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

AmericanFolkLegend said:
That's a very good point. A competition would prevent (or at least) reduce the kind of value engineering that 99% of buildings go through.
Click to expand...

Not in the slightest. If anything, it could make the result VE'd even worse than a typical non-competition proposal. Architects go nuts with competitions producing flashy renders and fancy models of buildings that are way over the top and essentially ignore a budget. There's a greater chance of that building getting ruined by being VE'd to death because it's so overbudget and outrageous than if the building was designed normally, under non-competition standards. As a whole, the building could retain its architectural integrity much more than the competition building that needs to be VE'd like crazy because it was being designed to be a "building" rather than a flashy "showpiece."

VE pretty much never occurs during the early phases and mainly happens as the CDs are being produced (and priced/cost estimate sets) and then during the CA phase after when budgets get reduced, run over, etc. No one goes into a project saying "I'm gonna build this out of crappy materials," competition or not.
 
Last edited:
datadyne007 said:
Not in the slightest. If anything, it could make the result VE'd even worse than a typical non-competition proposal
Click to expand...

That's a fair point, and would certainly be a legitimate concern. It could very easily be that the tower that is built via design competition & VE is the same tower that gets built when and a developer engages an architect with a set budget.

It just seems like something that might be worth exploring for city/state owned lands. Like I said, the winthrop square garage. Another would be the mass pike air rights parcels, the state is willing to pony up XX amount of dollars to deck the pike to the winning bidder. Of course bidders need to be prequalified, and it would come down to the best bid package, not just design. A developer would have to show that they can get the financing. What are they going to do for public space? Transit? etc. Unfortunately, there just isn't much you can do when it comes to budget estimating to avoid the VE. Certain assumptions need to be made in the early stages that when details start coming out that drive the price up. Whether it's certain mechanical details that were previously unknown, or architectural details are more high end than anticipated. Ultimately, you just need someone with really really deep pockets that will spare no expense.

If Boston's permitting & zoning process were less convoluted, perhaps we could attract some of these big time developers.
 
bobthebuilder said:
That's a fair point, and would certainly be a legitimate concern. It could very easily be that the tower that is built via design competition & VE is the same tower that gets built when and a developer engages an architect with a set budget.
Click to expand...

It's worth noting, I think, that the last city to go the competition route for a new tallest ended up with the same "nice, but not exciting" type of building a bunch of you want to avoid:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transbay_Tower

It's also worth noting who the developer on that one happens to be...
 
bobthebuilder said:
It just seems like something that might be worth exploring for city/state owned lands.
Click to expand...

This. The design competition allows you to separate the developer from the architect. So they can't arbitrarily VE it. A 3rd party developer is chosen based on the design that comes out of the competition (and his budget for that design). Any VEing would be at the behest of the city, state, institution, etc. Think City Hall Plaza (or any of a number of developments that happen at area universities).
 
Equilibria said:
It's worth noting, I think, that the last city to go the competition route for a new tallest ended up with the same "nice, but not exciting" type of building a bunch of you want to avoid:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transbay_Tower

It's also worth noting who the developer on that one happens to be...
Click to expand...

I think this building had a bit of pizazz. Not over-the-top or particularly intriguing, but distinctive. Similar (not in form but in safe-distinctiveness) to the Copley Building being proposed over Neiman-Marcus.
 
Imagine, if you will:

14521803804_8df0eaf694_b.jpg
 
Will this impact the FS property on the Common/Garden? Will FS be able to be successful with both properties in one city (Boston is not NYC, LA, London, Tokyo, ect. in terms of market depth).
 
Oakley said:
Will this impact the FS property on the Common/Garden? Will FS be able to be successful with both properties in one city (Boston is not NYC, LA, London, Tokyo, ect. in terms of market depth).
Click to expand...

Boston has the second highest hotel rates in the US (after NYC). It can probably handle both FS properties.
 
Aside from the current Four Seasons and the Mandarin Boston is still lacking when it comes to legit luxury properties.
 
Even the big name higher-end chains we have in Boston are stuck in embarrassing buildings from the 70s. One of my company's bigger clients in the Starwood group, so I get to stay at various Westins, Sheratons, St. Regis', and W's throughout APAC.

