daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Development News Forums > Skyscrapers > Proposed Skyscrapers



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old April 15th, 2016, 12:43 AM   #21
towerpower123
Let's Revive our Cities
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Howell/Newark, NJ
Posts: 2,240
Likes (Received): 4181

This one will look amazing! Hopefully Boston's NIMBYs won't get their way with it!
__________________
If I don't say otherwise, all of my images are on my blog,
http://urbanismvsmodernism.blogspot.com/?view=sidebar

186 Newark, NJ Development projects MAPPED
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1874870
http://urbanismvsmodernism.blogspot....l?view=sidebar

See my DeviantArt account at http://towerpower123.deviantart.com/
towerpower123 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old April 15th, 2016, 05:22 PM   #22
odurandina
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 86
Likes (Received): 102

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquaticko View Post
Praying that this one isn't cut down. Boston needs towers of this height; not necessarily much taller (yet), but if the city is eventually going to accommodate more people--which it should if wants to remain globally competitive--the bar of what constitutes "normal tallness" has to be raised to make room for as many ~100-200m towers as possible. Particularly considering how few plots will actually allow height, it's crucial to get it wherever we can....
well stated....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa View Post
...I wish it would get a supertall at some point.

Of the Big 13, 9 will have supertalls by 2020:

Atlanta
Chicago
Houston
Los Angeles
Miami
New York
Philadelphia
San Francisco
Seattle

The only ones lacking will be Boston, Dallas, Detroit and Washington
Quote:
Originally Posted by aquaticko View Post
Well, we can say almost with certainty that DC won't be getting one. Detroit might, by some miracle, at the end of our lifetimes. Dallas will probably depend on whether or not the city can sufficiently decouple its economy from the energy industry.

Boston, however, has the present demand for one. We all know it's just a matter of getting all the relevant parties to agree to a supertall, and that's where more skyscrapers of varying height will help, by getting stakeholders to see the positive role that they can play in the city's overall development. Once people adjust to more 200m+ skyscrapers, it'll just be that much easier to push a supertall through.
You can make a technical argument that Boston has the demand for a supertall. However, i don't know if the numbers work. Since 1971 when the JHT topped out, we've built our tall office towers in the 36-46 story range. Someone with whom i put faith, said recently, that it was determined some time ago that 60-65 stories is close to the limit for Boston. Our recent condo towers are near those limits – but, building over 60 stories gets more expensive, quickly.

With respect to demand, with several, high floor space/mid-rise towers going up in the Seaport, we don't yet have tenants for the 2 office towers approved for 1 Congress and TD Garden... then add to that, all the luxury condo towers planned.... maybe this saturates the market, or proves all the more that very tall construction is viable in Boston.

There was a +15 minute exchange between BRA board member Theodore Landsmark and the representative of 40 Trinity yesterday about the project nearly having to be scrapped due to the severe cost challenges of building at this site. And we're talking just about 40 Trinity! Landsmark added that he'd like to see their lengthy exchange become 'viewable' (my words) such that the people become better informed about the severe cost challenged nature of highrise construction in Boston.

The easy and semi-hard parcels are gone. Now, all that remain range from next-to-impossible on up. You're dealing with labor costs, a bureaucracy and a process that has simply grown to nightmare proportions. In New York, you're probably a couple of tiers above Boston for the value of completed construction.

to make One57 work, they had some of the highest real estate prices in the world to work with... I realize they paid much more for the parcel than you'd have to do in Boston. Still, i believe you'd have a tough time making the argument to finance a similar, 1005' tower in Boston. i believe we'd more likely be getting taller in baby steps. look at the current valuation for the JHT. Now, build it. An economic model for acceptable return vs risk might drop our skyscraper ceiling to as low as 800~825'. Does that number sound low? maybe.

If Boston added a supertall in Back Bay, it might make the skyline look stunted.... Despite the recent drama over the Garden Garage, the West End might be the ideal place for a 'new tallest.' There's a few turd buildings that can come down. And the FAA limit appears to take you slightly over 900' - a good height for Boston.

After the current proposed highrises and whatever few 190~225m towers go up, it doesn't look like we will see any +150m tall construction anywhere in Boston for the forseeable future. i don't think we'll even see anything top 137m.

