101 Seaport Blvd (PwC) | Parcel L1@Seaport Sq. | Seaport

Re: 101 Seaport Blvd (PwC)/parcel L1@Seaport Sq./Seaport

choo said:
Given the talk about scarcity of hotel rooms around the convention center and area in general, I am surprised they aren't building anything directly above the floorplate. Is it just too hard to support a vertical structure when you need the wide, flexible space of a convention hall? Seems a bit like a lost opportunity to park hundreds of hotel spots right on site.
Click to expand...

I remember reading Southie neighbors were opposed to any sort of height on the W 1st end of the convention center. That's why it slopes upward toward Summer St.
 
Re: 101 Seaport Blvd (PwC)/parcel L1@Seaport Sq./Seaport

choo said:
Given the talk about scarcity of hotel rooms around the convention center and area in general, I am surprised they aren't building anything directly above the floorplate. Is it just too hard to support a vertical structure when you need the wide, flexible space of a convention hall? Seems a bit like a lost opportunity to park hundreds of hotel spots right on site.
Click to expand...

The pancake of the BCEC is a waste of space that I will never come to terms with...
 
Re: 101 Seaport Blvd (PwC)/parcel L1@Seaport Sq./Seaport

Could they, at least, cover the expansive roof with solar panels (or better yet, lease the space to a solar company to gain revenue)? That would have some redeeming quality rather than a complete waste...
 
Re: 101 Seaport Blvd (PwC)/parcel L1@Seaport Sq./Seaport

Reznor said:
Could they, at least, cover the expansive roof with solar panels (or better yet, lease the space to a solar company to gain revenue)? That would have some redeeming quality rather than a complete waste...
Click to expand...

I can't imagine why they have not done that yet......except for the fact that the MCCA is populated by 1950's mentality, flatfooted hacks.
 
Re: 101 Seaport Blvd (PwC)/parcel L1@Seaport Sq./Seaport

Reznor said:
Could they, at least, cover the expansive roof with solar panels (or better yet, lease the space to a solar company to gain revenue)? That would have some redeeming quality rather than a complete waste...
Click to expand...

The folks inside on rainy or snowy days might disagree with the roof being a complete waste.

See the below link for the Solar roof discussion.

http://www.archboston.org/community/showthread.php?p=151136#post151136
 
Re: 101 Seaport Blvd (PwC)/parcel L1@Seaport Sq./Seaport

Im liking this building/ the new bcec expansion, only thing I think thats hideous is whatever that thing is blocking waterside place, that looks pretty rough.
 
Re: 101 Seaport Blvd (PwC)/parcel L1@Seaport Sq./Seaport

SeamusMcFly said:
The folks inside on rainy or snowy days might disagree with the roof being a complete waste.

See the below link for the Solar roof discussion.

http://www.archboston.org/community/showthread.php?p=151136#post151136
Click to expand...

Your pdf is no longer available on the internets.

The other link, the magazine story was 4 years old. Solar panels have become far more efficient and cheap in the past 4 years:

http://costofsolar.com/solar-panel-prices-down-due-to-solar-panel-technological-advancements/

Breaking efficiency records every year and the costs per watt keep falling. Right in Cambridge there are billions of dollars going into nanotechnology which will fuel advances in this (among other fields) for years.

Gretzky; 'The other slobs skate to the puck, they don't know enough to skate to where the puck will be.'
 
Re: 101 Seaport Blvd (PwC)/parcel L1@Seaport Sq./Seaport

shmessy said:
Your pdf is no longer available on the internets.

The other link, the magazine story was 4 years old. Solar panels have become far more efficient and cheap in the past 4 years:

http://costofsolar.com/solar-panel-prices-down-due-to-solar-panel-technological-advancements/

Breaking efficiency records every year and the costs per watt keep falling. Right in Cambridge there are billions of dollars going into nanotechnology which will fuel advances in this (among other fields) for years.

Gretzky; 'The other slobs skate to the puck, they don't know enough to skate to where the puck will be.'
Click to expand...

Yeah, I meant to just link the discussion. But, no commercially available PV panels have not improved markedly in that span. The efficiency on available products (standard) may have increased by a percentage point or two. (Maybe the LA concenvtion center could get 11% of its power instead of 10% if they replaced them all, sounds worth it). Custom units, or integral type panels (say as part of the roof skin or solar glass) are going to be infinitely more expensive and less efficient.

