How Tall Are Boston's Buildings and Should They Be Taller?

odurandina

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2015
Messages
5,328
Reaction score
252
Actually, when the Pru went up, in 1964, i believe it was 10th tallest in the world at that time.
i'm 100% certain when the Hancock was first cladded in 1972,
it was the 10th tallest enclosed building in the world at the time.
i believe it remained in the top 10 for a couple of years, possibly as recently as 1975 or '76.
 
Last edited:

citydweller

New member
Joined
Aug 23, 2019
Messages
76
Reaction score
56
It's not blind envy. I would hate to live in or near NYC. Your city has 19 buildings over 800' UNDER CONSTRUCTION and yet here you are taking a condescending attitude towards somebody asking for ONE. It's been 43 years since the Hancock opened and almost 50 since it topped out. You'd think a city booming this much could get a new tallest building after 50+ years without people being so patronizing to the idea.

When the Prudential was built it was the 12th tallest building in the WORLD and tallest in North America outside NYC. When the Hancock was built it was a top 20 tallest building in the WORLD. Now 16 US cities have buildings taller than the Hancock, with potentially another U/C and another imminent. 3 Canadian cities are taller. A couple Mexican cities (with another U/C), plus Panama City got in the mix. That means we actually went from having the 2nd tallest skyline peak in North America at one point to the 23rd and falling. It doesn't mean they are better cities, as very few on the continent can even pretend to match the urban setting. Also, half a dozen European cities have also eclipsed Boston, most within the last decade, and across the board cities in Europe are at least building new tallests or have within the last few years. We can be snobby about our great urban character to other North American cities, but the denser/older European cities are not just going tall, but providing striking designs to be new symbols of their cities.

For more point-of-reference stats, Australia has 4 cities that have passed Boston. Brisbane has made a particular surge from a city that looked about the size of Hartford to a bigger skyline than Boston, and Melbourne (our sister city) will soon have over 11 taller buildings and over 50 500'ers, while having a skyline reasonably on par with Boston just a short 15 years ago. Note that I am leaving out the Asian cities, particularly Chinese ones, but it's safe to say that every city you have heard of (and many you haven't) have built (a lot) taller than 790'.

So, I guess maybe I just want to feel proud of a new symbol for Boston's future, the way Bostonians would have felt in 1915, again in 1964, and again in 1976 once that unbelievable construction debacle was over with. I am excited when I see the city and Millennium Tower is a gleaming peak, 1 Dalton a new brooding sentinel that blows ones mind from the west. The city feels bigger, and I WANT it to feel bigger, that's always been the exciting thing about a city, is watching it grow and evolve and grow and grow and grow! There is pride to be had in a huge building that shouts to the rafters how important it is (assuming a good design, and not all of the cities that passed ours have them). I am ready to turn the page on a new, bold chapter in Boston and these new taller buildings have been leading the charge. A new tallest would be the icing on the cake, something a city as important of ours deserves to have, and something I hope materializes within a decade.


TL/DR - City hasn't built a new tallest for almost 50 years, it's due, just because we don't NEED it to be a great city isn't a compelling argument AGAINST it ever happening, so stop being condescending a-holes towards those of us who do want it and let us have our 1 big win. Unless you can show me exactly how one new tallest building would make your life worse, some of you Devil's Advocates need to just stuff it already.


Epilogue: Yes I would prefer to see the immediate downtown core developed first, and developed boldly. I recognize that it makes sense to develop all of these other areas including the Seaport, and the overall good to the city that it brings, as well as how much larger the whole area feels. Does that mean I am not allowed to lament the way it undoubtedly delays/stunts the more difficult to attain bold development in the core? I'm actually not complaining about the current level of construction (just the 12 year height-hiatus leading to Millennium Tower) and find Boston looking more and more exciting by the day. I just want to see a new city-tallest before I die. It would be such a disappointment if it doesn't happen.

