South Station Tower | South Station Air Rights | Downtown

Re: South Station Tower

Um Hines isn't designing it anyways the architect is Pelli. Hines is just the developer.
 
Re: South Station Tower

citylover94 said:
Um Hines isn't designing it anyways the architect is Pelli. Hines is just the developer.
Click to expand...

Citylover -- baCK TO reality -- given its Pelli -- I suspect that with a few tweeks what has been proposed is what will be built -- at least for phase 1

Given the way the global economy is sputtering along -- my guess is that SST [aka the Chinese Insurance Co's "Piggy Bank"] is the last of the Big Ones in this dev cycle to get done

The above ignores the ones already with one shovel already in the ground [e.g. North Station, Congress Garage] and the "vanity plate" buildings e.g. : Newest John Hancock, Winnie, and of course GE
 
Re: South Station Tower

Does anyone know the agenda for today's BCDC meeting,

or if SST is on the agenda?
 
Re: South Station Tower

citylover94 said:
Um Hines isn't designing it anyways the architect is Pelli. Hines is just the developer.
Click to expand...

Doesn't the developer pick the architect?

Also can't the BRA recommend the developer to take a closer look at the architecture of the building before.

I feel like South Station could be a crucial location for something GRAND 750Ft high:

How many real spots left in the core of the city to develop something of significance?
SST
Winthrop
Congress
Harbor
 
Re: South Station Tower

Christian Science Garage parcel has current zoning at 291' + mechanicals.

It would appear to be a solid candidate for zoning relief for 2~3x the height.

1 Dalton got 188 feet over the zoning. So....
 
Re: South Station Tower

TheRifleman said:
I feel like South Station could be a crucial location for something GRAND 750Ft high
Click to expand...

Pretty sure the FAA map says you can't do that here. No reason to keep beating the dead horse.

Use your energy on the Boston Properties' proposals at North Station and especially Back Bay Garage instead. Those are the ones blowing the golden opportunity.
 
Re: South Station Tower

Thanks.

The new, 2016 FAA determined height is exactly 690' above sea level.... Tower base is 12.9' above sea level. Maximum tower height is 677.1' and is designed to reach that exact height.

page 5, notation #3 http://209.80.128.250/EEA/emepa/mep.../9131NPC South Station Air Rights Project.pdf

"The original FAA determinations specify a height limit of 691 feet above mean sea level.... The 2016 FAA determinations based on new NAVD 88 datum specified a height limit of 690' AMSL.... and the new 2016 FAA determination included a height of 677 feet above ground level."

it would appear the ocean rose by a few inches since the 1990s.
 
Re: South Station Tower

odurandina said:
it would appear the ocean rose by a few inches since the 1990s.
Click to expand...

OMG please delete that before Whighlander sees it and derails this whole thread with his asshattery.
 
Re: South Station Tower

Anyone going? If so can you give us some live updates, and maybe even grab some pics if possible. Thanks in advance.
 
Re: South Station Tower

Pretty sure that the possible development at the Christian Science Garage site (or the plaza corner near Mass Ave) was traded for extra height at 30 Dalton so that's a non-starter.

odurandina said:
Christian Science Garage parcel has current zoning at 291' + mechanicals.

It would appear to be a solid candidate for zoning relief for 2~3x the height.

1 Dalton got 188 feet over the zoning. So....
Click to expand...
 
Re: South Station Tower

stick n move said:
Anyone going? If so can you give us some live updates, and maybe even grab some pics if possible. Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

Lead architect, Fred Clarke is talking about the main tower, massing, sky-street (enclosed), the terrace and retail space that will be created on Atlantic Ave. Save for the geometrical plan for the resident setback tower [about the main core (barf)], the project looks amazing.
 
Last edited:
Re: South Station Tower

couple of edits;

Pardon, i'm pretty lousy with notetaking... Fascinating, detailed discussion about distributing the loads by means of various arches to work off the 8 main columns between each track, and the creation of a unique lobby/rail-to-city gateway/public space below. i appologize for not having more detailed information about the structural side, save for the change to reinforced concrete to make the upper tower much more stable.... but, the increased weight + the absence of being able to locate the piles/columns to suit) + height and massing they'r working with, leads quickly to arches.

(This should make for a lively discussion on Archboston).

BCDC appears to generally support the new tower design, but giving perhaps greater enthusiasm to the overall project, and the public use aspect. Andrea likes/loves everything (no surprise) except for showing concern about the arch system.

–which leads to my surprise there's no discussion of a truss system at the base.

There appears to be a lot of complexity here.

"When we do come back...." BCDC want's to see more detailed (larger?) models of the project and... and...."

*BCDC commissioners repeating concern about the arches at the base.

i asked Mr. Clarke if they had considered the usage of a truss down low - which opened a wormhole and brief discussion about the complexity (re; $$$) of the rather heavy (stiff) concrete working with that type of structure.

When i read Logan's SST stories in the Globe, or the brilliant commentary here, the idea of Millennium Tower height at South Station is more hard to believe. Then you see the presentation and makes it's much more real (despite the urgency with time).... but MT, 111 Fed , GCG, TD Garden and the Garden Garage projects give a lot of confidence. SST looks ok from some of angles. Given the apparently great complexity on the structural side than i had previously considered - i have an attitude adjustment to 'happy if Hines/Pelli Clarke Pelli pull it off.'


March 06, 2010
tocoto said:
Too bad Boston didn't get....
Click to expand...



*1:50 am; i see it now. a stiffer, heavier building + going over tracks that are probably a bit too close together (for a design that was originally going to be steel) + VE leads inevitably to arches.
 
Re: South Station Tower

Seems tailor made for a hybrid construction -- high strength structural steel to go from ground to a platform at the level of the "Sky Street"

Then the rest of the tower can be poured in place concrete from the "sky ground level" on up

That way you get the best of what each does-- structural steel distributes the loads to the foundation piers between the tracks and handles the tension in the "drum head" due to the weight of the tower resting on the platform. Think of the lower "floor" of Eiffel's Tower with a Huge Doric Column resting upon it.

Above the sky street the concrete is in pure compression as if it was a single column [except for the effect of bending due to wind] which is why we have rebar
 
Re: South Station Tower

Whigh,

It appears you have it spot on with where they went.

stick n move said:
I wish they showed the new SST render from ground level looking up so we actually knew what this thing is going to look like. Unless you buy a drone or a helicopter you'll never see that shot. Who knows it might actually look like the greatest tower of all time standing out front at south station. Would be nice to get a peek.
Click to expand...

1. the market tilted to mixed use.

2. you go to these things and you leave ecstatic for the light the market, developers and designers are shining on Boston.

3. i was posting with ignorance about an offset assymetrical design. that idea was tested some time ago. Safe to assume it sunk in the storm.

4. it's going to be concrete w/ less emphasis on diagonal bracing;
a. for somewhat obvious reasons, with the narrow resident setback tower, and height limitation/s, they won't use the ensemble structure to direct the loads, as you see done often in New York and elsewhere.
b. keep the lightest combination ($$$) with the least complexity to work with the preset loading points they have to work with.

5. they determined the weight distribution is to be handled via arches rather than a truss at the lower section of the tower. i assume it's a straightforward matter for the stuctural eng guys on Archboston. being that i'm no-longer current with structural dynamics/offset loading/trusses/torsional oscillations etc, anymore - this stuff is taking me longer.

6. i believe it's going to be a good outcome - should they get it approved.

7. some haters (re; Globe) will trash the massing for a host of reasons, but altogether, unfairly.

8. i don't support the design summarily. i don't love it. but if this is what must be to get built, then, by all means....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top