Millennium Tower (Filene's) | 426 Washington Street | Downtown

Status
Not open for further replies.
...and that's what I get for guessing.

Thanks bobthebuilder. Love learning things like that!
 
Not to derail the thread, but can someone please explain to me how a tower goes from an idea, to being ready to be built? I am not talking about acquiring land, or the necessary financing. I mean when a developer wants to build say an 800 foot tower, what's the process from the idea, to the actual design, to the point where it's ready to actually be built. How long does the whole process take?

I only ask because it's apparent there are several posters who know what they're talking about when it comes to design and construction.

I'm sure cca can provide a better response and I agree with everything he said. But fwiw and for others edification my stab at a best answer might be something like,

TL;DR
(A) Idea to start of permitting - 3 to 15 years for idea inception to beginning of permitting including land acquisition, air rights leases, notional financing, development partners, anchor tenants, design development, economic cycles.

(B) Permitting - 1 to 3 years for BRA approval and gov't support agreements

(C) 16mo to 24mo from BRA approval to construction start including final design documents, finalising financing, contracting and permitting and procurement.

(D) Adding construction from foundation to fit-out to occupancy requires 2 to 3 years

(E) Total idea inception to completion 8 to 25 years (all of above) but typically 10 to 12 years.

Longer answer:
I understand your question to be how long is the design and preparation stage of this type of construction from BRA approval to shovel in ground.
The design process is less clearcut than this and more concurrent in its early phases with permitting, land acquisition and finance. And as cca has said is very case by case.

To take some examples:
(1) Simon Copley Place has had much design development work completed, permitting and probably financing over many years but was approved beginning of 2014. It is probably 16 to 24 months from construction start which would include finishing construction documents, contracting contractors, procuring long-lead items (e.g. steel, elevator, erection equip. cranes and pile drivers, HVAC units), and finalising financing (e.g. secured syndicated project loans, see this) , and construction permits (traffic, staging, etc.).

(2) Boston Properties John Hancock Garage - purchased in Dec 10, possibly in development and early design for several years, in other words the 'idea' started then. Still requires extensive Ch. 80 BRA permitting, all financing and design development. Also lease agreement with Mass on Back Bay Station and MTA on Pike Air Rights. And anchor tenants for office space or hotel.

And then all the items listed in (1). Earliest timeframe from 2012/3 start to construction is 5 to 10 years. And as an air rights project probably towards the back end of this range. Also a strong chance of running into headwinds of next economic downturn.

(3) Christian Science Center Tower(s) - idea begins with master plans 2006 to 2010, BRA approval 24mo to Sept 2013. Since then 14mo to 18mo to break ground, if they meet their expected start date. This period included securing hotel partner and financing concurrent with final design documents and other similar to (1).

So total idea to construction min 9 years and they already owned the land.

(4) Chiofaro Harbour Towers Garage - 2006 etc to today (new proposal) plus BRA permitting, minimum 10 years. Then finalising design, financing, permitting - total 12 to 15 years.

(5) Boston Properties / Delaware North - Boston Garden Towers - goes back to early '90s with original plan to build TD Garden and remove the Old Garden freeing up development space for towers (2006), plus expected Big Dig with dropping the Green line and new orange line station. Detailed proposals from at least 2007 and BRA approval in Dec 13. Lots of design world to do, financing to confirm, anchor tenants, and perhaps some revisiting of BRA approval, but "construction expected to start in June 2015" (-ed. I would be surprised if it's before end of 2015). So basically 25 years with lots of mitigating circumstances New Garden, Bid Dig, Green/Orange line, financial crisis.

So you can see there are lots of specific circumstances to each project but 5 years would be a minimum and probably require owning the land, no recession, no economic downturns and no air rights and 25 years is possible as well. Adding construction from foundation to fit-out adds 24mo to 36mo.

Remember many of these phases can happen somewhat concurrently, or different ordering and usually involve setbacks or multiple attempts.

I hope this post was informative and is the best of my knowledge from a somewhat experienced perspective.
 
...and that's what I get for guessing.

Thanks bobthebuilder. Love learning things like that!

Yup, the insides of Buffalo's amazing/decrepit Central Terminal has those everywhere. I always liked the look of them.
 
Can't see much yet besides the cranes, but hopefully in the next few months we'll get some great shots from this vantage point:
BScBRn8.jpg
 
Yup, the insides of Buffalo's amazing/decrepit Central Terminal has those everywhere. I always liked the look of them.

I apologize for the complete divergence here, but how is it inside? The BCT was a large part of my inspiration to switch from architecture to preservation, but I've only been outside. While I hope to never be so cash-strapped on a project, what the CTRC is doing with almost no money is incredible.
 
WARNING: incredibly off-topic post!

