Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Yikes, some of you people are tough critics. This building is very nice. It’s a new tallest for downtown. And along with the Millennium Tower, it draws your eyes away from the 60’s-70’s building blocks.

For decades, Boston’s downtown skyline was all background buildings; the standouts were missing. People don’t like to admit it but the downtown skyline was, at best, bland as hell. We are finally getting the standouts (“standout” being relative to Boston), relegating the background buildings to their proper role.
 
I think we need to separate the discussion of the aesthetics from the discussion of dimensions. You may prefer the version with the whale skeleton to the current, and that's fine, but that doesn't make the whole thing a con job.

What DOES make the 2016 proposal a con job, in a sense, is how the floor plan has evolved. See below - 2016 on the left, 2019 on the right:

mb4lmh.jpg


I've looked at several iterations, and it seems like three big things happened:

- Millennium didn't give any thought to the elevation change between Winthrop Square and Federal St. when they drew up the initial proposal - at least I can't see any ramps or stairs in that plan or renders. Immediately upon revising it for the second DPIR (the February 2018 hideously ugly one), they started taking about half of the space to change elevation. Unless there were hidden ramps/elevators in the 2016 version, that Great Hall would not have been buildable as a level space.

- Millennium doubled the number of office elevators between 2016 and 2018. Again, I'd chalk this up to vision vs. reality setting in as they considered what they actually needed. Once they added the elevators, they also closed off the area of the Great Hall that the elevators now defined as "Office Lobby". That lobby space was supposed to share the Great Hall with the public, with a security desk in front of the elevators, but by 2018 the Office Lobby became (and has remained) its own space fully removed from the public. That's likely a tenant preference, but I can't see it being a tenant demand, particularly as other buildings around the city have publicly accessible lobbies and the market is really hot for Class A office space.

- For the most recent version (February 2019), Millennium has outlined kiosks that go all the way up to the column line on either side, essentially sealing off the "shoulders" of the Great Hall behind counters and (if you look at their surprisingly honest renderings) shutters during non-business hours. If you look at the 2016 drawing, those businesses all exist essentially in ephemeral space, with a bar/counter but no food preparation or other back-of-the-house space. The Federal Court side in 2016 had no retail space at all but does in 2019, probably because they had to make the space back after taking a whole cafe for the Office Lobby. EDIT: One thing to consider about this is that "kiosks" can be a variety of useful businesses selling different types of products and services, while the 2016 render essentially showed only high-end food-and-drink.

- EDIT: It's also worth noting that the 2016 Great Hall was open to the elements, while the 2019 version is climate controlled. In Boston, that's a plus.

- EDIT: Also, some of the shoulder space was lost to a parking garage entrance from Federal St. The 2016 version has no visible access the parking garage at all - Handel simply didn't draw one in. It's possible that the top-left of the site has it, but that would imply that all vehicles would access the garage through the pedestrianized Winthrop Square, which makes no sense.

In short, Millennium has made some questionably-elitist or tenant-centric decisions here (the Office Lobby mainly), but the central problem here was that Handel designed a non-constructable Great Hall and retail space in 2016 and reality caught up.
 
Yikes, some of you people are tough critics. This building is very nice. It’s a new tallest for downtown. And along with the Millennium Tower, it draws your eyes away from the 60’s-70’s building blocks.

For decades, Boston’s downtown skyline was all background buildings; the standouts were missing. People don’t like to admit it but the downtown skyline was, at best, bland as hell. We are finally getting the standouts (“standout” being relative to Boston), relegating the background buildings to their proper role.

^I entirely agree. MT is the most impressive tower since JHT, it looks absolutely stunning. (best in the skyline in my eyes) Winthrop should look just as impressive when it's done-lit crown and all. From a purely aesthetic standpoint, Millenniums' project's are enhancing Boston immeasurably. We can argue about the lost observation deck or the Great Hall/Connector issue all day long, but it won't change the fact that for the most part we are getting a huge win here: A decrepit parking garage replaced with this. Despite my initial enthusiasm for the observation deck it really doesn't add up when you step back and think about the bottom line-ROI, it makes sense that observation decks and great halls are probably not much of a money maker for the "landlord". I'm sure we could argue those points as well, but think if it were your project and you were in charge, would you waste an entire floor of leasable space for an observation deck? Why would the city require such a thing in the first place? With costs so high to build already, Why would you force a developer to incorporate a money-losing vanity project such as that? I love observation decks and great public spaces as much as anyone, but I'm happy with what we're getting here.
 
