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.
I think it would certainly be nice to have a defining skyscraper. But when you think about it, you can count on one hand the number of truly defining towers there are in this country.
Boston is a very dense and compact city. I think a nice 800-850 tower would do the trick in terms of giving the city a standout tower while not being too tall. That's not to say I am a NIMBY and hate development, because I don't. But at the same time, Boston is more on a human scale and as such development needs to be on par with what we already have. Throwing up a 1,500 tower would look out of scale with the skyline.
Also, just imagine how the Boston skyline would look if South Station Tower, the Government Center Garage towers and the Filene's site tower got built. Right now, it appears as though only the Filene's site tower is going to happen.
First, as others have mentioned, Boston doesn't need skyscrapers. Boston is a great city because of its dense historic neighborhoods like the North end, Back Bay, South end, etc. That having been said, skyscrapers don't have any negative impacts on a city, it would be nice to have a few more skyscrapers. Though I don't think Boston should build just one or two really tall towers, which is why I always hated that 1000ft tower proposal. A tall thin glass tower would look rediculous surrounded by wide, brown towers half its size. To look good, Boston should build a few 700, 800, and 900ft towers, so that Boston can add some height while keeping its dense look and without making it look awkward (for lack of a better word).
Still, Boston shouldn't build towers just for the sake of building towers. If it's not economically feasible, then the city shouldn't build it. On th other hand, if it is economically feasible then no one should oppose it. For example, before the recession, a 700ft tower was proposed for the government center garage, which would've fit nicely into the skyline, imo. Unfortunately it was met with "community opposition" and the mayor even said that it was ""too tall and dense". The project lost its feasibility when the recession hit, but still the fact that the city didn't want the tower to be built is annoying and confusing. And apparently if the building will be built in the future it will be ""much shorter".
So to sum it up ( & pretty much say what everyone else said)...
Does Boston need skyscrapers? No
Would it be nice if Boston got more skyscrapers? Sure.
Should Boston build skyscrapers for the sake of building skyscrapers?No.
Should Boston oppose proposed skycrapers? absolutely not.
I think it would certainly be nice to have a defining skyscraper. But when you think about it, you can count on one hand the number of truly defining towers there are in this country.
Boston is a very dense and compact city. I think a nice 800-850 tower would do the trick in terms of giving the city a standout tower while not being too tall. That's not to say I am a NIMBY and hate development, because I don't. But at the same time, Boston is more on a human scale and as such development needs to be on par with what we already have. Throwing up a 1,500 tower would look out of scale with the skyline.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iAMtheVVALRUS
First, as others have mentioned, Boston doesn't need skyscrapers. Boston is a great city because of its dense historic neighborhoods like the North end, Back Bay, South end, etc. That having been said, skyscrapers don't have any negative impacts on a city, it would be nice to have a few more skyscrapers. Though I don't think Boston should build just one or two really tall towers, which is why I always hated that 1000ft tower proposal. A tall thin glass tower would look rediculous surrounded by wide, brown towers half its size. To look good, Boston should build a few 700, 800, and 900ft towers, so that Boston can add some height while keeping its dense look and without making it look awkward (for lack of a better word).
Still, Boston shouldn't build towers just for the sake of building towers. If it's not economically feasible, then the city shouldn't build it. On th other hand, if it is economically feasible then no one should oppose it. For example, before the recession, a 700ft tower was proposed for the government center garage, which would've fit nicely into the skyline, imo. Unfortunately it was met with "community opposition" and the mayor even said that it was ""too tall and dense". The project lost its feasibility when the recession hit, but still the fact that the city didn't want the tower to be built is annoying and confusing. And apparently if the building will be built in the future it will be ""much shorter".
So to sum it up ( & pretty much say what everyone else said)...
Does Boston need skyscrapers? No
Would it be nice if Boston got more skyscrapers? Sure.
Should Boston build skyscrapers for the sake of building skyscrapers?No.
Should Boston oppose proposed skycrapers? absolutely not.
agree wit yall
a few 800 ft towers would be good, shouldn't be too tall, but that's what i was asking originally too, 1000 ft tower might not be necessary just like it's not in other cities, but i still think a new tower/towers are needed rather than "would be nice, but not needed"
I wouldn't mind another tower or two as long as it brought more jobs and investment along with it. But honestly at this point I'm pretty much against any new developments like that in Boston. We don't really need them and the city is already losing its character and starting to look bland and...well to be honest, it doesn't really set itself apart from many other cities anymore the way it used to. Still though, if it would mean more jobs and money for the city, then I don't see why not...but that kind of development should at least try to be balanced with maintaining the city's cultural integrity, or at least what's left of it.
