The Ipswich | 2 Charlesgate West | Fenway

Re: 2 Charlesgate West

whighlander said:
Remember that they spent M$ in 2004-2005 to redo the 406 club named after Ted Williams iconic 0.406 batting average in 1941 --
Click to expand...

Needs to go 406' and be named Ted Williams Tower. i'm semi serious. Years from now the people might even be persuaded to think it was Henry's idea to build it.
 
Re: 2 Charlesgate West

Downburst, we need you to model this tower and see the sight lines if you would, thank you.


In other related news.

2781611063_ff32c3107f.jpg
 
Re: 2 Charlesgate West

JumboBuc said:
No way this building will affect wind patterns in the park. All the Sox will care about are sight lines.
Click to expand...

JumboBuc -- a 400' edifice at 1300 ft subtends an angle of 16 degrees above the horizon from home plate

Measuring my outstretched arm in Smoots and comparing it to the height of my outstretched thumb above the horizon -- I get 1.4 degrees subtended. Therefore the Norman or Saxon or Norse tower would be about 10 hand with outstretched thumbs above the horizon


OOOPs! -- I had a conversion error from Smoots to mm

the actual angle subtended by my outstretched thumb at arms length is 11 degrees

So standing at home plate my thumb would reach to about 300' or close to the height of the tower

Sill like the idea someone suggest to make it 406 feet :cool:
 
Last edited:
Re: 2 Charlesgate West

Equilibria said:
I'll stand in.

72u7x3.png
Click to expand...

Jesus that was fast as hell. Thank you.

In my opinion stadiums surrounded by towers enhance the visual aspect. It allows you to see the city and give you a sense of place when ur in the game. At night it also looks great with the lights, and adds to the tv shots for dramatics. These stadiums are built in the urban cores of cities and the surrounding areas should represent that fact.
 
Re: 2 Charlesgate West

^^nice.

odurandina said:
If you want to discuss licensing, like Wrigley, bring the lawyers and lets roll.
Click to expand...

choo said:
The sox largest concern is a wrigley situation where people can set up and see in. That's why they bought up landsdowne and close down yaw key. They don't want that or ads on other buildings from Fenway (Citgo obvious exception from yesteryear). They want to be the only one making money off their fans/customers. As long as this building doesn't do that, I don't think the sox care.
Click to expand...

But this will do that, albeit, render but a marginal view. As the first tower proposed that would create a Wrigley type situation, it will be interesting to see what the RedSox ownership has to say, if it ever becomes a public conversation. In any case, it appears there's no terraces, and with the added distance, it would appear less of a concern.
 
Re: 2 Charlesgate West

It will have set backs, its curved, and the top portion is half as wide as the bottom so it wont be nearly as imposing as that render is.
 
Re: 2 Charlesgate West

JumboBuc said:
No way this building will affect wind patterns in the park. All the Sox will care about are sight lines.
Click to expand...

And that is sight lines in, not sight lines out.
People need to stop getting that twisted.
They don't care about seeing it, it's about you seeing in.
I'm told that's why the pool deck at 1330(? The one where citizen is) couldn't be higher.
They didn't want pool deck parties with free views of the games.
 
Re: 2 Charlesgate West

Equilibria said:
You mean the single most famous building in the city? That stadium?
Click to expand...

Yes, that stadium. This is a block or two away, so why should a sports team--even one as influential as the Red Sox--get to decide what gets built in a neighborhood which they operate out of 81 times per year? Especially considering that the tone of the thread suggests it would be to either preserve the "classic view" out of right field, or to block people from watching the game from their apartments.

whighlander said:
Tmac -- Baseball might be "dying fast" -- but the Red Sox and Fenway are a phenomenally successful brand and financial operation

Remember that they spent M$ in 2004-2005 to redo the 406 club named after Ted Williams iconic 0.406 batting average in 1941 -- just because of some indications that it's 2 story glass curtain wall had a deleterious effect on the flight of certain kinds of hits in certain directions

The glass is now gone replaced by open seating and renamed once again the EMC Club -- perhaps to become the ....Club

Therefore -- Any building tall enough and close enough to possibly effect the air flow in the vicinity of the Green Monster is immediately suspect in their eyes

by google Maps the distance from home plate to the existing TransNational Building is
Total distance: 1,321.20 ft (402.70 m)
the good new for the project is the line is through the right field bullpens which makes it much less of a problem for home runs as Fenway's seats rise gradually in that direction -- so that "normal trajectory" home runs are very common

see for your self
https://goo.gl/maps/pBZQRfvhss92
Click to expand...

If the building were to affect wind trajectory, then I'd be far more receptive to the idea of the Red Sox blocking it for that reason. If it hurts the game, then I'd totally understand why they wouldn't want this built in its current form.

SeamusMcFly said:
And that is sight lines in, not sight lines out.
People need to stop getting that twisted.
They don't care about seeing it, it's about you seeing in.
I'm told that's why the pool deck at 1330(? The one where citizen is) couldn't be higher.
They didn't want pool deck parties with free views of the games.
Click to expand...

That would be nuts if they were to combat this project based on some people getting some views into the stadium. How many tickets would they lose out on due to this? 5-10 tickets per game at most? The fun of going to a baseball game is the atmosphere. You don't get that watching the game from 1,000-1,400 feet away with an obstructed view in an apartment with muffled sounds of the game.
 
Re: 2 Charlesgate West

Based off the massing model above I pasted the render over it to see how it would look.

 
Re: 2 Charlesgate West

That actually looks pretty sweet.
If they're upgrading and bringing the park into the 21st+ century, might as well bring the view up to date as well.
 