EDIT: I didn't even realize this rant ended up in the "Aerials" thread. That's pretty funny.
I use to hope that Boston would build some impressive, iconic towers that would greatly exceed the height of the Hancock, but, for the most part, I don't feel that way anymore. I think the recent developments around the Garden and G'ovt center are well conceived and fit nicely with the Boston skyline. The 1000' proposal put forth by Mayor Menino, where they are currently building at Winthrop square, was ridiculous. Admittedly, the height restrictions imposed by the FAA would squash any such proposals. I just think that supertall's would diminish Boston, not enhance it. I'm speaking in terms of the the finical district and DTX. The "high spine" area could use a couple more towers, but maintaining the scale of the Pru, Hancock, 1 Dalton, to fill in the skyline.
 
Last edited:

DZH22

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
5,907
Reaction score
2,653
I use to hope that Boston would build some impressive, iconic towers that would greatly exceed the height of the Hancock, but, for the most part, I don't feel that way anymore. I think the recent developments around the Garden and G'ovt center are well conceived and fit nicely with the Boston skyline. The 1000' proposal put forth by Mayor Menino, where they are currently building at Winthrop square, was ridiculous. Admittedly, the height restrictions imposed by the FAA would squash any such proposals. I just think that supertall's would diminish Boston, not enhance it. I'm speaking in terms of the the finical district and DTX. The "high spine" area could use a couple more towers, but maintaining the scale of the Pru, Hancock, 1 Dalton, to fill in the skyline.
There's 210' between 790' and 1000'. I never understand why everybody needs to jump to 1000', point at it as unnecessary, and automatically write-off a new tallest that could "fit in" better. (also note that Tommy's Tower was more like 1100')

The best way to both get (much) more height while still fitting in is using a crown/spire combo. I would love to see a more classical building topping the skyline, something like Cleveland's Key Tower, Charlotte's BOA, Philadelphia's 1 Liberty Place, or even Frankfurt's Messeturm. We could get the height without dwarfing the existing cityscape. Anything 850'-950' would be a nice punctuation to the skyline.
 

chrisbrat

Active Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
808
Reaction score
195
"yes" to everything DZH wrote. it's high (pun unintended, but it stays) time for a new tallest in boston. honestly it's pretty rigoddamndiculous that it hasn't happened yet. i was a baby when JHT topped off and i'm closer to retirement now than i am to high school. for a "world class city" to be so height-phobic/challenged is pretty silly.
 

#bancars

Active Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
138
Reaction score
184
Really? I always think that the city itself is a place for meandering. I can happily walk the streets of Boston for hours.
Seriously, I think Boston is generally a fantastic place to meander on foot, primarily because so much of it isn't laid out on a grid system and there is such an interesting mix of architectural styles!
 

odurandina

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2015
Messages
5,328
Reaction score
252
I never understand why everybody needs to jump to 1000', point at it as unnecessary, and automatically write-off a new tallest that could "fit in" better. (also note that Tommy's Tower was more like 1100')
.....We could get the height without dwarfing the existing cityscape. Anything 850'-950' would be a nice.....
This.
What some of us (amiable types) have been sayin' for years.
 

Massachoicetts

Active Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2019
Messages
227
Reaction score
171
I feel Boston shouldn't jump to height and focus on the quality of the skyline before going 1,000 ft. If Bromfield and SST are constructed we will have buildings going from 793', 749', 742', 702', 691',685', 677', 647', 625', 620', 600' ... I think the next height of the next tower should be ~850ft and then 990' in a perfect world. I would like to see more 400-600 footers in the Back Bay to really make the Pru and Hancock pierce through a quality skyline. Just my two cents on that. However, I dont think it is feasible to be building 180-300' footers in the downtown core where height can be up to 700'. I think that is silly. If you want to construct 180-300', there are plenty of plots for that and if you take away a parcel that can support a 700' ... you are limiting the potential of the city.

