Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Massachusetts > Boston
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Does Boston need a defining skyscraper or two
Hell yea 25 40.98%
No 36 59.02%
Voters: 61. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-11-2012, 02:12 PM
 
2,664 posts, read 5,633,459 times
Reputation: 853

Advertisements

cliff-ok so they can put a 1000 ft building then, i wonder why dont they
and still wonder why airport was built so close
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-11-2012, 02:31 PM
 
Location: a bar
2,722 posts, read 6,109,727 times
Reputation: 2978
Quote:
Originally Posted by OleSchoolFool View Post
cliff-ok so they can put a 1000 ft building then, i wonder why dont they
and still wonder why airport was built so close
It's tough to tell on that map, but I'm guessing that 1,000ft slice is out past the theater dist in the Back Bay. Developers will run into a lot of opposition from neighborhood groups out there.

It wasn't that the airport was built close to the financial district, it's that the financial district as we know it didn't excist when the airport was built. There were no 500ft office towers downtown in the 1920's. Logan was built on marsh land (the boonies back then), Boston developed around it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2012, 02:44 PM
 
2,664 posts, read 5,633,459 times
Reputation: 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliff Clavin View Post
It's tough to tell on that map, but I'm guessing that 1,000ft slice is out past the theater dist in the Back Bay. Developers will run into a lot of opposition from neighborhood groups out there.

It wasn't that the airport was built close to the financial district, it's that the financial district as we know it didn't excist when the airport was built. There were no 500ft office towers downtown in the 1920's. Logan was built on marsh land (the boonies back then), Boston developed around it.
yea, but couldn't they anticipate that it mite be a good idea to build the airport farther out just in case? this is really strange to me btw as a foreigner that airports in the US are typically so close to big cities or highly populated areas
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2012, 02:48 PM
 
Location: Providence, RI
12,825 posts, read 22,003,919 times
Reputation: 14129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliff Clavin View Post
It's tough to tell on that map, but I'm guessing that 1,000ft slice is out past the theater dist in the Back Bay. Developers will run into a lot of opposition from neighborhood groups out there.

It wasn't that the airport was built close to the financial district, it's that the financial district as we know it didn't excist when the airport was built. There were no 500ft office towers downtown in the 1920's. Logan was built on marsh land (the boonies back then), Boston developed around it.
The 1,000ft height limit is in part of Back Bay (the "spine" along Boylston) and parts of downtown close to the Common and the Theatre District. Most of the Financial District is in the 700-800 foot limit range (but the tallest there are barely over 600 feet).

For the record, the Custom House Tower (Custom House Marriott) is just under 500 feet (495 ft tall) and was built in 1915. But no, most of the Financial District was devoid of height until the latter half of the 20th century.

You hit the nail on the head with neighborhood opposition. That 1000 foot zone is right alongside the Boston Common and the "spine" in Back Bay is literally abutting affluent residential neighborhoods. That stretch along Boylston where the JHT and Prudential are located is about 2 blocks wide (from Boylston to Stuart St.) which makes it fairly unique for a urban high-rise commercial zone. There's no room for buildings to taper from low nearest to the residential area to tall in the core. Historic brownstones are a block away from two of the city's tallest buildings and neighbors fight ANY height (see the 650 foot Copley Place tower proposal). A new tallest would be met with serious contempt from most neighbors. Any building that casts shadows on the common is in for major opposition too. That's why you won't see many proposals for the rest of that 1,000 foot area either.

The Financial District is the densest cluster of high rises. However, FAA height limits hinder development there. A good example was Transnational Place, a 1,000 footer proposed in the Financial District. The FAA said 1,000 feet was too tall and the recession kept any modified proposal from being built.

Here's a shot of the TNP proposal:
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2012, 02:53 PM
 
Location: Providence, RI
12,825 posts, read 22,003,919 times
Reputation: 14129
Quote:
Originally Posted by OleSchoolFool View Post
yea, but couldn't they anticipate that it mite be a good idea to build the airport farther out just in case? this is really strange to me btw as a foreigner that airports in the US are typically so close to big cities or highly populated areas
In 1920, the thought of a downtown filled with 1,000 foot towers never really crossed too many people's minds outside of maybe New York. So no, I'm not surprised they didn't anticipate it.

