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

Status
Not open for further replies.
As I read Hayward Baker's synopsis of the work they did, the micro piles only went to bedrock in the area where the tower crane was to be positioned.
____________________

Hayward Baker was one of three contractors who participated in the test program to buttress 301 Mission (MT San Francisco). I haven't researched who was the contractor for the buttress system itself.

The geotechnical summary for the need for a buttress for MT San Francisco is interesting, dated 2009.

Start on pdt p. 18, and particularly pdf p 21 et seq.
http://transbaycenter.org/uploads/2009/11/Item12_IPR.pdf
 
Not sure how many units are already owner-occupied, but Millennium is lighting up a lot of the units at night. The pent-of-the-penthouse in particular had all of its lights on last night.
 
Not sure how many units are already owner-occupied, but Millennium is lighting up a lot of the units at night. The pent-of-the-penthouse in particular had all of its lights on last night.

I wonder if the billionaire who bought it has the interior work underway yet (I am assuming that the purchase price for that one was bare-bones, or with a minimum of allowances and the buyer is responsible for the full interior, but I don't live in $30million homes so what do I know).
 
^^ the package is quite a bit more compact than your typical Woodland/Beverly/Hollywood Hills estate, so i guess he'll have this one decorated pretty fast.
 
Re: the foundation for MT San Francisco, the contractor for the buttress was Balfour Beatty. Hayward Baker did not bid as the primary contractor. (The buttress was undertaken by Transbay.)

The bids, and prices by unit of work, are set out here.
http://transbaycenter.org/uploads/2009/07/TG03_Bid_Tabulation.pdf

Transbay drove pilings down to bedrock, which is between 255 and 265 feet below grade. The Salesforce tower is anchored to bedrock.

The MT tower pilings / micropiles supporting the concrete slab are anchored in sand. It seems the purpose of the $58 million buttress was to keep the sand under 301 Mission from migrating over to the Transbay site, undercutting support for the MT pilings.

Bedrock under the Transbay and 301 Mission appears to be soil type B in the linked chart below. I'm guessing the pilings for 301 Mission were probably driven into soil type D, possibly C. I think a big question is what will happen to 301 Mission in a major earthquake, not that it would topple over, but will it tilt and sink some more?

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/nca/soiltype/
 
^ OK, just a little more homework to round this out:

It appears that the exploratory geotech consulting work for the 1 Franklin MT was done by Haley and Aldrich (ref. 2012 NPC), and at that time they also mention the drilled foundation elements.

I'm sure the full drawing set has more detail on where the drilled shafts are actually located.

BigPicture -- Haley and Aldrich is also on Millennium Partners's Winny Team [i.e. 111 Federal or Winthrop Square or whatever] -- they are a local firm with a track record going back through the entire era of Towers in Boston [1957 founding] -- i would think that they would do the right kind of reporting on the state of the ground

The contractor is Suffolk another local firm -- only the architects are from outside
 
Abstract:
In this study, we evaluate the effect of strong sediment/bedrock impedance contrasts on soil amplification in Boston, Massachusetts, for typical sites along the Charles and Mystic Rivers. These sites can be characterized by artificial fill overlying marine sediments overlying glacial till and bedrock, where the depth to bedrock ranges from 20 to 80 m. The marine sediments generally consist of organic silts, sand, and Boston Blue Clay. We chose these sites because they represent typical foundation conditions in the City of Boston, and the soil conditions are similar to other high impedance contrast environments. The sediment/bedrock interface in this region results in an impedance ratio on the order of ten, which in turn results in a significant amplification of the ground motion. Using stratigraphic information derived from numerous boreholes across the region paired with geologic and geomorphologic constraints, we develop a depth-to-bedrock model for the greater Boston region. Using shear-wave velocity profiles from 30 locations, we develop average velocity profiles for sites mapped as artificial fill, glaciofluvial deposits, and bedrock. By pairing the depth-to-bedrock model with the surficial geology and the average shear-wave velocity profiles, we can predict soil amplification in Boston. We compare linear and equivalent-linear site response predictions for a soil layer of varying thickness over bedrock, and assess the effects of varying the bedrock shear-wave velocity (VSb) and quality factor (Q). In a moderate seismicity region like Boston, many earthquakes will result in ground motions that can be modeled with linear site response methods. We also assess the effect of bedrock depth on soil amplification for a generic soil profile in artificial fill, using both linear and equivalent-linear site response models. Finally, we assess the accuracy of the model results by comparing the predicted (linear site response) and observed site response at the Northeastern University (NEU) vertical seismometer array during the 2011 M 5.8 Mineral, Virginia, earthquake. Site response at the NEU vertical array results in amplification on the order of 10 times at a period between 0.7–0.8 s. The results from this study provide evidence that the mean short-period and mean intermediate-period amplification used in design codes (i.e., from the Fa and Fv site coefficients) may underpredict soil amplification in strong impedance contrast environments such as Boston.
USGS, March 2016
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013795215301125

The study area appears to have included Washington St.

The full report can be had for $33.; probably free if you are a matriculating student with online access to journal articles.

As best as I interpret the abstract, the seismic readings in Boston of the 2011 Virginia earthquake suggest that tall buildings in Boston not anchored to bedrock may shake more than anticipated in a medium-sized earthquake.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/massachusetts/history.php
A Mercalli VIII is similar to a Richter 6.
 
13087829_10102510939484010_1643997329832763375_n.jpg

13043287_10102510936629730_8042907202716646432_n.jpg

13925205_10102615566106420_940918536406827098_n.jpg
 
This will be a great hang out spot for the local heroin addicts.

10, 15 years ago I'd agree with you. But with the money Millennium is sunk in DTX so far and the new apts proposed I'm willing to bet local police are getting an extra bit on the side to make sure this area is clear of undesirables. Also the last time I walked down Washington in Christmas I noticed a big shift in the type of people I saw since I used to hang out down there in high school.
 
I was thinking that as I walked by this morning. I hope this doesn't turn into bunk beds for the homeless.
 
Unlike my house, this is a public space. People are allowed to be in public spaces. And despite popular opinion, homeless people are, in fact, still people.
 
Issue is not the people. Everyone is welcome. The issue is the side effects that create an uninviting environment for everyone: urine smell, bags of trash, etc. Best solution is for the city to provide adequate support facilities elsewhere. Addicts and troubled individuals will take it upon themselves go where they are best supported. People have been working on this in Boston, but it has been a difficult journey with many ups and downs in recent years.

(and +1 to Stat's comment that came in as I was writing this)
 
Issue is not the people. Everyone is welcome. The issue is the side effects that create an uninviting environment for everyone: urine smell, bags of trash, etc. Best solution is for the city to provide adequate support facilities elsewhere. Addicts and troubled individuals will take it upon themselves go where they are best supported. People have been working on this in Boston, but it has been a difficult journey with many ups and downs in recent years.

(and +1 to Stat's comment that came in as I was writing this)

And for people concerned about the homeless camping out here & in DTX to advocate for the City to provide adequate support facilities for the homeless population.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top