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

DZH22 said:
Tallest residential tower in New England still has a decent ring to it.
Click to expand...

true, true. And fwiw I am really excited about this tower, as-is. Just to be soooooooo tantilizingly close to beating out JHT is making me wish they'd found a reason to go a few more feet is all.
 
DZH22 said:
Tallest residential tower in New England still has a decent ring to it.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Again, especially from a marketing perspective. It would make total sense. That's all I'm saying. All the people bitching about people wanting height or spires or crowns - go move to Providence or Worcester or something....
 
whighlander said:
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 :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It can, its not that the FAA doesn't care its that the Pru is 920' to the tip in a 975' zoning area. They could put a 1000' tower up at the corner of the Hynes if they wanted to, its just not gonna happen. If someone proposes it though we could get a 900-1000 footer in the area some day.
 
dotdude78 said:
Exactly. Again, especially from a marketing perspective. It would make total sense. That's all I'm saying. All the people bitching about people wanting height or spires or crowns - go move to Providence or Worcester or something....
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to bitch about people wanting spires. A spire would probably work well for this tower. However I was just commenting on the fact that people complain about a lack of a spire in almost every single tower being built/proposed on this site. It was meant to be an observation I wasn't trying to criticize.
 
Downburst said:
This isn't going to so much break the local plateau as much as it's going to blow it out of the water. This is going to look immense, even with the Pru nearby.
Click to expand...

One thing that intrigues me about this tower, is how it will appear to be taller than both Hancock and Pru from quite a few vantage points. Bring it on!
 
This will make the skyline much more impressive from Fenway, Longwood, and Mission Hill. I'll be interested to see areas where this pokes through, but no other skyscraper is visible. This has the potential of "bringing the skyline to" parts of JP and Brookline, where the Pru and Hancock don't quite poke through.
 
I was walking along the muddy river the other day and said this same thing to myself but about the pierce. I think its going to pull the skyline west from a lot of new vantage points. This will from certain shots, but essentially I feel like if you can see the Pru you will see this for the most part. Coming down rt 9 and the pike will be cool to watch the changes over the next few years.
 
We get a substantial skyline view in Roslindale, I guess due to elevation. The view from here will give the illusion that Four Seasons is noticeably taller than the other two.
 
odurandina said:
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
Click to expand...

A- don't forget Las Vegas (Stratosphere Hotel is 1,149 feet).
B- I maintain that the Lord & Taylor site in Back Bay is the right site for a supertall.
 
At that point I think it would be cooler to be the only major city without one.
 
I guess Toronto, Vegas, Dallas, Vancouver, Calgary, San Antonio, and Seattle belong to that club.

Thinking out loud. Could put a restaurant 700' above Cambridge, i suppose.

It'd be a helluva view.

But i doubt the numbers could be made to work, if the nimby.
 
stick n move said:
It can, its not that the FAA doesn't care its that the Pru is 920' to the tip in a 975' zoning area. They could put a 1000' tower up at the corner of the Hynes if they wanted to, its just not gonna happen. If someone proposes it though we could get a 900-1000 footer in the area some day.
Click to expand...

Stick -- there's that Big Parking Garage on Dalton St. between the Hynes and Mass Ave

300m in the form of a slowly Twisting Octagonal Conical Frustrum with s 4 story pedestal

The multi-ground floor pedestal serves to connect the Boylston and Dalton Street levels and also provided for ultimately building a mini station for the Electrified Line toward Worcester for EMUs
 
617 said:
Anyone want to photoshop this? Maybe throw down a 1 Liberty Place where lord and Taylor is?
Click to expand...

i discussed L&T last fall with A. Friend who painted a grim picture....

Unfortunately, it's another Back Bay turd parcel, imo. Sorry for the negative outlook.

That it's part of the old Pru site plan isn't really a problem. That can be remedied.

400~450'' might be doable.

Google earthing it reveals the site's 1 glaring weakness.
 
I've done that I don't see a glaring weakness. Would you care to explain?

The highway doesn't pass under it and the back side of it closer to the South End is insulated from both Back Bay and the South End. The only potential issue is lost views for the other towers, but if the city decides to ignore the people in those towers which it could and has done before it won't be an issue and that issue exists whether the tower is 300 feet or 2,000 feet tall.
 
citylover94 said:
I've done that I don't see a glaring weakness. Would you care to explain?

