BOSTON | Winthrop Square Tower | 691 FT / 211 M | 51 FLOORS

[Zapatan]

Guess who's back from the dead? :D

http://boston.curbed.com/archives/2012/06/-its-on-like-donkey.php

http://boston.curbed.com/uploads/tower.jpg

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

[Onn]

No way, no way... :D

[Smuttynose1]

One important caveat...


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.

[kenratboy]

*falls off chair*

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

Maybe they could move the airport ;)

[N830MH]

No way, no way... :D

Yes! Really! They're back!!!

[natiboy]

Wow!!! Great to see Boston getting another tower.

[Zapatan]

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.

[DZH22]

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.

[Busy Bee]

Boston needs something amorphous and blobby. Just my opinion.

[Roadcruiser1]

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!

[antinimby]

Is the height in the title counting the spire or not?

[NYC2ATX]

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.

[sterlippo1]

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

[Fardeb]

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.

[Onn]

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.

[DZH22]

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.

[Dale]

So, we are allowed to think tallest. Very good then. I'm thinking new tallest.

[DZH22]

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.

[Dale]

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 ?

[Hudson11]

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.

[sterlippo1]

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?

[Roadcruiser1]

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?

[scalziand]

Because one of the runways points directly at downtown.

[Roadcruiser1]

Because one of the runways points directly at downtown.

Is it possible to redirect it to face another direction?

[DZH22]

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.

[Zapatan]

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?

[Dale]

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.

[mfastx]

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.

[Zapatan]

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.

[1Boston]

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.

[sterlippo1]

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

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:shrug:

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;)

[DZH22]

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/massachusetts/articles/2008/05/16/1000_feet_too_tall_for_hub_tower_faa_rules/?page=full

[Roadcruiser1]

That's a load of BS.

[MolsonExport]

A new tallest? In Nimby central?

[scalziand]

^'Course, if you're friends with the mayor, none of that nimby zoning stuff matters.

[1Boston]

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/massachusetts/articles/2008/05/16/1000_feet_too_tall_for_hub_tower_faa_rules/?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.

[DZH22]

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.

[Sam Hill]

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. :(

[1Boston]

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.

[Zapatan]

Why all the negativity over an article from over 4 years ago? :shrug:

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

[DZH22]

Why all the negativity over an article from over 4 years ago? :shrug:

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.

[FrancoRey]

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!)

[-Filipe-]

any news?

[Downburst]

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.

[Michael12374]

what happened to this proposal?

[Downburst]

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.

[summersm343]

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.

[chris08876]

^^^^^^^

Ginormous Financial District Tower Maybe Probably On Again

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/2014/05/trans-natinonal-fidi-tower.php

[chris08876]

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

http://boston.curbed.com/uploads/133federal-thumb.jpg


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/real_estate/2014/04/mayor-walsh-pledges-to-demolish-city-garage.html?page=all

[chris08876]

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.

[Downburst]

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.

http://imageshack.com/a/img59/7296/kvhy.jpg

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. (http://images.masscec.com/uploads/attachments/Create%20Basic%20page/BOS_COMPOSITE_Ver1pt0X_jan09.jpg)

[Downburst]

Formerly BOSTON | 115 Federal Street | 349m | 1145ft | 80 fl | Pro (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=200207). If the threads could be merged I would appreciate it.

Images from the article:
http://c.o0bg.com/rf/image_960w/Boston/2011-2020/2014/09/25/BostonGlobe.com/Business/Images/ViewFromDevonshireSt(1)-4611.jpg

http://c.o0bg.com/rf/image_960w/Boston/2011-2020/2014/09/25/BostonGlobe.com/Business/Images/tower1-4580.jpg

http://c.o0bg.com/rf/image_960w/Boston/2011-2020/2014/09/23/BostonGlobe.com/Business/Images/ViewfromFederalS(1).jpg

Looks to be 45-50 floors.

Quoted from the Boston Globe (http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2014/09/24/new-skyscraper-proposed-for-downtown-boston/aSWY66ntiDW8FMT76DA1aP/story.html):
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.

[summersm343]

What a shame it was downsized from a Supertall, but wow! What a beautiful tower regardless!

[scalziand]

Cool how its cantilevered over 133 Federal.

[njcco]

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.

[Onn]

It does look like a nice project, despite the loss of 300 feet.

[NYguy]

http://cognoscenti.wbur.org/2014/10/01/boston-tall-breaking-ground-on-a-vertical-future

Boston Tall: Breaking Ground On A Vertical Future


http://s3.amazonaws.com/media.wbur.org/wordpress/16/files/2014/10/0930_Boston-financial-skyline-Cog-592x323.jpg


Oct 01, 2014
by Cody Fenwick


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.