Every parcel is either proposed for mid-rise or high rise construction, is approved, under construction or topped.' After that, every build site is either FAA height restricted, a historic building, is extremely cost-challenged due to the value of the property +/- cost to demolish, extreme engineering, creates unwanted shade, requires zoning relief, or a nimby/political nightmare because it gets too close to something deemed sacred..... Study every parcel that remains without a proposal for significant height carefully... Put yourself in the nest of the developer - and you'll be able to debunk them.

When and where is the next tall building going to be? Probably nowhere. 111 Federal St and 1 Bromfield are the very last options. Outside of the Harbor Garage tower possibly getting done, the number of tall buildings coming after this cycle is zero. Unless someone decides it's time for the big monoliths (downtown) to start coming down or one of the next-to-impossible garages in Back Bay is solved, Boston has reached the end of tall construction.

Last edited by odurandina; May 6th, 2016 at 11:21 PM.
odurandina no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 17th, 2016, 09:18 AM   #23
Manitopiaaa
Illuminati Leader
 
Manitopiaaa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Alexandria, Nova, The Crown Commonwealth of Virginia (see sig)
Posts: 4,424
Likes (Received): 10267

This whole thing is depressing
__________________


Atlanta (6,451,262) - Boston (8,176,376) - Chicago (9,882,634) - Cleveland (3,483,311) - Dallas (7,673,305) - Denver (3,470,235) - Detroit (5,318,653) - Houston (6,972,374)
Los Angeles (18,688,022) - Miami (6,723,472) - Minneapolis (3,894,820) - New York (23,689,255) - Orlando (3,202,927) - Philadelphia (7,179,357) - Phoenix (4,661,537)
Portland (3,160,488) - San Diego (3,317,749) - San Francisco (8,751,807) - Seattle (4,684,516) - Tampa (3,032,171) - Washington (9,665,892)
Manitopiaaa no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 17th, 2016, 04:23 PM   #24
citylover94
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 88
Likes (Received): 91

That person has been saying that on Archboston as well and it is not really all that accurate. It may be true for a purely office tower, but residential supertall towers would probably work out financially. Also Boston is far from out of space for tall buildings to be built and the idea that it will be any harder to get things approved from now on that it already was is just plain false from my perspective. I wouldn't worry too much.

For fun here is a link to a map I made of available building sites on solid ground and this doesn't even include the potential for air rights over the Mass Pike which will eventually be built. This also doesn't include buildings that could be replaced by new buildings eventually. Sites available for Development in Boston
citylover94 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 19th, 2016, 04:03 AM   #25
odurandina
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 86
Likes (Received): 102

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa View Post
Of the Big 12, 8 will have supertalls by 2020:

Atlanta
Chicago
Houston
Los Angeles
Miami
New York
Philadelphia
San Francisco

The only ones lacking will be Boston, Dallas, Detroit and Washington
Add Seattle. It seems they're getting a supertall too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa View Post
This whole thing is depressing
I've checked my work with 2 of the best authorities in the game.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpo...&postcount=798

The idea of zero is counterintuitive in any urban zone. But Boston is very small. It's finite. It has the waterfront on one side ++historic and a long green ribbon running through it. Now, draw the FAA flight paths in yellow, orange and red. But that's just the beginning... There's an area just off Downtown Crossing with the Lafayette Place mall about in the center. You look at that spot and say, 'wow.' but when you measure at +470', it casts a shadow on Boston Common after August... you can only go ~450-475' and you do very little to modify the ugly 325-400' wall generally near the ladder district... Elsewhere, you're leaning over Charles Bulfinch this, Meeting House that or another patch of green trees.... Back away, and you get too close to some other holy historical icon, or a church.

Boston endlessly tries to talk itself into being terrified of tall buildings. It's weird. The neighborhoods are just so damn small. We have districts barely larger than a softball field. Everyone decided long ago, the high spine must conform to looking like brick. Everyone loves brick. I love brick - but everywhere?? (see all the brownish/red/'70s/granite clad towers downtown). The JHT is two blocks from epic brownstone utopia. So - our fixation on podiums and 'street interaction' was born.

