Millennium Tower (Filene's) | 426 Washington Street | Downtown

Status
Not open for further replies.
tobyjug said:
When it comes to construction techniques, I wish I could get as excited about concrete as others.
Click to expand...

Having an upstairs neighbor with a subwoofer / stomping / late night furniture rearranging obsession cures most people of any aversion they might have.
 
New construction bracing appeared overnight in the Franklin Street entrance/exit to Downtown Crossing T Station. Looks like they are getting ready to rebuild the head house there.
 
datadyne007 said:
I work in MEP, specifically P/FP. Since Millennium Tower will be a residential tower, the MEP services will likely be distributed vertically in the walls rather than horizontally in the ceiling. This is an industry trend for essentially all new multi-family residential construction. The floor plates/apartment layouts are the same and the plumbing stacks just run straight up and down near the fixtures. For residential construction, you really don't need much room in the ceiling. It's essentially just the structure.

Labs, schools and hospitals are often distributed horizontally, though I have seen requests for hospitals to distribute vertically (the architect had this brilliant idea 2 years into the design... we said "lol, no" since we had essentially piped up the whole damn place horizontally)
Click to expand...

Same trade.

Typically can't get away from the toilet room piping, which was what I was referring too. The depth of which would be similar to the depth of steel in a res. building. Meaning either way, your ceiling height in the bathroom is usually the same. Basically why your toilet rooms in apartments and hotels will be lower than the rest of the unit. Yes, you can do back outlet toilets, and above floor tubs. Usually don't see the above floor tubs, and showers are much more common today in apartments, so floor drain and trap is still there.

Although, what I have seen too much recently, is architects making each floor too different, and not stacking things enough. Vertical distribution is not only easier and cleaner, but much much much cheaper than all that horizontal copper.
 
paperless paul said:
Let's keep in mind the source for this is a Reinforced Concrete industry group. I would not rely too heavily on this approach. If you are looking at a 12" to 24" difference in your framing depth per floor you need a different design alternative.

I reiterate what I said in my previous post. To truly compare systems you need an engineer to perform a design study and come back with two alternatives that work. Many factors enter into consideration for choosing framing systems (I forgot to mention fireproofing above). It would be unusual that this choice would be uniquely and overwhelmingly driven by depth.
Click to expand...

I'll agree with the 12" - 24" potential in commercial buildings, as ductwork would not be driven by steel, but in residential there is a limit to height based on codes and reasonable living space heights. Your gains (if any) will be much reduced in residential buildings. I always just ballpark 10 feet per floor when it's residential. Even though a few of the floors at the Clarendon were 8'-10" I believe floor to floor, others (the expensive ones) were up to almost 12 feet.
 
I love having engineers (and people who understand building engineering) on this board.
 
statler said:
I love having engineers (and people who understand building engineering) on this board.
Click to expand...

Brief aside:
Buildings are so much more than just facades or heights in a skyline. I feel like that concept often gets lost or glossed over on this board. Buildings are the beautiful composition of architecture, civil, structural, MEP, interior, landscape, etc as one. I've always been as fascinated about the things behind the walls and above the ceiling as I am about the actual spaces. I have a design degree in architecture, but ultimately decided to pursue MEP as a career. It's lead me to a greater understanding of buildings themselves and my architecture background comes in handy on a daily basis. Having worked with architects on projects now (as the architects are actually our "clients"), I've come to the conclusion that all architects should have to work at least 3 months or so at an MEP or structural firm - maybe both. It would change the dynamics of the industry entirely and would result in architects that are cognizant of the implications of locating a science lab above a library which they want to have a beautiful open ceiling or putting a sink along a wall that has a diagonal brace. Anyway, these types of discussions beyond "This building is ugly!" are the ones that I enjoy most on this board, as I still have a lot to learn about these subjects as a young professional as well. So thank you to everyone for engaging in this discussion.

