Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

shmessy said:
Does anyone else get claustrophobic just thinking about this area?
Click to expand...

Assuming you're focusing on the Winthrop Sq. side (with Federal St. being a very roomy boulevard), I actually find it to be incredibly charming--an urban oasis or sanctuary. The architecture/geometry gives it real intimacy--especially if you "burst into" the space from the narrow portal that is Winthrop Lane.

Of course, that was before the project began, the trees got ripped-out, old Burnsie got repatriated to a more Scots-like realm in the Fenway, etc. I hope/trust when it all opens up in a few years, the sanctuary feeling is restored/enhanced.

CAVEAT: the incessant MBTA 500-series bus congestion during normal (non-pandemic) rush hour, from 4-6 pm, DOES make it very unpleasant there. In fact, the chronic conflict between pedestrians and auto traffic, as pedestrians carefully pick their way from Winthrop Lane to 75-101 Fed., hopscotching the traffic island, always sucked, bust traffic or otherwise. Not sure if the Square renovation includes a fix to that via revised layout of that puny island? I don't see the buses getting re-routed....
 
Taken tonight, Federal St side

DB06-DE21-F68-C-442-E-A3-F2-178-E6540-F436.jpg


CE38-CCC4-A51-B-45-A9-83-F3-93-E295-A28-E3-F.jpg

DB06-DE21-F68-C-442-E-A3-F2-178-E6540-F436.jpg
 
chrisbrat said:
or philly, nyc...
Click to expand...
a bit of a stretch for those because of the tendency of most of their streets to be on a rectilinear grid as opposed to Boston's less consistent curving [and leaving behind a curved facade even if the street was later straightened as in Franklin St near the Millennium Tower] and intersecting at strange angles
 
Boston02124 said:
View attachment 9992
Click to expand...

Folks may recall I posted this diagram a few months back showing the heights of all the skyscrapers clustering around the Winthrop Center project site. Note the top of 100 Summer, the fugly black building in the deep background here, at the beautiful vanishing point created by the termination of Devonshire St. corridor. As noted in the diagram, 100 Summer's crown is at 452 feet--so basically add 250 feet to that.

That yellow protective-sheathing cage that is just above the white contractor van in the foreground, in this picture, is going to "soar" (as it were) in this perspective, to dizzying heights, once this project reaches topping-off.
 
DBM said:
Folks may recall I posted this diagram a few months back showing the heights of all the skyscrapers clustering around the Winthrop Center project site. Note the top of 100 Summer, the fugly black building in the deep background here, at the beautiful vanishing point created by the termination of Devonshire St. corridor. As noted in the diagram, 100 Summer's crown is at 452 feet--so basically add 250 feet to that.

That yellow protective-sheathing cage that is just above the white contractor van in the foreground, in this picture, is going to "soar" (as it were) in this perspective, to dizzying heights, once this project reaches topping-off.
Click to expand...

Why does that diagram show Winthrop Center at 715'?
 
Massachoicetts said:
Why does that diagram show Winthrop Center at 715'?
Click to expand...

You'll notice from the look of the tower that that iteration is now 3 or 4 removed from the "final product"--that diagram was published several years back, before the tower design went through several more mutations. That said, my guess is the final tower still rises to 715 feet, anyway:

Notice where it's labeled "TOP OF PH FLOORS: 690.917' BCB"--that figure is pretty damn close to the final height of 691 feet that the media is always quoting. So, my guess is, regardless of which iteration of the tower we're looking at, the final measured height has always only been calculated to that "top of the penthouse floor" benchmark, and in fact there's another 26 feet of mechanicals until you reach the crown at 715 feet.
 
BCB stands for Boston City Base. It's not the same as ground level. It's only 691' above ground level. I remember having this exact discussion on the forum a couple of years ago.
 
DZH22 said:
BCB stands for Boston City Base. It's not the same as ground level. It's only 691' above ground level. I remember having this exact discussion on the forum a couple of years ago.
Click to expand...
DZH -- not all heights are created equal
what is the actual top of a structure depends on whether you include stuff that sticks up such as booms for window washing, microwave dishes, sometimes a weather station, cameras, etc. -- the only "thing" whose top we can be sure of is an antenna as it has to registered with the FCC
 
DZH22 said:
BCB stands for Boston City Base. It's not the same as ground level. It's only 691' above ground level. I remember having this exact discussion on the forum a couple of years ago.
Click to expand...

Okay So the tower basically will rise to 691' tall from base to tip. However, 715' above Sea Level. But the tower itself is not 715' given it is on an elevation of 26' Is that correct ?
 
Massachoicetts said:
Okay So the tower basically will rise to 691' tall from base to tip. However, 715' above Sea Level. But the tower itself is not 715' given it is on an elevation of 26' Is that correct ?
Click to expand...

Check out the elevations on page 7 of this link for more information. It's 690'4" above average grade. However, "official height" technically counts to the bottom of the building, not just the average grade, which pushes it to 691'. Honestly, it might be 1-2' higher based on lowest point to highest point but it's really tough to figure that out so have to go with the 691' figure.

Box

bpda.app.box.com bpda.app.box.com
 
It would be the tallest building in Montreal, Vancouver, Baltimore, St. Louis, Kansas City, Cincinnati, Columbus, Nashville, Jacksonville, Tampa, Milwaukee, Memphis, Phoenix, Portland (OR), Salt Lake City, Sacramento, Hartford, all Upstate NY cities, DC Metro, Raleigh, Winnipeg, Louisville, among others. All but 3 of those have a major sports team. It's Boston's 4th tallest building, but would be the 2nd or 3rd tallest in many other large cities such as Pittsburgh and Detroit. It certainly isn't bad, but it isn't going to move the needle the way a new tallest would.
 
Last edited:
chrisbrat said:
it's gonna be tall, but not that tall (except by boston standards) and it's going to be pretty boring and ugly (except by boston standards for skyscrapers).
Click to expand...

I think the fun irony about the longwinded design, public meetings, approvals, shadows-on-the-common waiver, etc, etc, etc (decade-plus)....is that literally no one who's not a skyscraper buff is even going to notice this thing exists unless you're at street level. From a distance, barely anyone who's not looking for it is even going to notice it's here. I'm not really complaining about the outcome, I just find it fascinating how much energy was expended on this.
 
it'll be interesting what the net effect is. it's anecdotal evidence, but plenty of my family and friends who are not especially hyper aware of architectire noticed and commented on MT either as it was going up or after the fact. that wintrhop is so big and so tall AND (imho the main factor) will have a lit-up crown may make it stand out to "average folks" more than it might otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top