I wouldn't mind another tower or two as long as it brought more jobs and investment along with it. But honestly at this point I'm pretty much against any new developments like that in Boston. We don't really need them and the city is already losing its character and starting to look bland and...well to be honest, it doesn't really set itself apart from many other cities anymore the way it used to. Still though, if it would mean more jobs and money for the city, then I don't see why not...but that kind of development should at least try to be balanced with maintaining the city's cultural integrity, or at least what's left of it.
Everybody's entitled to an opinion (and I'm not picking on you in particular rather picking on the people who seem to think height is a a problem), but this argument is one I never understood for a number of reasons.
How do high rise developments make the city "lose character" more than any other type of new construction?
I would argue the opposite. For starters, tall buildings are often unique landmarks. Many historic cities have tall buildings that are landmarks. Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, London, etc. all have unique towers while retaining their historic character. Boston does too. Everyone knows the city's two tallest, the Hancock Tower and the Prudential Center. While I wouldn't say that the Hancock or Pru "define" the city, they certainly add to its character almost as much as anything else. They definitely didn't take anything away (Pru replaced a rail yard and JHT is on a VERY slim lot). If you ask someone to name one building in New York, it's going to be the Empire State building. If you ask someone to name one building in Chicago, it's going to be the Sears Tower. How about Paris, a city chalk-full of incredible architecture? The Eiffel Tower is the one most people can name. There's room for high rises in historic cities and they certainly don't hurt the character if done right.
If the argument is that creating new high rise buildings lead to demolishing historic architecture, I'd argue that it doesn't any moreso than any other new construction. In fact, given that towers are built upward and maximize floor space with height rather than width, they're a better option to allow the city to grow while limiting collateral damage. I would say that developments like the original Central Artery, City Hall Plaza, or the Hurley Building did a hell of a lot more to damage historic Boston than any high rise ever has. In fact, many high rises now incorporate existing facades and historic buildings (see: Filene's or Atlantic Wharf). Even the enormous Prudential Center replaced an old rail yard. That's an upgrade in my book.
This outward rejection of anything tall simply because it's tall is incredibly frustrating. In some cases, it's downright detrimental to the very buildings the opposition is trying to save. Case in point: The Dainty Dot building. You know, this building which is now gone to be replaced be a fairly generic mixed use mid-rise building. It's not gone because developers didn't care or the city didn't try to save it. It's gone because neighborhood groups balked at the proposed height (29 stories... or less than half the height of the Hancock Tower) of the tower. The initial proposal tacked on a few extra stories so the original historic building could be preserved and incorporated into the project. Well, the neighbors were horrified at the height and fought tooth and nail in opposition to the proposal. The end result was a compromise. The neighbors "succeeded" in getting a few stories chopped off of the top of the building. However, the developer had to make up the square footage elsewhere (people seem to forget economics plays a role in development) and that meant eliminating the historic structure that was initially going to be preserved. The problem is that once again, neighbors targeted "height" as the enemy complaining about shadows (ever notice that if a building does it, it's "shadows" and it's a ghastly thing, but if trees do it, it's "shade" and it's incredibly welcome?) and all sorts of other red herrings. Well, they now have a few fewer floors to worry about on the new building, but the historic building in that streetview shot no longer exists. And we're not building them like that anymore.
This stuff is really common sense. Aside from the possibility of MIT inventing time travel and sending us all back to the Victorian Era, Boston will continue to move forward and evolve. Part of that means new development to accommodate the growth. Believe me, if I have to choose between saving a historic structure and demolishing it to make way for a new glass tower, I'll save the historic structure 100 times out of 100. Preservation is key, but tall buildings aren't the problem. In fact, more tall buildings will likely save more of Historic Boston because you'll grow upward instead of out. We've seen plenty of examples already of being able to have both (Filene's, Atlantic Wharf, Exchange Place, 105 Arch Street, Paramount Theater, etc). Heights not the problem. In fact, it may even be one of the solutions to better preservation.
I thought the reason why Boston doesn't have any supertall buildings is because its built on marsh land and its really hard to build tall buildings on marsh land.
LOL. where did you get this information?