Re: 2 Charlesgate West

They should make the top look like a Fenway Light Tower
 
Re: 2 Charlesgate West

tmac9wr said:
Yes, that stadium. This is a block or two away, so why should a sports team--even one as influential as the Red Sox--get to decide what gets built in a neighborhood which they operate out of 81 times per year? Especially considering that the tone of the thread suggests it would be to either preserve the "classic view" out of right field, or to block people from watching the game from their apartments.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with you that the Red Sox won't block this. The rich people who are going to live in the high levels of that tower won't consider money an object anyway. If they want to watch a Sox game, they'll pay for box seats. FWIW, the Sox didn't object to height at Fenway Center.

With that said, the Red Sox have historically been deeply vocal about developments - like Fenway Center - that directly abut their property. They're a very wealthy abutter, and they have the same rights as any other land owner to complain about development.

My objection was just to the notion that the Sox' influence in Boston has anything to do with Baseball being a "declining sport." First off, that's overblown. Second, Hockey is a pretty well "declined" sport and Delaware North is still powerful and heard in City Hall. Sports teams have lots of money and lots of propaganda capability. They'll always have access.
 
Re: 2 Charlesgate West

Equilibria said:
Tough, but if they restore and light the rocks, possibly pretty. It also will make a difference what they do along the Turnpike for the "art wall".

Also, I didn't realize Belkin owned Lookout Farm, but he does. That's cool that the render has what I assume would be the actual restaurant signage...
Click to expand...

Yeah, he bought from the estate of Les Marino. It seemed to be more of a hobby to Marino than Belkin and Belkin has been trying to create different revenue sources for the farm. He recently received approval to expand the cider bar to include live entertainment. It seems though, they have cut back on the types of vegetables they grow there. Perhaps they would bring back more traditional crops there since with that type of high visibility from the Pike I would think it could be a destination restaurant.
 
Re: 2 Charlesgate West

I'm sure that given the formal announcement of the filing in all the media today -- that Billionare to Billionaire -- Steve Belkin has talked to John Henry and whatever issues there might have been -- they've been worked out to the satisfaction of both gentlemen

Contrary to what was being bandied about a hundred posts or so back in this thread -- this one is a go 111 Federal or not -- the only remaining uncertainty is financing
 
Re: 2 Charlesgate West

Equilibria said:
I actually agree with you that the Red Sox won't block this. The rich people who are going to live in the high levels of that tower won't consider money an object anyway. If they want to watch a Sox game, they'll pay for box seats. FWIW, the Sox didn't object to height at Fenway Center.

With that said, the Red Sox have historically been deeply vocal about developments - like Fenway Center - that directly abut their property. They're a very wealthy abutter, and they have the same rights as any other land owner to complain about development.

My objection was just to the notion that the Sox' influence in Boston has anything to do with Baseball being a "declining sport." First off, that's overblown. Second, Hockey is a pretty well "declined" sport and Delaware North is still powerful and heard in City Hall. Sports teams have lots of money and lots of propaganda capability. They'll always have access.
Click to expand...

The team didn't object to the height at the current Fenway Center because they were very instrumental in shaping that development in its current form. The Red Sox has its fingerprints (toeprints?) all over that project. There are 10+ years of history of the Sox and Rosenthal fighting and negotiating, with multiple land swaps and sales taking place between the two. Some versions of Fenway Center the team has strongly objected to, and some they've signed on to as a co-developer and partner. The first couple articles quoted over in the Fenway Center thread gives a sparknotes version of this history.

In the end, the Sox got what they wanted with that project: new development in the Fenway neighborhood but not so close that it would disturb "the Fenway view", both in and out of the park. The same could be said for all the other stuff going up in the Fenway now, from Van Ness to the Viridian to the Point to whatever. 2 Charlesgate West would affect "the Fenway view" in a way that no project since the Citgo Sign has, and you can be sure that if the Citgo Sign were proposed today it would NEVER happen.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2 Charlesgate West

JumboBuc said:
2 Charlesgate West would affect "the Fenway view" in a way that no project since the Citgo Sign has, and you can be sure that if the Citgo Sign were proposed today it would NEVER happen.
Click to expand...

The only view out from Fenway is of the Citgo Sign, the Pru, and 111 Huntington. That's all you can see. Shortly, you won't be able to see the Pru anymore because it will be almost entirely blocked by One Dalton, a project that the Red Sox had nothing to say about. The "Fenway view" as it exists now isn't long for this world.

I could see them raising an objection if a developer in that location was looking to make money from advertising visible from the park, Cubs-style, but there's no advertising going on this building. What would they be objecting to, exactly? That the building would interrupt fans' view of the sky?
 
Re: 2 Charlesgate West

Equilibria said:
The only view out from Fenway is of the Citgo Sign, the Pru, and 111 Huntington. That's all you can see. Shortly, you won't be able to see the Pru anymore because it will be almost entirely blocked by One Dalton, a project that the Red Sox had nothing to say about. The "Fenway view" as it exists now isn't long for this world.

I could see them raising an objection if a developer in that location was looking to make money from advertising visible from the park, Cubs-style, but there's no advertising going on this building. What would they be objecting to, exactly? That the building would interrupt fans' view of the sky?
Click to expand...

No part of the Pru will be blocked by One Dalton from Fenway. One Dalton will come close to blocking 111 Huntington from the park, but won't quite. It sits far enough to the south that it will always be "to the right" of the Pru and 111 Huntington from the park. But this is all beside the point, as these projects are in the Back Bay, far from the park. They are unrelated to Fenway.

I'm not saying that the Sox are right to oppose developments close to the park that will overlook the field and be seen from the prominent camera angles that cover the game. I'm saying that, despite any question regarding the merits of such arguments, the team (including the current ownership) has a history of making them, and there's a good chance they will make them again in this case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top