Will Boston ever surpass 800 feet? How about 1,000? (Cambridge, Lynn: 2013, home)

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by inquisitive2

And remember when the Prudential center was losing windows and foundation cracking?

Boston is landfill. Not made to handle today's massive construction.

Eh, not 100 percent accurate. Soft ground and mediocre bedrock isn’t a dealbreaker for tall buildings. Many cities with softer ground and deeper, softer bedrock have taller buildings. Miami, Chicago, San Francisco, etc. Dubai and Jeddah have built/are building the worlds tallest towers on sand with pourous bedrock beneath. In Boston, the fill and the bedrock are not the issue. Logan, neighborhood opposition, and demand are what keeps the city from building taller.

If you’re a nerd like me and want to go down the rabbit hole, read about how engineers counter bad geology to build tall: https://www.popularmechanics.com/tec...alifa-8893983/

[GeoffD]

In my view, Boston needs to have higher density of commercial/office space near the transportation hubs. 10x the square footage walkable from South Station, North Station, and Back Bay Station. Metro Boston is choking on automobiles and the only way to fix it is to get people into public transportation.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

In my view, Boston needs to have higher density of commercial/office space near the transportation hubs. 10x the square footage walkable from South Station, North Station, and Back Bay Station. Metro Boston is choking on automobiles and the only way to fix it is to get people into public transportation.

Good luck squeezing 10X the sq. footage of space walkable to those transit hubs, you would be lucky to get 1.5X the current amount.


What is needed in the region, are more satellite job hubs at locations such as 128/Westwood Station, Mishawum in Woburn, and by the junction of 495 and the Commuter Rail in Westborough.

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

In my view, Boston needs to have higher density of commercial/office space near the transportation hubs. 10x the square footage walkable from South Station, North Station, and Back Bay Station. Metro Boston is choking on automobiles and the only way to fix it is to get people into public transportation.

Originally Posted by massnative71

Good luck squeezing 10X the sq. footage of space walkable to those transit hubs, you would be lucky to get 1.5X the current amount.

What is needed in the region, are more satellite job hubs at locations such as 128/Westwood Station, Mishawum in Woburn, and by the junction of 495 and the Commuter Rail in Westborough.

We need both/and. And frankly, it all starts with improving public transit. More people will stop driving if there's incentive to. Some of that incentive comes from sitting in snarled traffic every day, but until you improve transit, sitting in traffic is the better alternative for a lot of people.

There's actually a ton of developable land in/around major transit hubs in Boston. I think people forget this. Especially around North Station where you have more than 10 surface lots in the Bullfinch Triangle, and almost the entire stretch of Nashua St. which is big surface lots, a jail, and the former Spaulding Rehab building which is now temporary administrative offices for MGH. It could be an entirely new neighborhood over there. This doesn't even count the super high density development going on at the Hub on Causeway (replacing the massive surface lot in front of the TD Garden), or the Congress Street/Gov't Center garage replacement which is on phase 2. If you dive a little deeper, West End redevelopment and State Service Center redevelopment are not out of the realm of possibility either. But currently you have literally millions of square feet currently under construction with the potential for a whole lot more in the near future.

South Station is almost equally as obvious. The city has been working with the USPS to move their massive facility (immediately adjacent South Station), and that'll happen at some point and free up the land along the Fort Point Channel for development. There are air rights over the tracks there which seem perennially close to development, but never quite there. It'll happen at some point. Then you have all of the land (all surface lots) along the South side of the Fort Point Channel from Necco St. to Gillette. That doesn't include proposals for Widett (where the city has nearly reached agreements with business owners to relocated and free up the land for development), vacant parcels on Kneeland, or continued Seaport growth (20 years ago, it was parking lots and old rail yard).

Back Bay is trickier because it's denser and sandwiched between two historic residential neighborhoods (who fight height), but air rights over the pike, Clarendon Street Garage replacement, and development at Copley Place could add to the density around the station.

You still have lots of large scale development around other transit hubs - you don't need to look hard to see how much is already happening at Assembly, Maverick, Kendall, Union (not even operating yet), Lechemere (Cambridge Crossing), "Boston Landing" (New Balance), Yawkey, etc. Just look at a satellite map of all of these places and you can see where there's room for massive growth. You'll probably see that a good deal is already happening.