With costs so high to build already, Why would you force a developer to incorporate a money-losing vanity project such as that? I love observation decks and great public spaces as much as anyone, but I'm happy with what we're getting here.

Because the public interest is more important than the difference between a developer making a lot of money and making all of the money, and the public was the owner of the site?
 
Because the public interest is more important than the difference between a developer making a lot of money and making all of the money, and the public was the owner of the site?

Using this argument, the public "owned" a decrepit 2 story garage that they needed to pay additional money to park in. They sold that garage for $150 million in benefits, straight to the city, before the developer started incurring any costs on the project itself. So when you say "all of the money" what you really mean is all of the money after already starting $150 million in the hole, plus all the other things they are expected to provide including a whole other tower of affordable housing.

Half the major projects in this city fail to get out of the ground once they realize what the shakedown will cost them, even after incurring all of the sunk costs for just designing and proposing a building to begin with. The developer still decides to walk away. At some point we need to be less greedy about what we extract from developers if we ever expect to meet the demand for more housing, hotels, and offices in this city.
 
Its warms my heart to see the pushback the brainless NIMBY's and activists are getting on this thread. Nice to see people grounded in reality carrying the day. :D :D :D
 
Along with the $150 million in benefits from selling the site, the city will also get a large chunk of money every year from property taxes on this site.
 
Its warms my heart to see the pushback the brainless NIMBY's and activists are getting on this thread. Nice to see people grounded in reality carrying the day. :D :D :D

It's worrisome nevertheless. :D

i like Millennium. They're humpers.

...the city will also get a large chunk of money every year from property taxes on this site.

The hidden dividend. Bringing the project home 2 years ahead of the nearest competitor (5~7 yrs in the case of HYM). The sq ft will bring a shytte-ton of booty.
 
Last edited:
Using this argument, the public "owned" a decrepit 2 story garage that they needed to pay additional money to park in. They sold that garage for $150 million in benefits, straight to the city, before the developer started incurring any costs on the project itself. So when you say "all of the money" what you really mean is all of the money after already starting $150 million in the hole, plus all the other things they are expected to provide including a whole other tower of affordable housing.

Half the major projects in this city fail to get out of the ground once they realize what the shakedown will cost them, even after incurring all of the sunk costs for just designing and proposing a building to begin with. The developer still decides to walk away. At some point we need to be less greedy about what we extract from developers if we ever expect to meet the demand for more housing, hotels, and offices in this city.

Neither you nor I know the actual budget of this project, so we can't say for sure how big of an impact these changes have had on Millennium's profit margin. If they laid all of that out for the BPDA and proved that they needed these changes to keep the project worth it for them, then I support the BPDA signing off, but we've seen no indication that that happened.

Personally, I'm less annoyed about the capitalist side of this than the vaportechture side. We need to be holding developers to building what they propose, and proposing only what they can build.
 
Always wondered this...is MT and Winthrop Center designed by the same Millenium Partners company?
 
we need to be less greedy about what we extract from developers

Obviously just my opinion, but this attitude and complacency is what is slowly eroding this country. "Come on guys us Joe Schmoes making a 100k a year really need to stop being so darn greedy! We need to let these poor honest fellers who develop come in here and let them do God's work!"
 
Obviously just my opinion, but this attitude and complacency is what is slowly eroding this country. "Come on guys us Joe Schmoes making a 100k a year really need to stop being so darn greedy! We need to let these poor honest fellers who develop come in here and let them do God's work!"

