[plantBanceper]

I agree.

[U5pz6B71]

The development at the Gov't Center garage may be taller than the Hancock. If you look at the renderings of the Cook & Fox design, it towers over downtown and could easily break the 800 ft. barrier.

Height would be great downtown, but we don't necessarily need something over 1,000. Anything that will break the table-top of skyscrapers will be find with me. If we could get 1 or 2 850-900 ft. towers, our skyline would look amazing. Just look at Philadelphia.

[diundasmink]

I think you should go to a public meeting and tell them that. They will appreciate it, but politely reply that their goal is to move Burlington, Vermont to them.

[Unjucky]

BAM!

I was reminded of something earlier today. I remember reading in one of the books about Scollay Square that the city proposed selling and/or building a high-rise at 28 State Street (the old Bank of New England building). As a result, other developers / owners jumped to get their buildings into the ground before they lost the opportunity, and/or they were encouraged by the city's plans. I don't know what the reason why, but we ended up with many of the banks' buildings as a result, including the Bank of Boston and The Boston Company buildings.

At least, that's what I remember reading.

It made me wonder whether or not the mayor's plans for his 1,000+ foot building was just plain hubris and/or that it might be inspiring others.

[gortusbig]

More than height the waterfront need some color and something cutting edge and sleek

if Chiofiaro wants to build tall and the design is truly terrific....fine

but height is not the issue and it never will be the dominant issue anywhere..especially in that location and especially in Boston.

[gortusbig]

Quote:

[gortusbig]

Boston has to play to its strengths. Height is not its strength for various reasons. Most of us know what differentiates our city from others and if we are going to build tall...we must build around, and be congnizant of, these strengths.

[Thomaswhitee]

Quote:

[pfcwlkxav]

Trail, my friend, I agree that Boston could definitely use "punctuation" on it's skyline, but not now. Any great city never had height to begin with, they had density, which is ten times more important that height. Once we've finished filling in all the cracks in the skyline, then we can worry about height. You see, one cannot build tall just for whim, there has to be reason. Boston still has plenty of space to fill in with mid-rises and semi-high-rises, before we can think about building a supertall. I would suggest that you view some of ablarc's photo essays-they certainly opened my eyes to 'correct' urbanism. There's a bunch of them scattered around the site.

And, how dare you call the Hancock dated! That and the Custom House are the two greatest structures ever built in Boston!

Van, I believe this certainly deserves to be moved to the "Design a Better Boston" subforum.

[Thomaswhitee]

Quote:

[Thomaswhitee]

Well then, I officially retract my proposal. At least you liked the bean!

[Thomaswhitee]

Baked. It's very modern art and packed full of deep meaning.

[dmitrynts]

trail8, people do not build towers just for the sake of height (unless you live in Dubai). With all the project that are going up, a 1000 foot tower + a 700 foot tower and then SST, etc will definitely create too much office space that it will provide more office space than needed. The result is vacancy in many of these towers and the loss of profit for the developers. Developers will not build towers that they know will not be feasible due to the supply of office space. Remember this, Boston is not New York. It does not have an endless demand on both residential and commercial space.

[HarryMet]

thread's makin my head hurt

[ultramDoctoo]

Welcome to the board, trail8. I merged several of your threads together and moved the resulting one to the general forum.

For future reference: vague personal laments do not warrant their own threads in the New Development forum.