They build ALL kinds of height in Boston/Cambridge/Somerville/ Everett on mud and sand pushed by glaciers over millions of years.
How do they build dozens of 265~300' highrises on our marshlands?
Hint: they don't go down to Bedrock.
How does Boston build up to 375' and even taller on and around the muck of the Shawmut Peninsula and Back Bay filled from the mega engineering project of the 1860s-80s Industrial Age?
Well, they can build quite tall but still not go down to Bedrock.
How does Boston build >600', 700', 750', & 790' on all that muck and fill?
Hint: well, in this case they DO go down to the bedrock. And if they decided to build taller they'd also go down to bedrock.
There's no geosoil conditions restricting extreme height in Boston.
The restrictions are borne out of economics and insular, reactionary neighbors.
But just so you know, that's still not the farthest down they go in the US.
Another US city (SF) is built on an alluvial plain (yeah, that's a little crazy).
LA is an alluvial plain. You have to go down very deep to get into the hard stuff.
btw, there are (2) 58 story skyscrapers in USA now leaning.
The one in SF is in pretty serious trouble. They've had to halt repairs under an emergency order.
The other, One Seaport, in lower Manhattan is just kind of a "thing." It's only leaning slightly.
i voted "No." Boston doesn't need...
Back Bay is out. Developer tried to get to 600' at parcel 15 and failed. Can't build 600' at the perfect site. Ain't getting taller anyplace else in Back Bay.
That leaves the West End and Downtown near Govt Center. Govt Center is shadow restricted for Beacon Hill. The far edge of the West End is possible, as it's not shadow restricted.
But, the low section of the O'Neill Federal bldg and 65 Martha Rd in the West End and its adjacent parking lot are 2 sites that can support towers that could exceed 200 Clarendon St to become Boston's new tallest tower/s. It would take an extremely strong mayor to pull something like that off, in the form of a strong development team, and lots of goodies for the neighbors.
It would be a good many years before the momentum to do something really tall could come about.
Last edited by odurandina; 02-08-2022 at 08:04 PM..
I heard the same arguing about when MGM change the design of MGM Springfield in Springfield. There are these people that were obsessed with having some big tower. The fact of the matter is you can still see Towers on 91 North going into it so it's not really going to attract as many people. From what I understand the reasons why there was a change is that the amount of skyscrapers glass on the market right now it actually require a a general contractor firm to actually buy and make a factory making skyscraper glass. If the market was that tight about four years ago it would be tighter today. Unless you really want to throw billions upon billions of dollars around and not going to see a major new skyscraper building.
Of course Logan airport is a significant concern and to do a flights coming in from other areas proximity to Rhode Island and New Hampshire also comes into play. The other thing to consider is that we're not going to see as many people going back to the office and most office administrative jobs things like customer service and finance and insurance are going to continue to be at home. And it's city of Hartford is actually being a conversion of some hotels into Apartments. In fact this is getting to be very common all across the country.
I don't think that building a big building when we were focusing more on doing things virtually is a good idea the higher cost that you have I just not justified by the cash flow. If people could work from home all the time why would they go in otherwise? Gas is already about what $3. 50 a gallon.
If we want more people to spend more money into Boston there needs to be more attractions in Boston for them to go to and spend that money on. Let's say you got a 30 ft Tower and somebody works in the 25th are they really going to go down 25 floors to grab a hot dog at lunch and go all the way back up again? I would argue that most people could do up to about five stories of flights beyond that there's no way they can do 10 20 30 flights of stairs a day each way so they're going to have to use the elevator.
You Want To Have walkability and Have goods and services available to people walking in the door rather than have a system that has people constantly going up and down elevators and rushing in order to meet some deadlines or lunch.
I think the greater question that you tried to detail is for something to be a bit more iconic and identifiable in the city but it already has that with things like Fenway Park in the Citgo sign and the Prudential Building. Back in the day churches used to compete for being larger so that way they'd be used as a way finding method but now we really don't need that
...for something to be a bit more iconic and identifiable in the city but it already has that with things like Fenway Park in the Citgo sign and the Prudential Building.
The older the Prudential building gets the more lovable and iconic it becomes. It's like those mid-century modern furniture pieces-- dated but adorable. Hancock was stunning in its day, once they'd figured out the crumbling window problem--but now seems like a lot of other glass-faced buildings, whereas the Pru is like that '63 Caddy -- ugly but so distinctive.
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.
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.
