Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

[BostonObserver]

Re: One Man's Humble Opinion

Plus Baltimore is nearly the same as Boston. We are actually falling behind many other city.

There are only a few cities in the US doing better than Boston. Baltimore is defiantly not one of them.

Forty stories has always been a barrier because above that the economics of building change. The Pru and Hancock are exceptions because they were ego driven.

There are still many places in Boston to build high and I think people will protect the low rise section of the city.

 

[BostonSkyGuy]

I'm curious why everyone thinks the people that are for this tower being built, are so because they want to see Boston move into the 21st century. No one on this board is naive enough to think that if you build one 1,000'+ building that Boston immediately jumps into NYC territory in terms of global impact. What it does is that it proves the city can take intiative and get something done and that maybe the culture of the city can change to where larger buildings won't be shot down just because of the height.

It's no secret this city needs to change the building process. It's one of the 2 million things Deval Patrick said he'd change, but hasn't gotten around to. I don't want to be NYC either, I don't want to be a high-rise city and I don't think Boston is a total low-rise city either. I'd like a mix of old and new because that's what made Boston great for so long. It hasn't rested on its laurels, it's always strived to become better while not forgetting the history that got it to where it is today. I'm not against progression for the sake of progression like some of you are. I'm against being stagnant because we're already one of the top cities in the country and the world. That would be like the Patriots winning their first Super Bowl and then thinking "we've already won a Super Bowl, why bother to work hard in the off-season to repeat, let's just take it easy." It's a dumb mentality to believe that once you are leading in something you shouldn't keep doing what got you there PLUS more in order to be the best you can be.

If Boston was improving itself in education, safety, transportation, commercial, etc AND then wanted to build a 1,000 ft tower just to cap it all off I'd be elated but the idea that a 1,000 ft tower will change anything other than ego is laughable.

I don't understand why people (and I think it's been you repeatedly) keep bringing up this point. One has nothing to do with another. If anything turning Winthrop Sq. into TNP will make the city more money than it currently makes from the space and it can (and should) use it in the above areas that you listed.

The city isn't taking away from transportation, education or safety to build this building. Let's not make the mistake of thinking that in order to get this building done, any of those areas are going to neglected.

 

[KentXie]

Re: One Man's Humble Opinion

Plus Baltimore is nearly the same as Boston. We are actually falling behind many other city.

There are only a few cities in the US doing better than Boston. Baltimore is defiantly not one of them.

Forty stories has always been a barrier because above that the economics of building change. The Pru and Hancock are exceptions because they were ego driven.

There are still many places in Boston to build high and I think people will protect the low rise section of the city.

I didn't say Baltimore is doing better than Boston. I said Baltimore is like Boston in the way that it is also a low rise city thus Boston is not all the unique in that aspect.

 

[TC]

Really good conversation here.However, the reason why Boston needs to build taller is fairly simple.

The Downtown Boston Office market absorbs 1,000,000 sf of new office space every year. In order to continue that pace (or increase) Boston needs to build new office buildings. With the space limitations of downtown Boston the only way to continue and ensure future growth is to build vertically.

 

[justin]

Here are a few pictures of another city that tried to prove it's world-class by building a 1,000-footer:

nm88, the obvious needed stating here and thank you for doing it: if Tommy's Tower gets built, Boston will be forever stuck with a bad design. The greenery is all well and good, but it doesn't make this uninspired pile any better looking.

I'm all for taking risks, but thought-out and purposeful ones, not risk for the sake of risk as some here are all to quick to propose.

Will Boston prove its manhood by getting a huge prosthetic dick?

justin

 

[BostonSkyGuy]

^Agreed.

Also to make another thing clear, I don't want Boston to start throwing up buildings like Dubai. What I want is for them to build taller in the spaces they have now, so that instead of throwing up clusters of 400-500 footers and then in say 30 years realizing they are out of buildable space.

Then what we all love about Boston could be in jeopardy. Streetscapes, low-rise lined streets, etc. could all be demolished to build larger buildings because of lack of space. I see this becoming an actual problem in years to come. If you can't build tall on spaces that are ideal for that type of project, what's going to happen when there is a NEED in terms of space to build tall?

 

[kennedy]

^Agreed.

Also to make another thing clear, I don't want Boston to start throwing up buildings like Dubai. What I want is for them to build taller in the spaces they have now, so that instead of throwing up clusters of 400-500 footers and then in say 30 years realizing they are out of buildable space.

Then what we all love about Boston could be in jeopardy. Streetscapes, low-rise lined streets, etc. could all be demolished to build larger buildings because of lack of space. I see this becoming an actual problem in years to come. If you can't build tall on spaces that are ideal for that type of project, what's going to happen when there is a NEED in terms of space to build tall?

