HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals

About The Ads  This week the ad company used in the forum will be monitoring activity and doing some tests to identify any problems which users may be experiencing. If at any time this week you get pop-ups, redirects, etc. as a result of ads please let us know by sending an email to forum@skyscraperpage.com or post in the ads complaint thread. Thank you for your participation.


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2012, 9:18 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
Life enthusiast
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Barcelona, NYC, California
Posts: 3,985
BOSTON | Winthrop Square Tower | 691 FT / 211 M | 51 FLOORS | SITE PREP

Guess who's back from the dead?

http://boston.curbed.com/archives/20...ike-donkey.php



It's on like Donkey Kong, who might end up climbing it one day. Credit-card kingpin Steve Belkin has resurrected plans to build what could be Boston's tallest tower. Recall, Belkin was the lone bidder in November 2006 for the city-owned parcel at 115 Federal Street in the Financial District (or whatever we'll end up calling it) and he already owned an adjacent parcel at 133 Federal. He pitched a 1,000-foot tower that would easily have been the city's—New England's—tallest (above is a rendering of the would-be Renzo Piano-designed sprout). Then the FAA said um... because the tower might interfere with jets at Logan; and then the Great Recession slammed the financing window.

But now Belkin's back. According to The Globe's Casey Ross, Belkin has met with city officials in recent weeks to discuss his plans, which remain shrouded largely in glassy mystery. We do know that now is the time to think hard-hats and cranes in prime Boston. The Millennium Tower announcement of earlier this month put a kind of exclamation point on a wave of new big-time construction in the city. Every other day seems to bring a new groundbreaking (yesterday it was Waterside Place in the Seaport). If Belkin can nail financing, it's unlikely his tower can't get under way this time.

Original height for this proposal: 115 Federal Street | 349m | 1145ft | 80 fl

Last edited by Urbannizer; Jan 26, 2018 at 9:46 PM. Reason: Added height info for the original proposal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2012, 10:19 PM
Onn Onn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The United States
Posts: 1,937
No way, no way...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2012, 10:59 PM
Smuttynose1 Smuttynose1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 165
One important caveat...

Quote:
However, any building on the property would have to be hundreds of feet shorter than the 1,000 feet originally proposed. Federal aviation officials have ruled that a tower of that size would obstruct air traffic around Logan International Airport.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2012, 11:02 PM
kenratboy kenratboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,007
*falls off chair*

Wow, that would be awesome, but the proximity to Logan could cause issues.

Maybe they could move the airport
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2012, 11:45 PM
N830MH N830MH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 2,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onn View Post
No way, no way...
Yes! Really! They're back!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2012, 12:13 AM
natiboy's Avatar
natiboy natiboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 611
Wow!!! Great to see Boston getting another tower.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2012, 12:33 AM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
Life enthusiast
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Barcelona, NYC, California
Posts: 3,985
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smuttynose1 View Post
One important caveat...
Where did it say that in the article, I couldn't find it?

It did still say it could be Boston's tallest building still though if that is true, if not then yea it does seem a bit too good to be true. The "hundreds of feet shorter than 1000" could well be an exaggeration considering JHT is only 210' shorter than 1000,

If the airport is going to stop them, then Boston will never see a supertall ever, they are being way too cautions, Logan airport is not close enough for a 1000 foot tower to be dangerous.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2012, 1:21 AM
DZH22 DZH22 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,020
It's worth noting that the tower in the render is DEAD. In fact, Zapatan, I think you should probably remove it from your post completely, but that's up to you. Basically, the developer said he is looking into coming back with a new proposal. That's it. I'm also pretty sure the FAA capped the area around 850', so it most likely won't be taller than that.

Don't get too excited folks.... yet at least.