[chris08876]

Project is moving along.

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.

[Zapatan]

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.

[chris08876]

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.

[chris08876]

With talk of height, here is a neat height restriction map based on Logan Airport:


http://oi61.tinypic.com/2jf1091.jpg
Credit: PDF; https://www.massport.com/media/11778/BOS_COMPOSITE_Ver2pt0_dec201_small.pdf

[Citylover94]

The garage site has had 8 proposals submitted for it that were just released. Slideshow at Banker and Tradesman: http://www.bankerandtradesman.com/gallery/winthrop/
4/14/2015
Millennium + Handel Architects residential and office 750 ft
http://c.o0bg.com/rf/image_371w/Boston/2011-2020/2015/04/14/BostonGlobe.com/Business/Images/MILLENNIUMPARTNERS-7A.jpg

Fallon Co. = HOK two residential buildings 700 ft
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CCgOAcrWEAAqgxZ.jpg:large

HYM Investments + Elkus Manifredi residential 780 ft.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CCgO0h5WMAEm5-O.jpg:large

Lend Lease Dev. and Hudson Group + Graziani and Corazza condos, rentals, hotels, office, retail 750 ft. Appears to be similar concept to the Aura in Toronto.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CCjCea1WIAA7sTT.jpg:large

Steve Belkin Trans National + CBT offices, residential, retail 740 ft.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CCgXQJEW8AA-iin.jpg:large

Accordia Partners' Kirk Sykes and CV Properties' Dick Galvin + SHoP and Hacin hotel/condos 750 ft.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CCgZmnIW0AAvw3e.jpg:large

Trinity Financial + TAT 51 story hotel, apartments, condo
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CCgbbw-WAAA46zV.jpg:large
second Trinity rendering:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CCmpsJ1UMAArRXI.jpg:large

Lincoln Property Co. 47 story tower with 1.4 msf hotel, office, residential. No architect selected.

[Zapatan]

Neat... but assuming they're allowed to go over 800' why wouldn't they just up the height a few feet to gain new tallest. Especially the 780' one...

[Citylover94]

The FAA limits the height to a max of just under 800 feet and some of these towers will probably be pretty close to that because for most of the ones with a height listed it is just to the highest occupied floor. So some of them might reach to 800' which would make them 10 feet taller than the Hancock so it wouldn't be a big difference but it could happen.

[Zapatan]

The FAA limits the height to a max of just under 800 feet and some of these towers will probably be pretty close to that because for most of the ones with a height listed it is just to the highest occupied floor. So some of them might reach to 800' which would make them 10 feet taller than the Hancock so it wouldn't be a big difference but it could happen.

It would still be nice... Oklahoma has an 800 foot building, time for Boston to join that club :haha:

[Citylover94]

Some exciting news from twitter today!
Adam Castiglioni ‏@ConciergeBoston 47m ago Boston, MA

@BOSCityCouncil approves transfer of Winthrop Sq garage from City to @BostonRedevelop, City to get all $. @universalhub @BostonRedevelop

https://twitter.com/ConciergeBoston/...48902210048000

--

Adam Castiglioni ‏@ConciergeBoston 53m ago Boston, MA

.@LinehanBill says that sale of Winthrop Square garage for redevelopment could generate $30-$60 million for the city. @BostonRedevelop

https://twitter.com/ConciergeBoston/...48324826390528

Finally this can get moving again.

[Downburst]

We have 6 entries from the Boston Redevelopment Authority's RFP:

Accordia Partners/SHoP:
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1584/26562744605_04b87bd4a4_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Gtg1xg)

TransNational Group/CBT:
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1474/26470513442_f5649a07f0_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Gk7iqN)

Millennium Partners/Handel:
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1593/26536883996_4a94a2c07a_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/GqYt5G)

Trinity/The Architectural Team:
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1476/26470612422_a2ee8d5d60_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Gk7NRm)

HYM/Elkus Manfredi:
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1629/25957989294_c5ee0d47f0_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/FxPtRy)

LendLease/Graziani & Corazza
http://i.imgur.com/rRKPpfJ.jpg?1

A final decision will be made in the coming months.

[colemonkee]

Wow. The only one that really misses the mark is the Trinity proposal. All the other ones range from decent (TransNational, Millennium) to pretty spectacular (LendLease & SHoP). Lots of good stuff to choose from, as long as Trinity doesn't win out.

[Citylover94]

Having looked at the proposals I would be very surprised if Trinity won the other ones seem to be much better in many ways even aside from the architecture the other proposals seem more fleshed out to me, but I am not a professional in this field so I can't say for certain.

[chris08876]

Extra Renderings + 1 in high resolution:

Documents can be found here regarding the project or proposals: http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/work-with-the-bra/rfps-rfqs-bids/rfp-listing-page?id=78 (All in pdf for mat for the most part).

Check the Submissions portion with the companies names. "Submission bids"

https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6373653/BidSubmission(4)-1A%5B1%5D.jpg

https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/rRvuue_Yn4SQfobAJ7yBG2TG6fU=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6374241/accordia.jpg

https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/tZCX7FEx6k9GRgttA6d5-O9kGWQ=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6374239/accordia.jpg

https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/y2vQtj1ehge-E4R69SBNVWj9Ojw=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6373701/BidSubmission(2)-62A%5B1%5D.jpg

[colemonkee]

Wow, looking at the PDF's, SHoP's tower design is amazing. The massing addressing each of the neighborhoods of Boston and the undulating green terracotta is something truly unique and iconic. The public spaces at the base are pretty uninspired though, compared to the rest of the tower.

A close second goes out to Handel and Graziani & Corazza. Handel's public space is awesome, and the folds in the facade akin to a skirt that effectively breaks up a simple massing design. Graziani & Corazza's design somewhat mimics the Cocoon Tower in Tokyo with a pretty thoughtful design at the streetscape, and integrates an observation deck.

Those three are my favorites so far. I'd be happy with any of them.

[BVictor1]

I like the LendLease design best, architecturally speaking.

[Citylover94]

Millennium Partners design has been chosen.

Millennium Partners tapped by city to build tower at Winthrop Square (http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/08/03/millennium-partners-tapped-city-build-tower-winthrop-square/2EBYO3m4ExcjSRP8h6D2VJ/story.html#comments)

http://c.o0bg.com/rf/image_371w/Boston/2011-2020/2016/08/03/BostonGlobe.com/Business/Images/BidSubmission1-1A-6200-6206.jpg

City officials have picked Millennium Partners to develop the prized site of the Winthrop Square Garage.

The Boston Redevelopment Authority said Wednesday that it will start negotiations with Millennium — a New York-based developer that just completed the Millennium Tower luxury condo building— to build Boston’s third-tallest building on the site of a squat city-owned garage on Devonshire Street.

[chris08876]

Nice. Looks like this is 55 floors and 750 ft.

That combination persuaded a committee of BRA and other city staffers to choose Millennium’s proposal for a 55-story tower with condominiums, office space, and a three-story “great hall” at street level.

At Winthrop Square, Millennium wants to build a 750-foot tower, taller than anything in Boston except for the Hancock and Prudential towers. The upper 36 floors would be condominiums, with 14 stories of office space below and the great hall at street level, with retail, restaurants, and year-round programming open to the public. Millennium is calling the hall “Boston’s living room.”

https://c.o0bg.com/rw/Boston/2011-2020/WebGraphics/Business/BostonGlobe.com/2016/08/03winthrop/assets/millennium_tower_graphic2.png

[Citylover94]

It is actually taller than the Prudential tower by 1 foot unless you count the antenna on the Pru and it will be five feet shorter than the Four Season Tower being built in Back Bay so it will be the third tallest but part of a trio of three buildings within just a few feet in height of each other.

[DZH22]

.....so it will be the third tallest but part of a trio of three buildings within just a few feet in height of each other.

And all within 41' of the tallest. While Boston will continue to have a plateau-like skyline, the plateau has been popping steroids across the board!

[Zapatan]

And all within 41' of the tallest. While Boston will continue to have a plateau-like skyline, the plateau has been popping steroids across the board!

Yea, it does have a plateau skyline, I would almost prefer it be a little shorter than 750' for this reason although the building has a great design and will obviously be a nice addition.

[Innsertnamehere]

Beware Graziani & Corazza. They produce a ton of absolute crap in Toronto. Their renders tend to look passable, if usually a bit disjointed, but final product is crap resulted from poor materials choices.

[Citylover94]

Millennium has already been chosen as the developer and per usual they will be working with Handel Architects.

[Urbannizer]

Plans for Boston's Tallest Residential Tower in Jeopardy (http://skyrisecities.com/news/2017/01/plans-bostons-tallest-residential-tower-jeopardy)

There could be trouble in the skies for the Winthrop Square Tower proposal in Boston. The Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport), which operates Logan International Airport, has threatened to put the kibosh on current plans for the 775-foot tower, which would be the tallest residential building in New England. The development by Millennium Partners and Handel Architects would replace the Winthrop Square Garage with a soaring 55-storey tower.

Shadowing concerns, especially the tower's potential cast on Boston Common and the Public Garden, had previously endangered the developer's initial vision for the site. And now, a letter to state environmental regulators released last week could be the nail in the proverbial coffin for the current iteration. Massport says the tower, which is located approximately two miles from Logan, would block a busy takeoff corridor and lead to increased noise over the northern and western suburbs of Boston. The public authority has said they would object to any tower over 710 feet in height.

https://c.o0bg.com/rf/image_1920w/Boston/2011-2020/2016/08/03/BostonGlobe.com/Business/Images/HandelArchitecture_26winthrop06_biz.jpg

[BVictor1]

Has the FAA weighed in on the height?

They may just have to chop off 55' if the 710' threshold is non-negotiable.

[hotwheels]

Plans for Boston's Tallest Residential Tower in Jeopardy
(http://skyrisecities.com/news/2017/01/plans-bostons-tallest-residential-tower-jeopardy)There could be trouble in the skies for the Winthrop Square Tower proposal in Boston. The Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport), which operates Logan International Airport, has threatened to put the kibosh on current plans for the 775-foot tower, which would be the tallest residential building in New England. The development by Millennium Partners and Handel Architects would replace the Winthrop Square Garage with a soaring 55-storey tower.

[colemonkee]

710 ft. would still have a significant skyline impact.

[Urbannizer]

The tower's height has been trimmed to 702 ft to comply with FAA regulations.

Demolition underway at Boston’s crumbling Winthrop Square garage (https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2017/11/09/demolition-underway-at-boston-s-crumbling-winthrop.html)

Nov 9, 2017

Boston’s long-crumbling Winthrop Square garage is coming down.

Crews from Boston-based Suffolk Construction have erected construction fencing around the site, and demolition work is underway.

“The garage had deteriorated to a point where the engineer had concerns about its stability and it was determined that in the interest of public safety the garage should be demolished as soon as possible,” said Suffolk spokesperson Leah Pennino.

The garage’s demolition is a precursor to the construction of the planned 702-foot tower on the site, which has been proposed but not yet formally approved by the Boston Planning & Development Agency. Real estate development firm Millennium Partners named Suffolk the tower’s construction manger in its original Winthrop Square bid. Suffolk has not yet been authorized to build the tower project, Pennino said.

[JMKeynes]

Great news!

Boston is one of the best cities in America. It's my favorite after NY (slightly edging out SF and DC).

I'm elated!

Also, more than any other city, Amazon is "prime" for Boston. Hopefully, it will go there, and more great towers will follow.

[MiamiSpartan]

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.

Yeah...we fly in to Logan all the time and have never flown over downtown.....

[Downburst]

Yeah...we fly in to Logan all the time and have never flown over downtown.....

Aircraft will take off over downtown occasionally if the wind is blowing from the right direction. They are- at best- 1,000 feet over the city at that point. It is infrequent, but it does happen.

[Urbannizer]

Down again, now at 691' with a new design.

Renderings Show New Design, Height for Boston's Winthrop Square Tower (https://skyrisecities.com/news/2018/01/renderings-show-new-design-height-bostons-winthrop-square-tower)

Millennium Partners' proposal for a tower on the Winthrop Square Garage site in Downtown Boston has been hit with another height decrease after the release of a 1,801-page environmental impact review. The Handel Architects-designed tower comes back to the City with a new design and a lower zenith designed to assuage concerns related to potential flight and shadow impacts.

The development originally landed on City Hall desks at 775 feet, which would have been high enough to claim the title of tallest primarily residential building in New England. It also would have made the tower the second-tallest building in Boston. But persistent concerns lodged by the Federal Aviation Administration about flight paths at Logan Airport combined with local outcry directed at the building's shadowing on Boston Common and Public Garden pushed the developer to skim 73 feet off the plan.

The mixed-use proposal now stands at 691 feet and 53 floors. The newest iteration adds approximately 115,000 more square feet of office space to the blueprints. The building also includes 640,000 square feet of condominiums across the top 26 floors, a 12,000-square-foot Great Hall public space, and 31,000 square feet of restaurant and retail space.

The environmental impact report essentially restarts the public review process, so the new proposal will have to face the community once again. Initial occupancy is targeted for the first quarter of 2022.

https://cdn.skyrisecities.com/sites/default/files/images/articles/2018/01/30510/30510-104916.png

https://cdn.skyrisecities.com/sites/default/files/images/articles/2018/01/30510/30510-104917.jpg

[colemonkee]

Oh dear god, did this design take a turn for the worse.

[DZH22]

They changed the design slightly. This is a PDF from 1/31/18. For one thing, the top isn't as bad. I am still not a fan, but I guess you can cut my overall vitriol in half from my initial reaction.

