🔹 What's Happening With Project X?

Montaje at Assembly row is 236 feet tall. You could add that to the Cambridge/Everett/Somerville list.

Hopefully they add even taller buildings to Assembly.
 
tysmith95 said:
Montaje at Assembly row is 236 feet tall. You could add that to the Cambridge/Everett/Somerville list.

Hopefully they add even taller buildings to Assembly.
Click to expand...

how do you jam 20 stories into 236' LEED Platinum residential tower? i believe the height to be closer to 255~260' given the average for the shortest recent, 20 story towers in the metro area. Recent example; 315 on A is 255', and the Berkeley project proposed for Ft Point is also 255'. w/ the effort to limit height to the bare minimum, while maximizing the # of floors. :)

DZH22 said:
Odurandina, where do you get some of your heights from? I am curious about the following for starters:

The Clarendon at 375'
45 Province at 372'
Avalon Exeter 348'
Marriott Moxy 286'
Wynn Tower 386'

I feel like some of these heights seem to shift every time I look them up.
Click to expand...

DZH22 said:
The Clarendon 373'

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=610332&row=3
Click to expand...

Doing some rechecking.

Wynn is 386' (get them taxes baby)

http://www.everettindependent.com/2...ncerns-lead-to-the-raising-up-of-wynn-casino/

"However, Wynn Everett officials said it would not result in a taller building. It will remain at the proposed height of 386 feet...."


Marriot Moxy to the inch; 273' (lost 13')

Thanks for pointing out the Clarendon (in particular). Oddly enough, some of the FAA heights you listed last fall seem a bit off.... one being the Clarendon. Some time ago, i had seen it listed somewhere as 375', and that didn't seem right, but i pasted it on my list. But, it would seem 373~375 can't be right.

The JHT is 62 floors (60 occupied), yes? Looking at the best existing photographs. including the most distant perspectives, indicates about 35 floors of the JHT rising above the level of the Clarendon, rendering about 344'.

Obviously, the street level will factor in, but being just a few dozen feet from 200 Clarendon, it's difficult to see that affecting the height by more than a few feet. ....so, i'll change my unofficial height for the Clarendon to 346' but not an inch more. i'll recheck w/ the Building Dept at some point.
 
Does anyone know what is happening on the side of the MassPike in the old Allston Rail Yards. I know they removed the toll booths and aligned the Pike, but there are giant bridge-size steel guarders sitting in the rail yard. I don't think the MassPike Rerouting has been approved?
 
navigator4 said:
Does anyone know what is happening on the side of the MassPike in the old Allston Rail Yards. I know they removed the toll booths and aligned the Pike, but there are giant bridge-size steel guarders sitting in the rail yard. I don't think the MassPike Rerouting has been approved?
Click to expand...

For the Comm Ave. bridge replacement slated to start next month?
 
^^ Yup

matredsoxfan said:
Also prep work for the bridge work is well underway in the old Beacon Park Yards. Steel beams have been delivered and connections are being made. Each crane lift will lift two steel beams connected together to speed up construction. Also several precast concrete deck panels have also been delivered.
Click to expand...
 
I'm really scared of the WYNN Development (Traffic Armageddon could be the result for everybody crossing 93 North & South)

City and State leaders either are incompetent or have falling a sleep concerning investments between the MBTA, innovative ways of creating a better flow of traffic.

GOD---- I HOPE I'm WRONG

WYNN development could be the NAIL IN THE COFFIN for a nightmarish commute across the board.
 
Anyone know what is being built in Quincy near the Quincy Adams station on the hill? Looks pretty big.
 
Trillium beer garden on the greenway. This looks awesome, we need more things like this along the greenway. This is a wonderful start. Nothing brings more utilization to an area than alcohol. Looks to be executed very well.


APC_1263.jpg.jpeg



Walker_060117_Trillium_5399x.jpg



DAmY2pvXoAE1V-F.jpg
 
That hotel project at corner of Canal and Valenti is probably DOA, huh? I haven't seen any new on it, has anyone else?
 
statler said:
That hotel project at corner of Canal and Valenti is probably DOA, huh? I haven't seen any new on it, has anyone else?
Click to expand...

i would wager that's the case. it seems the developer Somnath is quite small. i've been hoping for this one to kick off for a while now
 
goldenretrievers said:
i would wager that's the case. it seems the developer Somnath is quite small. i've been hoping for this one to kick off for a while now
Click to expand...

I wouldn't give up yet. A lot of projects that are considered controversial are being put on hold until after the election. You don't want to upset your constituents during the election season.
 
goldenretrievers said:
are there plans to develop building 107 in the charlestown navy yard?

196138pr.jpg


196139pr.jpg
Click to expand...

Building 107 is owned and used by the National Park Service. Buidling 108, which is attached to it, is a former power plant. I've always heard it is a difficult building because of contamination.
 
thanks. 107 is pretty derelict even if in use, and if 108 was razed, a nice park could at least be built
 
this is likely not the right place for this question (sorry -- if any of the mods know of a better spot, please move this), but: what's the story behind the "STATE STREET BANK" lettering that used to be atop 225 franklin? i know, of course, that there's now "State Street" signage over at one lincoln and i get how it'd be redundant (and look pretty dumb) to have two high-rises with similar signs, but 225 franklin was waaaaaay less boring when it had that giant sign on top (signage that was much more prominent on the building than what's at one lincoln). if 225 gets a big enough primary occupant would that tenant have the rights to put up similar lettering? random and perhaps pointless question, but even though it's been gone for years since that big sign was there for so much of my life i still do a double-take whenever i'm at logan or on the water looking towards the city. the building was a pretty distinctive skyline feature (to my mind) for many years and now it's just truly boring/borderline ugly background noise. maybe if they lit the crown?
 
chrisbrat said:
this is likely not the right place for this question (sorry -- if any of the mods know of a better spot, please move this), but: what's the story behind the "STATE STREET BANK" lettering that used to be atop 225 franklin? i know, of course, that there's now "State Street" signage over at one lincoln and i get how it'd be redundant (and look pretty dumb) to have two high-rises with similar signs, but 225 franklin was waaaaaay less boring when it had that giant sign on top (signage that was much more prominent on the building than what's at one lincoln). if 225 gets a big enough primary occupant would that tenant have the rights to put up similar lettering? random and perhaps pointless question, but even though it's been gone for years since that big sign was there for so much of my life i still do a double-take whenever i'm at logan or on the water looking towards the city. the building was a pretty distinctive skyline feature (to my mind) for many years and now it's just truly boring/borderline ugly background noise. maybe if they lit the crown?
Click to expand...

It's my understanding that Boston hates to grant signage in this city. State street was allowed to have a sign bc they were essentially grandfathered in with the sign on Franklin. If a big enough company were to locate in the franklin building I could see the city letting them have a sign as an incentive to be here like GE, PWC, Vertex, basically every sign you see in the seaport. There was an article about this topic in the globe.
 
i'm familiar with boston's reluctance when it comes to signage on buildings (generally a sound policy, imho) -- i guess i meant more: is 225 franklin "grandfathered" in, rather than the company? b/c i think that's the deal with, say, the prudential tower. i mean, prudential isn't and hasn't been the primary tenant of that tower for a long time. i'm pretty sure that the building, itself, has the allowance for that particular signage. if the same exception-to-the-rule applies to 225 franklin, i think it'd be great to add something back to an otherwise dull as dirt highrise. that said, lighting the crown would be equally effective (at least as night).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top