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

fattony said:
I'm curious what need there is for another large antenna right next to the Pru. Is there enough demand that the Pru is turning away antenna tenants today?
Click to expand...

Fattony -- I'm guessing its cellular not broadcast

The Pru is home for a host of FM stations transmitting through 2 master antenna arrays mounted on the Antenna Mast below the TV antenna at the top
prutower-up.jpg
art-towerbase.jpg

pru-4.jpg


The rest of the roof is littered with other antennae as is the top of the former John Hancock [now 200 Clarendon]
forest-of-antennas-on-both-rooftops-of-prudential-and-john-hancock-picture-id120108087
 
stick n move said:
The hancock has a bunch of antennas too but you dont really notice theyre there. Hopefully its the same here.
Click to expand...

I think it depends; the Pru's main antenna is arguably treated as an architectural element. It is centered, and it has up-lighting to highlight it.

The Hancock's are a hodgepodge that clearly were not assumed to be design elements.

I could see a centered, tapered antenna with architecturally thoughtful support gussets at its base, and perhaps with subtle lighting working here...

(I could also see a bad implementation killing the aesthetic. But you gotta think that they wouldn't skimp on this; they're spending $750m on an extremely high-end building, why would they let something like this mess it up?)
 
so with that flat antenna platform, is the Pru essentially abouit 758~760' give or take??
 
odurandina said:
so with that flat antenna platform, is the Pru essentially abouit 758~760' give or take??
Click to expand...

Odurandia -- Just a bit less -- the tower is about 157 ft tall and the height of the top of the antenna, where the navigation light is located, is 908 -- so it seems that the top of the 55th floor on the Pru is at 752 ft

The highest point on the antenna mast above Mean Sea Level according to the FCC is 280m or 918.6 ft. the base of the building is given as 3.6m [AMSL] 11.8 ft [AMSL] so the height of the tower above the sidewalk is 276.4 m or 906.8 there seems to be a missing foot between two different documents claiming to be based on the FCC database

so here's the original filing with the FCC
http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/asrRegistration.jsp?regKey=108731

final height above the street is 906.81 ft.
 
This is serious. The high spine is coming into its own and its really going to be special.

We have had this weird dynamic up until MT was built where the back bay skyline had the two tallest and most impactful buildings but surrounded by tons of boring stumps. Then downtown was very dense but also very short and boring. Its like neither was what it was supposed to be. Both are about to become great skylines that compliment each other wonderfully. Back bay already had the crowns with no supporting cast and downtown had the supporting cast with no crown. They both and getting exactly what they need and everything is going to pull together. Buckle up because in like 6 years Boston is no longer going to seem like a small scale city anymore. Its going to look and feel like the major city it is.

 
The way that the narrator in the promotional video pronounces the word "masterpiece" (at the very, very end of the video), is so Baston. The "r" is just not there.
 
i got a render of 1 Dalton in 28 years......






Our Back Bay skyline should have well been something immensely incredible by now.... Naturally, that's subject to varying degress of interpretation as we run down near the last of our politically-doable parcels for significant height.

*(That also would be subject to debate; wheather it's making too many shadows on Comm Ave, incroaching on historically significant rowhouse blocks, pissing off voters in increasingly untenable numbers, and getting sued for raking in gale force winds).
 
Last edited:
odurandina said:
i got a render of 1 Dalton in 28 years......


Click to expand...

i'm currently in Shanghai and this (presumably mostly joking) mock-up isn't too far off from the vibe here -- except of course that Shanghai Tower is soooooo much taller than everything else. Talk about a "peak."
 
Woah, 856, that makes 1 Dalton the second tallest in total structure height, correct?
 
bigpicture7 said:
I think it depends; the Pru's main antenna is arguably treated as an architectural element. It is centered, and it has up-lighting to highlight it.

The Hancock's are a hodgepodge that clearly were not assumed to be design elements.