Eventually, I would like to see a skyline line up to this
1. NEW TOWER (990ft)
2. NEW TOWER (845ft)
3. NEW TOWER (801ft)
4. John Hancock (793ft)
5. The Pru (749ft)
6. One Dalton (742ft)
7. BROMFIELD PROPOSED (709ft)
8. WINTHROP U/C (691ft)
9. Millenium (685ft)
10. SOUTH STATION TOWER APPROVED (677ft)
11. NEW TOWER (660ft)
12. PARCEL 15 HOPEFUL (650ft)
13. STATE STREET HQ U/C (647ft)
14. NEW TOWER (641ft)
15. NEW TOWER (625ft)
16. Federal Bank Reserve (604ft)
17. One Boston Place (601ft)
18. AQUARIUM HOPEFUL (600ft)
19. AlliantGroup (600ft)

I think following something along this line would be very nice. If another building taller was added I would say it would look better if it was 1100-1200ft tall. It wont happen, but it would follow a nice equation.
 

kmp1284

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
1,887
Reaction score
97
I feel Boston shouldn't jump to height and focus on the quality of the skyline before going 1,000 ft. If Bromfield and SST are constructed we will have buildings going from 793', 749', 742', 702', 691',685', 677', 647', 625', 620', 600' ... I think the next height of the next tower should be ~850ft and then 990' in a perfect world. I would like to see more 400-600 footers in the Back Bay to really make the Pru and Hancock pierce through a quality skyline. Just my two cents on that. However, I dont think it is feasible to be building 180-300' footers in the downtown core where height can be up to 700'. I think that is silly. If you want to construct 180-300', there are plenty of plots for that and if you take away a parcel that can support a 700' ... you are limiting the potential of the city.

Eventually, I would like to see a skyline line up to this
1. NEW TOWER (990ft)
2. NEW TOWER (845ft)
3. NEW TOWER (801ft)
4. John Hancock (793ft)
5. The Pru (749ft)
6. One Dalton (742ft)
7. BROMFIELD PROPOSED (709ft)
8. WINTHROP U/C (691ft)
9. Millenium (685ft)
10. SOUTH STATION TOWER APPROVED (677ft)
11. NEW TOWER (660ft)
12. PARCEL 15 HOPEFUL (650ft)
13. STATE STREET HQ U/C (647ft)
14. NEW TOWER (641ft)
15. NEW TOWER (625ft)
16. Federal Bank Reserve (604ft)
17. One Boston Place (601ft)
18. AQUARIUM HOPEFUL (600ft)
19. AlliantGroup (600ft)

I think following something along this line would be very nice. If another building taller was added I would say it would look better if it was 1100-1200ft tall. It wont happen, but it would follow a nice equation.
I’ll probably regret asking but where would the buildings identified only by height go? What specifically would each one replace?
 

DZH22

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
5,907
Reaction score
2,653
I’ll probably regret asking but where would the buildings identified only by height go? What specifically would each one replace?
Regarding new tallest(s) only:
North Station area has potential, including the empty lots on the other side of the Leverett ramp, or tearing down part of the O'Neill, or (gasp) eventually replacing one or more of the eyesore 1960's apartment blocks in the West End (with an appropriate, and then some, offset to keep affordable housing in the area). Kings parking garage near the Pru, plus air rights parcels over the Mass Pike are other possible spots. Kendall actually has the most potential of all if they had the guts to pull the trigger. Volpe plus Constellation place or whatever are good candidates.
 

stefal

Active Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2015
Messages
817
Reaction score
295
A good explanation on the politics, finance, economics and engineering required to build something tall: Video.

Though not directly related to Boston's supposed lack of tall buildings, it does raise the same issues, and also brings up the question surrounding why we want to build tall.
 
Last edited:

meddlepal

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2012
Messages
1,482
Reaction score
195
I think the era of tall commercial in the US is coming to a close outside hyper-premium market of NYC. Businesses are diversifying teams across more global locations and offering more remote opportunities which means they need less centralized footprints.

That leaves tall residential as the only real driver... and there's simply not enough demand for the square foot cost beyond say 400ft.
 

Arlington

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 10, 2011
Messages
4,291
Reaction score
450
Moved from the Alcott thread:

If you want to remove the constraint to Boston's growth, both population-wise and economic-wise, then move the airport west of the city.
i argue--at this point, doing that wouldn't lead to any significant increase in tall construction.
Anything over about 450' starts getting into huge shadow fights (everywhere). That's the religion: casting shadow/s across multiple neighborhoods etc. You think casting shadows on parks is an all too often fight: go a bit taller, and it's going to be additional fighting about shadows over neighborhoods, and their historical structures.
The other problem is step-ups. How you put a 400' tower next to a row of 100' buildings is tough enough (it's usually more like ~250-300') How do you put up a 700 or 800' tower next to 100 or 140' buildings? Maybe that shit will fly in Oklahoma City. But it's going to be very hard to do here. It's not 1970. Nowadays, you probably need a 140' layer, followed by a 330' layer before you get to go really tall.
Show me where those possibilities exist, or where the space to create those layers exists? There are very few.
Make a proposal where you're going to put shadows down over Beacon Hill, or Back Bay--you're looking at a long, drawn out fight. More of us have come to a realization about North Station, and the lots next to the Garden Garage being some of the last realistic chances for >700' height: You're not casting shadows over historical architecture.
Even Govt Ctr: JFK fed (low buildings), Center Plaza, State Service Center is very problematic for height pushing to the FAA limit/s or beyond (after moving the airport). You'd be putting parts of Beacon Hill and Back Bay under shadow. It'll be very hard getting anything (approved).
Our ancient neighborhoods, including the Dot Ave corridor aren't really being held up by FAA heights, but by our standard fare provincialism, and the autocratic nature of the activists who will prevent a micro-sized slice of U.E.Side to exist.
 

odurandina

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2015
Messages
5,328
Reaction score
252
By 2025, we'll have ~45 buildings within 100~110' of the magical "Fat 500'."
and just 6 taller than 610'
No one can deny there has been an unbelievable transformation.
But some can still claim the City's skyline is plagued by
nil dynamic range:
fat, stunted Downtown towers,
by any reasonable standard--a barren, largely un-built Back Bay, with no mid range,
with a smattering of 230~325' nubs throughout.

Tefkab/GLOBE said:
Its a nice looking building that is about 300 feet too short . How would this be skyline altering . Just about every new building in Boston is 600 feet . Bostons skyline looks like it was clipped off , nothing sticks out . Its a flat dull skyline and this building will not make a difference . Its a shame that airport had to be built on the other side of the harbor . It has killed all creativity .

good to epic.....

Highrises (within FAA limits) that would totally fix Boston's dull skyline,
and could (actually) be built tomorrow.


A similar massing to 40 Wall Street (NYC), but narrower, built at 264 Huntington Ave--
with many more community upgrades (927' base at the antenna mast)
Something like a slender version of Brookfield Place (Calgary), but w/ an imaginative, convex roof
put at 65 Martha Rd pushing (840~870'FAA)
Emulation of 181 Freemont (San Fran) put at 1000 Boylston St (715')
1 Bromfield St proposal (built) but with better massing (709')
Winthrop Square West completed (691')
South Station Tower completed (677')
Copley Tower completed (625')
Central Wharf completed (600')
a renovation of Sheraton North Tower/w/ executive wing & flaired roof (600')
Winthrop Square East completed (579')
A pair of slender towers at the Midtown Hotel site (570')
& (490')
A tower w/ roof to shape the transition from the Hancock/Pru area to the Fenway
a la/Crain Communications Bldg, at 1065 Boylston St, but much more slender (530')
101 Clarendon/Columbus Center completed (420')
back Bay Station towers (420') w/ narrow, pinnacle spire and soft lighting to (~500')
& re-designed massing for office (388')
The Huntington completed next door on the Charles River side of its current site (400')
All the proposed stuff in Kenmore Square completed.

[(4) >200m + flanks] end Boston's underwhelming skyline (rep).
Then, 230'~310' neighborhood apts all the way to the south of Huntington
& Melnea Cass and (beyond) for the next 50 years.
 
Last edited:

Massachoicetts

Active Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2019
Messages
227
Reaction score
171
I feel a very slim 800-8850fter downtown in the FAA limits wouldnt throw such a backlash.
 

odurandina

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2015
Messages
5,328
Reaction score
252
Re; Exchange Place/53 State St....

