30 Dalton St. Residences | Back Bay

Huh, I don't think I ever noticed they were calling the 26-story building a 'mid-rise' and the 61-story building a 'high-rise'. Are there legal definitions for these terms in Chapter 80 that I haven't come across?

I'm just so over the Globe and Curbed calling anything taller than 20-stories a 'behemoth', 'towering', 'massive', or any other absurd superlative to fan the NIMBY flames.

I want to be incensed by the bleh facade but at the same time I'm resigned to the fact that most of what we're going to get is going to be infill. I'm okay with letting this go as one of those buildings that just fills the need for more housing.
 
The paneling does look like garbage. At least this one appears to be going up on the faster side.
 
DigitalSciGuy said:
Huh, I don't think I ever noticed they were calling the 26-story building a 'mid-rise' and the 61-story building a 'high-rise'. Are there legal definitions for these terms in Chapter 80 that I haven't come across?

I'm just so over the Globe and Curbed calling anything taller than 20-stories a 'behemoth', 'towering', 'massive', or any other absurd superlative to fan the NIMBY flames.

I want to be incensed by the bleh facade but at the same time I'm resigned to the fact that most of what we're going to get is going to be infill. I'm okay with letting this go as one of those buildings that just fills the need for more housing.
Click to expand...

It is totally subjective and based on the context around it. In this case, since One Dalton is so tall, they use high-rise to describe that one and mid-rise to describe 30 Dalton. If they called it a high-rise, people could interpret it as being similar height to One Dalton, which it is not. I'd say in the Back Bay in general, a mid-rise is 10-30 stories and a high-rise is 30+.

A 26-story tower in Chelsea would be a "high-rise" though and a "mid-rise" would be a 5-10-story, give or take.
 
my favorite part of construction of a high rise, when it pokes its head up!
 
This evening:

NKmOHyK.jpg


jhKzZ6a.jpg


VbhqgII.jpg


IMnpeGb.jpg
 
DigitalSciGuy said:
Huh, I don't think I ever noticed they were calling the 26-story building a 'mid-rise' and the 61-story building a 'high-rise'. Are there legal definitions for these terms in Chapter 80 that I haven't come across?

I'm just so over the Globe and Curbed calling anything taller than 20-stories a 'behemoth', 'towering', 'massive', or any other absurd superlative to fan the NIMBY flames.

I want to be incensed by the bleh facade but at the same time I'm resigned to the fact that most of what we're going to get is going to be infill. I'm okay with letting this go as one of those buildings that just fills the need for more housing.
Click to expand...

DigSci -- I think that the standard terminology is from firefighting

if you can't fight the fire from a truck on the street -- then its a high rise -- so that would suggest for Boston's tallest ladders about 8 or 9 stories
 
whighlander said:
DigSci -- I think that the standard terminology is from firefighting

if you can't fight the fire from a truck on the street -- then its a high rise -- so that would suggest for Boston's tallest ladders about 8 or 9 stories
Click to expand...

More preciously it is from both the IBC (building code) and NFPA (fire code). Anything that's last occupied floor (a floor in which a fire must be fought from the inside) is 75 high.

This is not reletive to what we as pedestrians think is "high". It has everything to do with the fact that after 75 feet the standard fire fighting equipment cannot be used to fight a fire. It is also right about the limit of how high a sprinklered building can be without needing a fire pump to boost the water pressure coming from the street.

All manner of upgrades kick in out 75'. So ... it is why there are lots of 74' buildings, and lots of much taller buildings. The ROI of a 76' building because seriously hampered by the high rise definition.

cca
 
cca said:
More preciously it is from both the IBC (building code) and NFPA (fire code). Anything that's last occupied floor (a floor in which a fire must be fought from the inside) is 75 high.

This is not reletive to what we as pedestrians think is "high". It has everything to do with the fact that after 75 feet the standard fire fighting equipment cannot be used to fight a fire. It is also right about the limit of how high a sprinklered building can be without needing a fire pump to boost the water pressure coming from the street.

All manner of upgrades kick in out 75'. So ... it is why there are lots of 74' buildings, and lots of much taller buildings. The ROI of a 76' building because seriously hampered by the high rise definition.

cca
Click to expand...

CCA -- thanks for setting this one on solid ground!

By the way -- why do the backs of the ladder trucks say keep back a lot more than the length of the ladder?
 
whighlander said:
CCA -- thanks for setting this one on solid ground!

By the way -- why do the backs of the ladder trucks say keep back a lot more than the length of the ladder?
Click to expand...

It's a warning for people driving behind them. You are supposed to maintain at least 300' of clearance when driving behind an emergency vehicle responding to an event:
It is illegal to follow closer than 300 feet behind an emergency vehicle responding to an alarm.

https://www.massrmv.com/rmv/dmanual/chapter_5.pdf
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top