Four Seasons Tower @ CSC | 1 Dalton Street | Back Bay

Apparently One Dalton's "facade maintenance gondola" will have platform ends that can contort themselves to the curves at the corners of the building.

The roof car
On the roof of One Dalton, a fixed roof car with a telescopic jib will be installed on roof level. The maximum outreach of the boom is over 103 feet (31,5 meters), which enables access to the complete facade with only one machine.

To be able to hide the machine from sight when in parking position, a telescopic base is used. When the machine is deployed, the base extends, lifting the BMU to its working position.

This BMU is compliant with standards ASME 120.1 (2008) and OSHA 1910.66 (1996).

A unique gondola for full access
What makes the XSPlatforms solution so unique, is its custom engineered gondola: to access the curved corners of the building, the gondola can fold its ends to match their radius.

When reaching the straight parts of the facade, the ends can slowly be folded back out again. On the front of the gondola, an extendable platform can be deployed to enable workers to reach coves that are made in the facade.
Click to expand...

XSP-One-Dalton.jpg

.

Full press release (Feb 10, 2017): here
 
bigpicture7 said:
Apparently One Dalton's "facade maintenance gondola" will have platform ends that can contort themselves to the curves at the corners of the building.



XSP-One-Dalton.jpg

.

Full press release (Feb 10, 2017): here
Click to expand...

Wow. From that picture, it looks more like a tent. I thought it was just a rounded triangle.
 
Pretty crazy to think this thing is out of the ground. Its happening. In Boston pretty much anything can be shelved at any time but this thing is full steam ahead. Im disappointed in how developers always show helicopter render shots of their buildings so once it starts going up I look forward to real shots from real people that will be the angles we see. Very interested to see how nice this plays with the high spine being so close to the pru and off centerline.
 
really stoked to see this thing finally start going vertical for real in the coming months. unless they seriously botch the execution or the renders are radically different from "real life" i think this'll be such a massive plus for boston. one thing that i've found interesting lately is that while most more-recent reports have (finally) abandoned the original "699-foot" height estimation, they're still not quite at the 755' that many here (and elsewhere) started reporting as a final height last year. i've seen 740', 744', and the press release here even has it as 742'. im not a height fetishist and the difference between 755' and 742' (or any of those) is pretty minimal, but i do think it'd be cool if it was a tiny bit taller than the pru (minus the antenna).
 
chrisbrat said:
really stoked to see this thing finally start going vertical for real in the coming months. unless they seriously botch the execution or the renders are radically different from "real life" i think this'll be such a massive plus for boston. one thing that i've found interesting lately is that while most more-recent reports have (finally) abandoned the original "699-foot" height estimation, they're still not quite at the 755' that many here (and elsewhere) started reporting as a final height last year. i've seen 740', 744', and the press release here even has it as 742'. im not a height fetishist and the difference between 755' and 742' (or any of those) is pretty minimal, but i do think it'd be cool if it was a tiny bit taller than the pru (minus the antenna).
Click to expand...

It appears we are looking at 756'
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=206595301&row=14

856' with antenna
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=206595303&row=9

1' shorter than Hancock antenna at 857'
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=135017056&row=8

Pru antenna is 908'
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=443700&row=5

Pru itself is either 749' or 750', so this should be 6-7' taller.
 
I wanna see a render of that antenna. That thing can make or break this tower. Its so clean right now I hope it doesnt detract from it in any big way. Im kind of in the opposite boat I wouldnt mind it being a little shorter to give a sloping away effect from the high spine....buuuut the pike parcels seem like they are going to have that covered so whatever build it and well see how it looks.
 
stick n move said:
I wanna see a render of that antenna. That thing can make or break this tower. Its so clean right now I hope it doesnt detract from it in any big way. Im kind of in the opposite boat I wouldnt mind it being a little shorter to give a sloping away effect from the high spine....buuuut the pike parcels seem like they are going to have that covered so whatever build it and well see how it looks.
Click to expand...

I'm hoping the overall effect of this building is basically Boston's version of the Westin Hotel in Atlanta. However it turns out, this tower will usher in the next evolution of Boston's skyline. I think the real life impact will be better than the renders.
 
Me too the design is unique, the glass looks good, and the aspect ratio is near perfect. I just really hope that antenna isnt a distraction 100' is sort of substantial but not too crazy.
 
JeffDowntown said:
Official total height is the height of the highest occupied floor.....
Click to expand...

Official total height includes crowns and spires. For instance, if the antenna were deemed non-functional and purely for decoration it would count as part of the official height. (how stupid is that?)
 
odurandina said:
9 cities will have supertalls by 2020.....