---
Now for some pix! They are installing mullions today:

2nu26g.jpg

zwj7gx.jpg
 
Mongo said:
What?

DTX has some of the highest foot traffic of any area in New England
Click to expand...

Yes -- DTX with over 200,000 people per day -- I believe that DTX's workday foot traffic is second only to Times Square

and it is a particularly well educated, sophisticated and well paid foot traffic as well with students, faculty from Emerson, Suffolk, Suffolk Law mixing in with the Financial District workers and growing numbers of small start-up tech / media companies

from a recent report on measured foot & bicycle traffic*1
11 hr daily*2 Peak AM Peak mid-day Peak PM
6 Summer St. east of Hawley 51,501 5,297 6,664 6,760


*1] http://origin.library.constantconta...n+BID+Pedestrian+&+Bicycle+Traffic+Survey.pdf

*2]
Study Methodology
To give an indication of the relative use of downtown gateways by pedestrians and cyclists, 11-hour (7:00 AM to 6:00 PM) bi-directional counts were scheduled at six major boundary sites. To gauge variations in shopper volumes, counts were also scheduled for six key blocks within the core retail business area.

Counts were conducted by Precision Data, Inc. (PDI) during the period of December 13 to December 19, 2011. A combination of manual and digital Miovision camera counts was used to reflect accurately pedestrian and bicycle patterns on streets with heavy use. Both December 13, and December 19, 2011 were sunny/partly cloudy days with an average temperature of 28.9 °F and 37.5°F, respectively. Also Hubway, Boston’s new bike share program, dismantled all of their stations on November 30th, 2011 for the winter season. Therefore, any Hubway-related bicycle trips were not a part of our study.
Click to expand...

PS -- perhaps should be in New Retail:
from Boston Globe:
French bakery chain Paul will soon break bread in Boston

By Emily Overholt | GLOBE CORRESPONDENT NOVEMBER 23, 2013

Mayor Thomas M. Menino received a gift of bread from chef Fabrice Ligouzat of Paul.
WENDY MAEDA/GLOBE STAFF

Boston will get a little je ne sais quoi for breakfast and lunch come spring, when the French bakery chain Paul — with roots in the 19th century — is scheduled to open at Downtown Crossing, one of four shops it plans for the area next year.

Paul, which has nearly 600 locations in 29 countries, says its “products and shops exude a French way of life.” In 2011, the chain opened its first US bakeries in Washington, D.C., and later expanded to Miami. Boston will become the third US city on the menu.


PAUL BAKERY

At a groundbreaking ceremony for the One Boston Place location Friday morning, Paul USA chief executive Philippe Sanchez gave Mayor Thomas M. Menino a special loaf of bread inscribed with Menino’s name. From the mayor’s reaction, it seemed apparent the loaf would not have a long shelf life.

“I love bread,” he said in accepting the gift.

The 6,000-square-foot Downtown Crossing space will have an on-site bakery, and feature a full menu of breads like baguette Charlemagne and fougasse, a variety of sandwiches, and sweeter items such as crepes, tarts, and macarons.

Beyond the One Boston Place restaurant and three other locations not yet specified, Paul says it will open seven more shops in the region by 2017.

Sanchez said expanding to Boston was a logical step for the international chain. The city, he said, “has a European flair, it is incredibly international. It makes for a great customer base.”

A British food chain, Pret a Manger, opened in Boston last year, offering traditional sandwiches at three stores.

Fabien Fieschi, Boston’s consul general of France, attended the Friday groundbreaking and sounded a lot like an ambassador for the bakery.

“The French community is incredibly excited about Paul opening in Boston,” he said. “And Bostonians who didn’t know about Paul will soon experience the excitement of the French community.”
Click to expand...
 
tobyjug said:
When it comes to construction techniques, I wish I could get as excited about concrete as others. I still see the collapse of the building at 2000 Commonwealth Ave in my mind's eye.
I know, probably like saying I won't fly on a 747 because the Wright Flyer crashed on its fourth flight in 1903.
Click to expand...

