Ink Block (Boston Herald) | 300 Harrison Avenue | South End

Per a study I was part of last year: Bruce Percelay/The Mt. Vernon Company, purchased 60 Brainerd Rd. in Allston from Leggat McCall a few years back. According to Mt. Vernon, Leggat had tried to develop the site, but was unable to. One of their difficulties was that Leggat had proposed a 6 story building - according to Mt. Vernon, Boston required steel at six stories. That could be wrong - but I'm fairly certain that was their story. What I do know for sure, is that when Bruce purchased the property he quickly proposed a 5 story building - which was approved and built of wood at a significant cost savings. Same idea as jpdivola's

Quote:
Thus going from, say, a six-story building to seven stories only increases the available square footage by 16.7%, but increases construction costs by 46.3%.

see property here:

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.347...!1e1!3m2!1s29yDg3X9eWvsy4Ruuh2S3g!2e0!6m1!1e1

His property, and the next several that he built in this neighborhood, the "Green District" were all built w/steel on the 1st floor and wood the rest of the way up.
 
The IBC says 5 stories. The NPFA says 6. MA uses an amended version of the IBC for the building code.

For more information, see this fantastic report by Arup:
http://www.nfpa.org/~/media/Files/R... safety/FireSafetyChallengesTallWoodBldgs.pdf

Page 9 has a table of maximum allowable timber construction height by country:

nquN6id.png


It should be noted that there are first-world countries around the world currently building 10-30 story buildings out of wood now.

--
Edit: Unsure if that report is publicly available. I have an NFPA subscription, so that might be why I can see it.
 
Last edited:
datadyne007 said:
The IBC says 5 stories. The NPFA says 6. MA uses an amended version of the IBC for the building code.

For more information, see this fantastic report by Arup:
http://www.nfpa.org/~/media/Files/R... safety/FireSafetyChallengesTallWoodBldgs.pdf

Page 9 has a table of maximum allowable timber construction height by country:
Click to expand...

I can see it sans subscription. Thanks, Data: it is an absolutely fascinating document! I especially liked the char studies and anecdotal case reviews of completed structures. Wow!
 
Canada (BC to be exact) has build a 96ft tall wood commercial building. SEE IT HERE.

Michael Green has been talking about this for a very long time and it is worth watching his TED Talk about it. HERE

I am in favor of the Michael Green-esque heavy timber type construction methods because heavy timber is naturally fire resistant. It actually out performs fireproofed steel (but not concrete). No to mentioned its carbon sequestering potential and other sustainability features.

I am not in favor of 2x4 based wood construction which is nothing but a bunch of kindling waiting for something to go wrong. (see the recent fires of condo buildings in both San Francisco and Los Angeles. HERE Regardless of the reason for these fires, I will never feel comfortable with this construction method.

cca
 
FenwayResident said:
Not to mention that it's not even a fair comparison. A tree is a solid mass of wood with minimal external load, while a building is mostly empty space and has to support the weight of its occupants.

I'd wager we could erect a steel "tree" 5 miles high; that doesn't mean we could build a building that high.
Click to expand...

Fenway -- obviously you've never been in a reasonably tall tree [30+] in a moderately big wind [20 MPH with 35 MPH gusts] -- either try it or read about it in John Muir

External loads are enormous -- that's why sometimes if there's been a fair amount of water and the soil is the right level of hydration -- the whole tree can topple despite the roots extending outward for many many feet

As for the Steel Tree 5 miles high or a building in that range both are possible -- the limits are imposed by economics not technical difficulties

There are limits imposed by fundamental strength of materials -- properties known as Bulk Modulus, Elastic Modulus, Shear Modulus and Young's Modulus and the Yield Stress, Tensile Strength, and Ultimate Stress

While, Steel is head and shoulders over wood and even concrete, there are specialized alloys as well as even more exotic materials such as pure Tungsten [Whiskers] and Carbon Nanotubes / Graphene, which offer the potential of strength far beyond steel

see for example tables such as
http://www.efunda.com/materials/co...=Solid&MatlProp=Mechanical#MechanicalStrength

and information on Graphene such as

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/nl204196v
http://www.graphenea.com/pages/graphene-properties#.VNpcCDHF98E

few excerpts:

Basic Mechanical Properties Mechanical Strength Properties


Material.............................Elastic Mod...........Shear Mod.......Yield Stress.....Ultimate Stress......Elongation
........................................(GPa)...................(GPa)..............(MPa)...............(MPa) .....................(%)
Aluminum[Al]....................70........................26.....................20 .....................70.....................60
Aluminum Alloy.................70-79...................26-35................35-500...........100-550.................1 - 45
Brick(Compression)............10-24..........................................7-70
Ceramic..........................300-400 .....................
Concrete ..........................18-30........................................10-70
Glass ...............................48-83...................19-34............30-1000
Iron(Cast).........................83-170..................32-69..........120-290................69-480.....................0 - 1
Iron(Wrought).................190......................75.....................210..................340....................35
Monel(67% Ni, 30% Cu)...170.......................66.....................170-1100.....................450-1200 .....................2 - 50
Nickel[Ni]......................210........................80.....................140-620.....................310-760.....................2 - 50
Steel.............................190-210.....................75-80 .....................280-1600.....................340-1900.....................3 - 40
Granite(Compression).......40-70...............................................................70-280
Limestone(Compression)...20-70..........................................20-200
Marble(Compression)........50-100..........................................50-180
Titanium[Ti]...................110.....................40.....................500.....................25
Titanium Alloy................110-120.....................39-44.....................900-970.....................10
Tungsten[W]...............................................................1400-4000.....................0 - 4
Ash(Bending)..................10-11.....................40-70.....................50-100
Douglas Fir(Bending).......11-13.....................30-50.....................50-80
Oak(Bending).................11-12.....................40-60.....................50-100
Southern Pine(Bending)...11-14.....................40-60.....................50-100

Graphene.....................1000.....................280.....................130000
Click to expand...
 
cca said:
Canada (BC to be exact) has build a 96ft tall wood commercial building. SEE IT HERE.

Michael Green has been talking about this for a very long time and it is worth watching his TED Talk about it. HERE

I am in favor of the Michael Green-esque heavy timber type construction methods because heavy timber is naturally fire resistant. It actually out performs fireproofed steel (but not concrete). No to mentioned its carbon sequestering potential and other sustainability features.

I am not in favor of 2x4 based wood construction which is nothing but a bunch of kindling waiting for something to go wrong. (see the recent fires of condo buildings in both San Francisco and Los Angeles. HERE Regardless of the reason for these fires, I will never feel comfortable with this construction method.

cca
Click to expand...

I love the Canadian building you are featuring here. The best part is how the wood ceiling can be seen through the glass, especially at night. This is what sets it apart from other minimalist glass boxes. One of my absolute favorite aspects of Modern architecture, and one often overlooked, is how ceiling looks through glass. That, in my opinion, is what sets the Seagram building apart from its peers and imitators (aside from its history, no doubt).

I am fortunate enough to work in a three-story wood building in Boston at the moment, and it truly is a privilege.
 
The lot at 217 Albany has been listed for sale - no price listed. This is down the street from the Troy and next to Ink Block, next to the lot where National Development has proposed putting up a Marriott hotel. No idea why the owners of the lots weren't able (or willing) to make a deal to combine the two lots.

217 Albany is the insurance company building.
 
JohnAKeith said:
The lot at 217 Albany has been listed for sale - no price listed. This is down the street from the Troy and next to Ink Block, next to the lot where National Development has proposed putting up a Marriott hotel. No idea why the owners of the lots weren't able (or willing) to make a deal to combine the two lots.

217 Albany is the insurance company building.
Click to expand...

Probably classic hold out as the last property in the mega-block not under the control of the developer. They probably want big bucks to allow the rest of the mega-block to be completed.
 
Would the lot at 217 Albany be taxed on it's perceived worth? If the owner, for example, is asking 5 million for the property, would the property tax be based on what the estimated value of the property is, or is the property tax based on the value of what the city of Boston places on the property. Whoever owns this property must be paying some pretty hefty taxes in either case.
 
atlantaden said:
Would the lot at 217 Albany be taxed on it's perceived worth? If the owner, for example, is asking 5 million for the property, would the property tax be based on what the estimated value of the property is, or is the property tax based on the value of what the city of Boston places on the property. Whoever owns this property must be paying some pretty hefty taxes in either case.
Click to expand...

The parcel 217 Albany is assessed at $255,000 per Boston Assessing Online. $147,600 for the land; $107,400 for the building. The current owner is paying a whopping $7,527.60 per year in taxes.

Remember, this was a blighted warehouse district just a few years ago. The City always lags behind in assessments of areas in transition like this.
 
JeffDowntown said:
The parcel 217 Albany is assessed at $255,000 per Boston Assessing Online. $147,600 for the land; $107,400 for the building. The current owner is paying a whopping $7,527.60 per year in taxes.

Remember, this was a blighted warehouse district just a few years ago. The City always lags behind in assessments of areas in transition like this.
Click to expand...

I have always wondered. Once a property is sold at a price does the assessed value of the property update based on the selling price?
 
palindrome said:
I have always wondered. Once a property is sold at a price does the assessed value of the property update based on the selling price?
Click to expand...

It varies from town to town, state to state, asset class to asset class. For example, in Florida when a sale is recorded, the following year the property is usually assessed at 75%-80% of the recorded transaction price. There is no rule of thumb similar to that in Massachusetts.

The city of Boston generally does not chase sales as a measure of reassessment in my experience.
 
In Massachusetts, State law requires that the value of property for real estate tax purposes be determined annually as of January 1 immediately preceding the applicable tax year, which runs from July 1 through June 30. The value is supposed to represent 100% of the full and fair cash value of the property, which the courts have interpreted means current market value. If the assessors are doing their jobs, a sale that occurs in the calendar year (i.e., January 1 through December 31) preceding the tax year should be considered in adjusting the value of the property for that tax year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top