Build tall, save the world?

Yes I would agree taller is better and if Boston is to survive as world secondary citi and turn into per industrialized village in relative term by the end of this century.

We need to invest in infrastructure trains and subway with in and out 495 belt. Boston is not a green citi. Where is the Airtrain in Logan instead of taking the bus to the train station or to the rental car? Where is the subway that bring you from the terminal to City center and the subs. Most Cities in Europe have this basic things.

Yes we need more density as energy prices keep on rising the density and infrastructure for (public transportation) will help Boston to compete globally.

Too bad that they are building "luxury" high rise units. Just what this this city needs - - - - more unaffordable units for the very wealthy without parking --- creation of another windy downtown vortex (the wind of change?) ---- dark shaddows ----- worsening traffic. Will the buyers even occupy the units or will these be second homes for speculators or the very rich? I think that the only person who benefits here is the developer.

GB, who do you think pays for foodstamps and other handouts? Let me answer that for you - the wealthy through huge taxes. Why not build some more of these luxury properties and fill city tax coffers more?
And BTW, living in the city is not a right, it is a privilege. You can always move to Kentucky or Montana, if you don't like MA prices.

Now if architects and developers decide to invest in building these tall buildings within LEED certifications, I would go as far as give them tax credits. These leaky old buildings this whole area is full of are too energy inefficient.

Density is the key to a vital city. Building reasonable skyscrapers with ground floor retail improves the lives on everyone by creating jobs, reducing commuting time and making streets safer and more enjoyable. One needs only to look at NYC or Chicago to see this. No one here is proposing that we build 50 story towers all over Beacon Hill or the North End. But in areas like Back Bay and the Financial District have the capacity to absorb these additional units of housing and office space (due to public transit and proximity to open space, business districts and nightlife). Let's wipe the dust off of Boston and start building up - unless we want to start filling in the Harbor to create more "neighborhoods."

Several year ago the Boston Globe said that 40% of the people in Boston were in projects or on Section 8. We should be decreasing the number of projects and Section 8 not increasing.

Why not have bigger buildings? Just because you cannot afford a condo in one either get a better job or move somewhere less expensive. Boston needs to keep increasing its global presence or get crushed by the other cities around the country that are continuing to increase their size (hence dollars from taxes, etc... which directly benefit not only those residents in the buildings but everyone else around them) and attracting tourists and business. As a resident of the refurbished Charlestown, I have no patience for section 8 and projects as they are definately the cancer of any part of the city in which they are located. It's been estimated 75% of crime in Charlestown is directly attributed to residents of projects or their affiliations. I for one am all for higher priced luxury condos in big buildings downtown - I cannot afford one either, but I'd rather have rich people as neighbors instead of criminals.

Boston definitely needs to rise above the "mid-rises" but first there has to be an effort to educate the citizenry on the benefits of skyscrapers because it seems that the majority don't get it. People are far more worried about a shadow crossing an open space for an hour or two during certain seasons than they are the very real prospect of berms or dikes on our extensive waterfront to protect us from rising oceans. Of all cities Boston should be building tall. We have very limited land resources but huge historical resources. These historical resources are being leveled one by one as a direct consequence of building only mid-rises because we need more of them.

GB, I hate to break it to you but these are the economics of building in Boston. If the developer were to ditch the "luxury" condos and build more "affordable" condos he would lose millions. It just doesn't make business sense. Plus this tower will be connected to a high end mall and Neiman Marcus. "Affordable" condos connected to a Neiman Marcus, that makes even less sense. . .

Boston needs to get rid of the input of neightborhood associations in the approval process in specific areas of the city that should promote density and building tall - I can think of financial district and the back bay spine to start. These areas have no place for neighborhood activists opposing any development due to their nearsighted perception of increased shadows or traffic. Building tall is the only way to sustain a city for the long term.

I second these comments- this type of development should be welcomed in the Back Bay and should not be tied to some inapproproate demand for 'affordable' housing attatched. But you have to question the logic of not creating additional parking for 300 high end residential units- do the developers plan to usurp part of the existing Copley Garage? The evironmental benefits of a pedestrian oriented location are only beneficial if there actually is a place to park that vehicle you're not using....

Pedestrian oriented people who live in cities do not need cars, so why would you need 300 parking spaces for 300 units? I have more than enough money to own my own car, maybe two. But I live and work in Boston, so why would I want to waste money on some pollution contraption that only brings stress into my life when I can get anywhere with my bike or on the train.