I agree the technology is getting better, but the cost to produce commercial products with these higher efficiencies is not in any deck of cards available today. What's produced in the lab today, we'll be lucky to buy in a decade.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pdfs/47927_chapter4.pdf

See page 83 for a good breakdown of theoretical vs. lab results vs. actual production model efficiencies.

The link is two years old now, but shows, not much has changed since I wrote a thesis including PV's. The effiency of commercial products in 2007 was roughly 14%. Everything I can find on the "most popular" commercially available products list efficiencies from 12 - 17%. Meaning, not much has changed. The price has steadily dropped however, so that's a step in the right direction.

http://sroeco.com/solar/most-efficient-solar-panels
 
Re: 101 Seaport Blvd (PwC)/parcel L1@Seaport Sq./Seaport

SeamusMcFly said:
The link is two years old now, but shows, not much has changed since I wrote a thesis including PV's. The effiency of commercial products in 2007 was roughly 14%. Everything I can find on the "most popular" commercially available products list efficiencies from 12 - 17%. Meaning, not much has changed. The price has steadily dropped however, so that's a step in the right direction.
Click to expand...

Not to get too off-topic here, but price per watt is all that matters here. Efficiency can stay constant forever, but as long as price drops (and it has, dramatically) solar will become more and more practical. There's a reason that installed solar capacity is growing exponentially. These numbers (which come for a trade association, I concede) speak for themselves: http://www.seia.org/news/new-report-us-solar-market-grows-41-has-record-year-2013. And growth has continued to accelerate so far in 2014...
 
Re: 101 Seaport Blvd (PwC)/parcel L1@Seaport Sq./Seaport

JumboBuc said:
Not to get too off-topic here, but price per watt is all that matters here. Efficiency can stay constant forever, but as long as price drops (and it has, dramatically) solar will become more and more practical. There's a reason that installed solar capacity is growing exponentially. These numbers (which come for a trade association, I concede) speak for themselves: http://www.seia.org/news/new-report-us-solar-market-grows-41-has-record-year-2013. And growth has continued to accelerate so far in 2014...
Click to expand...

Tru-ish. Efficiency is tied to spacial requirements. We do not have limitless places to put these things. To get anything out of them besides a pat on the back, or a grant (yes important), you need to put in a lot of them. OK, done with my part of the derailment.
 
Re: 101 Seaport Blvd (PwC)/parcel L1@Seaport Sq./Seaport

I think the original plan for the BCEC was to cover the roof with solar panels, but it was dropped for cost-cutting reasons. However, it might just have been a bit of greenwashing for a potential white elephant.
 
Re: 101 Seaport Blvd (PwC)/parcel L1@Seaport Sq./Seaport

A few from this weekend.

Almost to the top of the podium:


This one really is in the departure path from Logan:
 
Re: 101 Seaport Blvd (PwC)/parcel L1@Seaport Sq./Seaport

14247186917_fbf69d6456_b.jpg


14430270541_f62b51fb59_b.jpg


14247010770_5d5d8261fe_b.jpg
 
Re: 101 Seaport Blvd (PwC)/parcel L1@Seaport Sq./Seaport

RandomWalk said:
I think the original plan for the BCEC was to cover the roof with solar panels, but it was dropped for cost-cutting reasons. However, it might just have been a bit of greenwashing for a potential white elephant.
Click to expand...
IIRC, the original plan called for a stainless steel roof. This of course got VE'd out as prices spiraled out of control.
 
Re: 101 Seaport Blvd (PwC)/parcel L1@Seaport Sq./Seaport

14353937788_bca7632399_b.jpg


14539552012_22635b5509_b.jpg


14353910798_2c0c7218de_b.jpg


14517330966_678de6a00b_b.jpg


14353976397_67bf91afc0_b.jpg


14539458372_661598c197_b.jpg


14353758840_49c01b73a7_b.jpg


14537006281_dc0335f3ab_b.jpg


14517264826_f58dc24082_b.jpg


14539372752_10eb6a4e3f_b.jpg


14353869447_9d057c398a_b.jpg
 
Re: 101 Seaport Blvd (PwC)/parcel L1@Seaport Sq./Seaport

Wow lotta great pics of that one. Thanks kz!
 
Re: 101 Seaport Blvd (PwC)/parcel L1@Seaport Sq./Seaport

From this weekend:
IuRgTAu.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top