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

kz1000ps said:
42846731875_21a2f50bf2_b.jpg


42846731315_0c0130c0e0_b.jpg


42846729915_1ce76f989f_b.jpg
Click to expand...

Stuck in this f n traffic too 😐
 
"65 levels" minus the Feng Shui. Let's see, what is that? 61 or 62 levels?

What are they up to now?

Report sounds like mid-October for the curtain wall/insanely hot photo shoots.

So lots of nice pics should be possible before Bostons's trees are stripped.


stick n move said:
Mag 14 2nd Marine AW Vet 11’-15’ so youd be in good hands.
Click to expand...

Unquestionably!

Thanks for your service to our country.
 
With the amount of hassle it is to build anything tall in Boston, I marvel at how the John Hancock and Pru towers were approved and built in a time when there was not as many high rises in the city. The Hancock, especially as it is across the street from the Trinity church and mere blocks from Back Bay and South End row homes.
 
Czervik.Construction said:
With the amount of hassle it is to build anything tall in Boston, I marvel at how the John Hancock and Pru towers were approved and built in a time when there was not as many high rises in the city. The Hancock, especially as it is across the street from the Trinity church and mere blocks from Back Bay and South End row homes.
Click to expand...

Well, in the pru's case, that was the same time period that highways were built ripping through neighborhoods.

I'm more shocked that they were able to build storrow and the pike.
 
Speaking of the pike I think this is where u see the true height of these 3 buildings
 
Czervik.Construction said:
With the amount of hassle it is to build anything tall in Boston, I marvel at how the John Hancock and Pru towers were approved and built in a time when there was not as many high rises in the city. The Hancock, especially as it is across the street from the Trinity church and mere blocks from Back Bay and South End row homes.
Click to expand...

I imagine the relative economic doldrums of the time made it much easier.
 
Coyote137 said:
I imagine the relative economic doldrums of the time made it much easier.
Click to expand...

beat me to it ^^^

there wasn't much in the way of any powerful "NIMYism" in the early '70s (and, although before my time, the '60s) to protest or resist development of any kind.

while there were some rich folks in the back bay and beacon hill, that wasn't the norm. admittedly this was a long time ago and one has to factor in inflation etc., but when i was a little kid in the late-'70s i was staying in a spacious (though cockroach and mice-infested) two-bedroom on beacon street that was $280/month and even back bay was sketchy as fuck. nobody of significance would've listened to any of us if we didn't approve of some skyscraper going up down the street.
 
tysmith95 said:
Well, in the pru's case, that was the same time period that highways were built ripping through neighborhoods.

I'm more shocked that they were able to build storrow and the pike.
Click to expand...

It also covered up a huge hole/train yard.
 
^^ Indeed. Short answer, no one with a voice lived in the Back Bay, South End, or Fenway at that time.

Long answer, Boston's population was at its zenith during the interwar/Depression era (IIRC, ~825K), with folks jammed into tenements in the West, North, and South Ends. East Boston's population was equivalent to today's numbers, even though my own neighborhood (Orient Heights) was practically a rural area. People had bigger families and the expectation of privacy as we know it today was essentially nonexistent.

The decade after WWII was an era of mobility and repositioning; the first wave of flight to the suburbs kicked off, Italians form the West and North Ends headed to the northern suburbs, many Irish families fled to the South Shore, Jewish merchants left Dorchester and Roxbury for Milton, Newton, and Chestnut Hill. Conversely, African Americans and Latino populations grew through migrations. In my own neighborhood, many families moved north to Saugus, Reading, and Lynnfield to escape the unabated expansion of Logan Airport.

By the time my folks got married in the late 50s, Boston was a hollowed out husk. The Navy was in the process of decamping from the Charlestown Navy Yard, and much of the regional manufacturing (shoes, clothing, paints and solvents) had migrated to southern states with far lower labor costs.

New York had Robert Moses, and Boston had Ed Logue. These were the "architects" of scorched earth urban renewal.

The Pru, followed by new towers for State Street, the Boston Company, and New England Merchants National Bank quickly filled out the sky, with the Hancock a final exclamation point on Boston's transition from a port and manufacturing city to a center for insurance and financial services. Our proximity to research universities with global impact fired more recent booms in computing and the life sciences.
 
Man those Back Bay high rises look quite tall in person and just in Back Bay skyline pics. But when you have the panoramas with downtown/FD, it makes them look tiny. Some of those buildings are 35-38 stories tall and they look tiny!
 
Looking fwd to filling the gap between Hancock and Marriott/Westin Copley...not sure if bb station or 40 trinity will be first.
 
DZ, those photos are great.

KriterionBOS said:
Man those Back Bay high rises look quite tall in person and just in Back Bay skyline pics. But when you have the panoramas with downtown/FD, it makes them look tiny. Some of those buildings are 35-38 stories tall and they look tiny!
Click to expand...

what makes what look tiny?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top