53 State Street: 539' tall, possibly taller.


Proliferation of height has long been a source of exasperation for some people of Boston.

The 8 year period from 1977 to 1985 brought us 60 State St, 1 Post Office Square, Exchange Place and 1 Financial Ctr. The first 3 of those put parts of the Faneuil Hall historic area under shadow, inciting much controversy for planners at the end of the Keven White era, and into newly elected Mayor Flynn's admn.

There's a record dating perhaps as far back as the '80's of a few highrises built (possibly) taller than their stated heights--with the true numbers learned some time after construction was completed. There may be instances where the true heights of a few buildings were never disclosed (at all). If you were around in the general time from 1977~87, you might not be surprised to learn this.

Exchange Place is very tall: Photo analysis from various parts of the Financial District, where opportunity lends to lining up the roof field of view at (0°), shows the tallest setback of 53 State rising possibly, just a few feet shy of the cornice of the main occupied floors at 1 Boston Place. This would suggest a height closer to 540' or even ~550'. Photos suggest Exchange Place rises ~30-40' higher than 60 State St. (509').

Can FAA docs reveal the height of 53 State St?


There's an image up on Skyscraper Page that nicely includes the antenna masts atop Exchange Place....

From available images, the masts are depicted accurately on Skyscraper page to within maybe a foot or two. They probably fall near a range of ~25-35' feet in height.



topp 5.jpg



topp 2.jpg



i don't know their exact height, but it's close to 30' (2 glass panels = 1 floor).
i'll try to find more info about those masts.

Thanks to a couple FAA documents, we may be able to determine the height of Exchange Place.


What we know + maybe more:

1. FAA and FCC documents stipulate the antennae are for internal communication within the building for management and maintenance staff/s.

2. The masts are a box design, and have been up there for a long time. A slim lattice rises at the corners a few feet above the horizontal bracing.

3. FAA and FCC documents stipulate antennae not exceed the heights of the masts. For anything to go taller, the owner would need to get a 'Determination of Hazard to Air Navigation.'

The only objects seen on the roof of 53 State are these stubby masts and their antennae. Photos show the antennae do not rise much above the horizontal parts of the masts. They don't appear to rise above the vertical lattices at the corners.

4. A 2008 FAA filing for an antenna gives the height at the top of the masts. The document couldn't list the tower and masts separately; that would be too easy. But, the language is speaking to the [tower + masts]: not antennae added to the structure, later. (see the Determination pdf).


FAA:
"Any height exceeding 573 feet above ground level (587 feet above mean sea level), will result in a substantial adverse effect and would warrant a Determination of Hazard to Air Navigation. This determination is subject to review if an interested party files a petition that is received by the FAA on or before October 24, 2008...."

5. Very tall: The documents indicate Exchange Place to be well-taller than the commonly accepted, 510'. The masts and antenna can not account for the discrepancy from 510' to 573'.

6. In prior filings, parties had failed to accurately report the height of the tower + masts. For the 2008 antenna application, a new study was done. They then discovered [the tower + masts] rises 9 feet taller than had been previously known to 587' AMSL, and 573' AGL. It probably is referring only to the tower + masts, and treating antennae as separate/determinant issues. But someone might have simply installed a taller antenna, and FAA decided to let it go.

573' tall to the top of the masts or comm antennae?

pdf:
"During the further study process new information came to light as to the height of this building and its existing "appurtenances." The total height for this building is not 578 ft AMSL as previously noted. The existing height is actually 587 ft AMSL (573 ft. AGL)...."

.................................................................................

[They are clearly defining 573' AGL as a pre-existing condition
not resulting from a contravening antenna or other/ past or present.]


[The document language lists the masts inclusively as part of the tower's permanent structure--treating them no differently as a common roof parapet (but excludes antennae--which are swiftly transportable). The masts are the determined top the tower.

The proposed antenna rises within the limit (of the top of the masts) as instructed by FCC and FAA. The report states neither the new antenna nor any existing antennae to be out of compliance.


[Next, c.y.a. for the issue for the previously understated height/s of the tower + mast/s....]