Politically, everything here is turned into a crusade to save Boston's underprivileged, lost souls. The preserve Athens + pc dogma is tranformed into a perversion about the way we build.... EVERYTHING AND I MEAN EVERYTHING HAS TO HAVE A WINNER WHO STOLE TOO MUCH and a LOSER WHO GOT CRUSHED. Screw the evil capitalists. Believe it or not the nimbyism started even before Dewey Square Tower (1 Financial Center) was topped. People were freaking out then.

These so called viable build sites all come with their own unique problems. The BRA calls them sites for redevelopment, and they are.... but they're not really doable for skyscrapers. Even the ones that are, like 1 Congress, get 100' chopped off the top!! When other sites get done, our so-called highrises are really just 'mid-rises' in every other city.

Then there's the Urban Renewal era that gave us all the extreme demos. Now you're into VERY smart VERY tall building or you go broke. We have extreme engineering adjacent to the Mass pike and commuter rail lines... The cost to build is a nightmare... cost to do something great, almost impossible.... even after tax relief; RIP...

http://archboston.org/community/showthread.php?t=970.

Everyone knows Back Bay Station needs something akin to scaled down version of '1 Liberty/Philadelphia' there... (a no brainer for rendering a minimal shade pattern for Copley Sqare). It involves a span. If their best engineers can't solve it, someone from MIT can. But does Boston Properties call them? Of course not. They go to Walmart, pick out a box, shuffle around a few floors for fake iconic and throw it up. That's what they're doing at Boston Garden. That's what they did at 888 Boylston. There right back to the 1970 model for Boston.

Then, the approval process, and permitting... In the end, when the developer steps up to the plate, they discover Everyone has their hands out... or they want another concession on the height, the massing, or the human scale, or the street interaction isn't right or some other goodies... in the end the developer is either forced to walk, do a 10 story boutique whatever, a 20 story turd, or a 30 story nothing highrise barely visible on the skyline.

Now we're back to the ugly nimby battles already on our last parcels in the center of height stunted Downtown Boston while all the cities put up supertalls!!

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/loc...ising_eyebrows

You know the worst thing? Everyone in the development, banking and construction industry from one end of the US to the other is watching this one (1 Bromfield) to see how the Developer from New York is going to be treated through the process of what looks to be a game changer for Boston.

This is EFFING BOSTON; Since 1971; Millennium Tower and 1 Dalton...

update; RE; Mr. Golden. Damn, we just might build everything!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GyfuDkyc30

Last edited by odurandina; April 23rd, 2016 at 07:06 PM.
odurandina no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2016, 01:51 AM   #26
odurandina
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 86
Likes (Received): 102

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgt_Pepper View Post
Also isn't the proposed height of this building 683ft? Why does the description say 735ft?
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertpunk View Post
The 683' figure is for the highest occupied floor. For the mechanical
penthouse + crown, the allowable envelope is 735'. Actual and final height is TBD.
UPDATE; looks like it might be ~710'

__________________

aquaticko, prageethSL liked this post

Last edited by odurandina; May 4th, 2016 at 12:27 AM.
odurandina no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2016, 11:40 PM   #27
Eric Offereins
The only way is up
 
Eric Offereins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Rotterdam
Posts: 68,573
Likes (Received): 28130

I think it looks good this way. Lots of glass surface as well, which is a good thing.
Eric Offereins no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 5th, 2016, 06:14 PM   #28
odurandina
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 86
Likes (Received): 102




Last edited by odurandina; May 6th, 2016 at 03:26 AM.
odurandina no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 27th, 2016, 04:10 AM   #29
odurandina
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 86
Likes (Received): 102

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/...cFI/story.html

Last edited by odurandina; July 1st, 2016 at 07:20 PM.
odurandina no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 1st, 2016, 07:21 PM   #30
odurandina
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 86
Likes (Received): 102

another deed of horror in Boston....

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/...cFI/story.html
odurandina no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 2nd, 2016, 02:45 AM   #31
Yackemflaber68
Registered User
 
Yackemflaber68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 326
Likes (Received): 180

Wow that's bullshit.
/
__________________

prageethSL liked this post
Yackemflaber68 no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
1 bromfield st., boston, downtown crossing, one bromfield

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 12:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu