BOSTON | Winthrop Square Tower | 691 FT / 211 M | 51 FLOORS - Page 2

sterlippo1 · #21 Posted **Jun 30, 2012, 5:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DZH22

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 · #22 Posted **Jun 30, 2012, 7:17 PM**

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 · #23 Posted **Jun 30, 2012, 8:08 PM**

Because one of the runways points directly at downtown.

Roadcruiser1 · #24 Posted **Jun 30, 2012, 8:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by scalziand

Because one of the runways points directly at downtown.

Is it possible to redirect it to face another direction?

DZH22 · #25 Posted **Jul 1, 2012, 12:56 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlippo1

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 · #26 Posted **Jul 1, 2012, 1:12 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DZH22

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 · #27 Posted **Jul 1, 2012, 1:15 AM**

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 · #28 Posted **Jul 1, 2012, 4:55 AM**

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 · #29 Posted **Jul 1, 2012, 5:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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+ 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 · #30 Posted **Jul 1, 2012, 5:30 AM**

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 · #31 Posted **Jul 1, 2012, 11:51 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

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

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

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 · #32 Posted **Jul 1, 2012, 2:21 PM**

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

Roadcruiser1 · #33 Posted **Jul 1, 2012, 3:35 PM**

That's a load of BS.

MolsonExport · #34 Posted **Jul 2, 2012, 9:05 PM**

A new tallest? In Nimby central?

scalziand · #35 Posted **Jul 3, 2012, 2:34 AM**

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

1Boston · #36 Posted **Jul 3, 2012, 3:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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/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.

DZH22 · #37 Posted **Jul 3, 2012, 4:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1Boston

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 · #38 Posted **Jul 4, 2012, 9:20 PM**

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 · #39 Posted **Jul 4, 2012, 11:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DZH22

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 · #40 Posted **Jul 5, 2012, 3:46 AM**

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.