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
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Jul 5, 2012, 4:01 AM
DZH22 DZH22 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
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.
Clearly you don't know how things work in Boston. "Soon" is very relative. In this case, a tower hasn't even been proposed yet, has no tenant, and the use is unknown. The original structure also called for the demolition of a building next door, which is still standing.

The negativity is more about "being realistic". Something certainly might get built, but much more likely a 700'-800' tower at best, and Boston moves at a glacial pace with this stuff. I couldn't see this starting construction before 2014. This is all conjecture until the developer actually comes back with a serious proposal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Jul 5, 2012, 9:05 AM
FrancoRey's Avatar
FrancoRey FrancoRey is offline
Stay Thirsty.
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 2,835
Well, the old rendering is very nice looking. Too bad about the FAA though. That kills this proposal being more than 800 feet, guaranteed. Especially with a small spire that may be hard to see in bad weather even with beacons, that wouldn't fly in the FAA's book (pun intended).

For other lame excuses from the FAA limiting heights of buildings in city CBDs, see Denver circa the 1980's building boom. Height was capped at 715 feet because Stapleton was about 3.5 miles away. Denver has three towers between 700 and 715 feet tall, all because back then, they couldn't go higher.

Still waiting for the day when the Mile High City can live up to its name in more ways than one (more tall buildings!)
__________________
Denver's getting infill like it's 1999...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2012, 9:18 PM
-Filipe-'s Avatar
-Filipe- -Filipe- is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 274
any news?
__________________
I LOVE NY!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2012, 11:35 PM
Downburst's Avatar
Downburst Downburst is offline
Bostonian
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Boston
Posts: 158
No, there hasn't been any news on this. If there is, I would guarantee that it would be posted on here by myself or someone else within a day or two.

The ArchBoston forum also has expanded discussion on this proposal if you're interested in learning more.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2014, 4:37 AM
Michael12374's Avatar
Michael12374 Michael12374 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 132
what happened to this proposal?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2014, 1:29 PM
Downburst's Avatar
Downburst Downburst is offline
Bostonian
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Boston
Posts: 158
The parking garage onsite is city-owned and closed. This will almost certainly happen, but it will not happen as seen here, and it will likely not happen soon.

Boston's new mayor is bullish about the site and may be moving to tear the garage down and shop the site around to developers, but the approval process would still take some time after that point. Personally, I would expect the site to take on a residential component in addition to office space.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2014, 2:24 PM
summersm343's Avatar
summersm343 summersm343 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 12,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Downburst View Post
The parking garage onsite is city-owned and closed. This will almost certainly happen, but it will not happen as seen here, and it will likely not happen soon.

Boston's new mayor is bullish about the site and may be moving to tear the garage down and shop the site around to developers, but the approval process would still take some time after that point. Personally, I would expect the site to take on a residential component in addition to office space.
Isn't there an 800 foot height limit in this area due to the closet proximity to Logan? I thought that is what ultimately killed the project.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2014, 2:52 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
N, N-Dimethyltryptamine
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 28,993
^^^^^^^

Ginormous Financial District Tower Maybe Probably On Again

Quote:
It's one of the biggest what-ifs in recent Boston real estate: a 1,000-foot tower off Federal Street in the Financial District on the site of a city garage and an adjoining building (the original design by Italian starchitect Renzo Piano is rendered above). Pitched by would-be developer Steven Belkin in those prelapsarian days of 2006 and 2007, it would have easily been the tallest tower in Boston—in all of New England—but the Federal Aviation Administration said it was a little too tall for Logan and, besides, the Great Recession came and put the kibosh on any of Belkin's—and the city's—ambitions.

Then! In the summer of 2012 came news that Belkin was meeting with officials in the Menino administration about building at the garage site and at his adjacent building at 133 Federal. Building what exactly, nobody seemed to know. But building something, it certainly looked like. The climate, especially financing-wise, had shifted markedly; and Boston was nothing if not a city of potential spires.

Yet nothing happened and the Menino administration passed into history at the end of 2013 as development around town picked up even more. Now! It looks like Mayor Marty Walsh wants to plunk something formidable between Federal and Devonshire, and his administration is in fresh talks with Belkin.