Simply put, the Back Bay Westin and Sheraton (and Hyatt and Radisson, for that matter) are physically the worst I have ever stayed at. It may not be fair to compare, but Sheratons even in secondary markets only Chinese and locals ever travel to are far nicer than anything we have in Boston. For example, the Le Méridien (Sheraton) in Kota Kinabalu puts the Back Bay one to shame.
 
shawn said:
Even the big name higher-end chains we have in Boston are stuck in embarrassing buildings from the 70s. One of my company's bigger clients in the Starwood group, so I get to stay at various Westins, Sheratons, St. Regis', and W's throughout APAC.

Simply put, the Back Bay Westin and Sheraton (and Hyatt and Radisson, for that matter) are physically the worst I have ever stayed at.
Click to expand...

The Boston Marriott: Copley Place is equally pathetic.
 
kmp1284 said:
Aside from the current Four Seasons and the Mandarin Boston is still lacking when it comes to legit luxury properties.
Click to expand...

What about the Ritz-Carlton and Liberty?

Boston has nice 4-star chains like Fairmont, InterContinential, Taj, ec., but three true luxury hotels. I've always had a fantasy of a luxury hotel on the Common Side opposite of the Four Seasons...rebuild those properties into a St. Regis, Peninsula, Park Hyatt, or Rosewood. just a dream though.
 
shawn said:
Even the big name higher-end chains we have in Boston are stuck in embarrassing buildings from the 70s. One of my company's bigger clients in the Starwood group, so I get to stay at various Westins, Sheratons, St. Regis', and W's throughout APAC.

Simply put, the Back Bay Westin and Sheraton (and Hyatt and Radisson, for that matter) are physically the worst I have ever stayed at. It may not be fair to compare, but Sheratons even in secondary markets only Chinese and locals ever travel to are far nicer than anything we have in Boston. For example, the Le Méridien (Sheraton) in Kota Kinabalu puts the Back Bay one to shame.
Click to expand...

I used to work for Starwood, so I've stayed at many, many, many Starwood properties in the U.S. and abroad. I don't think that the Back Bay Sheraton and Westin are particularly bad compared to the same brands I've stayed in elsewhere. My issue with both of those hotels is that pedestrian access is particularly difficult (the Hyatt Regency downtown is among the worst in the city for pedestrian access).

Although it's no longer a Sheraton (now a Hyatt Place), the hotel in Braintree was in rough shape. The Westin in Providence (now the Omni) had the most dated rooms of any Westin I'd stayed in (though the Westin St. Francis in SF was close) and the Sheraton Providence Airport is decidedly awful. The Sheraton Market Center in Dallas is inferior to the Back Bay location as well. Ever stay at the Sheraton Tribeca? I can't think of any way that it is a better facility than the Sheraton Back Bay. International locations vary. The Sheraton Shangai Hongkou is beautiful, while the Sheraton Park in Chennai needs significant work. Worst case, I'd say the Starwood facilities in Boston are middle of the road. Even the W which is fairly new is only OK when compared to the other W locations (I'm biased, I loathe the W brand). The Liberty is one of my favorite Starwood hotels that doesn't fall under the St. Regis umbrella. Most cities don't have a Starwood hotel (again, that's not St. Regis) that is as nice as The Liberty.
 
^--- Maybe it's a US / North America issue then? I fully admit to having limited luxury hotel exposure in the US, so I am drawing comparisons with the properties in Hong Kong, Singapore, Seoul, Shanghai etc. that I stay at. In these places, I feel like the experience at least comes close to matching the $400-$500 a night price tag.

$500+ a night for the W in Boston, given the decent-but-nothing-spectacular experience we had, left a bitter taste in my wife's and my mouth. The room itself was quite cool in that typical W fashion, but the rest of the hotel is meh, and unless you get a room above the 10th floor or so, your view will be of Emerson kids in class (at least it was from our 4th floor view, nice to wake up to).
 
^I think that Starwood has focused on growing the brand a bit more than renovating existing properties. Many of the Starwood hotels overseas are newer properties whereas a much larger percentage here are a few decades old. The age is showing here in the states.

I'm not surprised at your experience with Starwood in Asia vs. Starwood in the U.S. With few exceptions (Sheraton Park in Chennai being one), most of the properties over there are newer (or more recently converted/renovated) than their U.S. counterparts. The experience at Starwood hotels in Hong Kong, Singapor, Seoul, Shangai, etc. will definitely beat what you'd get in the U.S. for the most part.
 
Two drilling rigs onsite. Shame to lose those five trees. Perhaps this project should be rethought.

APV8ROL.jpg


EFBTbVF.jpg
 
Na the tower will provide enough shade. Also they are putting in a small park.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top