FAA:
"Study for possible visual flight rules (VFR) effect disclosed that the proposed structure would have no additional effect on any existing or proposed arrival or departure VFR operations or procedures. It would not conflict with airspace required to conduct normal VFR traffic pattern operations at BOS or any other known public use or military airports. At 573 ft. AGL, the proposed structure might have had an impact on VFR enroute operations [except] that this structure is located in the core of downtown Boston and there are several other buildings of similar or higher height in the general area.

"...it would not have a substantial adverse effect on VFR en route flight operations. The existing building already is and will continue to be appropriately [obstruction] lighted to make it more conspicuous to airmen should circumnavigation be necessary.... it is determined that the proposed construction would not create any additional adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft...."



i've suspected the height of Exchange Place to be ~542'. Or, maybe the discovered 9 feet, is an antenna rising above the masts. In that case, the tower loses a few feet. But would still be ~540'.

In a recent filing, Exchange Place recieved a determination for at least 1 antenna to reach 630.94'. There's no more guess work. In an FCC antenna filing, the height of the roof is given as 539.068' AGL. An earlier FCC document for existing antenna gives the same 539' to the roof. Therefore, it's appropriate to conclude

Exchange Place 539' to the highest setback roof.


i'll try to get additional clarification from the FAA to confirm 539'.
 
Last edited:

odurandina

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2015
Messages
5,328
Reaction score
252
1 Financial Center: 590' or.....
Could it be taller?

For reference, the base elevation (AMSL) of 1 Financial Ctr is 16 feet.

In 1983, while walking around near the State House, i noticed steel going up on Dewey Square. As the weeks went by, the steel kept rising skyward. i knew my Dad was working with architects on some highrise projects--so, i made sure to ask him if he knew how tall this was going to go. He stated without the least bit of interest, "600'."

Good. It wasn't crazy like in the 70's when Dad took me around Downtown. But a few wrecking balls, and rubble being hauled away could still be seen. Still, a few buildings whose time had come to their end were still coming down. It was cool to see new tall buildings, and reading articles in the Globe's Real Estate section about the new ones being presented, or going u/c.

The shape of Dewey Square was more pleasing to my eyes than the Boston Company bldg (1 Boston Pl), or the dull, 70's buildings. To me, this was more, the type of tower you'd expect to see along [the Avenue of the America's].

600'. Cool. Let's get more of these!

It was the end of the White Admn, which brought so much height.
Then, rather quickly, it all kinda stopped.
International Place (1987) you say?
No, that was not fun--
It was more, a fair warning about what was to come.....
Then end of the Mass tech boom, Big Dig, & Great Recession probably held us down a good while longer.

Ray Flynn took office in Jan, 1984. It wouldn't be too long after, that the new mayor soon found himself under fire for the highrise construction "ruining Boston."

i suspect it was around this time, the White/Flynn Admn may have started fibbing more about the heights of some of the Downtown towers. With no internet back in those days--it wasn't hard to keep that stuff quiet. And they sorta did.

Three White/Ryan (BRA) towers had put the area around Faneuil Hall under new shadow. First, 60 State, then, a few years later with Post Office Square and Exchange Place. There was also Dewey Square going up over by South Station. Much of Boston had been getting the wrecking balls, and dug up for 25 years. The trend was beginning to anger a bunch of people. They seemed to get louder as the months passed.

Feeling that heat, Flynn issued a decree that construction would be capped at ~400' or 450' (i don't recall the exact #). The Beacon Hill coterie convinced the mayor to stop permitting tall towers.

Along comes Don Chiofaro--hyper-focused on building skyscrapers (hey/right), starting with his IP proposal and designs on 700'. Don walks into City Hall in a trench coat covering his Harvard Football jersey blaring Eye of the Tiger.
The next many months would be spent sparring with the Flynn Admn and BRA director, Stephen Coyle. They wanted the IP scaled down. Don reduced the main tower down to @600' and "not a g_dammed foot lower."

The process that would eventually permit 600' wasn't bludgeoned by an army organized on Facebook, or other morons, psychopaths and mental defectives "threatening interlopers." But, it sure was a 'thing:' featuring months of protracted negotiations and the Brahmin millionaire bickering vs the upstart developer.

