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

[Equilibria]

Going along with what I posted on the Copley Place Tower Thread:

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/form/faa7460_1.pdf

"Enter the total structure height above ground level in whole feet rounded to the next highest foot (e.g. 17’3” rounds to 18’). The total structure height shall include anything mounted on top of the structure, such as antennas, obstruction lights, lightning rods, etc."

All of that sounds like permanent stuff. I'd think that if they were including window washing equipment, they'd specify it in the instructions.

 

[DZH22]

The total structure height shall include anything mounted on top of the structure, such as antennas, obstruction lights, lightning rods, etc."

All of that sounds like permanent stuff. I'd think that if they were including window washing equipment, they'd specify it in the instructions.

Certain things, such as antenna and lightning rods, are not part of the official height. Otherwise the Pru would be over 900'. That's why the 755' can't be taken as gospel quite yet. It might just be that tall, but there is still uncertainty.

 

[Equilibria]

Certain things, such as antenna and lightning rods, are not part of the official height. Otherwise the Pru would be over 900'. That's why the 755' can't be taken as gospel quite yet. It might just be that tall, but there is still uncertainty.

Sure. My point was just that it doesn't sound like truly temporary things (like window washing) count toward the total...

 

[dirtywater]

I'm pretty sure you're the one who is wrong here. For starters, the crane wouldn't be just 55' above the top of the building. MT's crane is a full 200'+ above the top.

Secondarily, here is another link showing a proposed 100' antenna on top of the structure, bringing it to 856'.
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=206595303&row=6

Cranes are usually a separately proposed case. For example: https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=256466300&row=13

Search the archives and sort by structural height to get a better idea of what's out there.

Thanks. I'm glad to be wrong here. I was confused by the language in the Determination that it includes "temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc.", but that is apparently boilerplate included in every determination.

 

[whighlander]

Certain things, such as antenna and lightning rods, are not part of the official height. Otherwise the Pru would be over 900'. That's why the 755' can't be taken as gospel quite yet. It might just be that tall, but there is still uncertainty.

quoting my earlier post

Of course you can't really think of the Pru without its Antenna as the Red lights at the Top of the antenna are at least 900 feet up
[from the experts on radio antennas on buildings]
http://worldradiomap.com/us-ma/boston
Quote:
Prudential Tower

Coordinates: 42°20'50" N, 71°04'57" W ; Ground Elevation AMSL: 12 ft (3.6 m), Antenna Height: 907 ft (276.4 m)
The Prudential Tower, also known as the Prudential Building, is a skyscraper in Boston, Massachusetts. The building, a part of the Prudential Center complex, currently stands as the 2nd-tallest building in Boston, behind the John Hancock Tower. Completed in 1964, the building is 749 feet (228 m) tall, with 52 floors. Including its radio mast, the tower stands as the tallest building in Boston and is tied with others as the 77th-tallest in the United States, rising to 907 feet (276 m) in height.

 

[citylover94]

^ Get over it an antenna is not included in height and from my experience it isn't very visible until you are pretty close to the building even when it is lit it does not stand out as an integral part of the building per se.

Either way your perspective and mine don't matter that much. Officially the Four Seasons will be taller but even then the roof heights won't appear very different and if this does have an antenna placed on top the building heights won't really have any discrepancies.

tldr: Whighlander why are you so hung up on the Pru's antenna?

 

[whighlander]

^ Get over it an antenna is not included in height and from my experience it isn't very visible until you are pretty close to the building even when it is lit it does not stand out as an integral part of the building per se.

Either way your perspective and mine don't matter that much. Officially the Four Seasons will be taller but even then the roof heights won't appear very different and if this does have an antenna placed on top the building heights won't really have any discrepancies.

tldr: Whighlander why are you so hung up on the Pru's antenna?

City -- Due to its lighting, at night the Pru's antenna is the object within Boston which can be seen from greatest distance

And it is an antenna which in turn relates it to electrical engineering, radio, EM Waves and Physics -- so I guess I have a natural affinity

 

[DZH22]

City -- Due to its lighting, at night the Pru's antenna is the object within Boston which can be seen from greatest distance

I would argue that the Pru's sign and lighting are what most people would notice.

