Four Seasons Tower @ CSC | 1 Dalton Street | Back Bay

odurandina said:
Rounded or not; there can't be much of a difference between any so-called thin vs wide angle of view. Something tells me, in fact; it's Zero. i don't think that changes if the triangle is rounded.

Where's Whiggy.
Click to expand...

It's definitely wider. Imagine a rotated equilateral triangle:

BNutSoC.jpg


The diameter of the circle is wider than the sides. Now imagine the arc between each corner getting shallower and shallower... it's still always wider than the equilateral triangle circumscribed within.
 
Thanks. I saw that but, I was still having trouble, due to the rounding of the triangle being not large enough to obscure any of it's sides.
 
Perfect example of how knowing trig actually does apply to everyday life.
 
DZH22 said:
I am going to write them with the FAA links and ask them wtf is the discrepancy about.
Click to expand...

I'm actually curious myself. I'd be hesitant to say that the Four Seasons doesn't know the height of their own building, but if that's the case, why the discrepancy? It could finally give us insights into the true accuracy of the FAA numbers.

Will be interesting to see what you hear, if you get a response.
 
Can we let the height discussions go already. This has been discussed for at least 15 pages in this thread . Just wait this is completed
 
ShawnA said:
Can we let the height discussions go already. This has been discussed for at least 15 pages in this thread . Just wait this is completed
Click to expand...

+1. It really takes away from the forum when people incessantly talk about +/-10 feet. Why does it matter so much? Its a number. Some people gotta be more self aware
 
Suffolk 83 said:
+1. It really takes away from the forum when people incessantly talk about +/-10 feet. Why does it matter so much? Its a number. Some people gotta be more self aware
Click to expand...

+1 Height-number-obsessed people should take their issue to a separate thread
 
since when is discussing the height of the tallest building to be constructed in this city in 40 years off limits? Especially since there is contradictory information being released regarding the height. Should we really discuss how great the glass looks for the 18th time? Or what about 40 posts on the antenna? 25 posts about whether it will grow 1 floor or 2 floors per week during construction? Sorry but when you have 127 PAGES of comments on one development there are going to be repetitive topics. Some of us are curious about the final height and why all the different heights from different sources. end rant.
 
+1 to *that* ^^^

i think it's more than valid to speculate as to final height of this thing and to discuss the various and conflicting sources, while trying to get to the truth of the matter.

"height number obsessed people" should go to another thread? wtf is up with that? this isn't just some arbitrary discussion of the merits or pitfalls of tall buildings; this is about the true, final height of the tallest building built in boston in over 40 years.

if you've got a problem with the sub-topic of certain posts in this thread, it's pretty easy to scroll past them and look at other stuff. what an arrogant jackass.
 
This same type of conversation happened with the Millennium Tower which had the highest occupied floor height and other slightly taller but still not full height numbers mentioned in a ton of the press prior to the completion of the building, but in the end Millennium does appear to be as tall as the FAA said and the other numbers were all based on misleading statements meant to hide how tall the building really was until it was finished. I am expecting the same to be true in this case as well.
 
Add me to the side that sees no purpose in discussing the exact height of this building (or any building) to three significant figures. Different sources use different references and methodologies. As long as they're in the same ballpark, what's the difference?

When people talk about, say, "how great the glass looks" they're discussing the overall visual and functional impact of the glass, not its exact specifications. I don't think you'll find people here debating whether the glass has a U-Value of 0.352 W/m2K or 0.369 W/m2K. Arguing over the exact height is just as arbitrary and annoying.

That being said, I don't think we need any heavy-handed censorship of those discussions.
 
Maybe someone should just email the FAA asking for an explanation on how they come to their measurements. Doubt it will get a response though.
 
JumboBuc said:
Add me to the side that sees no purpose in discussing the exact height of this building (or any building) to three significant figures. Different sources use different references and methodologies. As long as they're in the same ballpark, what's the difference?

When people talk about, say, "how great the glass looks" they're discussing the overall visual and functional impact of the glass, not its exact specifications. I don't think you'll find people here debating whether the glass has a U-Value of 0.352 W/m2K or 0.369 W/m2K. Arguing over the exact height is just as arbitrary and annoying.

That being said, I don't think we need any heavy-handed censorship of those discussions.
Click to expand...


I understand and appreciate your point. However, while "exact" building heights may not matter to you, it's not as if we are arguing about whether this will be 415 feet or 422 feet and therefore the 23rd tallest building in the city or the 25th. In fairness, this project is the largest building built in this city in many of our lifetimes so I can see why some might be interested in the precise numbers and whether this will be the second tallest. Not everyone has to have the same interests when it comes to development.
 
BosDevelop said:
I understand and appreciate your point. However, while "exact" building heights may not matter to you, it's not as if we are arguing about whether this will be 415 feet or 422 feet and therefore the 23rd tallest building in the city or the 25th. In fairness, this project is the largest building built in this city in many of our lifetimes so I can see why some might be interested in the precise numbers and whether this will be the second tallest. Not everyone has to have the same interests when it comes to development.
Click to expand...

Why does it matter if it is the second tallest or the third tallest? What difference will it make for the people using the building, or looking at the building, or for the city as a whole? Will anyone actually be able to tell the difference? I'm trying not to be judgmental, but no one ever seems to explain why any of this is important.
 
^ because some people on this board want to be able to say eff you to the nimby's regarding that we snuck a new 2nd tallest onto our skyline when they weren't paying attention. Everyone knows the Pru - It is a "meaningful" milestone to have been surpassed.
 
bigpicture7 said:
^ because some people on this board want to be able to say eff you to the nimby's regarding that we snuck a new 2nd tallest onto our skyline when they weren't paying attention. Everyone knows the Pru - It is a "meaningful" milestone to have been surpassed.
Click to expand...

I think your priorities are a bit out of whack. Height matters just about as much as dick size and when you are constantly railing about height it brings up other questions. Get off the internet and find the beauty in the city, you'll find it rarely has to do with having the tallest buildings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top