It's a risk. You need to put up a ton of capital and hope you get it back (and then some, of course). The process in Boston in particular takes many more years than in most cities, and construction is typically much more complicated here. Nobody is going to risk 100's of million of dollars if the most likely outcomes are breaking even or worse.

The developers that have the guts to navigate the process can end up with a hefty profit in 8-10 years. Most people can't afford to wait 8-10 years to get a return on their investment. The practice of bilking the developers has led to a whopping ZERO successful air rights projects in the last 30+ years! There is so much that the city has left on the table through the years and it leads to things such as the current housing crisis.
 
And I will also note, the Millennium proposal brought much more money to the city compared to any other proposal. Millennium was the highest bidder. So I don't fully understand the people complaining that we should extract more from them.
 
We continue to go around in circles here. One group is (*mostly*) arguing about this project in specific, while the other is (*mostly*) talking about a general principle. Sure, there's crossover, but it's important to keep this dichotomy in mind. There's also the issue of transparency.
 
I've also grown weary with this circular discussion.

Can we at least agree that the City's ask that "public space" to be baked into a private development without clearly defining parameters and goals is the singularity around which all the conflict orbits?

If Millennium is to be (rightfully) accused of downsizing The Great Hall to a retail hallway, shouldn't the BPDA/BCDC be held to account for their role.

File Under: Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.
 
I've also grown weary with this circular discussion.

Can we at least agree that the City's ask that "public space" to be baked into a private development without clearly defining parameters and goals is the singularity around which all the conflict orbits?

If Millennium is to be (rightfully) accused of downsizing The Great Hall to a retail hallway, shouldn't the BPDA/BCDC be held to account for their role.

File Under: Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.

On the one hand, I want to say that the BPDA actually is at "fault" more than MP. MP wants to make money, and it's the BPDA's job to constrain or redirect that interest in the public's interest. While they've slightly let us down on that in this case, they've also turned a decrepit garage into hundreds of millions of dollars for the public good, and the City announced at $28 million renovation of Franklin Park this week paid for entirely by this project.

I don't think it's circular reasoning, it's just a case of "it's good, but could have been better."

Not to mention that if they'd really failed us, we'd be getting the v2 craptastic design.
 
^ To clarify, the circular argument I was referring to was the "You're a NIMBY!" vs. "You're a corporate shill!" nonsense. Public good and private profit are not incompatible concepts. The way we speak about these concepts is the steering force.

Of the many useful things I learned in my current career, the process is the result. And a poor process explains its results. You just need to know where to look.
 
What if they had proposed this from the start, would people still not like it or would there be overall support?

At the end of the day this is the tower being built. Personally I like the first Accordia tower the best, by far, but at this point its not being built. No matter how good of an argument I make on ArchBoston, this is what were getting. So thats where Im at. This is the tower, nobody is changing it, and its really not bad anyways. Regardless of how much people argue on here, nothing is going change at this point. It is what it is, and it could be much worse.
 
Last edited:
^ To clarify, the circular argument I was referring to was the "You're a NIMBY!" vs. "You're a corporate shill!" nonsense. Public good and private profit are not incompatible concepts. The way we speak about these concepts is the steering force.

Of the many useful things I learned in my current career, the process is the result. And a poor process explains its results. You just need to know where to look.

+1.

The namecalling thing is ridiculous. I have no idea why I'm called a "NIMBY" when I fully support this project being 300 feet TALLER - - and be just as spectacular at street level too. Some are ok with half-assed. I'm rooting for this project to be maximized - - not minimized.

If anything, that is a YIMBY. Why keep Boston sleepy with empty sidewalks after 7pm? Let's have a 24 hour vibrant Boston.

And, BB you're right on, it does all come down to the city's approval process being amorphous.

.
 
Last edited:
Why keep Boston sleepy with empty sidewalks after 7pm? Let's have a 24 hour vibrant Boston.


.

You think the Great Hall as originally envisioned would have led to a 24 hour vibrant Boston? Geesh, no wonder you're perpetually disappointed.

Also, don't you live out of state? When exactly are you in downtown Boston after 7 pm?
 

Back
Top