People of Boston, get out of your cars and stay out if you really want to have more "space" in this city.

I have a question for anyone with a theory. If skyscrapers with luxury condos in them go up, and tons of them, will that eventually take pressure off, say, one or two floor condo conversions in Medford or Somerville, and make those more affordable for more middle class people?

A new tower at the Copley Place location is fantastic news!

It's too bad though that the tower will not be at least 200 meters high. That said 170 meters is better than nothing:)

Boston needs more skyscrapers. And speaking of skyscrapers...is Trans National going to start building the 1000 foot tower or what? Break ground already! Downtown needs this new aesthetic.

I am not happy with the fact that Houston, Dallas, Las Vegas, Miami and Atlanta have more buildings that rise at least 150 meters especially Atlanta. Just as I expect our sports teams to beat the teams from these and other cities, I expect Boston to be more relevant and vital than these other cities in other areas as well. Our skyline as long as its economically viable and reasonably well designed and located is high on my list of those other areas. Skyline order in the U.S.A should be eventually at the least as follows- 1.New York, 2.Chicago, 3.Houston, 4.Los Angeles, 5.Philadelphia, 6.Boston.

We are the sixth largest consolidated metro area (CMA) in the U.S. Let our skyline reflect that fact.

Long live Boston!

We need to develop Boston for the future. People want to live near public transportation and enjoy the city. Height makes sense especially when surrounded by low historic neighborhoods that are protected. The folks in Back Bay don't have a clue about what is best for the city, and they don't care either.

Counterpoint: Sorry folks but you have not convinced me. Call me cynical but........
1. You want skyscrapers to look at for the "aesthetic" appeal. Sorry, but cities need more than to be viewed from a distance. Great for pictures but not much else. This is not an intercity competition. If you really like tall buildings, you can move to NYC or Shanghai.
2. The developers are probably not building parking because the ultra wealthy who buy these units will probably not need it. However, I find it hard to believe that they will be riding the T. Most will probably not even be occupying their units.
3. There are buyers of condo developments in NYC who resent living in largely unfilled buildings (ie Plaza) that have purchased, but unoccupied, units.
4. Our region has the Chestnut Hill Mall and the development in Natick. Do you really think that the suburban crowd will come into the city to shop when they already have the same thing in a move convenient location? (They certainly will not be able to park downtown and they, too, will probably not ride the T to shop at Neiman Marcus). These stores will add nothing but a few service sector jobs for people who will have to commute from outside downtown.
5. As in the past, Boston lacks any cohesive development plan. The city that brought us the Rose Kennedy Greenway (a glorified traffic island) and Govt Center (a stone wasteland) will now bring us highrise heaven?
6. KF #6 - the people who live downtown in these units will not be your neighbors. They will not care about you and their presence will do nothing to enhance your local community. In fact, their presence will provide you with even less incentive to travel to a downtown that becomes more congested with businesses that do not provide you with anything that you really want or need or can afford.
7. This approach will create a city that looks like many others... A city with same chain stores, restaurants, hotels, lack of character,........... Sorry, but I prefer the unique character that is at risk of being lost by these types of projects. If I wanted to live in New York or Chicago, then I would move there. How many NYs and Chicagos do we need?
8. No one is even considering the environmental impact (water useage, sewage, etc.....) that comes with increased so called desireable "density". To say nothing of the sociological impact of alot of disconnected downtown dwellers. The topic of building shaddows and wind - tall buildings can create undesireable unanticipated local effects. We are really talking about the liveability, not just efficiency, of the architecture and the space subserved by it. (Alcatraz is a really very efficient space!)

The only people who will truly benefit are the developers (it would not surprise me if they have tax or other monetary incentives to build), the realtors (who must be salivating over the prospect of selling the units), the speculators who will buy preconstruction and flip the units as many times as possible before they are actually built, the unions, and the politicians.

In environmental terms, tall buildings and density are definitely the way to go. However, do these principles sacrifice aesthetics, history, comfort, and / or connection to the natural world? This is a debate that I'm sure will be key in Boston for years to come.