New York
Chicago
Los Angeles
Miami
San Francisco
Seattle
Houston
Philadelphia
Atlanta
Dallas

very close to supertall height already;
Dallas
Oky City
Cleveland

Only cities lacking +800' height are Boston, Detroit and Washington.
Click to expand...

dshoost88 said:
A- don't forget Las Vegas (Stratosphere Hotel is 1,149 feet).
B- I maintain that the Lord & Taylor site in Back Bay is the right site for a supertall.
Click to expand...

If Sheraton North Tower came down and factor in the low section of the complex, you have a nice supertall parcel.... and add shade over the Common.

Just about every building in Back Bay built over 400' will add new shade over the Common.

That Chinatown/Leather Dist site we were buzzing over last week can go maybe 420' before it makes new shade over the Common.

Your mother will make shade over the Common.

Even she's too tall.
 
Last edited:
odurandina said:
If Sheraton North Tower came down and factor in the low section of the complex, you have a nice supertall parcel.... and add shade over the Common.

Just about every building in Back Bay built over 400' will add new shade over the Common.

That Chinatown/Leather Dist site we were buzzing over last week can go maybe 420' before it makes new shade over the Common.

Your mother will make shade over the Common.

Even she's too tall.
Click to expand...

Washington has building height restrictions, so DC doesn't count.

So that leaves just us and.....Detroit. Yikes.

Even Oklahoma City has a building that towers over anything here.
 
Just to get it out there, I hate NIMBY's and think they should all be crushed or get a life.

However, having said that I really don't give a rat's ass about competing with Oklahoma City for who has the biggest tower. In Boston, we should build up to FAA limits because the demand is there and space is limited. However, we're never going to have the skyline of NYC or Chicago so that's a needless comparison. Philly is a dump, Atlanta is boring, Houston is boring (never been to Dallas) and when I'm in Miami I can assure you I'm not looking at the buildings. In fact, I didn't even know they had buildings in Miami. ;)
 
JeffDowntown said:
Are we getting into the circular discussion of total height -- again? Official total height is the height of the highest occupied floor. Real total height is higher, depending on the mechanical penthouse....
Click to expand...

Zoning height is measured to the top of the highest occupiable floor. The zoning height of this project is 699 feet. If the Four Seasons site is indicating a height of 742 feet, that is likely the official height including mechanical penthouse, notwithstanding the FAA notice which cites a structural height of 756 feet. Could the extra height in the FAA notice be for the arms of the maintenance/window washing gondola when it is deployed, or perhaps a structural base for the antenna which itself is covered by a separate FAA notice?
 
Rover said:
Just to get it out there, I hate NIMBY's and think they should all be crushed or get a life.

In Boston, we should build up to FAA limits because the demand is there and space is limited...
Click to expand...

This is what a number of us have been saying.

There is a disconnect between obstructionists and reality. People who don't want the Pike covered (and the 615' tower that comes with it) have every right to feel that way. They're going to take a very small personal hit, that they CHOOSE to blow way out of proportion.

But you don't have a right to stop positive change. If a 0.3% change to the sky above a nearby section of the High Spine doesn't suit you, and you're feeling anxiety to the point of losing your mind, then perhaps, this level of urban intensity isn't for you. You can have an attitude adjustment and take solace in the increased tax revenue that will bring infrastructure improvements and greater opportunities for those in economic dispair – or just relocate 10 or 20 blocks away from a transforming (at a snail's pace) world that you no longer can accept.

A move to the South End or Kenmore Square is a minor inconvenience in exchange for the inordinate harm you're imparting on your City. You can still vote to have the incumbant Mayor thrown out for a more nimby friendly commander.

Marty should start a program where the developer pays for your moving truck.
 
dirtywater said:
Zoning height is measured to the top of the highest occupiable floor. The zoning height of this project is 699 feet. If the Four Seasons site is indicating a height of 742 feet, that is likely the official height including mechanical penthouse, notwithstanding the FAA notice which cites a structural height of 756 feet. Could the extra height in the FAA notice be for the arms of the maintenance/window washing gondola when it is deployed, or perhaps a structural base for the antenna which itself is covered by a separate FAA notice?
Click to expand...

That would make sense. Some feature is pushing the FAA height higher.
 
^^re; The window washing boom, like i posted months ago with all those links saying it was going 740'.

Change title
Four Seasons Tower – 742' | 1 Dalton Street | Back Bay
 
^^^I have 2 issues with this. First off, is the FAA really going to measure 3 different "points" all to the top of the window washing boom?

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=206595300&row=15

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=206595301&row=14

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=206595302&row=16

Second, I spoke with a worker on site who explicitly told me that this would be taller than the Pru. I think we need more information before we can know for sure the actual height that this is going to end up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top