Boston's only one of a few American cities with the primary commercial airport so close to downtown. San Diego, Washington DC (though Dulles and BWI are bigger airports and further from downtown), Las Vegas and Phoenix are a few of the others. Mostly they're outside the city center. Though I will say, I was surprised at just how far Narita was from central Tokyo (1.5 hour train ride). Having the airport so close to the city center is really more of a benefit than it is a problem. You can get from downtown Boston to the airport in 2 subway stops and a quick shuttle ride (Blue Line) or a 15 minute bus ride on the Silverline. Try getting to central Manhattan from LGA, EWR, or JFK. It makes work and tourism travel to/from Boston VERY easy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2012, 03:03 PM
 
Location: a bar
2,722 posts, read 6,109,727 times
Reputation: 2978
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox View Post
In 1920, the thought of a downtown filled with 1,000 foot towers never really crossed too many people's minds outside of maybe New York. So no, I'm not surprised they didn't anticipate it.
On the flip side, I doubt anyone could've predicted the commercial airline industry would be what it is today either.

In the end, I'm happy to trade skyline height for airport convenience.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2012, 03:11 PM
 
Location: Providence, RI
12,825 posts, read 22,003,919 times
Reputation: 14129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliff Clavin View Post
On the flip side, I doubt anyone could've predicted the commercial airline industry would be what it is today either.

In the end, I'm happy to trade skyline height for airport convenience.
Yeah, I didn't think of it like that; but I doubt people assumed Logan would be handling 25+ Million passengers annually.

I agree, I'll take the airport convenience over height as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2012, 04:33 PM
 
2,664 posts, read 5,633,459 times
Reputation: 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox View Post
In 1920, the thought of a downtown filled with 1,000 foot towers never really crossed too many people's minds outside of maybe New York. So no, I'm not surprised they didn't anticipate it.

Boston's only one of a few American cities with the primary commercial airport so close to downtown. San Diego, Washington DC (though Dulles and BWI are bigger airports and further from downtown), Las Vegas and Phoenix are a few of the others. Mostly they're outside the city center. Though I will say, I was surprised at just how far Narita was from central Tokyo (1.5 hour train ride). Having the airport so close to the city center is really more of a benefit than it is a problem. You can get from downtown Boston to the airport in 2 subway stops and a quick shuttle ride (Blue Line) or a 15 minute bus ride on the Silverline. Try getting to central Manhattan from LGA, EWR, or JFK. It makes work and tourism travel to/from Boston VERY easy.
Yea, but these other airports are still close to populated areas and NYC airports are right in the city too. To me it just feels like airport shouldn't be right in the city cuz of safety concerns and what not. It is convenient tho, can't deny that. In Moscow airports are far from the city center as well, maybe that's why I am more biased to that idea. Air travel is much safer in the US tho so I can understand the closeness argument, however it's still a drawback that it limits the buildings height nearby. Logan shoulda been made at a diff location, and it could still be easy enough to reach, but it obviously doesn't matter now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2012, 06:06 PM
 
Location: The State Line
2,632 posts, read 4,048,839 times
Reputation: 3069
No, but its City Hall could use a makeover... .

In all seriousness, not having a variety of skyscrapers is something I appreciate about Boston. It has it's own unique character. Granted I know the OP is from the NY metro area, and likely influences his views. In his defense, Manhattan's skyscrapers do give it it's own sense of character, but at the same time, I don't think skyscrapers have to define every city. I personally think skyscrapers are nice from a distance (as is Manhattan's skyline as an example), but not as appealing up close. Having 19th century structures literally sharing walls with 20th century skyscrapers kind've looks tacky from a street level view, in my opinion. At least more modern buildings in Boston appear to be "built around" the existing old structures, having some space between them, as opposed to appearing "squeezed in," due to space restrictions.

Last edited by LexWest; 10-11-2012 at 06:16 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2012, 06:36 PM
 
2,664 posts, read 5,633,459 times
Reputation: 853
Yea, I hear ya^ I am not really from here tho, I been only here bout a yr, I don't really care for Manhattan skyscrapers or comparing them to other cities, that's why I mentioned Seattle skyline. I haven't been to Boston tho so maybe I'd see things diff if I have, but it's interesting to see what people think nevertheless. I can see the argument of the old architecture not getting along with modern, tall structures, but Philly does it fine.
Is this the reason some of yall dont want it tho or there's someth else?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Massachusetts > Boston

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top