Marriott Moxy Hotel | 240 Tremont Street (Parcel P-7A) | Theater District

Even the renders don't hide the awful condition of the roads and sidewalks in this area.
 
This one looks great in person. It does a ton for the area - and fills in a small lot with something solid.
 
kz1000ps said:
*yawn* I guess the lighting is supposed to forgive this blandness?
Click to expand...
In NY this would be invisible but there is still a ways to go before Boston hits any kind of critical mass of glass towers, boring or otherwise.
 
mass88 said:
Even the renders don't hide the awful condition of the roads and sidewalks in this area.
Click to expand...

There is this one particular Kardashian ass sized pot hole right in the middle of the street between the hotel and the Wang/Boch that's been there forever and is an axle breaker.
 
Thanks Beeline!!!

Nice street wall!!
 
Last edited:
Nothing better than opening AB and seeing BeeLine posts. When and if 290 Tremont ever gets built these will create a nice little canyon here.
 
This has some nice curtain wall detailing. It's very sleek and attractive.
 
BeeLine said:
https://flic.kr/p/2apghz3
Click to expand...

Uh oh...

Fingers crossed that this isnt the blank wall of all blank walls. I know it showed alucobond in a different render but that render isnt whats being built anymore. Treehouse pleeeeeaaaseeee. Im not understanding why the part without concrete needs to have a wall like that anyways? Why not put glass there and then just cover the core with glass as well.... then call it a day.
 
It's all building code related.
 
Why though? Cant they just build the building 4 inches back from the property line and put glass there? Why can certain buildings put glass on the blank side, but not others? In this case and 45 province for example why not just build ever so slightly back from the property line and put glass on the parts that are not going to be covered by a future building? In certain cities, Chicago for example, youll see glass instead of a blank wall. What purpose does the wall have when its not the back side of a concrete core. Here it seems like you have to use concrete or something similar and it cant have glass covering it....whats the difference?


Anyways does anyone know whats going up here? Alucobond?
 
Last edited:
stick n move said:
Why though? Cant they just build the building 4 inches back from the property line and put glass there? Why can certain buildings put glass on the blank side, but not others? In this case and 45 province for example why not just build ever so slightly back from the property line and put glass on the parts that are not going to be covered by a future building? In certain cities, Chicago for example, youll see glass instead of a blank wall. What purpose does the wall have when its not the back side of a concrete core. Here it seems like you have to use concrete or something similar and it cant have glass covering it....whats the difference?


Anyways does anyone know whats going up here? Alucobond?
Click to expand...

It's not the material it's the fire rating and concrete/alucobond is a LOT cheaper than fire-rated glass.
 
JANAM said:
It's not the material it's the fire rating and concrete/alucobond is a LOT cheaper than fire-rated glass.
Click to expand...

And to expand on this, the building code concern is a fire jumping from building to building on a zero-lot line (construction at the very edge of a property line). This is why only a certain percentage of operable windows are allowed and fire ratings are required on the facade materials on the zero-lot line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top