State Street HQ | One Congress | Bulfinch Crossing | West End

Tim Logan article today:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/busines...has-started/oVL5wQr8kUx16movi6q2hK/story.html

One Congress, a 600-foot-tall skyscraper atop the Government Center Garage, is scheduled to open in 2022 as new headquarters for State Street Corp., which has leased about half of the building’s 1 million square feet. The other half is still available for lease, and will provide room for companies to grow in a city where office space has become something of a scarce commodity.
Click to expand...
 
I thought this one was well over 600' . . . 647' or so, no?
 
No pictures, but when I walked by this today it looks like they're taking off an additional floor of the garage.
 
What's the time table for the demo of the rest of the garage, and start of Residential Tower II, couldn't find anything on it...
 
type001 said:
It is. 600 is to the bottom of the highest occupied floor.
Click to expand...

Ok, 600’ to the floor plus mechanicals and the glass dramatic curtain thing...anyone know what the overall height will be?
 
617 said:
Ok, 600’ to the floor plus mechanicals and the glass dramatic curtain thing...anyone know what the overall height will be?
Click to expand...

647' was the number circulated in the BPDA documents. Somewhere in that vicinity.
 
There's a reason none of us have a clue how tall this is. The residential tower says 547' at the top but the bottom elevation still might be as high as 27'. That means it's possibly as short as 520'. Seriously, look at the 2 diagrams below and try to unpack that information. Skyscraperpage diagrams measure it at 532' which is good enough for me.

The 647' was an estimate by odurandina based on the residential being 547'. Also note that its elevation starts below the residential's (maybe?).

In fact, this is basically the story of our lives here in Boston. Everything is reported wrong and measured all over the place. The rules for official height are start at the lowest point, and end at the highest architectural point including crowns, spires, even mechanical boxes, just not the equipment itself or functioning antenna. So we are trying to figure out the bottom-most point to the height at the very tip of the glass.


datadyne007 said:
For those of us that like 2D plans & sections:

Residential (WP-B1):

jsBkuge.png

--

JEikKeh.png
Click to expand...
 
DZH22 said:
There's a reason none of us have a clue how tall this is. The residential tower says 547' at the top but the bottom elevation still might be as high as 27'. That means it's possibly as short as 520'. Seriously, look at the 2 diagrams below and try to unpack that information. Skyscraperpage diagrams measure it at 532' which is good enough for me.

The 647' was an estimate by odurandina based on the residential being 547'. Also note that its elevation starts below the residential's (maybe?).

In fact, this is basically the story of our lives here in Boston. Everything is reported wrong and measured all over the place. The rules for official height are start at the lowest point, and end at the highest architectural point including crowns, spires, even mechanical boxes, just not the equipment itself or functioning antenna. So we are trying to figure out the bottom-most point to the height at the very tip of the glass.
Click to expand...
The base of the tower in that particular section is at +27.52 above the Boston City Base datum (NAVD88+6.46). No one is trying to misrepresent anything. You and others are simply misreading that graphic. Just because you see a number at the top of the tower doesn't mean that it is the true height. It would be misleading or confusing if the bottom was blank, but it is not. The datum elevations are clearly listed. Why don't they start at 0 for everything? Because the civil survey is based off the Boston City Base and us engineers who actually design and build these things need the accurate datum elevations to coordinate.
 
datadyne007 said:
The base of the tower in that particular section is at +27.52 above the Boston City Base datum (NAVD88+6.46). No one is trying to misrepresent anything. You and others are simply misreading that graphic. Just because you see a number at the top of the tower doesn't mean that it is the true height. It would be misleading or confusing if the bottom was blank, but it is not. The datum elevations are clearly listed. Why don't they start at 0 for everything? Because the civil survey is based off the Boston City Base and us engineers who actually design and build these things need the accurate datum elevations to coordinate.
Click to expand...

I think you are missing my point. I am saying that even though the top says 547', if the measurement doesn't actually start at 0' then it isn't actually 547'. If the bottom of the building is at 27' and the top at 547' then the building is only 520'.

However, my other point is that we don't know where they are actually measuring the bottom of the building from. The whole thing is built on a hill. It's unclear where the very bottom of this building is in order to calculate the official height as "547'-X."
 
^^i think the 0' mark of the resident tower resides at the elevation the architect team is assigning as the base of the site–which roughly appears to be the same as the base of the office tower along the north wall arc on New Chardon St. The lower image (expanded) appears to suggest the base of the resident tower shares a wall at this alignment–but like you said; it's a hill. And this may account for why other images don't conform....

DZH22 said:
There's a reason none of us have a clue how tall this is. The residential tower says 547' at the top.....
Click to expand...

If you look at the Garage from end to end, you can account for 547' from the base of the garage site at New Chardon St. Is the FAA using the height of the base of the large garage structure someplace else (or its average), to state 539' in their document? So, there's no reason to conjure up some basis for the tower having a lower height because it's measured from the lowest part of the garage site. The FAA says 539', so that is effectively, the minimum. Architecturally, the lowest corner of the greater structure to its highest point is right in the render: The 0' point is ~the elevation at the New Chardon St entrance of the Garage. So what: the renders are offered above a single horizontal line of reference. But Sudbury, Bowker and New Chardon rise and fall with the topography of Old Boston.

DZH22 said:
The 647' was an estimate by odurandina based on the residential being 547'. Also note that its elevation starts below the residential's (maybe?).
Click to expand...

i started with the diagram (commonly circulated) in the pnf showing the two towers together, and expanded it to ~1500 pixels, took the screen shot, leaned them on their side w/ Photoshop, and expanded the image out a bit more. Careful measurements rendered a range of 647~654' from the base to the tip. Every image of the two towers together shows about this same height difference between the towers.

In the pnf of the office tower, there was ambiguity (they left the numbers off the image), which might explain the discrepancy--or was it left off for a reason? Similar fudgery has been done before at Exchange Place, Millennium Tower, with taller than advertised rising above Boston.
 
I would assume you just subtract the 27.52 from the 547.33 height and call that the actual building height which would be about 520 feet. I guess there is a slight chance that the 27 feet isn't the lowest point of the building, but it seems likely it would be seeing as that is where the city expects building heights to be measured from.
 
Not sure if this was posted before but State Street's LinkedIn posted a rendering with their name on the building.

0
 
KentXie said:
Not sure if this was posted before but State Street's LinkedIn posted a rendering with their name on the building.

0
Click to expand...

Haven't seen it, and honestly... I hate it. I was willing to look past how fat it was from that angle, but the "State Street" rendered there makes it look even squatter.
 
I was going to say the exact opposite. I love it. World's 4th largest money manager deserves a little bling.

If I am seeing that correctly, the residential building going up is on the far bottom left side, correct?
 
Looks awful in my opinion. They just took the old sign and welded it on to a new building, but the font and style of that sign in no way works with the style for the building. I hope this is just a quick mock-up and not any kind of real plan. The sign needs to both say, "yes, this is definitely State Street, but no, it's not the old stodgy version, look at the wave of this building, that's our new corporate brand."
 
^^+1000. Cue the purists and the Public Garden crowd......
Yes, LOVE IT. It's refreshing, and keeping with the State Street signage tradition.
 
Czervik.Construction said:
I was going to say the exact opposite. I love it. World's 4th largest money manager deserves a little bling.

If I am seeing that correctly, the residential building going up is on the far bottom left side, correct?
Click to expand...

No, the resi currently under construction is the tower directly to the left of One Congress in the render above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top