That shouldn't preclude residential and commercial development efforts at commuter rail hubs either. Or even further satellites like Worcester, Providence, Manchester (which would benefit more than any city in New England from a commuter rail line). But you still need to improve the service before people choose to take the train to those places rather than drive.

[KoNgFooCj]

I've looked at San Franciscos landfill map. Even though they only filled the outer edge of the eastern coastline, It was somehow decided to build the entire skyscraper district on that landfill. This is why architectural errors can result in catastrophic problems seen in San Franciscos Millennium Tower.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by lrfox

There's actually a ton of developable land in/around major transit hubs in Boston. I think people forget this. Especially around North Station where you have more than 10 surface lots in the Bullfinch Triangle, and almost the entire stretch of Nashua St. which is big surface lots, a jail, and the former Spaulding Rehab building which is now temporary administrative offices for MGH. It could be an entirely new neighborhood over there. This doesn't even count the super high density development going on at the Hub on Causeway (replacing the massive surface lot in front of the TD Garden), or the Congress Street/Gov't Center garage replacement which is on phase 2. If you dive a little deeper, West End redevelopment and State Service Center redevelopment are not out of the realm of possibility either. But currently you have literally millions of square feet currently under construction with the potential for a whole lot more in the near future.

What is that breaking ground over across the Green Line tracks from N Station?


Funny you mention this, as I'm working right there at the present moment and get a 360 view of pretty much everything you are talking about. The Bullfinch Triangle, I think that's pretty much all parking for the jail and other state property? Perhaps it could be a long term goal in relocating all of that, I'm sure they could figure a way for that to pay off given the value of that land. That would be a huge undertaking though I'm sure, and unfortnately we don't have the greatest leadership at the helm. I'm certainly not the most imaginative when it comes to developing small plots like that, but to my untrained eyes I see a lot of challenges in developing that site. Would a high rise be a go there, for instance? Then again, I probably couldn't have envisioned the Hub on Causeway either.


With all that said, I continue to be baffled at the amount of overdevelopment taking place in the downtown. It's becoming a case of "wait...wait...there is still some sunlight making it's way through over there...how can we stop that???" The Manhattanization of the city is something I find quite disturbing, in my opinion Boston is rapidly losing its sense of self and the historic feel and identity. You can go on with the "NYC is denser", but it's hard to compare that to a city that was built on converted cow paths. Even cities throughout the world that are much older and denser, just seem somehow designed to take on a lot more weight.



So yes, I do realize there is room for a LITTLE more (not talking about projects already in the works. I'm talking in relation to what's already there, you are certainly not going to increase it ten fold without totally re-inventing the city Hong Kong style.

[rranger]

To me, the far more irritating aspect of high-rises in Boston is the obsession with flat-topped buildings. I don't know where anyone ever got the idea that a bunch of 500-600 ft. flat-topped buildings clustered together makes for an attractive skyline.

Even when they build higher, as with One Dalton in the Back Bay, the building inevitably gets a flat top. Years ago, Mayor Menino insisted that 131 Huntington (the wedding cake building) have an interesting design and top. Sadly, that kind of thinking didn't stick.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by rranger

To me, the far more irritating aspect of high-rises in Boston is the obsession with flat-topped buildings. I don't know where anyone ever got the idea that a bunch of 500-600 ft. flat-topped buildings clustered together makes for an attractive skyline.

Even when they build higher, as with One Dalton in the Back Bay, the building inevitably gets a flat top. Years ago, Mayor Menino insisted that 131 Huntington (the wedding cake building) have an interesting design and top. Sadly, that kind of thinking didn't stick.

I would prefer bigger high rises but fewer of them. The whole "mid rise" trend doesn't do much for me.


But I do agree with what you are saying as well.

[bugelrex]

Some inner suburbs such as Newton are only 15 mins on the commuter rail. If they fixed the frequency issue, some inners suburbs could provide larger office space and still only be minutes away... suburbs get to keep the tax revenue too!

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by bugelrex

Some inner suburbs such as Newton are only 15 mins on the commuter rail. If they fixed the frequency issue, some inners suburbs could provide larger office space and still only be minutes away... suburbs get to keep the tax revenue too!

Absolutely! Suburbs have to be part of the solution.