Can Height Make Right? A forum on tall buildings
Skyscrapers have popped on the edges of the Back Bay, the Fenway, the South End, and Roxbury, and more are coming. Do they strengthen these neighborhoods by introducing new amenities, or do they damage community character and quality of life?
This forum, open to the public, brings together four individuals whose thinking and experience give them useful insight into the role height plays in city building. Audience members will be able to question the panel and will have a chance to join the discussion with their own opinion about the role tall buildings should play in Boston’s ongoing development.
The panel includes architect Alex Krieger, architect/urban designer David Dixon, BRA Deputy Director of Urban Design Prataap Patrose, and State Representative Byron Rushing.
WHEN: Wednesday June 10, 6 p.m.
WHERE: Curry Student Center, Room 442, Northeastern University, (350 Huntington Avenue, behind Ell Hall)
BY T: Ruggles Station (Orange Line) or Northeastern stop (Green Line/ E Branch)
Comments
OH NOES TEH SHADOWS!!1!!111
Short low density buildings, overly generous parking and greenspace. If we work together, the city can become another suburb! Who needs urbanity, we like never seeing a shadow, unless it is cast by a half dead tree!
Not about density
Without doing any further reading into this, I don't think the discussion is about high density versus low density. Plenty of high density bustling cities existed prior to the relatively recent invention of the skyscraper, and many continue to exist today. I am all for high density, which makes urban features like small non-chain stores, frequent public transportation and walkability possible, but there is no question that skyscrapers change the feel of a neighborhood, for better or for worse.
Come downtown sometime
During the winter - when there is no sun for months. Then you might understand the issue with shadows.
The real issue isn't the height of the buildings anyway - it is putting tall buildings on medieval lanes that are vary narrow and winding, with little or no setback whatsoever. This all adds up to an Alaskan winter in the downtown area and it ain't pleasant to live with at all.
Limiting height is the only way to remedy the issue - unless Boston wants to lay waste to downtown, properly reallign and widen the streets like they should have after the last fire, and require minimum setbacks related to height. I don't see it as an option.
Setbacks?
I never understood the concept of "setbacks" in an urban setting. What's more interesting for a streetscape 1) a building with shops or windows you can peer into or 2) a swath of grass with maybe a tree in it. Oh and also a driveway for people to pull in and drop off passengers. I'll pick #1 every time.
IMO, the "minimum setback" style of urban planning absolutely ruins the cityscape. You can see perfect examples of this in places like Atlanta, Dallas, or even Las Vegas where where cars have always been the primary mode of transport.
Not talking a lawn or football field here ...
You raise some good points - what I'm talking about here isn't a lawn or football field in front of the building. What I am talking about is the narrow width of the streets in Downtown Boston + the height of the buildings = darkness for four months of the year or more. An increased setback from the street effectively widens the street, but this effect can also be accomplished by requiring a step back of the building as it rises from street level, giving enough room above street level to allow some natural light to come into the area.
What I also rarely see, even with modern buildings, is enough setback from the street to provide enough room for a fully adequate sidewalk - which is why you see people in the street all the time downtown.
Unfortunately, Boston also does not require street-level retail or decent awnings or any of those good streetscape things - another topic for another day I suppose.
"Setbacks" means something else in a city center
I saw that word and had the same reaction you did - setback concerns the lawn, and the shrubs, and the "space" around the building...
Cities aren't like that
HOWEVER there is significant merit in asking whether objects - buildings, sculptures, parks - anything in public space - is appropriately proportioned and sited given the constraints of that space.
In NYC, the buildings along the avenues are fantastically tall, BUT the avenues are long, straight, and very wide. There are also notable gaps where tall buildings are NOT, allowing a perspective of the entire city from just about every POV. And there are setbacks where the avenue height is insufficient to provide perspective - deep plazas in front of most of the tallest buildings.
In Boston, the streets are narrower, and always will be. They turn after short distances. The fundamentals simply do not allow for extremely tall buildings.
Objects out of proportion in boston:
The main library's "new" wing
The horrible Mandarin building on Boylston, that creates an "urban canyon" - this is the single biggest sort of mistake made with large buildings. the faux attempt at first floor retail is nto enough to overcome the mass of that structure
The post-Dig Greenway - showing how things can also be too low. The parks are too small and isolated to stand on their own, and are lost in the surrounding clutter.
BPL building out of proportion?
The 'new' (Johnson) building looks exactly the same size as the 'old' (McKim) building that it adjoins.
I used to think like that
then I got involved in some development issues and found that there were a lot of people who had put significantly more thought into the issue. There are ways to build tall and create density without turning the city into a universal perpetual skyscraper eclipse (such as targeting the south side of structures for development or limiting heights to below existing shadows on the north side). This is especially true on the historic parks/buildings - the Common, Public Garden, Comm Ave mall, library courtyard and Copley to name a few.
There are financial issues too - with vacancies now into double digits again why do we need new tall buildings when we can't fill the ones we have (we have at least 4 pending proposals downtown and 4 or more in the Back Bay and Fenway which would generate millions of extra sf only stealing share from our built infrastructure). All you'll end up with are new taxes on the new buildings but lowered values and lowered taxes on the old ones now going begging for tenants in a land without population growth. Until we can do something about our demographics it's a bit hard to argue a need for 50+ story buildings.
Even if these projects are years away from coming on-line - at some point we need businesses and people that will use them - and that trend isn't showing up in the census bureau's numbers.