Avalon North Station | Nashua Street Residences | West End

Good question, I was wondering the same thing. I can't believe how fast the steel is rising on this.
 
This and One Canal have the most impressive steel work around.
 
still in shock that something's being built at North station so long after the garden came down
 
Seriously, where is the core going on this?

Edit: Looking at floor plans, it looks like the elevator core doesn't start until the 3rd floor? I think the right side of the building in these floor plans is the side abutting the Garden.

OoA0QRK.jpg

vUemNc4.jpg
 
But those lifts go right down to the lobby. Doesn't even look like much of a core - are those thicker walls running between the units of the building thicker transverse walls?

Could it be that it's just steel beams and transverse walls all the way up?
 
DigitalSciGuy said:
But those lifts go right down to the lobby. Doesn't even look like much of a core - are those thicker walls running between the units of the building thicker transverse walls?

Could it be that it's just steel beams and transverse walls all the way up?
Click to expand...

Correct. I don't believe this will have a concrete core. This will probably be an all-steel building. What's odd though is that the plans seem to be drawn assuming concrete construction (thick shear walls and solid columns), but then again the plans referenced here are only early plans from DD.

It's likely those thick shear walls will be diagonal bracing instead. They accomplish the same task. Similarly, the shafts will all be braced and have 2-hr ratings to achieve code compliance.
 
I thought it was legislated (or at least strongly suggested) that buildings over a certain height were required to have such a core after 9/11- is that not actually the case?

Either way, I'm so accustomed to buildings at this height having a concrete core nowadays that I'm completely unused to not seeing one.
 
Downburst said:
I thought it was legislated (or at least strongly suggested) that buildings over a certain height were required to have such a core after 9/11- is that not actually the case?

Either way, I'm so accustomed to buildings at this height having a concrete core nowadays that I'm completely unused to not seeing one.
Click to expand...

The building codes & NFPA say that shafts must have a 2-hr rating, not necessarily be constructed of concrete. Concrete is naturally fire-resistant and effortlessly provides the necessary rating. You can achieve fire ratings with steel & gyp assemblies like so: http://nationalgypsum.com/products/..\File\istudcavity.pdf

IBC 2012 said:
1022.2 Construction.
Enclosures for interior exit stairways and ramps shall be constructed as fire barriers in accordance with Section 707 or horizontal assemblies constructed in accordance with Section 711, or both. Interior exit stairway and ramp enclosures shall have a fire-resistance rating of not less than 2 hours where connecting four stories or more and not less than 1 hour where connecting less than four stories. The number of stories connected by the interior exit stairways or ramps shall include any basements, but not any mezzanines. Interior exit stairways and ramps shall have a fire-resistance rating not less than the floor assembly penetrated, but need not exceed 2 hours.

Exception: Interior exit stairways and ramps in Group I-3 occupancies in accordance with the provisions of Section 408.3.8.

http://publicecodes.cyberregs.com/icod/ibc/2012/icod_ibc_2012_10_par253.htm
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Downburst said:
I thought it was legislated (or at least strongly suggested) that buildings over a certain height were required to have such a core after 9/11- is that not actually the case?

Either way, I'm so accustomed to buildings at this height having a concrete core nowadays that I'm completely unused to not seeing one.
Click to expand...

Speaking of 9/11, does anyone know if any special design/access/usage elements were considered for this building given that it will nearly touch and tower over the Federal Building?
 
datadyne007 said:
The building codes & NFPA say that shafts must have a 2-hr rating, not necessarily be constructed of concrete. Concrete is naturally fire-resistant and effortlessly provides the necessary rating. You can achieve fire ratings with steel & gyp assemblies like so, but it doesn't provide the same structural stability benefits as concrete: http://nationalgypsum.com/products/..\File\istudcavity.pdf
Click to expand...

Ahhhhh, that makes sense. I wonder how the costs of steel vs. concrete panned out in this case...

Thanks for the info, data!
 
The new tower will look stunning with the height, exterior finishing, and trophy ghetto ancient multifamily residence in such near proximity. I ride past that every day and must give the old structure some props for resiliency! :rolleyes:
 
datadyne007 said:
The building codes & NFPA say that shafts must have a 2-hr rating, not necessarily be constructed of concrete. Concrete is naturally fire-resistant and effortlessly provides the necessary rating. You can achieve fire ratings with steel & gyp assemblies like so, but it doesn't provide the same structural stability benefits as concrete: http://nationalgypsum.com/products/..\File\istudcavity.pdf
Click to expand...

Data -- where did you get that comment about structural stability of concrete versus steel

Fire rating sure

However, the structural stability of a concrete core actually comes from the steel rebar in the concrete -- the concrete itself is lousy in shear and horrible in tension.

That's why pre or post tensioned steel cables are incorporated within concrete beams or slabs to insure that the concrete is always in compression no matter what the load that is applied from above

If you brace the corners of the structure with diagonals of the appropriate dimensions you can get a very stable and very strong steel structure -- the only downside is the steel of the diagonals blocking windows

One_Boston_Place.jpg
John_Hancock_Center_viewed_from_Navy_Pier.jpg
https://flic.kr/p/savkYn
 
When I talk about concrete construction on here, I'm referring to the rebar and the concrete itself as one.

Also, that comment about structural stability was edited in sloppily. I really need to stop doing that because when I try to clarify things, I always catch myself. I was really referring to the fact that it's not weak gyp that you can punch a hole in as you get when you have steel & K or X bracing wrapped in gyp. One of the stories from the World Trade Center is that people trapped in an elevator managed to pry the doors open only to discover what appeared to be a solid wall they assumed to be concrete because they were in an express zone. It was actually a rated gyp wall and when someone desperately just hit it for the heck of it, they went right through it and escaped into a bathroom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top