The highway doesn't pass under it and the back side of it closer to the South End is insulated from both Back Bay and the South End. The only potential issue is lost views for the other towers, but if the city decides to ignore the people in those towers which it could and has done before it won't be an issue and that issue exists whether the tower is 300 feet or 2,000 feet tall.
Click to expand...

Or even on top of shaws? Or saks?
 
citylover94 said:
I've done that I don't see a glaring weakness. Would you care to explain?

The highway doesn't pass under it and the back side of it closer to the South End is insulated from both Back Bay and the South End. The only potential issue is lost views for the other towers, but if the city decides to ignore the people in those towers which it could and has done before it won't be an issue and that issue exists whether the tower is 300 feet or 2,000 feet tall.
Click to expand...

It won't happen soon. It's a big parcel. And the BRA has it marked for a large retail complex to serve the growing Back Bay and Fenway (as well as the retail refugees off Beacon and Comm Ave)... The BRA would probably prefer a big podium w/ a thin or 33 Arch type tower. But, i'm with you all. After new additions to the wall of 325-400' towers, anything that happens here needs to go very tall.

But any proposals will ignite a political firestorm with the Back Bay community due to shade being cast on the neighborhoods off Newbury Street and Comm Ave (in the spring, late summer, fall winter, etc) in addition to late afternoon shade issues over BPL, South Church, Trinity Church and the Copley Sq green patch.

connect and zoom: look at South Church sitting in its virgin sunny patch, unprotected from the evil developer. That's a nightmare for the BRA if we ever saw one...

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3455235,-71.0762495,568a,20y,339.55h,42.45t/data=!3m1!1e3

Menino was pressured into signing off on a law that would have put much of the area out of reach for anything over like ~150-200' (if memory serves), that would have included this parcel in the land grab. Luckily, he balked.... Still, the political winds aren't aligned for tall at L&T now, and may never be. You should formally ask the BRA for clarification. However, with all the hotels and condo's going up in the area, the BRA clearly wants this space set aside for future mega-retail first, with consideration for 'tall' a distant second.

3 parcels that immediately shout out for a slender, 925'/Boston supertall are:

1. 111 Huntington
2. 1 Dalton
3. Dalton St. Garage.

An argument can be made for several other parcels in Back Bay to go as tall as 150~180m, but i don't think you'd ever get very far arguing for much more, and still, even those would be longshots for anything over 120m.
 
Last edited:
Maybe not now but wait a few years and I think you will be surprised remember no one thought we would have proposals like Millennium and the Four Seasons happening and being approved just a few years before those went through.
 
odurandina said:
It won't happen soon. It's a big parcel. And the BRA has it marked for a large retail complex to serve the growing Back Bay and Fenway (as well as the retail refugees off Beacon and Comm Ave)... The BRA would probably prefer a big podium w/ a thin or 33 Arch type tower. But, i'm with you all. After new additions to the wall of 325-400' towers, anything that happens here needs to go very tall.

But any proposals will ignite a political firestorm with the Back Bay community due to shade being cast on the neighborhoods off Newbury Street and Comm Ave (in the spring, late summer, fall winter, etc) in addition to late afternoon shade issues over BPL, South Church, Trinity Church and the Copley Sq green patch.

connect and zoom: look at South Church sitting in its virgin sunny patch, unprotected from the evil developer. That's a nightmare for the BRA if we ever saw one...

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3455235,-71.0762495,568a,20y,339.55h,42.45t/data=!3m1!1e3

Menino was pressured into signing off on a law that would have put much of the area out of reach for anything over like ~150-200' (if memory serves), that would have included this parcel in the land grab. Luckily, he balked.... Still, the political winds aren't aligned for tall at L&T now, and may never be. You should formally ask the BRA for clarification. However, with all the hotels and condo's going up in the area, the BRA clearly wants this space set aside for future mega-retail first, with consideration for 'tall' a distant second.

3 parcels that immediately shout out for a slender, 925'/Boston supertall are:

1. 111 Huntington
2. 1 Dalton
3. Dalton St. Garage.

An argument can be made for several other parcels in Back Bay to go as tall as 150~180m, but i don't think you'd ever get very far arguing for much more, and still, even those would be longshots for anything over 120m.
Click to expand...

Odurandia -- That's why you go tall and thin -- any shaddow moves quickly along and doesn't linger

By the way since the site in question [Dalton St. Garage on Scotia St] is west of most of the Back Bay the only shadow effects are late in the afternoon in the Autumn and Spring oe near sunset in the Summer


https://goo.gl/maps/i97Xr7GdK6q
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top