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.
It does. I think Boston's disadvantage that sometimes leads to this perception among people who haven't seen it in person is twofold:
1) FAA height restrictions which caps Financial District heights creating sort of a plateau effect on the skyline. That makes it appear smaller in photos since you don't have one or two single towers peaking above the rest of the skyline creating a sense of scale. The Hancock/Pru/One Dalton are all significantly taller than anything in the Financial District, but they're removed from the densest cluster of towers so it doesn't have the peak effect you get in smaller skylines like Charlotte.
2) Separation of the tallest buildings. Again with the "peak" effect. Boston's tallest are a mile from the biggest cluster of towers (Financial District). And from most viewing angles, you don't get a good sense of relative heights. You're either closer to Back Bay and the 3 tall towers there appear to dwarf the rest of the city, or your closer to the Financial District and the 3 tall towers in the Back Bay don't appear any taller than the towers in the Financial District.
But that being said, I do think many of the cities on this list will get 1,000 footers before Boston simply due to how difficult it is to build tall here.
I would also say
3) There is no demand currently. Boston is also greatly expanding its office space right now, but it's in the Seaport which has very strict height limits (for those unfamiliar - it's the old port that for a long time just sat there as parking lots until a few years ago) So right now there isn't a demand for a 1000 ft tower anyway. They're just building a bunch of 20ish story towers.
3) There is no demand currently. Boston is also greatly expanding its office space right now, but it's in the Seaport which has very strict height limits (for those unfamiliar - it's the old port that for a long time just sat there as parking lots until a few years ago) So right now there isn't a demand for a 1000 ft tower anyway. They're just building a bunch of 20ish story towers.
I don't know that I agree. Boston also has 3 office towers under construction downtown ranging from 500 to nearly 700 feet. The latter will be the tallest building int he city outside of Back Bay. That's in addition to millions of square feet under construction in the Seaport and Kendall Square.
I would wager if height limits/shadow restrictions weren't an issue, that we'd probably have a slightly different construction environment. If there's demand for millions of square feet of office space (which there clearly is), some of that demand could be accounted for in a 1,000 foot tower. It's not drastically larger than the 690 footer under construction at Winthrop Square, and that only accounts for a small chunk of the overall office space under construction.
Granted if that 690 footer was extended another 310 feet, you'd be adding more square footage of office space, but not really any more than any single box in the Seaport is adding. So maybe you have one fewer Seaport building under construction to offset the added height on Winthrop Square? It's not a big reach. And that's assume they wouldn't add a residential or hotel component - both of which are in high demand in the city (the city's third tallest building, a residential/hotel tower in Back Bay just opened this summer).
3) There is no demand currently. Boston is also greatly expanding its office space right now, but it's in the Seaport which has very strict height limits (for those unfamiliar - it's the old port that for a long time just sat there as parking lots until a few years ago) So right now there isn't a demand for a 1000 ft tower anyway. They're just building a bunch of 20ish story towers.
There 100% is demand. Office Vacancy is extremely low, I think its under 1% in Cambridge. Theres way too little amount of residential units and hotels as well.
Definitely a lot going on there, and a 1000ft tower would add to the supply.. but wouldnt flood the market for office/res/hotels.
Again Demand is there but the two biggest hurdles are NIMBYs and FAA Height Limits, so instead of getting 5 1,000ers, we get 2 700ers, a handful of 400-600ers and 20 squat 250ers.
Funniest NIMBY Story: Parcel 15 had a solid plan, two towers. 1 tower spanning 650ft, the other at 300ft. 350+ res units, 3 floors of commercial and 20 floors of Office Space. NIMBYs got triggered, removed the 300ft tower, reduced the 650ft tower to 485ft, and reduced the amount of units from 350+ to about 108, removed the offices and cut down the commercial. The tower then cited it was not feasible after that. This is why Boston is not getting a 1,000fter.
Last edited by masssachoicetts; 09-24-2019 at 09:51 PM..
A supertall is a much larger bet than smaller buildings....more square footage, a much higher construction cost per square foot, and a much longer construction duration. On top of that add the local variables of process and uncertainty. They're very hard to make work.
Building on spec is a huge bet. Signing an anchor tenant or sole tenant is tough because they need to wait maybe three years to occupy, and they're tied up in the mean time as well as throughout their lease. This isn't 1982 where you could build on spec and the federal government would guarantee your liar loan (hence a lot of big towers, and the S&L crisis).
A lot of companies like to rent smaller planned buildings that are quicker to build and have phase 2s they can rent if they grow enough. That's the beauty of the Seaport as well as my city's larger version of same.
This statement seems kind of ridiculous, considering the spire is attached to the building, so obviously it is part of the structure.
On the other hand, antenna masts are also part of the structure technically I think, and they aren't counted.
I agree that spires are kind of stupid though. You can never tell if they're added just for show, or specifically to make the building taller. It's easy to assume the latter since the buildings that popularized the spire, the Empire State Building and the Chrysler Building, added their spires for that exact reason.
The difference between a spire and an antenna is a spire has to have architectural design elements incorporated into it where as an antenna does not (hence why they are only counted in pinnacle height's but not architectural height)
The entirety of 1 WTC spire is architecturally and aesthetically designed, the Sears (or Willis) Towers antennas are not.
The ESB has a spire and antenna, where the Chrysler only has a spire.
Seattle has a 1,000 footer proposed but it will be on a lower elevation as the current tallest, Columbia Center. So it will probably not look like the tallest. What is the point?
Seattle has a 1,000 footer proposed but it will be on a lower elevation as the current tallest, Columbia Center. So it will probably not look like the tallest. What is the point?
A supertall is a much larger bet than smaller buildings....more square footage, a much higher construction cost per square foot, and a much longer construction duration. On top of that add the local variables of process and uncertainty. They're very hard to make work.
Building on spec is a huge bet. Signing an anchor tenant or sole tenant is tough because they need to wait maybe three years to occupy, and they're tied up in the mean time as well as throughout their lease. This isn't 1982 where you could build on spec and the federal government would guarantee your liar loan (hence a lot of big towers, and the S&L crisis).
A lot of companies like to rent smaller planned buildings that are quicker to build and have phase 2s they can rent if they grow enough. That's the beauty of the Seaport as well as my city's larger version of same.
Supertalls are like those Great Halls of the old Rail Road Stations. They are an ad. They project strength and stability. If it was all about Costs/benefits the economics for skyscrapers in Dallas or Houston or Atlanta with how cheap they are would be a lot weaker.
Also it depends on the use. Boston is building a lot of R&D space having a Chemistry lab on the 67th floor is very expensive so it just doesn’t happen.
Every supertall in this decade has a legit economic story -- no ads.
Ugh.... Outside of NYC, no American city builds a supertall for economic reasons.
Virtually every super-tall are vanity projects/status symbols now days.
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.
