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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I can't even tell what message that article is trying to convey. It's just 60 feet.
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
22690f7965535d0795059aaf1dcb5864fe770ccfa07880a3dcbd64d55b24ae7c.jpg
Click to expand...

LOL
 
"When the final bit of steel tops off Millennium Tower, it will be the third tallest residential building in Boston – until the 699 ft. Four Season's tower next to the Christian Science Center is finished."

Umm... Nate? The Four Seasons won't be 699' either, for the exact same reasons. Also, it will be either the tallest or second tallest residential tower depending on whether you consider Four Seasons "residential" with the hotel component in there.
 
Perhaps the reporter meant third tallest, and incorrectly added the word residential. Anyway, it's kind of funny how long it took the media to discover this. It amuses me that we've been discussing this issue for months.

As mentioned, Curbed noticed the new listed-height on Monday, October 20. The only other outlet we have found to have reported that Millennium Tower will rise 685 ft. is the Business Times, whose story ran here on September 10, 2014.
Click to expand...
I guess discussion boards do not count as information outlets?
 
If anything, it goes to show how asinine arguing over a couple feet can get. Like, you, average neighborhood NIMBY, are telling me you can actually feel while on the street the difference between 685 ft and 625 ft? You can FEEL like one is more oppressive than the other? No you can't, because that's insane.
 
Shut it down! What an egregious miscarriagement of taxitude!
 
underground said:
If anything, it goes to show how asinine arguing over a couple feet can get. Like, you, average neighborhood NIMBY, are telling me you can actually feel while on the street the difference between 685 ft and 625 ft? You can FEEL like one is more oppressive than the other? No you can't, because that's insane.
Click to expand...

No, but the extra 60' really does matter for visibility. It puts this tower a full 70' above anything else in Downtown. It's going to stick out the top of the plateau more than people expect.
 
deh74 said:
I can't even tell what message that article is trying to convey. It's just 60 feet.
Click to expand...

You know some narcissistic wanker will have an issue for some reason.
 
SHAZBAT73 said:
On Emporis.com the Millennium Tower is listed at 606ft.
Click to expand...

Emporis is perfect if you don't care about accurate information.

Can someone please explain what they are talking about with the "sidewalk above the base of Boston" comments? Sounds like complete nonsense to me. Is the mech at the top 60' or not?
 
Can someone please explain what they are talking about with the "sidewalk above the base of Boston" comments?
Click to expand...
I think the disparity is because Washington Street is a few feet higher than Hawley Street. Sounds like the original measurement was Washington to the top, and now we're measuring Hawley to the top plus mechanicals.
 
DZH22 said:
Emporis is perfect if you don't care about accurate information.

Can someone please explain what they are talking about with the "sidewalk above the base of Boston" comments? Sounds like complete nonsense to me. Is the mech at the top 60' or not?
Click to expand...

From what I could understand from the disaster of an article, they're using sea level as "the base of Boston." DTX is about 30' above sea level.
 
datadyne007 said:
From what I could understand from the disaster of an article, they're using sea level as "the base of Boston." DTX is about 30' above sea level.
Click to expand...

That's not actual building height though. It would be like saying every building in Denver is over 5000' tall. Pretty sure whoever wrote that article is an idiot and we are all dumber for having read it. I reward them no points, and may God have mercy on their soul.

Also, I don't think the difference between Hawley and Franklin is a full 30'. Pretty sure it's just a 60' mech and that's the whole disparity between the 625' and the 685'.
 
DZH22 said:
That's not actual building height though. It would be like saying every building in Denver is over 5000' tall. Pretty sure whoever wrote that article is an idiot and we are all dumber for having read it. I reward them no points, and may God have mercy on their soul.

Also, I don't think the difference between Hawley and Franklin is a full 30'. Pretty sure it's just a 60' mech and that's the whole disparity between the 625' and the 685'.
Click to expand...

Nick Martin (BRA Spokesperson) was talking about how it looks visually for some reason. None of it really makes sense. I'm suspecting that Nick Martin wasn't making sense and BostInno couldn't make sense of Nick Martin, so the article is a really messed up word salad of things not making sense.

But seriously this is a non-issue. If anything, this exposed a flaw in measuring zoning height to the highest occupiable floor instead of the top of the MEP penthouse.
 
This is sort of a local example/microcosm of the never ending debate about "tallest" buildings. I think there's no official one-size-fits-all criteria for height measurements. Doesn't the international body that monitors this stuff have something like three different categories? Highest occupied floor (in this case, 625), Height to structural top (685), and height to tip (no spire, so same as structural height).

This is nothing new for building height discrepencies, but it is new to a lot of NIMBYs who will probably freak now even though they wouldn't have noticed the 60 foot difference if nobody said anything.
 
datadyne007 said:
But seriously this is a non-issue. If anything, this exposed a flaw in measuring zoning height to the highest occupiable floor instead of the top of the MEP penthouse.
Click to expand...

That's actually a pretty serious issue if NIMBY's latch onto it.

For instance, the crown on the Congress St Garage office tower looks well over 600', which is even higher than the zoning allowed for before the developer voluntarily "scaled it back". We may have been able to slip some stuff by them in the present, but this could be a shot across the bow for future development opportunities facing stiffer opposition.
 
eIv59Fr.png


I updated my model to be the correct height now - thought it may be helpful for comparison.
 
That graphic really emphasizes how much 100 Federal looks like a college kid's dirty bong.
 
Galactic said:
eIv59Fr.png


I updated my model to be the correct height now - thought it may be helpful for comparison.
Click to expand...

Galactiv, thanks for this, looks very cool, any chance you'll throw Copley and/or North Station Tower on this, for the heightmongers on this forum? :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top