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

[dotdude78]

760 feet!!

31 feet.
31 feet.
Why not add 31 feet to this building and market it to buyers "Come live in the tallest building in New England!!"

I like this building, but why not do some type of crown that would look great if lit up at night and would make it, yet again, not another Boston building with a flat roof?

 

[odurandina]

760 feet!!

i have no reason to think 1 Dalton is going to be over 755'. But whomever wrote that, obviously had the swindle sheets sitting in front of him - clearly demonstrating the tower is rising above the roof of the Pru. Although, he prolly just rounded up 5 feet.

if it makes you happy, the current proposal has the tip of 1 Bromfield at the corrected height of 742' +/- 2', and FAA height limit should allow the site to rise a few above 111 Fed. So, 735' is well-deserving of the asterisk *at least.

makes me happy.

 

[chrisbrat]

31 feet.
31 feet.
Why not add 31 feet to this building and market it to buyers "Come live in the tallest building in New England!!"

I like this building, but why not do some type of crown that would look great if lit up at night and would make it, yet again, not another Boston building with a flat roof?

been wondering this since they actually broke ground january 2015. i can't imagine the cost of adding a 40-foot spire would be prohibitive on a project of this scale and absolutely would be worth the bragging rights.

 

[tysmith95]

And archbostons obsession with spires continues

 

[chrisbrat]

And archbostons obsession with spires continues

well -- curiosity why, when it's so within reasonable grasp, a developer wouldn't do something (spire, taller mp, whatever) to become the tallest building in town, when the current title-holder has been on top for 40 years.

i don't think the above is a particularly bizarre thought/question.

 

[whighlander]

been wondering this since they actually broke ground january 2015. i can't imagine the cost of adding a 40-foot spire would be prohibitive on a project of this scale and absolutely would be worth the bragging rights.

Chrisbrat -- Unless the spire is massive -- it won't look taller than the Pru plus its massive antenna mast which tops out over 900 ft [907 feet (276 m)]

WCVB Chronicle

The Pru's Roof Top: A Busy Place

http://www.wcvb.com/chronicle/the-prus-roof-top-a-busy-place/22725560

 

[DZH22]

And archbostons obsession with spires continues

For whatever reason, the Council of Tall Buildings decided to include spires in the official height of buildings. So you have something like Indianapolis' tallest, which is only 700' to the roof but has 2 sticks on top making it "taller" than the Pru and (ex) John Hancock. (forget the fact both of Boston's have antenna that go higher than Indy's, Indy's "wins")

Personally, I'm a competitive person. Like, Boston sports teams have no bearing on my day to day life, but I want them to win and it's bragging rights if they do. Some of us feel the same way about our skyline. To me, a spire is just a stick, and if we get a new tallest I want an ACTUAL new tallest. But, when comparing to other cities, Boston seem abnormally short and a lot of that is that we don't "cheat" as much with the spires!

So, that's why people care. Blame the idiots at CTBUH. This all started with Petronas eclipsing Sears.

 

[KentXie]

well -- curiosity why, when it's so within reasonable grasp, a developer wouldn't do something (spire, taller mp, whatever) to become the tallest building in town, when the current title-holder has been on top for 40 years.

i don't think the above is a particularly bizarre thought/question.

Because being the tallest might not give the developers any financial bonuses and is an added cost. Jeez Louis, I'm usually one of the most pro-height/pro-spire member on this forum but I found it bewildering that some of you guys can't comprehend the fact that developers do not necessarily have the same goal as you guys do (i.e. they could care less about having the title of the tallest) and that you guys would push for a spire for height sake even if the spire is literally a thin metal rod. Those type of spires are trash, there I said it, because it provides no added aesthetic value and is equivalent to an undersized basketball player spiking his 4 inch hair straight up just so that he can say that he is over 6 ft.

 

[chrisbrat]

Chrisbrat -- Unless the spire is massive -- it won't look taller than the Pru plus its massive antenna mast which tops out over 900 ft [907 feet (276 m)]

I dunno -- not only would the FS get the "honor" of being officially tallest, b/c antennas don't "count" and spires do when considering a tower's height (whether that's reasonable or right is a different conversation), but JHT looks taller than the pru to me. the Pru's master antenna system really does look more like a functional, rather than architectural, feature (not surprising, since it is).

if the JHT was right next to the Pru it'd appear to be the taller building to me.

by that reasoning (not saying you must agree with it) if the FS was even taller, architecturally, than the JHT than it would look taller than the Pru, too.

Bragging rights -- worth something to some people. And I'd imagine anyone ponying up millions for those penthouses could likely counted amongst that crowd.

 

[DZH22]

Those type of spires are trash, there I said it, because it provides no added aesthetic value and is equivalent to an undersized basketball player spiking his 4 inch hair straight up just so that he can say that he is over 6 ft.

This is how I feel about the TD Garden Office Tower. Crowns and mech count, but a thin stupid stick on top is just that, a stupid stick. If you put the stick on the ground you wouldn't call it a building, so why should it add to the "building" height on top?

 

[chrisbrat]

Because being the tallest might not give the developers any financial bonuses and is an added cost. Jeez Louis, I'm usually one of the most pro-height/pro-spire member on this forum but I found it bewildering that some of you guys can't comprehend the fact that developers do not necessarily have the same goal as you guys do (i.e. they could care less about having the title of the tallest) and that you guys would push for a spire for height sake even if the spire is literally a thin metal rod. Those type of spires are trash, there I said it, because it provides no added aesthetic value and is equivalent to an undersized basketball player spiking his 4 inch hair straight up just so that he can say that he is over 6 ft.

if such bragging rights are so unimportant, please explain why JHT bothered to go a measly 40 feet higher than the Pru.