(although, get excited about the Copley Place Tower, Filene's Tower, etc., because Boston is entering a boom(!!!!!) but it's not quite there yet, despite all the cranes currently in the area)

Boston is notoriously slow for getting proposals approved and out of the ground.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2012, 4:04 AM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Leftist Correctist
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 6,200
Boston needs something amorphous and blobby. Just my opinion.
__________________
Trumpism is the road to ruin
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2012, 4:39 AM
Roadcruiser1's Avatar
Roadcruiser1 Roadcruiser1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: New York City
Posts: 2,106
I don't understand the logic of the FAA. Don't allow buildings to soar 1,000 feet over Boston yet allow buildings to soar over 1,000 feet in Manhattan in New York City right over the flight path to LaGuardia Airport. I am starting to think the FAA regulations need to be looked into and CHANGED!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2012, 8:17 AM
antinimby antinimby is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In syndication
Posts: 2,098
Is the height in the title counting the spire or not?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2012, 10:15 AM
NYC2ATX's Avatar
NYC2ATX NYC2ATX is offline
Yank in Tex
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: TXpatriate
Posts: 2,162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1 View Post
I don't understand the logic of the FAA. Don't allow buildings to soar 1,000 feet over Boston yet allow buildings to soar over 1,000 feet in Manhattan in New York City right over the flight path to LaGuardia Airport. I am starting to think the FAA regulations need to be looked into and CHANGED!
I do agree and wish that Boston could somehow, some way, see a 1,000-footer. However the two situations you're comparing are very different. Laguardia is some distance into Queens from the body of water actually separating it from Manhattan, the East River. The water LGA actually touches is the western reaches of Long Island Sound. Also, the part of Queens where LGA is located is across the East River from upper Manhattan, roughly the low 100s.

Logan Airport is right on the water in Boston Harbor, directly across the Harbor from Downtown's core. The difference in distance is less than 2 miles from Logan to DT Bos and over 5 miles between LGA and Midtown.

I think if they can't put a 1,000-footer in Downtown Boston's core they should opt for near the John Hancock, where the city's tallest towers already are.
__________________
BUILD IT. BUILD EVERYTHING. BUILD IT ALL.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2012, 11:29 AM
sterlippo1 sterlippo1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Sonoma County
Posts: 1,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by DZH22 View Post
Boston is notoriously slow for getting proposals approved and out of the ground.
you can say that again..................i dont doubt the FAA but seriously, planes NEVER fly over the downtown while landing or taking off. West-bound flights (as most are obviously) go north and then kind of circle the North Shore then go west so that say Fenway Park/Charles River is far away and on the left side of the plane......................If that render is in fact scrapped, too bad, it's perfect for Boston and fits beautifully in the skyline
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2012, 2:09 PM
Fardeb Fardeb is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 100
It would be great if this did end up being well over the 600ft mark to be the highest downtown, but unless the FAA randomly decides to change their mind I can't see this breaking 1000ft.

I think if Boston ever gets a supertall it will be somewhere in the Back Bay near the two tallest.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2012, 2:40 PM
Onn Onn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The United States
Posts: 1,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fardeb View Post
It would be great if this did end up being well over the 600ft mark to be the highest downtown, but unless the FAA randomly decides to change their mind I can't see this breaking 1000ft.

I think if Boston ever gets a supertall it will be somewhere in the Back Bay near the two tallest.
The FAA is not a god, probably important to remember. You can't freak out before anything is even shown.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2012, 3:00 PM
DZH22 DZH22 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,020
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onn View Post
The FAA is not a god, probably important to remember. You can't freak out before anything is even shown.
Logan airport is right across the harbor. In this case, the FAA, the BRA, and the mayor share the "god" responsibilities. Trust me, this is not going to be a supertall. Ignore the height in the title, it ain't happening. Think 800's at absolute best.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2012, 3:32 PM
Dale Dale is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Orlando
Posts: 3,811
So, we are allowed to think tallest. Very good then. I'm thinking new tallest.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2012, 3:41 PM
DZH22 DZH22 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,020
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale View Post
So, we are allowed to think tallest. Very good then. I'm thinking new tallest.
I would say a clear tallest for the financial district (currently 614' Fed), if not the tallest in the city (currently 790' Hancock). Personally, I would be really happy with anything over 700'. It's gotta be a GREAT design if it takes the title away from my favorite skyscraper. I thought the original design was pretty much garbage.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2012, 3:56 PM
Dale Dale is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Orlando
Posts: 3,811
It's high-time for Hancock to be eclipsed. I'm just confused as to why, when the original proposal was unveiled, we weren't hearing, "No chance in hell. They can't build this tall."

Did something happen in the interim ?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2012, 4:59 PM
Hudson11's Avatar
Hudson11 Hudson11 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,104
it will probably end up being 800-1000 ft with the spire. If we're lucky it might end up being just over 300 m.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:36 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.