No I was just saying that he also told me it would "shoot up" and it didn't seem to be doing so at that moment. I think it was during the frustrating truss belt period. It's basically the logic of if somebody tells me 1 thing that appears to be incorrect, it becomes harder to trust the rest of what they had to say. Although the building did eventually "shoot up" once that agonizingly slow truss belt was completed. I spoke with the guy over 3 years ago at this point, when the tower was still working on its foundations. Basically I said I heard this would rival the Pru and he said it would be taller. The guy seemed very knowledgeable, more like a foreman than a typical worker although I never actually asked what his job title was.
I do continue to question the 3 FAA points of 755', 755', and 756'. I wonder if people just don't realize what actually "counts" and what doesn't in the official height of buildings. The mechanical top counts, but Boston has historically left that out when reporting heights, with some recent high profile examples being Atlantic Wharf reported at 395' but really 436' (or 449', who bleeping knows) and Liberty Mutual reported at 295' but really 335'. The city seems to be notorious for hiding true heights. Maybe the pour is less than the Pru but the screen is really the 756'. I honestly don't know.
I'll be happy as long as it essentially looks like the exact same height as the Pru, only with this being its thinner, newer, triangular "twin" on the skyline. However, it frustrates me to no end that we need to dig so much for the true heights. The BPDA is not doing us any favors by leaving the old PNF on the site, which was obviously before the final revisions and does not match what we are getting.