 

[whighlander]

well -- curiosity why, when it's so within reasonable grasp, a developer wouldn't do something (spire, taller mp, whatever) to become the tallest building in town, when the current title-holder has been on top for 40 years.

i don't think the above is a particularly bizarre thought/question.

Chrisbrat -- a more interesting question

If the top of the RF Mast on the Pru is at 900 ft -- and we are not talking some whip antenn -- that's really a structural tower == THen why can't a nearby building soar to 900 ft of perhaps even a bit more -- the FAA obviously doesn't care

If necessary -- Paint the Top 100 ft of the new tower International Orange

 

[KentXie]

if such bragging rights are so unimportant, please explain why JHT bothered to go a measly 40 feet higher than the Pru.

Please explain why JHT, Pru, and Sears tower don't even occupy or fully occupy the buildings that have/had it's namesake. What happened? Did their skyscraper shrink or something? Why hasn't Fidelity built a skyscraper taller than State Street if they are a larger bank? Why did Liberty Mutual build a 350 ft tower instead of a 800 ft tower over JH?


Seriously, some of you guys would herald a 500ft tower with a 500 ft thin spire on top of it and cheer that Boston has a supertall. Get real.

 

[whighlander]

Please explain why JHT, Pru, and Sears tower don't even occupy or fully occupy the buildings that have/had it's namesake. What happened? Did their skyscraper shrink or something? Why hasn't Fidelity built a skyscraper taller than State Street if they are a larger bank? Why did Liberty Mutual built a 350 ft tower instead of a 800 ft tower over JH?

KentXie -- it comes down to $ -- first you build the structure and name it after yourself -- but if you don't need all the space -- what you lease to others is ordinary income which for a corporation is taxy

So instead - -what you do is sell the building to someone else -- typically a REIT and then lease what you need back

Nowadays you need a lot less space so most of the iconic eponymous giant buildings no longer even have their namesake as a tenant

If a mega company builds today -- they just build what they need -- thus GE will build / renovate a couple of hundred k sq ft to manage a 150 $B corporation

 

[KentXie]

KentXie -- it comes down to $ -- first you build the structure and name it after yourself -- but if you don't need all the space -- what you lease to others is ordinary income which for a corporation is taxy

So instead - -what you do is sell the building to someone else -- typically a REIT and then lease what you need back

Nowadays you need a lot less space so most of the iconic eponymous giant buildings no longer even have their namesake as a tenant

If a mega company builds today -- they just build what they need -- thus GE will build / renovate a couple of hundred k sq ft to manage a 150 $B corporation

Thank you. In short, developers do not build skyscrapers for height sake. It has to make financial sense. Now would it make sense for the developers of 1 Dalton to add 3 occupiable floors to become the tallest building? It can because they can actually generate additional revenue from it. Would it make financial sense to stick a piece of metal up on it? Probably not because they get no added financial value to it.

So does that mean there is never a point to build a spire? No, not necessarily, especially if the spire is part of the mechanical floor or includes a observation deck, etc etc.

 

[odurandina]

Personally, I'm a competitive person. Like, Boston sports teams have no bearing on my day to day life, but I want them to win and it's bragging rights if they do. Some of us feel the same way about our skyline.

You speak well for me on this matter.

9 cities will have supertalls by 2020 + Dallas w/ 921'...

New York
Chicago
Los Angeles
Miami
San Francisco
Seattle
Houston
Philadelphia
Atlanta
Dallas

Only cities lacking +800' height are Boston, Detroit and Washington.

Need a 925' slender skyscraper at 1065 Boylston Street or Hynes Convention Center or West End yesterday

 

[KentXie]

You speak well for me on this matter.

9 cities w/ supertalls + Dallas w/ 921' by 2020:

New York
Chicago
Houston
Philadelphia
San Francisco
Los Angeles
Miami
Atlanta
Seattle

Only cities lacking +800' height are Boston, Detroit and Washington.

Need a 925' slender skyscraper at 1065 Boylston Street or Hynes Convention Center or West End yesterday

So when is Salesforce or Comcast going to come to Boston to fill this 925' slender skyscraper or are you betting that Bank of America is going to up and move up here to occupy this space? Who's going to occupy it?

 

[617]

As excited as I am for this building, I'm convinced that there's many vantage points where the Pru will obstruct the view of FS...from FiDi, Harbor, Charlestown, Seaport?

 

[chrisbrat]

Chrisbrat -- a more interesting question

If the top of the RF Mast on the Pru is at 900 ft -- and we are not talking some whip antenn -- that's really a structural tower == THen why can't a nearby building soar to 900 ft of perhaps even a bit more -- the FAA obviously doesn't care

If necessary -- Paint the Top 100 ft of the new tower International Orange

agreed 100%

also -- my point/question wasn't focused solely on a spire as a means towards exceeding 790 feet. Add some floors, add a deck, make the screen taller -- plenty of options. Regardless, I think there is clear financial/marketing upside to being able to say, "Own a $300 million penthouse in the tallest tower in New England!" as compared to "Own a $300 million penthouse in the tallest building built in Boston since 1976, which is second-tallest in New England and about 60th tallest in America. Aren't you excited about the prospect?!?!?"

 

[DZH22]

agreed 100%

also -- my point/question wasn't focused solely on a spire as a means towards exceeding 790 feet. Add some floors, add a deck, make the screen taller -- plenty of options. Regardless, I think there is clear financial/marketing upside to being able to say, "Own a $300 million penthouse in the tallest tower in New England!" as compared to "Own a $300 million penthouse in the tallest building built in Boston since 1976, which is second-tallest in New England and about 60th tallest in America. Aren't you excited about the prospect?!?!?"

Tallest residential tower in New England still has a decent ring to it.