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

180 condos on floors 25-61...if my math is correct thats an avg of 5 units per floor. Considering the penthouses will have less on each floor, that means many of lower units will have more than 5. I just dont see how thats possible considering the size of the parcel...it must be significantly bigger in real like than its appearing to me in images.
 
Deetroyt said:
180 condos on floors 25-61...if my math is correct thats an avg of 5 units per floor. Considering the penthouses will have less on each floor, that means many of lower units will have more than 5. I just dont see how thats possible considering the size of the parcel...it must be significantly bigger in real like than its appearing to me in images.
Click to expand...

Being a triangle, I'm having a hard time imagining how to carve it up into anything besides 3 or 6 units per floor.
 
It is likely six per floor until you reach the top levels, then three per floor. The floor plate must be a bit larger than we envision, because I also have trouble seeing six fitting.
 
SeamusMcFly said:
Being a triangle, I'm having a hard time imagining how to carve it up into anything besides 3 or 6 units per floor.
Click to expand...

Not to have to state the obvious as you're "in the industry" but they aren't all going to be the same size and configuration.
 
HenryAlan said:
It is likely six per floor until you reach the top levels, then three per floor. The floor plate must be a bit larger than we envision, because I also have trouble seeing six fitting.
Click to expand...

The math works. According to most reports that I have seen, there are 180 residential units on 36 floors. Based on the renderings, the top 12 floors have balconies. There are balconies on each of the three sides of the building, presumably one per unit. At three units per floor, there would be 36 of these units. If the other 24 floors have six units per floor, there would be 144 units on these floors, for a total of 180 in the building.
 
You can easily fit 6 or more units on a floor. I did this at lunch for fun... Cambridge 7/Pei Asso... give me a call if you want... ;-)

Let me stress, this is totally my creation and not official floor plans.

Here's the CAD file if anyone wants to play with it (saved down to 2010):
One Dalton.dwg

GbtrCJl.jpg
 
Article in the Globe about possible prices for the tower:

http://www.boston.com/real-estate/l...FdRo3RoF3J/story.html?p1=menu_business_latest

"the new Four Seasons Tower, which could see its three, gold-plated penthouses on its 61st floor each fetch upwards of $20 million, according to preliminary price estimates."

"That means the Back Bay tower’s top floor may reap a total of $60 million to $70 million in sales. That figure would dwarf the $37.5 million that the 60-story Millennium Tower — now under construction in Downtown Crossing — is seeking for its top floor penthouse suite."
 
Shawmut said:
Article in the Globe about possible prices for the tower:

http://www.boston.com/real-estate/l...FdRo3RoF3J/story.html?p1=menu_business_latest

"the new Four Seasons Tower, which could see its three, gold-plated penthouses on its 61st floor each fetch upwards of $20 million, according to preliminary price estimates."

"That means the Back Bay tower’s top floor may reap a total of $60 million to $70 million in sales. That figure would dwarf the $37.5 million that the 60-story Millennium Tower — now under construction in Downtown Crossing — is seeking for its top floor penthouse suite."
Click to expand...

Top two floors

So what exactly will it cost to buy one of the two-story penthouses that will crown the new tower?
Click to expand...

poorly written articles doesn't agree with itself.
 
Not that this project was ever billed as a plan to bring housing costs down, But I wonder if these extravagant prices will simply add more fuel to the NIMBY fire. These high rise projects will be taken as proof that new construction doesn’t help prices or even drives prices up. To the casual observer, that may seem like a pretty persuasive argument. Since the direct result of new construction is expensive units and the benefits are largely indirect and abstract (filtering or waiting 20 years for the class A to turn to class B).

DC is an example of a high COL that has built enough to at least stabilize prices (temporarily). But, DC has had an apartment construction boom many times larger than the current Boston boom and the city has been helped by sequestration and a willingness to push development in the neighborhoods. Prices are still high in DC, but the benefits of new construction are tangible to at least the childless 80k crowd. There are literally a few dozen new 200+ unit 5-12 story buildings that have opened since 2010. People can see supply and demand in action as the new buildings compete against the older buildings to lease up. DC needs to do more, but at least it isn’t like SF or NYC where the development is so insufficient relative to demand that new construction almost seems pointless to many.

Hopefully, Boston gets aggressive about encouraging development outside the Back Bay/DT/Seaport core to complement the downtown towers.
 
jpdivola said:
Not that this project was ever billed as a plan to bring housing costs down, But I wonder if these extravagant prices will simply add more fuel to the NIMBY fire. These high rise projects will be taken as proof that new construction doesn’t help prices or even drives prices up. To the casual observer, that may seem like a pretty persuasive argument. Since the direct result of new construction is expensive units and the benefits are largely indirect and abstract (filtering or waiting 20 years for the class A to turn to class B).

DC is an example of a high COL that has built enough to at least stabilize prices (temporarily). But, DC has had an apartment construction boom many times larger than the current Boston boom and the city has been helped by sequestration and a willingness to push development in the neighborhoods. Prices are still high in DC, but the benefits of new construction are tangible to at least the childless 80k crowd. There are literally a few dozen new 200+ unit 5-12 story buildings that have opened since 2010. People can see supply and demand in action as the new buildings compete against the older buildings to lease up. DC needs to do more, but at least it isn’t like SF or NYC where the development is so insufficient relative to demand that new construction almost seems pointless to many.