That's a very good argument, and it would make a point to the public, which in turn could change the decision of NIMBYs and the BRA. Just the though of, "Oh, so you're to say in 30 or so years, my house could be taken by imminent domain if we don't build tall on the land we have now?"

A lot of people will react to that.

 

[KentXie]

Here are a few pictures of another city that tried to prove it's world-class by building a 1,000-footer:

nm88, the obvious needed stating here and thank you for doing it: if Tommy's Tower gets built, Boston will be forever stuck with a bad design. The greenery is all well and good, but it doesn't make this uninspired pile any better looking.

I'm all for taking risks, but thought-out and purposeful ones, not risk for the sake of risk as some here are all to quick to propose.

Will Boston prove its manhood by getting a huge prosthetic dick?

justin

This is a bad example. Why? This building is entirely a hotel. However, where in the world do you need a 1000ft+ hotel. Who can fill so much space especially one thats in North Korea. The Winthrop tower is an office tower and thus does not face this type of problem. Plus you are talking about a building that is being built in a city and country that can barely provide electricity to it city let alone build a supertall. Boston is in a different environment where such building is quite if not absolutely possible.

 

[mj]

IMO, part of the problem with TransNational Place is the design...I do not find it very inspiring (and for that matter, it is too similar to the new NYTimes building in NYC). If Boston is going to have a 1000 ft. building at all, it should be a true landmark building unique to the City...like the Transamerica Building in SF or the Empire State in NYC. I personally do not care for the modern, over-the-top designs that are being proposed in many cities looking to create new, modern signature buildings (like those currently proposed in SF). But I do feel that something like an elegant glass tower built in the shape of a lighthouse would work well in Boston since it would be modern in design but yet pay tribute to Boston's rich maritime history. Though I am not an architect, I am sure this building could be built with a rooftop park and other green elements while also meeting office space needs. Just a thought.

 

[six]

No disrespect intended , but a LIGHTHOUSE is a fucking ridiculous idea. Will there be fog horns going off every half hour like the old radio station WJIB. Better yet maybe the gorton's fisherman can hang off the top and yell,"Dar she blows!" A lighthouse.........that's funny! :lol:

 

[mj]

None taken...just thinking that such a design would also provide a nice complement to the Boston Museum's proposed ship design (if the museum does move forward).

 

[shiz02130]

One of the old designs for the SST resembled a lighthouse. While we're fantasizing, another place where a tower with a beacon could be situated would be on top of Beacon Hill. There is a vacant lot right on the summit (near the relatively new Suffolk dorm) that I can't believe hasn't been developed yet.

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

I think a 1,000 ft lighthouse would kick ass.

 

[TheBostonBoy]

^Ya, I do too. I mean it is a wild idea, but it is still extremely creative and unique, which it seems like everyone on this forum and in Boston want for the new 1000 footer.

One of the old designs for the SST resembled a lighthouse. While we're fantasizing, another place where a tower with a beacon could be situated would be on top of Beacon Hill. There is a vacant lot right on the summit (near the relatively new Suffolk dorm) that I can't believe hasn't been developed yet.

What street is this exactly located on?

 

[shiz02130]

It is on Ashburton Place. The advantage of putting an iconic tower here is that its height would be accentuated by its position on top of a hill. Here is a pic of the location. You can also see the Suffolk dorm under construction (the crane) on Somerset Street:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=...71.062175&spn=0.001538,0.002486&t=h&z=19&om=1

 

[ablarc]

^ Interesting find. At first I thought you were being ironic.

 

[LeTaureau]

I feel that building a lighthouse tower is a terrible idea. Yet another example of the fact that Boston cannot get over its past. Its time to look to the future. Boston needs fresh ideas, not stale ones.

 

[KentXie]

Hell if they are willing to build a 1000ft lighthouse (which they aren't), they should build a 1000ft glass obelisk that resembles the Bunker Hill Monument.

 

[TheBostonBoy]

It is on Ashburton Place. The advantage of putting an iconic tower here is that its height would be accentuated by its position on top of a hill. Here is a pic of the location. You can also see the Suffolk dorm under construction (the crane) on Somerset Street:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=...71.062175&spn=0.001538,0.002486&t=h&z=19&om=1

O wow, thanks. I never really noticed that. That would be a great place to build a slim 350 footer or something.

 

[kennedy]

Beacon Hill would be a great place for a 300-500 footer, like a glass obelisk that reflected the Bunker Hill Monument, not that the LPZ Bridge doesn't already. It would just be difficult to blend with the neighborhood. All the brownstone-ish lowrises. And that building that looks like affordable housing across the street.