoed and replaced with a new building. I hope bodega will stay in the ground floor and the reading room.
 
617 said:
Best part is the comments lol...so true
Click to expand...

I agree and was pleasantly surprised at the number of commentators who loved (the negative Nancy's actually got pushback) the article and the construction process surrounding this building, as well as several commentators who called for taller buildings (not just our own fellow AB dudes who also put in their two cents worth). Even the writer's editor, from the Globe, commented a few times which was a first. A very interesting article about the construction process, and a very refreshing change to the positive, in the comments section. 617, thanks for posting.
 
Foundation work is being completed by September... Was really looking forward to seeing Hub on Causeway, State St HQ, and this all rising simultaneously...
 
stick n move said:
Theres plentyyyy of room left downtown and the back bay when you knock down turds. Theres plenty of room without even doing that too, but ppl forget you dont only have to build on empty lots, so that fact literally means there is infinite space left. Right now for the most part theyre filling in, but later on they can replace buildings. If you look at old pictures of Boston it was already pretty much completely built out by the 50s and then lots of stuff got demolished. Were not going to run out of room in anyone heres lifetime, so we can put that to rest. If we didnt before when the city was much denser we wont now.
Click to expand...

Can the Sheraton, Hilton and Westin hotels in Back Bay be imploded??????
 
mass88 said:
Can the Sheraton, Hilton and Westin hotels in Back Bay be imploded??????
Click to expand...

Clearly you have some antipathy to the architecture of large-footprint hotel properties, circa 1970-1985.

Realistically, before your proposed demolitions could take place, there are opportunities here and here for redevelopment at significant heights.
 
Beton Brut said:
Clearly you have some antipathy to the architecture of large-footprint hotel properties, circa 1970-1985.

Realistically, before your proposed demolitions could take place, there are opportunities here and here for redevelopment at significant heights.
Click to expand...


Isnt the problem that the Pru complex is fully built out as originally planned? No neighborhood people will let them jump that hurdle IMO
 
State Service Center. You could practically build a whole new neighborhood in that turd's footprint.
 
^^Won't be easy to make economically feasible. 1st, there's a freeway directly below and 2ndly, the decking for that weight was built about 36 years ago.


Brut;

Lord and Taylor max height.... envelope please

northeast side of the parcel ~365' southwest side ~390'.

Still, plenty of height for a nice redo of the site incl retail.

The Sheraton might possibly become a U-Shaped complex and (a long shot) serious height w/ the adjoining tower (on the Pru side of the site).

Lose 2 rows off the North Tower to become part of the tall adjoining structure, and reclad the South and North Towers. How high could the adjoining structure realistically go? 650~700'? Sheraton would reap a huge windfall.

The problem? 1. nimby's not wanting so much shadow cast upon Back Bay. 2. Site prep complexity. 3. This type of redo hasn't been seen in Sheraton's DNA around USA. Quite the contrary; they are the hotel equivalent of a slumlord.

The City should present a massing proposal.
 
Last edited:
JSic said:
State Service Center. You could practically build a whole new neighborhood in that turd's footprint.
Click to expand...

I actually really like that complex! If there were some way to keep part of it - say one of the corners and series of stairwells and then redevelop the rest with a high-rise, that would be ideal in my opinion. It's a great example of that style and era, and while it is a little overbearing and far too large, I would hate to lose the entire thing.

I actually think it would work as it is currently constructed IF it were to be spruced up, re-purposed and activated and if upkeep were to actually take place to the courtyard. Adding more glass could be a nice contrast to the brutalist concrete.
 
DZH22 said:
How about this giant hulking piece of crap?
Click to expand...

That's the office component of Copley Place. I believe Wayfair is headquartered in that building. Redeveloping it will come with the same engineering and financial challenges as the failed Copley condo tower proposal, as some portion of it is above the Turnpike and train tracks.

ngb_anim8 said:
Damn - that is like the Tip Oneil Building on steroids. What a landscraper.
Click to expand...

Good eye -- Hugh Stubbins designed both in the early 80s.

Sometimes good architects design shitty buildings...

Suffolk 83 said:
Isnt the problem that the Pru complex is fully built out as originally planned? No neighborhood people will let them jump that hurdle IMO
Click to expand...

You're probably right. But We've also made similar well-reasoned assumptions in the past about other sites in the Back Bay, and here we have One Dalton and 1000 Boylston in the pipeline.

As out relationship with retail evolves, the owners of Lord & Taylor and Sacks may decide to cash out; I think 40-stories of residential on either site is a fair ask...
 
ngb_anim8 said:
I actually really like that complex! If there were some way to keep part of it - say one of the corners and series of stairwells and then redevelop the rest with a high-rise, that would be ideal in my opinion. It's a great example of that style and era, and while it is a little overbearing and far too large, I would hate to lose the entire thing.

I actually think it would work as it is currently constructed IF it were to be spruced up, re-purposed and activated and if upkeep were to actually take place to the courtyard. Adding more glass could be a nice contrast to the brutalist concrete.
Click to expand...

I’m sure it has its architectural merits, but that’s not enough to justify keeping it. Its ugly; its far, far too large; it cuts off neighborhoods from one another; and the area around it always seems desolate, i.e., it doesn’t lend itself to urbanity. It feel like something you’d expect to see on the moon.
 
Last edited:
Definitely keep the municipal court. If you demo the service center you could literally divide the land into like 10 buildings. If people want to keep it though then Id say keep one or two faces of it intact. Having the rest of it take up an entire neighborhood is ridiculous though, but if people want to keep it keep one or two of the faces and develop the rest of that land. That would give off the same impression it always has from certain important angles, while freeing up a ton of land. Im all for preserving important things, but in my opinion muuuuuuch worse things have been demolished than this. I know I shouldnt but everything in me hates it and the fact that it take up soooooo much freaking space is even worse. But Im a man of compromise and I understand that things should still be preserved so 1 or 2 faces imo would be perfect and it would give the city a TON of land to develop, hopefully some pedestrian corridors too. That being said if nobody wanted to keep it that would be even better lol, but that would never happen so 1-2 sides I think would be reasonable.
 
That whole block of Stuart St is just horrible. No street level experience whatsoever.
 
The taller section of the O'Neill makes a very nice (massing) podium and spacing from the neighbor towers
for the low-rise section to go high (someday), even push toward the FAA height limit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top