South Station Tower | South Station Air Rights | Downtown

IMG_2922.jpeg
IMG_2798.jpeg
IMG_2807.jpeg
IMG_2808.jpeg
 
bigpicture7 said:
I stumbled across what seems to be a recent floor plan map of the tower that's posted to the building's marketing site:

South Station Tower - Floor Plans and Test Fits

It appears that the core will get significantly narrower after level 23 and again after level 35. There are some neat floor layout views within the above.
Click to expand...

Thanks this is helpful. Unfortunately it looks like the dimensions for both the first part of the tower (up to floor 23) and second part of the tower (up to floor 35) are essentially the same if that document is accurate. It looks like it will measure approximately 155-feet across on its "skinny side", when viewed facing the front of the South Station clocktower and approximately 225-feet across when viewing it from its "fat side" i.e. from areas of the Seaport or from the Essex Street side (these are rough numbers). It sounds like the floor plates for this part of the South Station tower (up to floor 35) are 29,000 square-feet which is only slightly smaller than the typical floorplate size of 29,800 square-feet at One Congress/State Street.

But there are a couple things that I think will save us with South Station tower so that it won't look quite so fat --

First, It looks like the disparity between the skinny and fat sides of the tower will not be as drastic as they are for One Congress/State Street. So if the skinny side of the tower is 100 for both towers, the ratio for the fat side looks like it will be about 149 for South Station whereas it's about 193 at One Congress/State Street (if the floorplans on their site are reasonably accurate). Still, the fat side of the tower is not as sleek and nicely angled as its skinny side, so there will be a noticeable disparity and I do think the lower part of the building will look a bit fat. But I'm reasonably optimistic it will not be as pronounced as for One Congress/State Street. Most people will view it at some angle where it's not quite at its skinniest or fattest.

Second, the upper 16 floors of the building or the upper 35 percent of the tower will be quite a bit narrower at least when viewed from the skinny side -- narrower for the upper 14 floors and even narrower more for the upper two floors plus mechanicals/crown.
 
chrisbrat said:
JHT has two "fat sides," as does One Congress (as you note). Both of those towers are absolute triumphs. Who gives a shit if SST looks fat from two specific vantage points?
Click to expand...

While I generally agree with that point, I would note that JHT is a parallelogram and not a rectangle specifically so it doesn't look like a fat rectangle - it's a triumph in part because it was designed to avoid this very problem.
 
Equilibria said:
While I generally agree with that point, I would note that JHT is a parallelogram and not a rectangle specifically so it doesn't look like a fat rectangle - it's a triumph in part because it was designed to avoid this very problem.
Click to expand...

This is in part why I don't think SST will have as much of a "fatness" issue as some posters are worried about. If you look at the plan views in the doc I just posted above, it is clear that there are some very pronounced vertical grooves and indentations running the height of the tower. I think this will actually have the appearance of pulling the edges in. Think about how One Congress is much different: it is more like a smooth continuous profile (minus the slit/swoosh thing on one side), which makes it feel comparatively fat and blob like from some angles. I honestly don't think SST will have as much of a problem.
 
While I prefer the slender profile angles of both JHT and One Congress, in the latter's case I actually really like the "fat" side, too.

"Skinny" doesn't always equal "attractive" and all I'd hope for with SST -- or anything built in Boston -- is that it achieves the latter quality.

MT has a "fat" side, so does Winthrop (even moreso), but nobody really bitches about either instance, so why is SST getting this weird degree of scrutiny? It's gonna have some very slender vantage points and there are MANY other genuinely fat/squat blobs in Boston, so wtf? Yes, it will have two sides that are wider than the other two. So?
 
chrisbrat said:
MT has a "fat" side, so does Winthrop (even moreso), but nobody really bitches about either instance, so why is SST getting this weird degree of scrutiny? It's gonna have some very slender vantage points and there are MANY other genuinely fat/squat blobs in Boston, so wtf? Yes, it will have two sides that are wider than the other two. So?
Click to expand...

I have to disagree that no one hates on Winthrop Square... :) Doing so accounts for about 25% of the posts on aB over the past six months...
 