Toby -- 2000 Comm Ave was a case of freezing of the concrete because of Mega Krappy construction technique

Things have progressed considerably in the subsequent 40 years -- including the about 700' tall stack over at the Mystic Generating Station
 
Does anyone have the time difference between building with steel vs. concrete? As in, how much time would it take to build a 25 story tower with steel vs. concrete?

When I think of concrete construction, I think of the Gazprom Arena over in St. Petersburg that is moving at a glacial pace and make the assumption (probably incorrectly) that all projects built in this manner are messier and slower to build than those with steel.
 
mass88 said:
Does anyone have the time difference between building with steel vs. concrete? As in, how much time would it take to build a 25 story tower with steel vs. concrete?

When I think of concrete construction, I think of the Gazprom Arena over in St. Petersburg that is moving at a glacial pace and make the assumption (probably incorrectly) that all projects built in this manner are messier and slower to build than those with steel.
Click to expand...

It's typically slower, but not by an appreciable amount for a project that will end up taking 16 to 24 months to complete. As always it is probably not going to govern the structural design choice in this case and a proper answer would require additional assumptions – i.e. office / residential, basic plan – repeating vs changes, lower story conditions etc.

Here are some references:
From the concrete guys – they claim 20 -30 story buildings require 2 months less for concrete (this is a very old study - 1988).

And the steel guys – claim 12 weeks less for steel from 28 weeks for concrete (but only 8 net). For the UK and not for your precise example (see Building 2: program comparison - an 8 story city office building).


And here is additional detail and discussion for those who are interested.
1. Once design documents are complete steel needs to be detailed and fabricated off-site and transported to site which requires many weeks or months. Concrete detailing is much quicker and concrete is largely a standard spec.

2. Steel erection, though piecemeal, requires small picks with a fairly standard crane. And uses fairly standardised and relatively efficient labor. It can also be done in a wide range of weather conditions.

Concrete will typically use a highly specialised form lift and jacking system. Requires high lifts (concrete placement) which will require specialised subcontractors with pump trucks (although less so for 25 stories i.e. under 300ft). And lots of labor to tie rebar. Temperature and weather conditions are critical and limiting.

3. Steel erection is typically complete shortly after the lifts. Although complicated field welding of moment frames can require additional time. But it will typically require a poured slab for floors and application of fireproffing. B

Concrete obviously requires time to set and cure. Perhaps a week for initial cure to remove formwork (less for high strength / fast setting concrete) and 30 days to achieve full strength.

For a high rise as you describe which has very repetitive floor plates / openings etc. And an unvarying envelope. Construction timing of concrete should be competitive with steel (i.e. similar with difference depending on particulars). Cost is going to be the big difference. Also, in smaller markets finding steel erectors may be easier than a concrete sub who can work on a more specialised high-rise condition.

A stadium is a totally different animal.
 
^ Here is a somewhat uninformed observation, but I believe it is valid.

Steel framing tends to go up faster, but the floor build-out lags behind the framing. You get the appearance of a quickly rising structure, but it is nowhere near complete when topped out.

C-I-P concrete rises slower, but the floor build out tends to keep pace with the rate of rise. Once the building is topped out, it is nearly complete below.
 
How long does it last? It seems that concrete structures like overpasses fall apart in 50 years. On the other hand, they have to handle much different loads. But then there's buildings like Charlesview which are basically on the verge of collapse and had to be abandoned.
 
Matthew said:
How long does it last? It seems that concrete structures like overpasses fall apart in 50 years. On the other hand, they have to handle much different loads. But then there's buildings like Charlesview which are basically on the verge of collapse and had to be abandoned.
Click to expand...

The Pantheon in Rome was built in 126 AD. The rotunda and coffered dome are both C-I-P concrete.

