Copley Place Expansion and Tower | Back Bay

Status
Not open for further replies.
stick n move said:
Made another one because I just like seeing what we are in for in the near future.

Click to expand...

I really love the height on this building. It's filling a nice sweet spot that few buildings in the Back Bay spine stand in. You have the Pru and 200 Clarendon/Hancock, but then there's this awkward gulf with barely any buildings between 228m/749ft and 150m/492ft.

At 182m/596ft, this bridges that height gulf very nicely. If/when Parcel 14-15 gets finalised, I hope it breaks that 150m/492ft height barrier that a lot of the buildings at the foot of the Pru seem to be clustered under.
 
I am not sure if anyone has seen this yet but I finally found the FAA height approval for the Copley Place Tower in 2015 and the height to the peak of the buildings mechanical screen or crown is 640' not 625'! Link: FAA Height Approval Document
 
^
peanut-butter-jelly-time-57.gif
 
citylover94 said:
I am not sure if anyone has seen this yet but I finally found the FAA height approval for the Copley Place Tower in 2015 and the height to the peak of the buildings mechanical screen or crown is 640' not 625'! Link: FAA Height Approval Document
Click to expand...

yes. why i had it listed as 640' up on my 'scoreboard' at Skyscraper City the last couple months.... btw, not sure if you saw where the guys posted 547' for the rooftop height of the 1 Congress residential tower. see page 62; http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/getattachment/f993e1a3-1211-4c4b-9aa6-b95b6617c466

Now if someone can get conformation of the Cylindrical tower tip at ~647' if the scale shown here on page 60/61 is true!.... http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/getattachment/cd01e527-ddc9-498a-909d-2c61c746960e

thoughts?
 
Last edited:
lapradetom said:
^Off thread, but interesting anyway: 1.The Pru looks dated now, but upon it's completion in 1964 it was the tallest building in the world--outside of NYC! (Must've been quite the source of Pride for that generation of Bostonians)
2. The 749' tall Pru is dated, but is still the tallest structure in Boston by far when the antenna mast is included. (907' tall).......per Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Lapadetom --Exactly __ Iconic -- even in NYC circa 1960 there were only about 4 buildings that were taller led of course by the Mighty King Kong [er Empire State]
 
I read the pdf and the only argument in there for the gc towers that makes no sense is their argument that the garage is only ever half full so demolishing half will have no impact on parking. This makes no sense because now multiple residential towers and an office tower will be abutting the garage that were not there before which will utilize those spaces. I'd guess at least half so now seeing it was half full before, half will be removed, meaning 100% of the spaces used by the public are what is left and then at least half of what is left will be used by the new towers that leaves the public with a maximum of 50% less parking than before.
 
odurandina said:
yes. why i had it listed as 640' up on my 'scoreboard' at Skyscraper City the last couple months.... btw, not sure if you saw where the guys posted 547' for the rooftop height of the 1 Congress residential tower. see page 62; http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/getattachment/f993e1a3-1211-4c4b-9aa6-b95b6617c466

Now if someone can get conformation of the Cylindrical tower tip at ~647' if the scale shown here on page 60/61 is true!.... http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/getattachment/cd01e527-ddc9-498a-909d-2c61c746960e

thoughts?
Click to expand...

The image seems to show about 8 floors above the residential tower and assuming a floor to floor height of 12 feet would mean the office tower is an additional 96 feet taller. That would mean a total height of 643 feet or about 196 m.
 
We've got all these cool towers going up all over the place right now but I'm very happy this one is happening. This is the one I've wanted for years now.
 
citylover94 said:
I am not sure if anyone has seen this yet but I finally found the FAA height approval for the Copley Place Tower in 2015 and the height to the peak of the buildings mechanical screen or crown is 640' not 625'! Link: FAA Height Approval Document
Click to expand...

This height includes a "12 foot Building Maintenance Unit which will operate periodically." So I'd be comfortable calling the building 628'.
 
Thanks I missed that. You are right it doesn't make sense to call it anything more than that. Sorry.
 
Sorry I didn't snap a pic, but visible signs of construction on the south corridor side of the building.... looks like they are dismantling glass at the very least and maybe structure
 
Too bad they can't reclad the whole complex while they're working on the new building.
 
RandomWalk said:
Too bad they can't reclad the whole complex while they're working on the new building.
Click to expand...

I would not be surprised if the current project was not followed by a complete recladding.

I recall when Copley Place was built in the early 80's the "design life" of the cladding was 30 years. (I was surprised it was so short!)
 
JeffDowntown said:
I would not be surprised if the current project was not followed by a complete recladding.

I recall when Copley Place was built in the early 80's the "design life" of the cladding was 30 years. (I was surprised it was so short!)
Click to expand...

Maybe the sealant life is 30 years ... but I am sorry to say that a precast concrete panel lifespan is looooonngg. Wicked long.

cca
 
Every city has horrible post modern garbage.

I think the Pru is our Pan Am building. An icon. But them damn Pru apartments and Sheraton, shape, height, a/r, cladding are awful.

Coply Place looks ok. But the glass of CT would seem to clash somewhat.

When 40 Trinity and 380 Stuart St go up the JHT area will look amazing.
 
Talked to a guy who is in the know about the construction currently taking place to rework the "Back Bay Station entrance". He said 18 months, and only then would they close the Stuart St. entrance. I think it's safe to assume that during those 18 months, extensive reworkings of below grade mechanicals/stucturals will be done, but at the same time, his estimation puts completion of this tower at late 2020 at the earliest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top