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.
Half the sites you mentioned would breach Boston Shadow laws... so there not going to happen even if they aren't limited by FAA height
Short of Logan Airport relocating.... A super-tall will not be constructed in Boston. Boston is and has been close to maxing out of developable land for buildings +500'.
I based my heights off of FAA laws, and ignored shadow laws. As prominent as they are, 30-40 years from now.. I really hope 'shadow laws' are redefined.
A super tall would not get built in Boston you are very correct. Cambridge? Yes It is possible.
I maintain an opinion I expressed WAY earlier in this thread: that the Hancock Tower in Boston is the single prettiest tower of any in these three cities. That photo does a great job of showing why; the tower blends into the sky so beautifully.
I wish Boston would be able to put all of their towers in a big cluster. It would look more impressive. I'm sure some Boston people would agree there that their skyline isn't as great because of the "shadow laws". The view from the harbor is great however. The best view IMO.
Philadelphia and Pittsburgh I think are 1 and 2 here.
Nah, it's the FAA height limit that, well, limits the heights of new towers. Not every place downtown would be impacted by the shadow laws.
I actually like Boston's spread out like it is. I don't think Boston's skyline is as aesthetically pleasing as Philly or Pittsburgh's, but I also don't care. I don't think it's an issue. The skyline is such a negligible piece of what makes a city great that it really is a non-issue.
There’s no debate Boston’s skyline covers a larger area than philly and definitely Pittsburgh..subjectivity it’s not a fan favorite but that may change with a couple of towers in pipeline ie Winthrop sq and south station
I was reading an article that said something along the lines of Bostonians love living in a city more like the 19th century rather than the 21st century (in regards to building skyscrapers).
The financial district where the cluster of towers are has a height limit due to Logan Airport across the bay. I don't remember the exact height off the top of my head. (I think this has to do with FAA).
Back Bay has some areas that are possible to build higher, but shadow laws and the NIMBY come into play. The article mentioned residents complaints of shadows over The Boston Common and The Public Garden (which I won't even get into, but I did LOL) lol.
I remember in 2006 Menino wanted a 1000ft skyscraper and that was nulled quickly (anybody else from Boston remember this? Lol). I thought that was too bad.
I was reading an article that said something along the lines of Bostonians love living in a city more like the 19th century rather than the 21st century (in regards to building skyscrapers).
The financial district where the cluster of towers are has a height limit due to Logan Airport across the bay. I don't remember the exact height off the top of my head. (I think this has to do with FAA).
Back Bay has some areas that are possible to build higher, but shadow laws and the NIMBY come into play. The article mentioned residents complaints of shadows over The Boston Common and The Public Garden (which I won't even get into, but I did LOL) lol.
I remember in 2006 Menino wanted a 1000ft skyscraper and that was nulled quickly (anybody else from Boston remember this? Lol). I thought that was too bad.
I do except Pittsburgh only has 16 400 ft buildings..Boston has a much larger skyline than Pitt it’s just aesthetic preference
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.