Equilibria said:
I have to disagree that no one hates on Winthrop Square... :) Doing so accounts for about 25% of the posts on aB over the past six months...
Click to expand...
fair enough, but most of the critiques i've seen re: Winthrop seem to be of the "it's dull" variety or the "they promised to include ____________ and didn't deliver" or "it's too short" varieties, not "it's fat."
 
chrisbrat said:
fair enough, but most of the critiques i've seen re: Winthrop seem to be of the "it's dull" variety or the "they promised to include ____________ and didn't deliver" or "it's too short" varieties, not "it's fat."
Click to expand...

That's true. Winthrop Square also includes very strong vertical pleats to break up it's wider side.
 
Boston has so many fat, stumpy rectangles it's depressing. If we could have one - just one - skinny but tall tower, it would work wonders for the Boston skyline. Imagine one of the Pencil towers going up in NYC or elsewhere in the world. We'd obviously never get that height here, but imagine a pencil tower at like 800' downtown? It would look amazing, and a desperately needed change from all the 500'-650'ish flat-roofed bores that fill in downtown.
 
dotdude78 said:
Boston has so many fat, stumpy rectangles it's depressing. If we could have one - just one - skinny but tall tower, it would work wonders for the Boston skyline. Imagine one of the Pencil towers going up in NYC or elsewhere in the world. We'd obviously never get that height here, but imagine a pencil tower at like 800' downtown? It would look amazing, and a desperately needed change from all the 500'-650'ish flat-roofed bores that fill in downtown.
Click to expand...

Why would 1 Dalton not fit this description?
 
chrisbrat said:
While I prefer the slender profile angles of both JHT and One Congress, in the latter's case I actually really like the "fat" side, too.

"Skinny" doesn't always equal "attractive" and all I'd hope for with SST -- or anything built in Boston -- is that it achieves the latter quality.

MT has a "fat" side, so does Winthrop (even moreso), but nobody really bitches about either instance, so why is SST getting this weird degree of scrutiny? It's gonna have some very slender vantage points and there are MANY other genuinely fat/squat blobs in Boston, so wtf? Yes, it will have two sides that are wider than the other two. So?
Click to expand...

Personally, I find the disparity in different perspectives of One Congress a bit jarring (between its wider angle and its narrower one) and think it may have worked slightly better with a reduced footprint and a bump in height. If the footprint was reduced by 12% you could accommodate the same square footage by adding about five additional floors, so not necessarily a significant change. MT or Winthrop have never bothered me, but I'm not sure their wider angles are quite as expansive. It could also have to do with the cylindrical nature of One Congress.

I'm not especially concerned about SST, but I guess I'm a little more attentive to it based on One Congress.
 
dotdude78 said:
Boston has so many fat, stumpy rectangles it's depressing. If we could have one - just one - skinny but tall tower, it would work wonders for the Boston skyline. Imagine one of the Pencil towers going up in NYC or elsewhere in the world. We'd obviously never get that height here, but imagine a pencil tower at like 800' downtown? It would look amazing, and a desperately needed change from all the 500'-650'ish flat-roofed bores that fill in downtown.
Click to expand...

We do have one at 700'...

en.wikipedia.org

One Dalton - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
dotdude78 said:
Boston has so many fat, stumpy rectangles it's depressing. If we could have one - just one - skinny but tall tower, it would work wonders for the Boston skyline. Imagine one of the Pencil towers going up in NYC or elsewhere in the world. We'd obviously never get that height here, but imagine a pencil tower at like 800' downtown? It would look amazing, and a desperately needed change from all the 500'-650'ish flat-roofed bores that fill in downtown.
Click to expand...

Well youre in luck because we just so happened to get exactly one skinny tall tower at one dalton. Surprise!
 
dotdude78 said:
Boston has so many fat, stumpy rectangles it's depressing. If we could have one - just one - skinny but tall tower, it would work wonders for the Boston skyline. Imagine one of the Pencil towers going up in NYC or elsewhere in the world. We'd obviously never get that height here, but imagine a pencil tower at like 800' downtown? It would look amazing, and a desperately needed change from all the 500'-650'ish flat-roofed bores that fill in downtown.
Click to expand...

The last thing Boston needs is one of the pencil towers from NYC. They are just places for rich people to park their money and do absolutly nothing for the city.
 
found5dollar said:
The last thing Boston needs is one of the pencil towers from NYC. They are just places for rich people to park their money and do absolutly nothing for the city.
Click to expand...
Personally, I hate the way they look, so aside from the socio-economic/late stage capitalism/petro dollar laundering critiques, they just don't remotely do anything visually positive for the city.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top