Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

[statler]

Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Radio mast wouldn't count towards the final height anyways so why even posit the question?

Yeah, and if it doesn't count towards the official height we won't get any, uh, Tall Building, um, Points(?) and uh, we won't win the, um, Tall Building Series??

(Wait, remind me again why we care about the 'official' height of buildings?)

 

[Equilibria]

Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

With regards to downtown, planes don't fly over it, it has more to do with blocking radar coverage.

That was only true for the Aquarium Garage. The height limit for OEO there is about 600'. The FAA imposed an additional, lower limit for radar at 407'.

A radio mast would be treated as a separate obstruction and would be evaluated the same way as if someone wanted to build a freestanding 900' radio tower in Winthrop Square. I'm not sure if that would be allowed, but I doubt it. The radio tower on the Pru is very close to the height limit for that part of the Back Bay (i.e. the maximum structural height of a building on, say, the Dalton St. Garage).

The "actual height" is a silly number relevant only to skyscraper hobbyists, just like the "highest occupied floor" is for the BRA. The FAA cares about neither.

 

[DZH22]

Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

How much does it cost to create a secondary radar location? This one time fee could bump up much of the city's restrictions by 100's of feet.

Basically, would it make fiscal sense for Millennium to go 900'+, with the inclusion of a secondary radar location? Maybe they could split the cost with a few other developers (SST) and we could get better proportions there as well? Is this feasible?

 

[timsox6]

Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Radio mast wouldn't count towards the final height anyways so why even posit the question?

Because no one in Boston other than the people on this board cares about the posted architectural height of this or any other building. A lot of Bostonians think that the Prudential is taller than the Hancock because of its radio mast, and, honestly, the Pru looks pretty dinky without it. So it matters an awful lot. That rendering from the harbor would be far more dramatic with a radio mast, even if Emporis and SkyscraperCity wouldn't count it.

 

[stick n move]

Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

In reality we all know radio masts do count. If the new wtc's antenna counts then radio masts do too. If you can physically climb to the top of it, it counts. I don't care what some group of old guys determined in some backdoor meeting.

 

[Equilibria]

Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

How much does it cost to create a secondary radar location? This one time fee could bump up much of the city's restrictions by 100's of feet.

Basically, would it make fiscal sense for Millennium to go 900'+, with the inclusion of a secondary radar location? Maybe they could split the cost with a few other developers (SST) and we could get better proportions there as well? Is this feasible?

No. See above. The only one-time investment that would bump up the max height would be to move the airport. THE RADAR THING APPLIES ONLY ON THE AQUARIUM GARAGE SITE.

 

[Tombstoner]

Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I don't think a 700-foot tower has to have a spire to look distinctive. I like the building to the left of the Willis Tower in the photo stick n move posted. Interesting crowns can take many forms and in Boston an interesting crown with good lighting on any 500+ foot building in Boston will really stand out.

 

[stick n move]

Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I found the rendering from Millennium with both towers thats in the pdf you have to download on the BRA. The current tower was under construction so I filled in the glass and got rid of the words at the top of the image.

 

[DZH22]

Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I don't think a 700-foot tower has to have a spire to look distinctive. I like the building to the left of the Willis Tower in the photo stick n move posted. Interesting crowns can take many forms and in Boston an interesting crown with good lighting on any 500+ foot building in Boston will really stand out.

That's over 900' and one of the all-time ugliest buildings I have seen in person. It would dominate here.

 

[TheRifleman]

Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

That BACK END DROP looks GREAT---

I prefer Boston doesn't go too tall at this point.
600ft to 750ft is good enough.

 

[Tombstoner]

Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

That's over 900' and one of the all-time ugliest buildings I have seen in person. It would dominate here.

I just noted it as a building (with an easy reference on this page) with what I consider a distinctive crown that didn't involve a spire. Don't know the height--that wasn't my point.

 

[stick n move]

Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Odurandia: I didn't want to quote all of that to save space. Again looks are subjective. With regards to the this building being too fat... look at the Hancock, from certain angles that thing looks like a whale, but everybody would agree it is a great asset to the skyline. It also has a slender side, just like this tower does. If you look at the Hancock from the common that thing looks like the biggest fattest chunk of glass I have ever seen that is as wide as it is tall, it looks like a square. The good part is it changes from every angle, and this tower will too. The Hancock is the goat but this is less fat and disproportionate that that tower is, and everybody is fine with that tower. Well be ok.

That's over 900' and one of the all-time ugliest buildings I have seen in person. It would dominate here.

I agree I have seen this is person and it looks like a bag of ass with a party hat on top.

 

[DZH22]

Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Not Iconic. Makes this new proposal look like the Mona Lisa of towers.

Edit: This is 311 South Wacker. 961'

311 South Wacker Drive by Mattheux Photo, on Flickr

 

[odurandina]

Re: Millennium Tapped for Winthrop Square Tower

This is not ok.

Your post actually has an interesting typo that underlines my point about the observation deck. You listed Hancock for Boston. It's actually Prudential. The Hancock observatory, a city-mandated observatory as part of the terms of the Hancock's construction, was closed after 9/11 and never reopened despite the agreement that the building operate a public observatory and the city turns a blind eye. Millennium is doing this exact thing.

Great post/s. Does this mean there will be no public space above ground?

Not even a restaurant?

i know some of the members aren't thrilled with Millennium's proposal.

but, i'm tunned such a poor design could have won.

Maybe there will be some fixes.

 

[citylover94]

Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

There will the ground level Great Hall and a two or three story retail podium based on the plans millennium filed with the city but above that point there is 0 square feet of publicly accessible space.

 

[Tombstoner]

Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Not Iconic. Makes this new proposal look like the Mona Lisa of towers.

Hmm...yep, not iconic or beautiful in isolation but not all that bad on a tall building seen from afar, I think. Of course it's all subjective, but I would definitely prefer something like this (not this, but some effort at distinctiveness) than the great yawning nothingness of the new proposal.

 

[KentXie]

Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Because no one in Boston other than the people on this board cares about the posted architectural height of this or any other building. A lot of Bostonians think that the Prudential is taller than the Hancock because of its radio mast, and, honestly, the Pru looks pretty dinky without it. So it matters an awful lot. That rendering from the harbor would be far more dramatic with a radio mast, even if Emporis and SkyscraperCity wouldn't count it.

No, it's because there are people on this board who would be down if we stick a 250 ft flag pole on this tower just so they can call it a supertall. If you're going to achieve higher height, you achieve it through quality, not some cheap stick.

 

[KentXie]

Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Yeah, and if it doesn't count towards the official height we won't get any, uh, Tall Building, um, Points(?) and uh, we won't win the, um, Tall Building Series??

(Wait, remind me again why we care about the 'official' height of buildings?)

I don't think you understood the intention of my question. My question was intended to ask why treat the top as an afterthought just so we can achieve extra height.

 

[JSic]

Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I believe that Millennium's proposal was the tallest, correct? With this we will finally truly break through the downtown plateau.

 

[statler]

Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I don't think you understood the intention of my question. My question was intended to ask why treat the top as an afterthought just so we can achieve extra height.

You are correct, I misunderstood. My apologies.