🔹 What's Happening With Project X?

Ok - uninformed question time. What prevents someone that is building a skyscraper from throwing ornamentation on the top of their building? For example, 1 Dalton - why the flat roof? Why not a spire of some kind? Is it particularly cost-prohibitive? Is it more difficult to get the building approved? And what if in the middle of building it they were like "you know what? I think this thing needs a spire!"? Would it just require a project change notification? I mean, that example in particular is a very nice looking building - up close. From a distance - from a skyline persepective - it's rather dull. From a distance you can't see the elegant curved edges or the ridges. It's just going to look like a slender box. So my question is, for this and many other buildings is - why not?
 
ngb_anim8 said:
Ok - uninformed question time. What prevents someone that is building a skyscraper from throwing ornamentation on the top of their building? For example, 1 Dalton - why the flat roof? Why not a spire of some kind?
Click to expand...

My opinion is that the absence of spires on new skyscrapers has more to do with current architectural trends than anything else. A minimalist type of retro fifties look is in now; the spires and gingerbread turrets of the eighties are out.
 
What happens with the Columbus center? Will the parcel ever be rebid?
 
ngb_anim8 said:
Ok - uninformed question time. What prevents someone that is building a skyscraper from throwing ornamentation on the top of their building? For example, 1 Dalton - why the flat roof? Why not a spire of some kind? Is it particularly cost-prohibitive? Is it more difficult to get the building approved? And what if in the middle of building it they were like "you know what? I think this thing needs a spire!"? Would it just require a project change notification? I mean, that example in particular is a very nice looking building - up close. From a distance - from a skyline persepective - it's rather dull. From a distance you can't see the elegant curved edges or the ridges. It's just going to look like a slender box. So my question is, for this and many other buildings is - why not?
Click to expand...

^^I would think that the actual design of the top is mostly dictated by the the status of the buildings' purpose. For example, is it mostly residential (apartments, condos), or is the building primarily commercial/office in nature. If you look at the skyline in most cities, what buildings have the most ornamental crown? The office towers do. Expanding on that, which buildings are have an illuminated crown? Mostly commercial/office ones, which makes sense because high profile office buildings with a lit crown are probably going to attract the highest rents, which helps pay for the illumination. Is commercial more profitable than residential? If One Dalton, Millennium Tower, One Bromfield, etc. included an illuminated crown, who pays the bill at the end of the month to light it all up? Maybe this is an oversimplification of it, but that's my uninformed opinion, and I by no means pretend to be an authority on this. Also, we know that with the advent of LED technology, the lights are cheaper to run, but it's still a cost to install/maintain everything.
 
Maybe cuz with a flat top you get to tell the nimby townsfolk it's a 699' building, when in fact, you're giving the deck of the highest floor. then when you build 12 feet to the ceiling + the 40 foot mechanical floors, because it's got that flat roof - it's a few years before they find out it's actually 755'.... Just like the Globe calling MT 625' when it's going 685'... and 1 Bromfield 683' when it's roof is 735'.

Put a pointy roof on there and now the residents want to know the height of the tip.
 
odurandina said:
Maybe cuz with a flat top you get to tell the nimby townsfolk it's a 699' building, when in fact, you're giving the deck of the highest floor. then when you build 12 feet to the ceiling + the 40 foot mechanical floors, because it's got that flat roof - it's a few years before they find out it's actually 755'.... Just like the Globe calling MT 625' when it's going 685'... and 1 Bromfield 683' when it's roof is 735'.

Put a pointy roof on there and now the residents want to know the height of the tip.
Click to expand...

That's as good an explanation as any. And in Boston, probably very likely. It's unfortunate that developers in Boston are forced to think that way instead of thinking about ways to maximize the design of their structures.
 
But Millennium Tower quite clearly had a slanted top and it was shown in all the rendering and I don't remember NIMBYs worrying too much about what the actual roof height was.
 
Anyone know what's going on with Lafayette City Center? They blew out the walls in the former Eddie Bauer outlet recently and I've seen some basic work being done.
 
FWIW....from the highway this morning, it appeared that they were setting up a walking crane on the site of 345 Harrison. Haven't seen much news on this lately, so I thought that was interesting.
 