Per Thomas Grillo at the Boston Business Journal, Hizzoner has set aside monies to demolish the 435-space garage on Devonshire Street. Plus: "We will take the garage down and begin the process of looking for somebody. There was some interest in it in the past and we've reached out to that developer [Belkin] to see if they are still interested ... I believe he still is."
=================================
May 6, 2014
http://boston.curbed.com/archives/20...fidi-tower.php
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2014, 2:55 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
N, N-Dimethyltryptamine
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 28,993
Another source just to confirm the Curbed article: This still has a chance theoretically, but time till tell.
----------------------------------------------

Mayor Walsh pledges to demolish city garage, revives development option with Belkin



Quote:
A year after the Menino administration shuttered the city's crumbling Winthrop Square Garage in Boston’s Financial District — once the proposed site for a 1,000-foot tower — newly elected Mayor Martin J. Walsh said city money has been set aside to demolish the 435-space lot to make way for new development.

Following a speech at a Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce event Tuesday, Walsh said he is optimistic that Steven Belkin, the founder of Trans National Group in Boston and the one-time developer of choice for the garage site, might still be on board for the project.

[...]
====================================
Apr 29, 2014
http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/re....html?page=all
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2014, 3:36 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
N, N-Dimethyltryptamine
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 28,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by summersm343 View Post
Isn't there an 800 foot height limit in this area due to the closet proximity to Logan? I thought that is what ultimately killed the project.
There is a height limit. Developers can get by it by requesting approval from the FAA. But, like Miami, its a bitch to do. Often a arduous process of studies, denials, and then in the end, either approval, rejection or often approval, but with a large height reduction.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2014, 4:26 PM
Downburst's Avatar
Downburst Downburst is offline
Bostonian
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Boston
Posts: 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by summersm343 View Post
Isn't there an 800 foot height limit in this area due to the closet proximity to Logan? I thought that is what ultimately killed the project.
As I remember, the height limit was a major setback, and the recession was the death blow. I am hazier on this, but IIRC the previous mayor was pushing this tower when the time wasn't exactly right for it.



The tower can (and most likely will) eventually be built around the height limit for the area, which IIRC is indeed around 800'. The garage that is currently onsite is city-owned, closed, in disrepair, and making no money. It will be developed eventually.

Here is a great (and very large) chart of suggested height limits around the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2014, 2:44 PM
Downburst's Avatar
Downburst Downburst is offline
Bostonian
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Boston
Posts: 158
BOSTON | 111 Federal St. | 740 FT / 226 M | ~45 FLOORS

Formerly BOSTON | 115 Federal Street | 349m | 1145ft | 80 fl | Pro. If the threads could be merged I would appreciate it.

Images from the article:






Looks to be 45-50 floors.

Quoted from the Boston Globe:
Quote:
Entrepreneur Steve Belkin is resurrecting his plan to build one of Boston’s tallest buildings, a glass tower of up to 740 feet that would be a new centerpiece on the city’s rapidly changing skyline.

The building would occupy one of the last major development sites in the Financial District, replacing a decrepit city-owned parking garage at Winthrop Square with a skyscraper that could cost as much as $900 million to build.

Originally, Belkin proposed a 1,000-foot office tower that drew regulatory objections because it would have interfered with air traffic. He shelved the project during the economic downturn.

Now he is back with a scaled-down version, at least 260 feet shorter. The complex, called 111 Federal St., would contain a wider range of uses, including a 300-room hotel, retail space, offices, and possibly 150 condominiums on the upper floors.

In an interview with the Globe, Belkin said he had not decided whether to build the condominiums. Without them, the building would rise to 650 feet but still be the tallest building in the downtown area.
Hopefully Belkin feels the need to push even higher than 740'. A crown or other roof feature would be nice, and is sorely needed IMO. This site is city-owned, so it may be possible to get an observation deck or other amenities out of him or any other developer in the eventual land transfer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2014, 3:08 PM
summersm343's Avatar
summersm343 summersm343 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 12,875
What a shame it was downsized from a Supertall, but wow! What a beautiful tower regardless!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2014, 4:15 PM
scalziand's Avatar
scalziand scalziand is offline
Mortaaaaaaaaar!
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Naugatuck, CT/Worcester,MA
Posts: 3,491
Cool how its cantilevered over 133 Federal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2014, 6:25 PM
njcco njcco is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 90
I hope it includes the hotel when all is said and done. Boston needs more hotel rooms desperately. This looks like a nice project, hope it happens.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2014, 6:45 PM
Onn Onn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The United States
Posts: 1,937
It does look like a nice project, despite the loss of 300 feet.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Oct 1, 2014, 12:12 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 41,146
http://cognoscenti.wbur.org/2014/10/...ertical-future

Boston Tall: Breaking Ground On A Vertical Future





Oct 01, 2014
by Cody Fenwick


Quote:
Once forestalled by a faltering economy, entrepreneur Steve Belkin is again pushing a bold proposal for a new skyscraper in Boston’s financial district. Somewhat more modest than previous designs, the still impressive building would stand 740 feet tall and feature a hotel, shopping venues, office space and, if permitted, 150 new condominiums.