Well davem, I haven't been inside the main building since 2002 so my memories are very fuzzy but it reeked of art deco in the best sense -- lots of yellow brick and concrete moldings, dank and cavernous spaces, and where the walls had decayed away (which was almost everywhere) were those terra cotta bricks we were talking about.

I remember wandering around the basement of the terminal (under the tower and parking podium areas) and how absolutely vast, dark and forlorn the place felt. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how you look at it), the CTRC had just started to regain control of the site at the time, and as such they had done a good job blocking access to the concourse and tower, so I never got to see those areas firsthand. We sure did wander all over the unlit lower levels though (flashlights definitely required!).

This pic from 1997 aligns with my memories perfectly...

kraf.jpg

http://central.terminal.railfan.net/pics/ps.cgi?sep-1997/ctterm9-7-97
 
Hey engineers and architects - I am really interested by the density of the rebar in some of these structures and the way that they have the horizontal bars making tight "grids". Clearly a tall building like this will have massive loads on the structural members as seen in BeeLine's pix. Is the density of the bar to carry compressive loads? shear loads? How does it all work here?
Thanks!
 
Hey engineers and architects - I am really interested by the density of the rebar in some of these structures and the way that they have the horizontal bars making tight "grids". Clearly a tall building like this will have massive loads on the structural members as seen in BeeLine's pix. Is the density of the bar to carry compressive loads? shear loads? How does it all work here?
Thanks!

Steel reinforcement in concrete is used to carry tension loads (pulling apart) which concrete does poorly, shear loads, to literally reinforce the concrete for compression (vertical loads), and also for ductility (strength under cyclic loading).

Tension forces typically arise in beams, columns and shear walls in bending (from lateral forces), and within foundation elements under overturning moment (from earthquake and wind) such as footings and retaining walls.

In compression the reinforcement works as a combined element with the concrete to increase strength. Because a slender steel bar can buckle additional reinforcement around the compression bars (vertical) helps 'confine' it.

Primarily the horizontal reinforcement you see in these shear walls is to resist shear and act as confinement for compression reinforcement.
 
I'm not sure how well my pictures show it, but the forms are set for pouring the final basement level. And the cores look ready to take off.



The Burnham curtain wall ended up looking great- I feel bad for doubting it earlier. Great modern reinterpretation of the original facade.





There is a new glass sampler on site. It is different from the original sample and I believe it will be the podium glass. It is not the best photo, but it appears to be of the similar high quality of the first sample, with small etched dots present on the right side of each pane. It is also more transparent.



Lest we forget the beautiful original sample:
 
There is a new glass sampler on site. It is different from the original sample and I believe it will be the podium glass. It is not the best photo, but it appears to be of the similar high quality of the first sample, with small etched dots present on the right side of each pane. It is also more transparent.

It would be against the renders, and I know that glass looks different on the ground on a cloudy day than it will look on the building, but I actually hope this building is less blue than it looks in the renderings. The Hancock has plenty of blue, but Boston doesn't have a gray/dark reflective glass building yet.

That said, the glass looks nice.
 
I actually walked by the engineers inspecting the new glass sampler on Friday morning and have regretted not asking them about it ever since. I like the original one much better. I'm guessing this could be a VE item. =(
 
It would be against the renders, and I know that glass looks different on the ground on a cloudy day than it will look on the building, but I actually hope this building is less blue than it looks in the renderings. The Hancock has plenty of blue, but Boston doesn't have a gray/dark reflective glass building yet.

That said, the glass looks nice.

It would be nice to get something like The Metropolitan tower in NYC. Maybe we can smuggle that tower out of the city when nobody is looking, and plop it down next to city hall.
 
I should clarify that there are currently two samplers on site- the original was not removed. Hence my thought (hope) that the new one is podium glass.

It would be a shame if the original was in fact being VE'd out. I agree with Equilibria- a dark, not-blue reflective building would look sublime.
 
I should clarify that there are currently two samplers on site- the original was not removed. Hence my thought (hope) that the new one is podium glass.

It would be a shame if the original was in fact being VE'd out. I agree with Equilibria- a dark, not-blue reflective building would look sublime.

It's worth pointing out that the inexplicably paltry tower renders for this project tend to show it much darker than the Hancock shade of blue, particularly in low light. The (fairly underwhelming) shot used in most of the advertising - the one with the upward view at the Hancock-esque vents - has a very blue color, but that's probably to accentuate the Hackockeyness in that render and could predict a reflection of the sky.

I have to say, I've never seen a major building go up with less of an idea of what it's going to look like. There are 2 entirely different versions of the building that appear in contemporary references, and the website has all of these weird, unattainable viewing angles, even more than usual for architectural renderings. It's almost like they don't want anyone to know what they're building.
 
I have to say, I've never seen a major building go up with less of an idea of what it's going to look like.

That's saying a lot considering there is a sibling tower to this, fully built in San Francisco. I'm guessing the materials would be similar?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top