Quote:
Originally Posted by untitledreality
Not really.
Urbanism > Skyscrapers
Skyscrapers dont equal success, they dont equal prosperity, they arent the only way to build density... they are merely an optional piece of the puzzle.
|
If you don't really care for skyscrapers, what brought you to "Skyscraperpage.com" in the first place?
Beyond that though, we also all know that skyscrapers don't equal success. Boston is the very definition of this. But if you're at all familiar with what hoops developers must jump through to get anything built in Boston, you'd know that it's the single most restrictive filing and approval process in the country. And it's weighed down disproportionally by self-interested neighborhood preservation groups that ultimately just don't want to share "their" territory with new people. There's no more available land in Back Bay to densify without going up. The area is already north of 60,000 pp sq mile.
Perfect example: the doomed Columbus Center, a slightly-under 500-footer that ended up never taking off the ground in large part due to a few very loud, very cranky South End residents who didn't want additional height in the area. The "area" here being
one block south of the 800 foot Hancock Tower. The project would have decked over Rt 90 with parks and supermarkets and playgrounds and lots of other neighborhood enhancements. But the height, the height!! And the shadows! My street will have an additional shadow cast on it for 12 minutes every afternoon from January through March. Unacceptable!