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

mdd said:
Actual curved glass? Fancy.
Click to expand...

How noticeable is actual curved glass compared to angular polygons that define a similar shape? I have to believe that the curve is incredibly expensive.
 
Curved glass really sets a building apart. I have been ogling 50 West Street, here in NYC because the of the curved glass:

1453301410507
 
i'm still super excited for 1 dalton, but just doing minimal research on that one ^^^ (50 west street) it's hard not to get jealous. hopefully 1 dalton manages (although none of the renders, including those at night, suggest this) to have a nifty, lit crown like 50 west st. will. it looks like the little four seasons "tree logo" will be lit and that's nice, but *very* subtle. but, hey - maybe that'll work in a really cool way.
 
mdd said:
Actual curved glass? Fancy.
Click to expand...

That was my first thought as well. Thank goodness they didn't cheap out on that or this thing would look like some angular '80s reject.
 
chrisbrat said:
i'm still super excited for 1 dalton, but just doing minimal research on that one ^^^ (50 west street) it's hard not to get jealous.
Click to expand...

I dunno, I think the triangular shale of 1 Dalton is going to give the edge.
 
50 West has an even worse version of MT's open top. Not nearly as bad as that new one by the Metlife Clock Tower though. I think the non-slanty top will work better given this new penchant for leaving them open! I also think 1 Dalton has the better shape and is going to be the better building than any of the above.
 
bakgwailo said:
Interesting that the Globe has it as 742' and the third tallest.
Click to expand...

I keep seeing this too I wonder what thats all about, that number hadn't been used at all until recently at least as far as I had ever seen.

Im still extremely interested to see what this antenna is going to look like. I believe its only 100 feet so it may just look the hancock where you dont even really notice its there. We shall see. The weird thing is that it is pre-planned from the start which fits into the spire definition that had to be resolved in regards to 1WTC. So technically they could pass this off as the pinnacle height but it doesn't look like they plan on doing that. I don't think it really has much significance vs 1WTC that was planned to be 1776 ft.

This glass looks incredible btw.
 
I know the podium design is a bit controversial, but putting that aside for a moment:
The overall slender proportions of the tower portion, coupled with the subtle radii of the triangular cross section's sides, coupled with the high-quality curved glass and tinting, will make this a phenomenal looking addition to our skyline.

I walk or bike the mass ave. bridge daily and the big milestone for me will be when it finally pokes up above 30 Dalton and the Sheraton and Hilton. That plateau of hotels/residences west of the Pru is just so horrendous to look at. I can't wait until it is punctuated by this.
 
stick n move said:
Im still extremely interested to see what this antenna is going to look like. I believe its only 100 feet so it may just look the hancock where you dont even really notice its there.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, the antenna will actually clock in 1' shorter than the Hancock's antenna. (856' here vs 857' Hancock)

I'm comfortable sticking with the 756' height, mainly due to the 3 FAA points (755', 755', 756'), the FAA height point of the antenna (856' with claims of being a 100' antenna), and a construction worker on site who claimed this would, indeed, be taller than the Pru. I guess we'll have to wait until it's done. Even then, the Pru sits on slightly higher ground so it could be tough to tell.
 
type001 said:
I dunno, I think the triangular shale of 1 Dalton is going to give the edge.
Click to expand...

Indeed, here's a case where we'll be getting a very sizable tower that WON'T have a single fat side. Maybe looking head on at a triangular point where you can see two sides it'll look a touch wide, but it certainly won't have that "it's almost as wide as it is tall!" angle that so many other Boston towers end up having.
 
kz1000ps said:
...Maybe looking head on at a triangular point where you can see two sides it'll look a touch wide.....
Click to expand...

I actually think it looks its thinnest from the corners. Since it has 60 degree angles instead of the typical 90, it doesn't splay out as far as a more standard shaped building.
 
DZH22 said:
I actually think it looks its thinnest from the corners. Since it has 60 degree angles instead of the typical 90, it doesn't splay out as far as a more standard shaped building.
Click to expand...

It must be some sort of optical illusion then, because looking at directly at the corner would produce the widest possible view of an equilateral triangle (the entire side).

The thinnest possible viewing angle would be looking perpendicular to the bisection of one of the corners (ie, at at 30 degree angle to one of the faces). From that angle you would see the height of the triangle, which is sqrt(3)/2 or 86.6% of one of the faces.

/math nerd
 
^ haha we were thinking similarly...

to emphasize, though:
Looking directly at a corner, or looking directly perpendicular to a face would produce the exact same visual width. (e.g., the full face width).

As you say, it would be looking at 30-deg to one of the faces that would produce the "slim" view.

EDIT:
I do think there will probably be a visual effect at play, though. If you're looking directly at a corner, then the corner crease may look like a vertical rib of sorts, thus breaking up the vastness of the plane. It may look less monolithic from that view, even though the visual width is the same.
 
FenwayResident said:
It must be some sort of optical illusion then, because looking at directly at the corner would produce the widest possible view of an equilateral triangle (the entire side).

The thinnest possible viewing angle would be looking perpendicular to the bisection of one of the corners (ie, at at 30 degree angle to one of the faces). From that angle you would see the height of the triangle, which is sqrt(3)/2 or 86.6% of one of the faces.

/math nerd
Click to expand...

Did you take into account that this "triangle" is actually somewhat rounded, with rounded corners and bubbling out a bit on the sides? Thus you don't get the full view of either side when directly facing a corner because they round back inwards at their other 2 corners.
 
DZH22 said:
Did you take into account that this "triangle" is actually somewhat rounded, with rounded corners and bubbling out a bit on the sides? Thus you don't get the full view of either side when directly facing a corner because they round back inwards at their other 2 corners.
Click to expand...

The rounding/bubbling would increase the apparent width from all angles, however it would have a bigger increase on the 30-degree viewing angle than from the corner. So the difference between the 30-degree angle and the corner is less apparent on a rounded triangle (ie this building).

Put another way, when looking at this building from a 30 degree angle its apparent width will be somewhere between 86.6% - 100% of the corner width.

Given enough rounding, it would become a circle and there would be no difference from any angle.
 
BeeLine said:
https://flic.kr/p/WLYAW9
Click to expand...

Check out the bottom of the crane. Are we witnessing the next jump?


FenwayResident said:
The rounding/bubbling would increase the apparent width from all angles.....
Click to expand...

You're probably right. It's been a long time since I thought too hard about geometry. However, the bubble effect means you won't see the full length of either side. Think about driving up a steep hill, which gets less steep near the top but keeps going up. When you're actually on the hill, the upper part isn't visible until you hit the point where it becomes less steep. The bubble gives the same effect, in that not as many windows will be visible on either side as they would with the straight line.

Unless you're viewing the silhouette only, this looks extremely narrow viewed from the corners because the corner visually breaks up the wall. I was literally staring at it yesterday thinking about how narrow it looked! From a flat side, it appears about the same width as the Pru.
 
DZH22 said:
Did you take into account that this "triangle" is actually somewhat rounded, with rounded corners and bubbling out a bit on the sides? Thus you don't get the full view of either side when directly facing a corner because they round back inwards at their other 2 corners.
Click to expand...

Rounded or not; there can't be much of a difference between any so-called thin vs wide angle of view. Something tells me, in fact; it's Zero. i don't think that changes if the triangle is rounded.

Where's Whiggy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top