According to page 4 it looks like this is going 716'.

http://www.bostonplans.org/getattachment/9fcc97a0-9a68-4e54-b872-ccf47f5b1983

[colemonkee]

They totally changed the design. It went from two volumes joined by a singular design element (the diagonal fluctuations in the facade that went from top to bottom), with a really cool arched promenade to three separate volumes with different facade treatments with no real unifying them other than color, with a simple cut-out for the hall. It went from unique to "meh".

[DZH22]

They totally changed the design. It went from two volumes joined by a singular design element (the diagonal fluctuations in the facade that went from top to bottom), with a really cool arched promenade to three separate volumes with different facade treatments with no real unifying them other than color, with a simple cut-out for the hall. It went from unique to "meh".

Well yeah, but I mean they (slightly) changed the design since Post 88. The top doesn't look like an 80's robot anymore.

[JMKeynes]

Welcome to your new office, Mr. Bezos!

[LMich]

They changed the design slightly. This is a PDF from 1/31/18. For one thing, the top isn't as bad. I am still not a fan, but I guess you can cut my overall vitriol in half from my initial reaction.

According to page 4 it looks like this is going 716'.

http://www.bostonplans.org/getattachment/9fcc97a0-9a68-4e54-b872-ccf47f5b1983

"BCB" apparently stands for "Boston City Base", which is an elevation at low-tide. I can't seem to find exactly what this elevation is, though, suffice it to say, it's a elevation point lower than whatever the average grade is at the site of this tower.

[DZH22]

"BCB" apparently stands for "Boston City Base", which is an elevation at low-tide. I can't seem to find exactly what this elevation is, though, suffice it to say, it's a elevation point lower than whatever the average grade is at the site of this tower.

You're right. It looks like it's 691' after all. Here's a new render showing the changed top. More renders are in the PDF you quoted.

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4604/25256662007_e40108a5f1_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/EtQZFM)115 Fed (https://flic.kr/p/EtQZFM) by site builder (https://www.flickr.com/photos/146253000@N02/), on Flickr

[JMKeynes]

You're right. It looks like it's 691' after all. Here's a new render showing the changed top. More renders are in the PDF you quoted.

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4604/25256662007_e40108a5f1_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/EtQZFM)115 Fed (https://flic.kr/p/EtQZFM) by site builder (https://www.flickr.com/photos/146253000@N02/), on Flickr

This will be very nice!

[Citylover94]

The last design posted here was rejected by the design commission and a new design was just released by the developer. This is likely the final design of the building.

The Great Hall is great again!!!

https://i.imgur.com/lFKoz2xh.png
https://i.imgur.com/e8zZvPxh.png
https://i.imgur.com/cnIOcjUh.png
https://i.imgur.com/UqsDg8jh.png
https://i.imgur.com/MUP7bRLh.png
https://i.imgur.com/dCByGfFh.png
https://i.imgur.com/nmJsRg5h.png
https://i.imgur.com/ilcPjTuh.png
https://i.imgur.com/g2C2X4ch.png
https://i.imgur.com/NytOCayh.png
https://i.imgur.com/CgG9HT3h.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/mic93Vyh.png
https://i.imgur.com/qSrVlvzh.png
https://i.imgur.com/C2GLwYUh.png
https://i.imgur.com/LITAFj1h.png
https://i.imgur.com/lKpP0Gah.png
https://i.imgur.com/SGnLZqTh.png
https://i.imgur.com/NsKJWxAh.png
https://i.imgur.com/SAun9B4h.png
https://i.imgur.com/NBEeSwSh.png
https://i.imgur.com/HCmKJexh.png
https://i.imgur.com/5B5lK4eh.png
https://i.imgur.com/u1KI5yBh.png
https://i.imgur.com/tYDHghqh.png
https://i.imgur.com/G0VJXYMh.png

[Urbannizer]

Breaks ground tomorrow.

Winthrop Square tower will proceed after City Council approval (https://bostonagentmagazine.com/2018/10/23/winthrop-square-tower-will-proceed-city-council-approval/)

With the Boston City Council’s final vote, the more than decade-long debate over how to develop the former Winthrop Square garage ended last week. Just after the approval vote, developer Millennium Partners announced the Winthrop Square project will break ground on Oct. 24, concluding a dispute that extended through two mayoral administrations and the yearlong demolition of the original structure.

[JMKeynes]

I love Boston. This looks nice.

[Urbannizer]

https://i.imgur.com/xIUIhhv.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/6IlSNKF.jpg
http://www.bldup.com/projects/115-winthrop-square