Hopefully, Boston gets aggressive about encouraging development outside the Back Bay/DT/Seaport core to complement the downtown towers.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that hotel rooms in DC are routinely in the $150-$200 range and that's downtown!

But seriously I dont understand why boston doesn't build more to your point and denser taller.

My last thought is this: I hope this building will be lit up at night because boston hardly has any presence at night. It just seems sleepy with the exception of Hanover st and some of the newer stuff in the seaport.
 
jpdivola said:
Not that this project was ever billed as a plan to bring housing costs down, But I wonder if these extravagant prices will simply add more fuel to the NIMBY fire. These high rise projects will be taken as proof that new construction doesn’t help prices or even drives prices up. To the casual observer, that may seem like a pretty persuasive argument. Since the direct result of new construction is expensive units and the benefits are largely indirect and abstract (filtering or waiting 20 years for the class A to turn to class B).

DC is an example of a high COL that has built enough to at least stabilize prices (temporarily). But, DC has had an apartment construction boom many times larger than the current Boston boom and the city has been helped by sequestration and a willingness to push development in the neighborhoods. Prices are still high in DC, but the benefits of new construction are tangible to at least the childless 80k crowd. There are literally a few dozen new 200+ unit 5-12 story buildings that have opened since 2010. People can see supply and demand in action as the new buildings compete against the older buildings to lease up. DC needs to do more, but at least it isn’t like SF or NYC where the development is so insufficient relative to demand that new construction almost seems pointless to many.

Hopefully, Boston gets aggressive about encouraging development outside the Back Bay/DT/Seaport core to complement the downtown towers.
Click to expand...

See the Affordable Housing Thread
 
617 said:
My last thought is this: I hope this building will be lit up at night because boston hardly has any presence at night.
Click to expand...

It does happen to be right next door to one of the best lit buildings in Boston (Pru) so doesn't need it quite as much as other areas in the city. Although a lit top would still be pretty cool.
 
617 said:
Not to mention that hotel rooms in DC are routinely in the $150-$200 range and that's downtown!

But seriously I dont understand why boston doesn't build more to your point and denser taller.

My last thought is this: I hope this building will be lit up at night because boston hardly has any presence at night. It just seems sleepy with the exception of Hanover st and some of the newer stuff in the seaport.
Click to expand...

Go see the 45 Worthington thread for the reason Boston doesn't build denser outside of the downtown core.

Also IMO, too many academics and not enough pragmatists in the area.
 
You could say the same thing about any big city. While NYC has way more areas of tall, dense development than Boston, there are still large swaths of the city that are not nearly as dense as they "should" be based on demand, and yet, you don't see Greenwich Village being redeveloped in such a way. There's a lot of cultural inertia in residential neighborhoods. It manifests as NIMBYism when developers - who know what "best use" of the land really is - plan to develop/redevelop land in a different way than the general existing land use of the neighborhood. It's just human psychology.

Also, as discussed at length in the Worthington thread, smart developers make relationships with the neighbors, build knowledge of and trust within the community. Others prefer to let their money and city bureaucrats do the dirty work and try to bulldoze opposition. IMO, taking the time and effort to build relationships is better than burning bridges, but I've discovered that many people here don't agree with that.
 
Shawmut said:
Article in the Globe about possible prices for the tower:

http://www.boston.com/real-estate/l...FdRo3RoF3J/story.html?p1=menu_business_latest

"the new Four Seasons Tower, which could see its three, gold-plated penthouses on its 61st floor each fetch upwards of $20 million, according to preliminary price estimates."

"That means the Back Bay tower’s top floor may reap a total of $60 million to $70 million in sales. That figure would dwarf the $37.5 million that the 60-story Millennium Tower — now under construction in Downtown Crossing — is seeking for its top floor penthouse suite."
Click to expand...

Shawmut -- from the top of the Four Seasons Tower you can see all the way to Hong Kong -- as the ordinary rich from Hong Kong start to get off the non-stop at Logan they will realize that Boston is:

1) nasty & cold in the winter
2) warm but not too hot in the summer
3) nice in September & October
4) good place for a college education for your kids
5) a lot cheaper, quieter and less crowded

3), 4) & increasingly 5) will trump the rest

Boston is becoming a "great place to plant a flag and some $" -- just in case that that something goes badly in China and you might have to bail with what you can carry
 
Re: Christian Science Church Center Renovation/ New Towers

Ron Newman said:
Perhaps, but if someone broke through thin ice in the pool, they couldn't drown like they might in the Charles or on Walden Pond. It's quite shallow as you can see here. So I don't see any potential for liability.
Click to expand...



Someone can STILL drown in 2 feet of water. I almost did! :eek:
 
atlantaden said:
I'm curious, kmp, what makes you say this?
Click to expand...

In a nutshell, four years of complete boredom eating at the same twenty restaurants, the lack of stuff to do outdoors and the generally repulsive women.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top