What struck as a bit odd: Don wanted to lay claim to building the tallest Downtown tower ever. When that went by the wayside, it became 'tallest in Boston in the '1980s.' But, Dewey Square completed a few years earlier was 600' (right?)--and it was practically right next door.

Why didn't Chiofaro want his building to eclipse 1 Boston Place (601') and Dewey Square [(600') as i believed it to be]?

Years later, i saw 1 Financial Center given as 590' on a list of Boston's tallest. Hmm. i'd notice dubious heights assigned to a few other structures, and a few other buildings not easy to find.

As mentioned in the previous post, a 2008 FAA application shows Exchange Place being well-taller than the reported, 510'. 540' (at least). 1 Devonshire Pl also looks taller. Maybe 418~420'.


Dewey Square/1 Financial Ctr

In 2017, i aimed my camera toward 1 Financial Ctr and the Fed Reserve from the high floors of the Preggo, and straightened them on Photoshop.... i found some other drone and helicopter shots, looked at Google Earth, compared w/ IP, Preggo, etc, taking also into account the 6.6'/mi defect for the curvature of the Earth. i felt i was looking at (maybe) ~596-600'. Or perhaps, i was in error.

Another FAA antenna document gives more height to another tower,
closing the gap once again. Not quite 600'....



1 Financial Ctr rises 599' to the top of a large setback roof,
which is part of the tower's permanent built structure.

From FCC docs, 1 Financial Ctr stands exactly 598.7825' tall.



Spreadsheet of towers/antennae in Downtown Boston from
FCC database showing the height of 1 Financial Ctr;

some heights .jpg



The architectural pinnacle of 1 Financial Ctr is the base of a large radio antenna array built upon a maintenance vault or paddock enclosure that covers a significant part of the tower.

Because of the height, location, and wide open airspace that surrounds the tower, antennae were always going to be the key feature of the rooftop.

The vault is the base structure for 2 antennae reaching up to 84' with it's enclosed work area inside. The FAA doesn't have an issue with calling the huge setback vault as Dewey Square's architectural pinnacle--and nor should we.



one_financial_center.jpg


In 1981, Planners at the BRA may have taken issue with permitting 600' or taller at Dewey Sq--But, apparently they were ok to allowing the base of the radio communications to be 599'. The desire for Boston to have a tall antenna podium (here) expedited permitting. In the photo above, you can clearly see the vault at the top. We know from at least 3 documents, the vault is 9' tall.

It seems my dad's collegues weren't fibbing when they said 600'--except by just the 1 foot. Don Chiofaro held out for 600' almost a year. Being that 1 Financial Ctr had recently been completed, and the comm enclosure was allowed to reach 599', perhaps the milestone of a bona fide 600' tower wasn't the only thing on Mr Chiofaro's mind, and nothing less than eclipsing 599' would do.
 
Last edited:

Pend978

New member
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
13
Reaction score
13
The only building that I've ever seen and thought is was definitely taller than it's listed official height is one Devonshire. Always seemed 20-30 feet taller than 396 to me.
 

Johnnyrocket891

New member
Joined
Jul 1, 2019
Messages
60
Reaction score
21
Since Boston remains #1 on the Traffic congestion list for the country and #8 in the world.

Its time our leaders meet with the FAA officials and try to drum up a plan to help build taller buildings in the city.
Boston is not a 3rd world country.

I thought this state has the most educated people on the planet?
 

bakgwailo

Active Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
959
Reaction score
56
Since Boston remains #1 on the Traffic congestion list for the country and #8 in the world.

Its time our leaders meet with the FAA officials and try to drum up a plan to help build taller buildings in the city.
Boston is not a 3rd world country.

I thought this state has the most educated people on the planet?
I don't see how taller buildings (that would require FAA changes) would do anything to congestion. How about we start with up zoning to 4-5 stories along every major corridor (Washington St, Dot Ave, Hyde Park Ave, Centre, South Huntington, etc), and then reasonable investment in transit.
 

Top