That could be the case with the spires. In my opinion though I think it comes down to two things. 1. Boston has no spires and I think developers think they will get by more easily if they try to blend in to the fabric rather than go against the grain. 2. I think the most important reason is that we have very short FAA height limits here so when you can only really build a 500'-685' tower you do not have enough room. A spire can be a few hundred feet and that is money taken directly out of the developers pockets. Say you wanted a spire at Millennium, the tower would have been like 550' with a 100' spire plus mechanicals. Thats a net loss of around 100 feet of rentable space. I think you see spires more in NYC because their height limit is like 2000' so you can build as tall as you need to get a large return on your investment and then you still have like 1000' to work with to fit in a spire how ever tall you choose. Thats my take at least.
 
Stick -- we already have the "Mother of All Spires" in the guise of the antenna atop the Pru -- the guy who climbs up to change the aircraft warning light is standing 900 feet above Boylston St.
 
Yea that was not an original part of the design, is within the FAA height limit, and is not a spire but an antenna. A spire is included in the original design and is also included in the total height of the project(see 1wtc height controversy). Regardless it still falls into the FAA height limit of the area. Downtown you have like 2 parcels left that can go to a maximum height of like 730' give or take. So that means if you want a spire like I said above it will take away from a lot of rentable space. I want spires though trust me I'm just saying the height limits kind of screw developers vs NYC where you have 2,000 feet to work with where you can make your money and still have the height allowable left to throw on a spire if you so choose.
 
Understood. I was under the impression that a spire would not count against the FAA height. Sort of how we all think a building is a certain height based on what the BRA says and then it turns out 50' taller due to the additional MP. I thought a spire was calculated similarly.
 
Nope spires and MP are included in FAA height approval because they interfere with aircraft and radio signals just as much as inhabited parts of a building.
 
What's planned (if anything) to go between Northern Ave and Seaport Blvd in the South Boston Waterfront?
 
bigeman312 said:
What's planned (if anything) to go between Northern Ave and Seaport Blvd in the South Boston Waterfront?
Click to expand...

GtRqqdZ.jpg


Edit: The boundary between the eastern edge of Seaport Memorial Park and the TBD lot should be farther to the east
 
Theres nothing set in stone but there are placeholders so far.

Seaport-Square-B1-651x516.jpg


Bottom Right- I would imagine the end result looks very close to this.
01.seaport-square.jpg


Far left
1SS_A.jpg


This is whats been tossed around for the southernmost parcel but I don't think it will end up looking like this.

2vtcc2d.png
 
Thanks guys. I haven't been down there for a bit and I always forget where One Seaport Square is. I mean, the address isn't exactly descriptive. Haha. Should have remembered:

A 1.1 M SF mixed-use project
Largest mixed-use project underway in Boston
832 residential units
250,000 SF of retail
775 parking spaces
Will qualify for LEED Silver Certification
Click to expand...

I guess, after that, Parcel D, F, G, H, J, some of the Ls, the Ms, N, P, Q (except the park is there now) are still to be developed? Is that right? I find it hard to keep up with what is being developed in the Seaport.

EDIT: I see now that D, F, G, H, L3-L6, N, P, and Q were purchased by WS Development in the fall and are still to-be-developed. And that J is the under construction Yotel Hotel. And the Ms have yet to break ground I think. I think I got it now.

Wow, there is a lot going on.
 
A: Envoy Hotel, Complete
B: One Seaport Square, Under Construction
C: One Seaport Square, Under Construction
D: Old Our Lady of Good Voyage Chapel, TBD
F: District Hall, Complete, & Seaport Memorial Park, Under Construction
G: TBD
H: New Our Lady of Good Voyage, Under Construction, & Boston Global Investors Office Building, Under Construction
J: Yotel Hotel, Under Construction
K: Watermark Seaport, Complete
L1: 101 Seaport Blvd, PWC Building, Complete
L2: 121 Seaport Blvd, Skanska spec office, Under Construction
L3-L6: TBD
M1-M2: Cottonwood Development mixed use, Proposed
N: TBD
P: TBD
Q: Q park, Complete
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top