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

You can put windows in front of a concrete wall.

That doesnt affect fire rating, but cost.
 
cca said:
And that is everything. Always.

cca
Click to expand...

For reference, here is the facade going in front of what is mostly a blank wall in NYC

41567453_906859932846169_7799371493090359510_n.jpg


38941492_311554002748035_4921477375218155520_n.jpg
 
Cool. Looks expensive. I advocate for it all the time. Its rare to get the client to see value in it.

cca
 
I think the NY example is the exception. That is a super-high end condo building.

Many buildings down here (new construction as well as existing) have massive blank walls, most likely due to the grid layout and not having adjacent air rights. Look at the new Edition Times Square hotel. That massive blank wall is covered in precast panels now.


On the other hand, the Hyatt Times Square, has a 500+ foot concrete blank wall on 2 sides:

78_big.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jass said:
Require it.
Click to expand...

That is a possibility ... that that takes lawmakers who can stand up to the pressures that developers put on them. Remember the phrase "money is everything". Who is going to support politicians monetarily? Citizens? Architects? Urban Planners? Artists? Now what about this list. Developers? Construction Managers? Real Estate Fund Managers? Multi-national Corporations? This is why there is no such law that says "your buildings have to be something more than just safe boxes that meets a pro-forma".

I look forward to that day. I truly do.

cca
 
datadyne007 said:
You need fire-rated glass, which is wicked expensive.
Click to expand...

The thought is in the right direction data ... but not correct. Once you have a fire rated wall you can clad it in just about anything that you would normally see. You can absolutely put false windows in front of a rated wall. It rarely happens for all the reasons stated here.

There are other options. I worked on a high rise in which we were able to negotiate for windows on the 0 setback lot line if we deluge sprinkled the windows and made the next wall back from the facade a rated wall with all of its rules intact. The argument was one of time-of-escape. If you were in one of those rooms and saw smoke/fire. It would take 60 seconds or less to leave the room and pass through the rated wall. I will say that this was not cheap ... but the client was adamant about having windows into every work-spaces in the building.

cca
 
jass said:
You can put windows in front of a concrete wall.

That doesnt affect fire rating, but cost.
Click to expand...

Ok thats what I was looking for. Yes I know you need the concrete wall, but many towers still put glass over it so it looks nice. I was asking why more dont do this, but yes cost is definitely a factor and thatd be the main reason. I look at it as a 1 time cost that draaaaastically enhances the look of your tower forever and in the case of 45 province not only affects your building but the entire view downtown towards the common.
 
BeeLine;331857 [url=https://flic.kr/p/2bDFGPd said:
45058717242_02fd4d04f1_b.jpg
[/url]https://flic.kr/p/2bDFGPd

https://flic.kr/p/PA58Kj
Click to expand...

Cladding is looking great! As someone else mentioned in this part of town were nowhere near critical mass when it comes to glass towers. Seaport-yes, but not here. Not even downtown although when that reclad happens in blue glass well be much closer there too. Well be getting up there now with this and the W, but this in itself is not pushing us over any edge. We were actually in need of a blue glass box here, as we really dont have any besides the W in the area- which that isnt really a box either. The proportions of this where it is tall and skinny is going to really look great and getting this tower in this area is good for the area because they make great anchor pieces. All of the new towers in the area were all kinds of different weird shapes and cladding materials. This will bring it back to reality and add some class being so simple yet elegant.
 
Last edited:
^ From this view it has 1 more concrete floor to go then the crown. The crown Id say is around two more floors. So the concrete is going to end at the top of where the yellow netting is now, then the crown is on top of that and its around two floors tall.
 
cca said:
The thought is in the right direction data ... but not correct. Once you have a fire rated wall you can clad it in just about anything that you would normally see. You can absolutely put false windows in front of a rated wall. It rarely happens for all the reasons stated here.

There are other options. I worked on a high rise in which we were able to negotiate for windows on the 0 setback lot line if we deluge sprinkled the windows and made the next wall back from the facade a rated wall with all of its rules intact. The argument was one of time-of-escape. If you were in one of those rooms and saw smoke/fire. It would take 60 seconds or less to leave the room and pass through the rated wall. I will say that this was not cheap ... but the client was adamant about having windows into every work-spaces in the building.

cca
Click to expand...

Deluge sprinklers are not cheap. Eek.
 
Obviously this single property doesn’t make a huge difference but it did make me realize just how much of a lock Marriott has on the Boston hotel market, especially taking into account the Starwood merger. Hilton has some catching up to do.
 
I wish the Pierce ended up having the verticality of this building - it might be actually not that tall, but, its proportions just make it work so well in my opinion. I will probably get flack for this - but I would say its probably the best proportioned building in a very long time.
 
bakgwailo said:
I wish the Pierce ended up having the verticality of this building - it might be actually not that tall, but, its proportions just make it work so well in my opinion. I will probably get flack for this - but I would say its probably the best proportioned building in a very long time.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Even some tall buildings have bad proportions. Even the Hancock when looking back at it from the Charles/Mgh area looks like a fat turd....it looks great from every single other angle though. Proportions are everything and this tower is a great example. The contrast is in full view within 1 block. The W is next door to this and its the same height, but its so wide that it doesnt look good at all. This isnt tall, but it is very thin and its much taller than it is wide, add the great facade and you have a winner. The proportions alone make it look taller than it really is, because it is really short...almost short enough to not even be a tower, but the proportions and facade make it look like a proper skyscraper. You can have buildings even taller than this that are a square cube and have a masonry facade that wouldnt even look like a skyscraper. But because of how thin this is and how much taller it is than wide it looks great and like a real skyscraper even though its very short.
 
Beton Brut said:
Its spareness and subtlety call to mind a two NYC icons.
Click to expand...

Wow the lever house is only 307’ tall...Ava is even taller than that. I would have thought that its much taller than this tower. I guess you just end up assuming that about everything in NYC. This is a wonderful, sleek addition to the area. Stuart st. needed this, now its entering the big leagues, at least for a height restricted area.
 
datadyne007 said:
Deluge sprinklers are not cheap. Eek.
Click to expand...

I dont know what the difference is between deluge sprinklers and the regular ones, but a couple of years ago, California mandated that all homes (including detached single family) have sprinklers.

Developers threw a fit, claimed no one would ever buy a house again yada yada.

Well, not every new home has sprinklers and last I checked, people are sitll buying them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top