I could see a centered, tapered antenna with architecturally thoughtful support gussets at its base, and perhaps with subtle lighting working here...

(I could also see a bad implementation killing the aesthetic. But you gotta think that they wouldn't skimp on this; they're spending $750m on an extremely high-end building, why would they let something like this mess it up?)
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure the 1 Dalton antenna is going to be centered, judging by the structure visible on the roof in the sketch from the promo video on the last page.

WVfQRDG.png
 
Last edited:
pel_north said:
Woah, 856, that makes 1 Dalton the second tallest in total structure height, correct?
Click to expand...

dunno, i have to think the Pru is just about that, what with that whateverthatthingis antenna platform. has anyone ever been up there? WTF is that? antenna conduit?
 
Slapping a radio antenna on this is going to ruin the cohesiveness of this tower. A spire probably couldnt even be pulled off well on this building. An off center radio stick is the last thing this tower needs. I made a render of this tower with a spire a while ago ill see if its on photobucket because im not near my computer.
 
odurandina said:
i got a render of 1 Dalton in 28 years......






Our Back Bay skyline should have well been something immensely incredible by now.... Naturally, that's subject to varying degress of interpretation as we run down near the last of our politically-doable parcels for significant height.

*(That also would be subject to debate; wheather it's making too many shadows on Comm Ave, incroaching on historically significant rowhouse blocks, pissing off voters in increasingly untenable numbers, and getting sued for raking in gale force winds).
Click to expand...

Odurandina: Im just wondering, since you complain so much about height and anyone who opposes height for any reason — where do you live in Boston, and with whom? Where did you grow up? What shaped that? And do you live alone? Do you have a partner with whom you'd share this putative wind-tunnel future? Do you have children of your own?

Edit - I suppose that's a little confrontational, but seriously, man... quality of life issues matter. Wind and shade do matter. It's not a war of us versus them. People have different opinions of what they want their city to look like, and that's ok... and, moreover, a lot of those opinions are based on something a little deeper than how the skyline looks from 3 miles away.
 
Last edited:
DZH22 said:
JH is actually 857' to antenna.
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=135017056&row=6


Ooooooh yeah, I'm so good.

What's unfortunate about that faa site is it only goes back into the 90's. I'm absolutely sure some buildings have been listed shorter than they really are. (Exchange Place for starters)
Click to expand...

I've been discerning heights for my Boston/Minecraft project from Google Earth. Just note the elevation of the building when you put your cursor over it and compare it to the elevation of the ground below. Easy and accurate to within a foot or two.
 
God will smite you if you criticize the church's redevelopment lol.
 
Downburst said:
I've been discerning heights for my Boston/Minecraft project from Google Earth. Just note the elevation of the building when you put your cursor over it and compare it to the elevation of the ground below. Easy and accurate to within a foot or two.
Click to expand...

Big issue is whether or not some tiny spire might be throwing the height out of whack. I wonder that about the Fed for sure. (with all those sticks on top) 33 Arch has an extra, barely visible spire on the middle fin that surely contributes to that 477' figure.

Also, it seems like mech tops generally count, which makes me wonder if the Pregnant Building is really taller (Exchange Place too). A good example of this is the IDS Tower in Minneapolis. For years and years it was billed as 772', but suddenly they realized the small box at the top counted and it jumped the Hancock to 792'.

If you find any buildings that should be taller (Exchange Place, Preggers, 1 Financial) we should definitely report those numbers to the appropriate places. If you find any that appear shorter (Fed, for instance) it's probably better to do more research than to automatically downgrade them statistically.

Yes I am a homer and that is a homer approach but what can you do?

Regarding this one, I'm curious as to people's guesses for the following dates.
Any steel/concrete out of the ground: My guess, December 7. (EDIT, revising this to November 30, thanks for the pics Beeline!)
Entire hole filled to at least ground level: My guess, December 29.
Top out: My guess, October 4.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top