 

[type001]

Fine, I'll play along despite this being argued to death in related forums for the last 10 years.

Why don't antennae count, but spires do? An antenna is still connected to building and it gives the same visual impact as most spires. In fact, antennae actually serve a purpose.

What really makes the BOA and NYT tower spires that different than the Pru and 1-Beacon antennae in terms of structural height?

I don't really care what true height is, I'm just curious as to the reasoning.

 

[citylover94]

An antenna is not usually directly connected to the buildings structural support system whereas I believe to count a spire has to be connected directly. I also think it has to do with the fact that a lot of antennas are just and uncovered lattice structure whereas most antennas have some form of cladding on the outside to tie them into the building.

 

[BosDevelop]

The Construction Management Plan (pdf) at the above link is an interesting read with all sorts of details. From that document, here's the overall construction schedule (as of December 2014):

Phase 1 - Enabling and Foundations - October 2015
Phase 2 - Excavation - February 2016
Phase 3 - Building Erection - Concrete - Vertical Construction - October 2016
Phase 4 - Structure - Façade Installation and Interior Construction - April 2018

So going off of this schedule, the tower should be close to topped out by this time next year!

Are those months start months or completion months? I find it hard to believe this will be topped out in 12 months.

 

[JumboBuc]

Are those months start months or completion months? I find it hard to believe this will be topped out in 12 months.

I agree that the schedule looks aggressive--and they may already be months behind it for all I know--but the dates listed in the document appear to be completion months.

 

[KentXie]

Are those months start months or completion months? I find it hard to believe this will be topped out in 12 months.

I mean it's possible. If you don't count the time spent to build the podium for the Millennium Tower, it took about 1 year for the tower to top out.

 

[Money]

I agree that the schedule looks aggressive--and they may already be months behind it for all I know--but the dates listed in the document appear to be completion months.

I believe the MT started rising above ground in early August 2014, which would mean it took about 13 months to top out. Even with One Dalton's smaller floor area and the seemingly ridiculous speed that Suffolk was able to complete concrete work at MT, I don't think they have a shot at topping out by October 2016.

 

[GW]

I think those have to be the end dates for each phase. The figures don't match up otherwise. If excavation begins in Feb. 2016 and takes 5 months, why would they start vertical construction in October? It also says that they anticipate the midrise (30 Dalton) will be done halfway through phase 3, which would be in the middle of next year if October is the end date for phase 3. That makes a lot more sense than the midrise finishing in early 2017, since it's nearly topped out and the cladding is making rapid progress.

 

[SeamusMcFly]

A floor per week is pretty normal, and up to 2 floors per week is still very doable. That was the rate on most of the Vegas high rise work we were involved in went up. Much bigger floor plates as well. This thing is 56 storeys yes? So 28 - 56 weeks of vertical construction. This time next year falls well within that based on starting in Feb. 2016.

 

[whighlander]

An antenna is not usually directly connected to the buildings structural support system whereas I believe to count a spire has to be connected directly. I also think it has to do with the fact that a lot of antennas are just and uncovered lattice structure whereas most antennas have some form of cladding on the outside to tie them into the building.

courtesy Boston Radio http://gallery.bostonradio.org/

Structure for the antenna looks fairly serious -- however, we can't see if it directly ties into the structure of the Pru

 

[dirtywater]

A floor per week is pretty normal, and up to 2 floors per week is still very doable. That was the rate on most of the Vegas high rise work we were involved in went up. Much bigger floor plates as well. This thing is 56 storeys yes? So 28 - 56 weeks of vertical construction. This time next year falls well within that based on starting in Feb. 2016.

I believe this one is 60 or 61 stories, but your point still stands.

 

[Roxxma]

City -- Due to its lighting, at night the Pru's antenna is the object within Boston which can be seen from greatest distance

And it is an antenna which in turn relates it to electrical engineering, radio, EM Waves and Physics -- so I guess I have a natural affinity

I think I have to agree with you here. Every time I've seen old pics of the Pru before the mast was installed, it appears that something major is missing. It looks sort of incomplete. Even if the mast isn't part of the building structurally, aesthetically, it appears to be a major component of it.

 

[Boston02124]

interesting Skyscraper page finally updated Boston's diagram and now shows this tower being taller than the Pru?