I'm so tired of people whining about tall buildings. Folks, it's very simple. In order for a city to thrive, it needs to grow. If it doesn't grow, it will eventually fade into a depressing oblivion. In order for most cities to grow, you need to build up. Especially in Boston where the land space is at a minimum. It doesn't matter if it's luxury condos or office space or hotels, as long as there is demand, there needs to be vertical growth. If you enjoy city living, you should appreciate such development. Boston has long been too conservative with urban development and it's nice to finally see new buildings pooping up, creating a beautiful urban landscape and bringing more people and businesses into the city (that's growth, folks). And if you want to feel like you live in the city, but want it to feel like the burbs - move to the burbs and put a nice Boston skyline picture in your living room. Or move to Buffalo...

Kevin wrote: "Just because you cannot afford a condo in one either get a better job or move somewhere less expensive... As a resident of the refurbished Charlestown, I have no patience for section 8 and projects as they are definately the cancer of any part of the city in which they are located. "

Using the same logic, if you don't like the projects in Charlestown, why did you move there? Why not move somewhere like Idaho, where you see more of the mountains and no projects?

Yep- just keep on building all those luxury units. EVERYTHING is luxury- who can afford this stuff? Who is buying it? Who is going to pay $500,000 for 500 sq ft of space in some giant tower?
I love the design because Boston' skyline is clearly one of the worst in the country... but where in God's name are all of us normal people making under $100,000 a year supposed to live?
Apparently not Boston... well I guess one of my undergrad professors said it best: "Pittsburgh and similar will see lots of new folks come in the coming years- they will be the ones who get kicked out of Boston and San Fran as prices become too expensive.. Employers better start paying more- so we can actually buy these places!

Boston needs more high quality tall buildings. It will help to attract and retain people with good incomes. They can then walk to their jobs and other daily activities. As the cost of energy continues to go up, there will be a resurgence of cities with a higher core population density and a mass transit infrastructure. How often does anyone in Houston walk to the market or dinner?

John #9 you say "Boston needs to get rid of the input of neighborhood associations in the approval process." So John, just imagine if - in the interests of sustaining growth in your neighborhood, or saving the environment or whatever - they decided to build a skyscraper across the street from where YOU live.

Or maybe in the interests of more affordable housing, they decided to build a big, fat Section 8 low income housing project on land adjacent to YOUR back yard.

Something tells me that if you and your neighbors didn't already have a neighborhood association capable of fighting these types of plans, that you would form one REAL quick, and that YOU would never miss a meeting or a hearing or a chance to scream bloody murder about the threat of these projects to YOUR quality of life.

Like so many other people who love to bash folks who try and protect their own neighborhoods, it's clear John that you are happy to support growth, and sustainability, and evironmental sensitivity, etc. etc. all long as it doesn't happen in your own backyard.

So who's being near-sighted here, John?

This is exactly what Boston should be doing! Build housing in the City where people can walk to work; walk to shop, go to the library, go to church; all without driving! Right near public transportation. The few yet vocal NIMBYers in Back Bay should move to the gated community they are striving for.

This is right on. Tom Keane is right; and so is Mayor Menino to support this.

Boston Globe: Someone needs to connect the dots: they don't want people to use the Boston Common, don't want people to drive on Storrow Drive, don't want tall buidlings, don't want housing, don't want office space, don't want more people on the MBTA, don't want parking spaces in garages but also don't want people to use the metered spaces either; don't want liquor licenses, don't want concerts. All said, this is not good for Boston.

Boston, grow up.....literally. Its time we stop thinking that small is quaint and big is bad. For those tree huggers, we need to use our scarce land more effeciently and that is by going vertical. For those who think somehow thise hurst the poor, do you ever stop and think about the jobs and taxes created by new and yes expensive development?

We need more wealth to come to Boston, to spend money in shops ect. so that there is more money to go around for everything.

We need to stop being naive and GROW UP!

BAP

Just in case anybody has not noticed, they are not building any more land in Boston. The only way for the city to grow is up. One of the reasons the city is so unaffordable is its lack of height

Right on!
The good people of Boston need to think long and hard about their hypocrisy. On one hand they want an environmentally friendly, affordable city. On the other hand they oppose development, even in areas where no history will be lost.

More high-rises, even of the luxury variety, will undoubtedly sop up demand from neighboring areas, increasing affordability in general. And as so many posters have mentioned, increased density increases environmental benefits.

