One Post Office Square Makeover and Expansion | Financial District

yeah, i didn't grasp that ^^^ aspect of the project either. i don't understand why they'd remove the previous panels on the bottom half (or third or whatever) of the "tower" but not continue that process for the remainder, although if that truly is what they're doing there must be some reason (i just have no clue what).
 
chrisbrat said:
yeah, i didn't grasp that ^^^ aspect of the project either. i don't understand why they'd remove the previous panels on the bottom half (or third or whatever) of the "tower" but not continue that process for the remainder, although if that truly is what they're doing there must be some reason (i just have no clue what).
Click to expand...

From the PNF:
The precast panels will remain from Level 31 to Level 38 to limit the impact on the existing tenants. Apply curtainwall over the panels as an overclad system.
Click to expand...

...that was why I was asking, above, if the tenant rationale was still real. When folks upthread were pointing to the delay in facade progress, I was wondering whether the tenants had in fact vacated and the developer then chose to change plans to full facade replacement. But, as bobthebuilder pointed out, it seems that the overclad system is already in the process of being installed.
 
BosDevelop said:
Is there an advantage to this beyond cost/speed? Why wasn't the entire tower redone this way?
Click to expand...

Their primary goal is to modernize the tower and make it attractive to future tenants (per their own statements in BPDA filings). The lower floors had smaller windows than the upper floors to begin with. If you look upthread at photos of the tower with the old cladding, you'll notice wider/near-floor-to-ceiling windows at approximately the top ten floors, with much smaller (~waist height) / narrower windows on the other floors. I believe they wanted to have larger windows everywhere, and on the lower floors they had no choice but to rip out the old cladding to achieve this - combine this goal with the above-mentioned goal of preserving occupancy for tenants in the upper floors during the project and one can see where the motivation comes from for this hybrid approach.

EDIT: I believe the photo @stick n move shared in this old post shows it most clearly. I'd never noticed this before after all these years of seeing this building, but if you look closely at the windows at/above the top cantilever, you'll see that they are all substantially bigger than all of the windows below them.
 
Last edited:
bigpicture7 said:
Their primary goal is to modernize the tower and make it attractive to future tenants (per their own statements in BPDA filings). The lower floors had smaller windows than the upper floors to begin with. If you look upthread at photos of the tower with the old cladding, you'll notice wider/near-floor-to-ceiling windows at approximately the top ten floors, with much smaller (~waist height) / narrower windows on the other floors. I believe they wanted to have larger windows everywhere, and on the lower floors they had no choice but to rip out the old cladding to achieve this - combine this goal with the above-mentioned goal of preserving occupancy for tenants in the upper floors during the project and one can see where the motivation comes from for this hybrid approach.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info!
 
DFF7C593-7285-4B29-8AFC-683096E490B2.jpeg
26496C35-5005-41D6-823C-306A8971D31D.png
D234F9A8-5E88-405B-98A6-F283ACDD54B9.jpeg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top