HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals


Winthrop Square Tower in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • Boston Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2012, 5:44 PM
sterlippo1 sterlippo1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Sonoma County
Posts: 1,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by DZH22 View Post
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.
sadly, i agree with you but good point by the poster that said why wasnt the height an issue with the FAA when it was first proposed?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2012, 7:17 PM
Roadcruiser1's Avatar
Roadcruiser1 Roadcruiser1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: New York City
Posts: 2,106
Why can't they just have the FAA change all the flight paths to Logan Airport so it would fly around the Downtown area instead of over it?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2012, 8:08 PM
scalziand's Avatar
scalziand scalziand is offline
Mortaaaaaaaaar!
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Naugatuck, CT/Worcester,MA
Posts: 3,491
Because one of the runways points directly at downtown.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2012, 8:17 PM
Roadcruiser1's Avatar
Roadcruiser1 Roadcruiser1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: New York City
Posts: 2,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by scalziand View Post
Because one of the runways points directly at downtown.
Is it possible to redirect it to face another direction?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Jul 1, 2012, 12:56 AM
DZH22 DZH22 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by sterlippo1 View Post
sadly, i agree with you but good point by the poster that said why wasnt the height an issue with the FAA when it was first proposed?
It was an issue. They did studies and nixed it pretty quickly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Jul 1, 2012, 1:12 AM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
Life enthusiast
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Barcelona, NYC, California
Posts: 4,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by DZH22 View Post
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.

well even if 800's to the roof is the max, Boston still gets a new tallest.

However the article gives the impression that something tall will be built there. I didn't see a quote in there about it being shortened, where did that come from?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Jul 1, 2012, 1:15 AM
Dale Dale is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Orlando
Posts: 3,820
If the height of the original project was nixed ... they sure didn't get the word out. It was reportedly the Mayor's thing to build a supertall.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Jul 1, 2012, 4:55 AM
mfastx mfastx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 278
I live in Boston and had a view of the airplanes approaching Boston Logan airport and I have never seen planes fly over downtown, or any part of central Boston for that matter. Planes coming from the south fly to the West of Boston, then turn East and make a loop all the way around Boston to approach from the south. Building a 1,000+ foot building would have NO impact on flight paths.

Last edited by mfastx; Jul 1, 2012 at 7:03 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Jul 1, 2012, 5:04 AM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
Life enthusiast
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Barcelona, NYC, California
Posts: 4,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfastx View Post
I live in Boston and had a view of the airplanes approaching Boston Logan airport and I have never seen planes fly over downtown, or any part of central Boston for that matter. Planes coming from the south fly to the West of Boston, then turn East and make a loop all the way around Boston to approach from the south. Building a 1,000+ feed building would have NO impact on flight paths.

Yea but what you just said is logical and makes sense, Boston is in the USA where nothing is logical or makes sense.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Jul 1, 2012, 5:30 AM
1Boston's Avatar
1Boston 1Boston is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Quincy, MA
Posts: 368
Wow it's awesome to be back from my vacation and to have news like this. I really hope that even if the rendering is scrapped they have something similar, because that tower just says Boston to me. I don't know about the height because it's Boston, so just subtract a few hundred feet from whatever the proposed height is and that should be the final height haha.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Jul 1, 2012, 11:51 AM
sterlippo1 sterlippo1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Sonoma County
Posts: 1,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1 View Post
Why can't they just have the FAA change all the flight paths to Logan Airport so it would fly around the Downtown area instead of over it?
as i stated already, planes NEVER fly over the downtown. Incoming fly over the south shore , out going over the north shore

Quote:
Originally Posted by mfastx View Post
I live in Boston and had a view of the airplanes approaching Boston Logan airport and I have never seen planes fly over downtown, or any part of central Boston for that matter. Planes coming from the south fly to the West of Boston, then turn East and make a loop all the way around Boston to approach from the south. Building a 1,000+ feed building would have NO impact on flight paths.
thank you, seems like no one read my post

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1Boston View Post
Wow it's awesome to be back from my vacation and to have news like this. I really hope that even if the rendering is scrapped they have something similar, because that tower just says Boston to me. I don't know about the height because it's Boston, so just subtract a few hundred feet from whatever the proposed height is and that should be the final height haha.
i totally agree , i also stated that above, it's perfect for the downtown skyline........and welcome home
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Jul 1, 2012, 2:21 PM
DZH22 DZH22 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,022
Here's an old article about the FAA knocking height off the tower. It would be too tall "in case of an emergency". The FAA really sucks when it comes to Boston, but that's also what happens when the airport is so damn close to the city!

http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas...les/?page=full
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Jul 1, 2012, 3:35 PM
Roadcruiser1's Avatar
Roadcruiser1 Roadcruiser1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: New York City
Posts: 2,106
That's a load of BS.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Jul 2, 2012, 9:05 PM
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 32,063
A new tallest? In Nimby central?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Jul 3, 2012, 2:34 AM
scalziand's Avatar
scalziand scalziand is offline
Mortaaaaaaaaar!
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Naugatuck, CT/Worcester,MA
Posts: 3,491
^'Course, if you're friends with the mayor, none of that nimby zoning stuff matters.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Jul 3, 2012, 3:18 AM
1Boston's Avatar
1Boston 1Boston is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Quincy, MA
Posts: 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by DZH22 View Post
Here's an old article about the FAA knocking height off the tower. It would be too tall "in case of an emergency". The FAA really sucks when it comes to Boston, but that's also what happens when the airport is so damn close to the city!

http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas...les/?page=full
It wasn't hard enough to get a buidling built in the city with all the nimby's but now we have the FAA ruining everything.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Jul 3, 2012, 4:06 AM
DZH22 DZH22 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1Boston View Post
It wasn't hard enough to get a buidling built in the city with all the nimby's but now we have the FAA ruining everything.
Don't worry, we are supposed to have 2 600' towers starting construction by the end of this year, and for a city that only has 5 total right now, that is plenty to be excited about while other buildings sort themselves out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Jul 4, 2012, 9:20 PM
Sam Hill's Avatar
Sam Hill Sam Hill is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Denver
Posts: 608
lol! Some of you guys crack me up. I'm sure the FAA knows what it's doing.

But anyway, it's too bad for Boston. IMO, Boston is world class, and the kind of city that would be very deserving of an iconic supertall. Damn.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Jul 4, 2012, 11:30 PM
1Boston's Avatar
1Boston 1Boston is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Quincy, MA
Posts: 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by DZH22 View Post
Don't worry, we are supposed to have 2 600' towers starting construction by the end of this year, and for a city that only has 5 total right now, that is plenty to be excited about while other buildings sort themselves out.
You're right I shouldn't be complaining, but it's hard not to get caught up in something that seemed unbelievable yet so eligible since the mayor was so behind it. Back to reality i guess. At least there's still some hope that this will have decent height.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Jul 5, 2012, 3:46 AM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
Life enthusiast
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Barcelona, NYC, California
Posts: 4,003
Why all the negativity over an article from over 4 years ago?

The article I posted makes it seem like there's a chance for some sort of new tallest to rise soon.
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 10:12 PM.

     

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