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

Czervik.Construction said:
I am not as impressed with the height as I am with where you see it from (it is only slightly taller than my apartment building). It looms over the Back Bay and Fenway.
Click to expand...

Haha, and so many people (including one or two on here) still worry about the Manhattanization of Boston. I mean, seriously, we're talking about Czervik's apartment building being just slightly shorter than the 3rd tallest building in Boston. And how many apartment buildings, and office buildings, are around the same height in NYC, hundreds? I always wonder if those that bleat about the Manhattanization of Boston have even been to NYC in the past 40 years!
 
Sunday AM

43564524755_94bc14233f_b.jpg


43564522075_3d2b9e6b61_b.jpg


43564522985_fac0befd79_b.jpg


And Monday PM

43755938344_e0ba1473e0_b.jpg


43755935934_ac38282e43_b.jpg


29536218997_2a811323dd_b.jpg


44474224151_36f5f33d47_b.jpg


44424401452_8886e101b3_b.jpg
 
atlantaden said:
Haha, and so many people (including one or two on here) still worry about the Manhattanization of Boston. I mean, seriously, we're talking about Czervik's apartment building being just slightly shorter than the 3rd tallest building in Boston. And how many apartment buildings, and office buildings, are around the same height in NYC, hundreds? I always wonder if those that bleat about the Manhattanization of Boston have even been to NYC in the past 40 years!
Click to expand...

There are exactly 51 buildings in NYC that are taller than 1 Dalton. And another 12 that are 700+ but just shorter than it.
 
So 63 in the vicinity of 1 dalton. Thats not hundreds but its a shit ton.
 
Is it actually taller than the Pru Tower now? I think that the spire atop the Pru had a height increase to make it taller, about 790 feet.
 
Jahvon09 said:
Is it actually taller than the Pru Tower now? I think that the spire atop the Pru had a height increase to make it taller, about 790 feet.
Click to expand...

The Pru has an antenna that is approximately 910', maybe a hair under that. Antennas don't count in building heights. The roof under the antenna for the Pru is either 749' or 750'.

Nobody knows how tall 1 Dalton will end up.
 
i once had an old copy of the Guinness book.... from 1972 or so.

Pru was listed at 750'.....

The antenna podium hadn't been added yet.

Then wouldn't the rediron give the Pru an added 4~7'??
 
odurandina said:
i once had an old copy of the Guinness book.... from 1972 or so.

Pru was listed at 750'.....

The antenna podium hadn't been added yet.

Then wouldn't the rediron give the Pru an added 4~7'??
Click to expand...

Get on the case! Also, find a way to prove The Devonshire is over 400', and the Pregnant Building over 600' (to the top of a small mechanical box).

From 8/31.

IMG_6426 by David Z, on Flickr

IMG_6435 by David Z, on Flickr

IMG_6462 by David Z, on Flickr

IMG_6477 by David Z, on Flickr

IMG_6497 by David Z, on Flickr
 
DZH22 said:
Antennas don't count in building heights.
Click to expand...

That is an opinion, but if you insist, I'm going to go ahead and count the antenna as a separate building. The Pru's antenna is the tallest building in Boston.
 
Justin7 said:
That is an opinion, but if you insist, I'm going to go ahead and count the antenna as a separate building. The Pru's antenna is the tallest building in Boston.
Click to expand...

It's the way the Council of Tall Buildings arrives at their official height. I doubt you're old enough to remember the controversy when the Petronas Towers "officially" passed the then-Sears Tower to be the world's tallest buildings.

To me, the above example was a true miscarriage of justice. To you, you were probably still in a carriage which is why none of this stuck with you. Hence, why you think it's my "opinion" and not something that has been agreed upon without my input. As Mark Twain once said: "It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt."

Here's the CTBUH criteria: http://www.ctbuh.org/HighRiseInfo/TallestDatabase/Criteria/tabid/446/language/en-GB/Default.aspx

And here's the controversy:
Capture by David Z, on Flickr
 
Equilibria said:
Fair enough, but it isn't the tallest tower in the Boston Area. That honor goes to the WBZ-TV Tower in Needham.

http://gallery.bostonradio.org/2003-05/needham-towers/
Click to expand...

Obviously. We have been fighting against the Needhamization of Boston for a long time now.

DZH22 said:
It's the way the Council of Tall Buildings arrives at their official height. I doubt you're old enough to remember the controversy when the Petronas Towers "officially" passed the then-Sears Tower to be the world's tallest buildings.