I welcome Belkin’s proposal and hope that others like it will progress quickly. A growing, taller Boston has much to offer its inhabitants.

That is, unless regulatory hurdles thwart its construction. Bostonians are known for a stubborn will and reverence for history, and a structure like Belkin’s, which, if built, would be eclipsed in scale only by the Prudential Tower and Hancock Tower, is bound to stir up opposition. But anti-development sentiments are almost always misguided.

New buildings, especially on this scale, are often criticized for ruining the historical character of our neighborhoods. In this case, the proposed building site in question is home to a decommissioned parking garage. It’s hard to imagine anyone defending this eyesore.

Certainly, there are some sites important enough to history that they are best left untouched. Old South Meeting House, where the original Boston Tea Party was organized in 1773, for example, is a beautiful and deeply meaningful landmark in the story of the Commonwealth. More generally, however, historic preservation concerns are dwarfed by the needs of an expanding population.

A city’s architecture ought to evolve as organically as the needs and lives of its citizens. This is what the defenders of the status quo fail to recognize. Whatever might give the city “character,” after all, was once an aberration. The city has changed again and again since its conception. As our population grows, so should our buildings.

But do we really need taller buildings in Boston?  Yes, desperately. The average rent for a studio apartment in the financial district exceeds $2,000 a month. High rents burden families in much of eastern Massachusetts, and they are a sure sign of high demand and low supply. Essentially, there aren’t enough places to rent. Whether or not Belkin’s new tower will have residential units, it’s clear that Boston needs more habitable space, and we should be looking up, rather than planning more suburban sprawl.

Where to build? Wherever the demand for square footage is the greatest. Congestion fees that discourage road use during peak hours can fund improvements in public transport and incentivize its use, thus reducing the problems of increased traffic. With a little luck and sensible management, a denser city can reduce the number of cars polluting our shared atmosphere.

Pastoral fantasies to the contrary, denser, urban living is the most environmentally-friendly lifestyle. The economies of scale and smaller dwellings common to city life result in far fewer carbon emissions per person.

Some are repelled by urban development on aesthetic grounds. They find contemporary architecture unappealing or prefer a smaller scale. There’s no arguing about taste, of course, but I’ll say this: If living amongst metropolitan high-rises were so unpleasant, rents in Manhattan would not be so prohibitive.

Regardless, personal preferences should not dictate city policy.

As for Belkin’s specific proposal, it’s true that it won’t solve all of Boston’s problems. But it will provide construction jobs over the short term and offer retail and office jobs longer term. The additional real estate should ease the current shortfall of supply in the Bay State’s capital city, especially if the condos are permitted. I would be happy to see an even greater emphasis on increasing the total number of residential units in Boston. In the meantime, we should be open to any serious effort to raise up the Boston skyline.
__________________
NEW YORK. World's capital.

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2015, 1:45 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
N, N-Dimethyltryptamine
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 28,993
Project is moving along.

Quote:
The Boston Redevelopment Authority has issued a request for interest from developers after Trans National Group owner Steve Belkin — who originally planned to tackle that 1,000-foot tower back in 2006 — had reopened talks with the city about a scaled-down project. His latest proposal is a 740-foot tower that would incorporate his adjacent Federal Street property and include a 300-room hotel, offices, retail space and possibly condos. Belkin plans to respond with a proposal akin to that and said he’s confident his project would provide the “best urban planning solution.”
Now seeking a developer. The source for the info is not working. They seemed to remove it, but if you google some of this text, you can probably find some analogue of the same info. Either way, its recent as of this month.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2015, 2:07 AM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
Life enthusiast
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Barcelona, NYC, California
Posts: 4,004
Nice!

Can't they add a ~50+ foot architectural element to make it the tallest? They're so close and it has been like 25 years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2015, 2:23 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
N, N-Dimethyltryptamine
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 28,993
Might or not be this height. Could be shorter or slightly taller depending on the developer and the type of "urban solution" that the building authority and the developer workout.

With some architectural elements, it could possibly be taller, but... this is very tentative. Bound to change in a way when it trades hands.
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 3:16 AM.

     

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