If Boston is to remain(?)/become a world class city, and not just in sports, but more importantly economically and as a destination that others want to invest in, it has to demonstrate the leadership to support private projects like Copley place. When I was a child greater Boston was the home to many corporate headquarters. How many does it have now?
People can talk all they want about the Arts,culture, parks etc and having a livable city, all very desirable attributes of a city, but that doesn't happen unless there is a strong economic underpinning. The leaders of Boston say they understand that without this solid economic underpinning(e.g, real estate development) these other things don't happen, yet they have allowed the process to become so cumbersome that things just don't get done here. Witness how long the Greenway has taken because of competing interests. While other cities exhibit a "can do" and "get it done" attitude, Boston waffles and allows the process of inclusion to slow things to a crawl. Developers and companies get tired and frustrated or simply don't invest here. Who loses ultimately when the tax base is eroded? The same folks who resist change, along with the rest of us. A city like any organism has to adapt and grow or it will wither and be replaced by others who are more fit. The question is whether Boston has any leadership to support this change. Come on Boston, it's time get things done!

To view the construction of these tall buildings in the proper context you must view them in relation to the urban planning needed in the Greater Boston area. Massachusetts is looking to bring more jobs into the state (jobs hopefully leads to bigger tax revenues) and one major location is downtown Boston. In order to bring jobs, housing must be available to satisfy the demand created by bringing large corporations to the state. The lowest impact concept financially, enviromentally, and economically is to build tall buildings so that the urban dweller density increases in the location where the jobs are expected to appear. However, this cannot occur in a vacuum. Urban transportation resources need to be expanded (buses, T, cheaper taxis, high speed commuter rail), cooperation amongst neighboring cities (Cambridge, I'm looking at you), and expansion of green areas (parks and recreational areas).

Now, Boston has many neighborhoods and they can all be used to expand the urban populace (Dorchester, South Boston). The concern of long-time residents has been the gentrification of their neighborhoods by young, urban professionals/hipsters (see a recent Globe article about the closing/redevelopment of the Irish pubs in Dorchester) and the increase in crime. More police and the effective use of law enforcement to clean up the neighborhoods is required. The changing faces of the immigrant population has also been a concern (less Irish, Italian, and Portuguese and more Asian, African, and Hispanic) by some entrenched neighborhoods but I think it adds a multi-cultural vibe that is needed to truly diversify the state.

If you really want a controversial suggestion, how about moving Fenway Park to a new location. The park places a large burden on transportation resources, the bright park lights are a nuisance to some people, and tickets to games are harder to find than a Willy Wonka Golden Ticket. The void created by moving the park could be filled with a tall housing building that would take advantage of the surrounding bars, clubs, and green spaces. Then again, this is the state that can't build casinos because of political in-fighting.

I'm a born Bostonian and love the city, but like many college graduates I found a job in New York for the quality of life it offers. For all the Brahmin octogenarians who talk about "quality of life" as being a question of "not having any shadows, traffic and tall buildings," quality of life is actually much richer in a densely built city. The Back Bay, South End, North End, Beacon Hill and Fenway are truly beautiful areas. But other parts of the city -- the victims of the 60s, like the pathetic West End, City Hall Plaza, the Greenway, which is probably worse for urbanism than the Central Artery it replaced, plus Allston, East Cambridge, Somerville, East Boston, Chelsea, Dorchester, Southie, Roxbury -- all have potential for dense, urban development.
Recognizing the benefits of tall buildings -- more housing supply = lower rents, tall, dense development is environmentally good, and taller buildings lead to a more exciting and inspiring skyline and a modern and business-attractive city -- is necessary for Boston to become an even greater place. Preserve the city's beautiful townhouses by all means, but don't be afraid to build tall, slim and dense around them. The resulting variety is what makes an interesting urban fabric like the one Boston has so successfully built up over the years.
That is what improves quality of life: an interesting, invigorating bustle of people living in a city and the jobs, cafes, stores, markets, theaters, clubs and bars they need. Building low or, even worse, planting lawns everywhere to avoid density, calls attention to ugly buildings, creates true wind issues, saps vitality and life, and destroys a city.
Boston needs to wake up by building tall and building dense, especially in underutilized areas, connecting them with reliable, 24-hour public transportation, allowing more restaurants and bars and clubs to open and stay open all night, and making life exciting for graduates and young singles and couples. Otherwise they'll keep moving out upon graduation like I did, and the city and region's population will continue to decline.

Build Tall........That will make Boston more world renound.

I can't believe I just read 31 comments from readers and just about all of them actually contributed something useful!

Thank you, Lord!

Density is good. For the environment, for the livability of the city, and for the economy of the city.

And adding supply of luxury apartments helps with cheaper apartments. I'm not going to get into remedial economics here, but GB and some of the above would be well advised to take a class in it.