To me, the above example was a true miscarriage of justice. To you, you were probably still in a carriage which is why none of this stuck with you. Hence, why you think it's my "opinion" and not something that has been agreed upon without my input. As Mark Twain once said: "It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt."

Here's the CTBUH criteria: http://www.ctbuh.org/HighRiseInfo/TallestDatabase/Criteria/tabid/446/language/en-GB/Default.aspx

And here's the controversy:
Capture by David Z, on Flickr
Click to expand...

The "Council of Tall Buildings," huh? You have a wild imagination, man. That is far to silly to be a real thing.

I thought my joke -- an attempt to bring another page long height discussion to a close -- an obvious one, and that even if you didn't find it funny you'd at respond in kind or move on, but I've managed again to underestimate just how fucking seriously you take this stuff.

Still, I think the ad hominem insult is uncalled for, especially since you seem to lack a clear understanding of the difference between fact and opinion.

And while you're quoting apocryphal Twain at me, I'd be curious to know how much of his actual work you've read. Perhaps we can discuss.
 
Council of Tall Buildings is a thing: http://www.ctbuh.org/

Oh, and great use of the word apocryphal. Big vocabs are sadly dying off.


Justin7 said:
The "Council of Tall Buildings," huh? You have a wild imagination, man. That is far to silly to be a real thing.

And while you're quoting apocryphal Twain at me, I'd be curious to know how much of his actual work you've read. Perhaps we can discuss.
Click to expand...
 
Oh, and why is everyone getting sucked back into this height conversation? Every few pages, this thread drops into the muck on height. It will either end up 2nd or 3rd tallest and it is a well executed, awesome addition to the skyline.
 
Justin7 said:
I thought my joke -- an attempt to bring another page long height discussion to a close -- an obvious one, and that even if you didn't find it funny you'd at respond in kind or move on, but I've managed again to underestimate just how fucking seriously you take this stuff.
Click to expand...

Impossible to tell sarcasm over the internet. You need some sort of "tongue-in-cheek" warning or I take it as you write it. You clearly use sarcasm on these boards a lot, but it isn't always obvious what is and isn't. If I heard you say it, it would probably be obvious. If I saw your expression when you said it, it would probably be obvious. However, when all I see are your types words, it isn't as obvious as you might think.

Regarding Mark, I definitely read The Adventures of Tom Sawyer but that was probably almost 25 years ago. I may have read Huck Finn. I was a huge reader from about grades 5-10, but have lived an entire additional lifetime, and then some, since the heyday. I don't need to read all of his books to like the quote. Maybe it doesn't quite apply to you afterall. Just take heed how easy it is to "misinterpret" somebody's true intentions over the internet!
 
Czervik.Construction said:
Oh, and why is everyone getting sucked back into this height conversation?
Click to expand...

It hasn't been settled. On the CTBUH site I saw it quoted as 745'. So it's either 742', 745', 755', 756', or something else altogether! If only we could settle it for good, the height conversation would end!
 
I'm getting curious why they seemingly havent made that final push to finish the top level yet. The core is there and has been for a while, is it going to be concrete or metal frame? Maybe they are waiting for the glass to get there.... Anybody have some insight?
 
Suffolk 83 said:
I'm getting curious why they seemingly havent made that final push to finish the top level yet. The core is there and has been for a while, is it going to be concrete or metal frame? Maybe they are waiting for the glass to get there.... Anybody have some insight?
Click to expand...

Contractor's preference?

Or for one reason or another, construction favors delaying the construction of the top floors.

It effing blows of course. Avalon Nashua Street/deja vu all over again.

But more curious, is why? Can anyone offer the reasons?

odurandina said:
we are in that 4-months-to-do-last-40-foot-of-tower shytte sheau phase.

the leaves will be brown and down by the time the tower is worthy of another photo.
Click to expand...
 
I don't know for sure, just spit-balling here. The top exposed floor is used for all sorts of stuff during construction (port-a-potty, office, staging materials and people) as the tower rises. Once you get to the top, continuing those uses probably favors not finishing the roof so that unique-to-the-roof features don't get in the way. Speaking of unique-to-the-roof features - many of the largest and most complicated mechanical systems go up top. It is no surprise that the last floor or two, roof, and mechanical penthouse don't get built with the same speed as the simpler, near-identical, repetitive lower floors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top