A lot of American concrete infrastructure crumbles because of use of inferior (often illegal, but allowed through graft, corruption) concrete materials (excess salt in sand, aggregate is often an issue). Build it right and concrete can last a long time.
 
I've heard that one major difference between Roman construction and ours is the use of rebar, and that it is possible the rebar is what shortens the lifespan of the concrete. I'm not an expert obviously. I agree that concrete needs very careful handling, but surely the widespread collapse of 40-to-60-year-old concrete structures cannot all be explained by corruption?
 
Matthew said:
How long does it last? It seems that concrete structures like overpasses fall apart in 50 years. On the other hand, they have to handle much different loads. But then there's buildings like Charlesview which are basically on the verge of collapse and had to be abandoned.
Click to expand...

Correct, bridges have much larger live loads relative to dead loads and far more cyclic loading. But more importantly infrastructure is exposed to weather - particularly salts in snow country. But steel has very similar problems.

Preventive maintenance, protection from weather and proper detailing (expansion/movement joints, rebar cover, construction quality control) are the keys to long-lasting buildings.

According to this article the problems at Charlesview were caused by settlement not the use of concrete.
 
Rusting metal, such as iron (steel), expands. The expansion is sufficient to crack masonry and concrete. Cracks allow additional moisture, which accelerates the rusting, which in turn increases the extent of the cracking and deterioration.

There is a large Chagall sculpture in Washington, installed outside around 1970. The sculpture was attached to a concrete backing with metal fasteners. The metal started rusting, the concrete cracked and loosened the mosaic pieces. The conservators had to disassemble the sculpture, and restore what they could, using stainless steel to avoid the rusting.

UMass Boston permanently closed a parking garage for 1500 cars in 2006 because the concrete had deteriorated. Lasted 30 years.
http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2006/07/17/daily35.html?hbx=e_du

Probably similar reason for permanently closing the parking garage on the site of Tommy's Tower.
 
paperless paul said:
But more importantly infrastructure is exposed to weather - particularly salts in snow country. But steel has very similar problems.

Preventive maintenance, protection from weather and proper detailing (expansion/movement joints, rebar cover, construction quality control) are the keys to long-lasting buildings.
Click to expand...

Ding ding ding ding, we have a winner.
It doesn't matter what you build with: sticks, lumber, concrete, steel, dilithium, if its built and not maintained its going to fall apart. Especially if there are quality control and/or poor construction methods and detailing used in the first place.

Regarding charlesview, IIRC there were also huge moisture and mold issues, and most of it was built with stucco over lumber, despite the brutalist concrete appearance.
 
paperless paul said:
1. Once design documents are complete steel needs to be detailed and fabricated off-site and transported to site which requires many weeks or months. Concrete detailing is much quicker and concrete is largely a standard spec.
Click to expand...

This is why you will often see early release packages for structural to get the steel on order and fabricated to coincide with the actual construction schedule, and to not cause the delays alluded to here.

Without delving too deep, they are different systems which suit certain situations "better", and overall take about the same time..... all things considered.
 
Matthew said:
I've heard that one major difference between Roman construction and ours is the use of rebar, and that it is possible the rebar is what shortens the lifespan of the concrete. I'm not an expert obviously. I agree that concrete needs very careful handling, but surely the widespread collapse of 40-to-60-year-old concrete structures cannot all be explained by corruption?
Click to expand...

Math -- MIT's main circa 1916 campus -- the Mclauren Building -- aka the Infinite Corridor is poured in place or cast in place concrete -- the nice stone on the exterior is just veneer

When Stone and Webster did the structural engineering and construction management on the Wells Bosworth architectural design the building was the world's largest CIP structure and it remained so for quite a while https://archive.org/stream/cu31924015396777#page/n13/mode/2up
070p.jpg


Not too many steel framed buildings have been subjected to as much re-use as MIT's building and are still standing after 100 years

The Pentagon is also CIP -- still holding up fairly well for 70 years despite having nearly every interior wall having been moved several times
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top