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.
Also to Boston's tall phase. After the current5 500-700fters get completed, South Station Tower, State Street, Winthrop Square, Raffles and Volpe Cambridge.. Boston will be building a ton of 200-400fters in Dorchester Bay City, Charleston-Assembly-Everett area and even in the core. That will be common place post 2024 construction. But right now, Boston is very hept on the 500-700 range. For now. Short lived.
I don't keep track of construction, really not an interest of mine for some reason.
Is there any hope that cambridge will continue the mid-rise boom west towards Harvard in the coming decade? Plenty of older concrete eye sores in that direction, A+ location on the Charles. Ripe for the pickin'.
I don't keep track of construction, really not an interest of mine for some reason.
Is there any hope that cambridge will continue the mid-rise boom west towards Harvard in the coming decade? Plenty of older concrete eye sores in that direction, A+ location on the Charles. Ripe for the pickin'.
The rise in Cambridge will come. 7/10 tallest in Cambridge were/will be built after 2018. Buildings are gradually getting taller with time. In the 1990s, 200-250fters. 2015-2025, 250-398fters. After 2025 we have two parcels that are planned to be over 500ft including the Volpe redevelopment.
Cambridge has a lot. A looot of empty space to build on. They REALLY need to reactivate the Grand Junction to light rail to assert more dominance and functionality as a city.
Probably will keep the pace with 200ersup.
Also there is a skyscraper cluster forming between Charlestown, Assembly and Everett. Groups of 300-400ers are proposed and underway.
Boston's skyscrapers, or noticeable standout buildings, will fall off a cliff. Cambridge-Somerville-Everett will probaby continue the boom I think. Its the new spot near the Mystic. So Im very hopeful. That and Dorchester
Last edited by masssachoicetts; 04-12-2021 at 08:37 AM..
Boston's not alone and it sure isnt the worst.like 8-10 of those alone, it would help alleviate some of the small/new family and FTB and even retirees.
No but Boston suburbs are the worst. Only Atlanta has lower-density suburbs among major cities.
With the new mayor, Central Wharf (600') will need a miracle.
She arbitrarily killed a 339' tower at Northeastern U wtf, because it will "be perpetuating white enclaves...." (paraphrasing).
Mayor Janey killed that development? How? when? Already?
Not just SF but really the entire bay area. Homeowners vote and CA renters not so much. Once you own a stake it the property it is in your best interest to keep supply low, so your home value rises. So you really get this militant anti growth attitude in the Bay Area that really is not seen in the rest of CA.
SF is the worst major city in regards to red tape and opposition, but Bay Area suburbs are actually worse than the city itself. The lengths people here go to preserve their views and open space is downright dictatorial. They'll choke the life out of a great project and wont give a flying eff.
This is why the Bay Area CSA borders keeps on growing and growing, workers have to keep looking farther out for homes-because locals refuse to allow enough new homes to be built here. It's a travesty.
At this rate, one day the CSA will be called San Francisco-Sacramento-Reno. It's ridiculous.
No but Boston suburbs are the worst. Only Atlanta has lower-density suburbs among major cities.
Do you have a stat or metric you're using to support that?
Boston (proper) is <1/2 the size of Philadelphia, but the MSA is >2/3 the size of Metro Philadelphia. So logic tells me what you're saying can't be true. Add to it the fact that Boston is bound by water, while Philadelphia is not. So that MSA is dispersed 365 degrees.
Then you move to smaller but highly relevant metros like Seattle, where the suburbs are far less densely populated. So in the grand scheme of city population vs. continued density outside of the core, I'd think Boston scores quite high despite the fact that outside of 95 you see a huge dropoff. I mean, how many people live within 95 in Eastern MA? Totally guessing, but ~3.5M? Doesn't get a whole lot more dense within a 15-20 mile radius anywhere in this country.
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.
