Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

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

I hope the sale put in a clause requiring the Grand Hall to be built and open to public use. It would be great if they would allow food stands to set up inside the hall along with other public events.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I'd rather they put in an observation deck that was supposed to be required? I'm sure the hall will be great also ,but I like being up high :)
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Have they decided on what plan to go with yet?
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Millennium was selected as the developer so this is the design unless they make more changes as the process continues.

af42136b73f5f3d9202b0dd070152f33f5a0297c.JPG
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Jahvon09 said:
Have they decided on what plan to go with yet?
Click to expand...

Jahvon -- suggest that you go back a few pages in this thread

This has been final for quite awhile Millennium Partners with Handel will build a mix-use tower [mostly residential] with the Great Hall at ground level and some We Work type space for start-ups. The top of the tower will be essentially level with the top [not antenna structure] of the Pru

The final design approvals need to be gotten from the Design Com and BPDA aand then final permitting -- de-construction of garage summer of 2017
CgpS7TfWMAAPvL7.jpg:large
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Still disappointed that LendLease's design wasn't chosen. Could have had our own version of the Cocoon Tower.

200px-Cocoontower.jpg
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

KentXie said:
Still disappointed that LendLease's design wasn't chosen. Could have had our own version of the Cocoon Tower.

200px-Cocoontower.jpg
Click to expand...

Um, that looks likes something, but it ain't a cocoon...
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I agree. I was definitely Team Lendlease. It was bold and different -- things Boston doesn't do very well (architecturally).

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

So if the City got $152 million for a relatively small, somewhat hemmed in lot with a decrepit parking garage, I wonder what the State could get in these market conditions by selling the very large parcel at Cambridge and Staniford with a large, decrepit multi-service center?
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

dotdude78 said:
I agree. I was definitely Team Lendlease. It was bold and different -- things Boston doesn't do very well (architecturally).

lendlease-winthrop.jpg
Click to expand...

I'm very sad we didn't get that either.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Accordia + HYM was the way to go.

However, Millennium Partners + HYM down the road - is still a hugistic possibility.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

odurandina said:
Accordia + HYM was the way to go.

However, Millennium Partners + HYM down the road - is still a hugistic possibility.
Click to expand...

I wonder if Millennium will get extra scrutiny locally due to their problems in San Francisco. I really can't think of a bigger reputation killer for a developer than something like this...it is pretty unreal and could have serious repercussions on there ability to meet there commitments from a financial standpoint... or secure future funds from banks and co-investors.

http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/...o-needs-to-take-action-on-sinking-9395243.php
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

novacat said:
I wonder if Millennium will get extra scrutiny locally due to their problems in San Francisco. I really can't think of a bigger reputation killer for a developer than something like this...it is pretty unreal and could have serious repercussions on there ability to meet there commitments from a financial standpoint... or secure future funds from banks and co-investors.

http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/...o-needs-to-take-action-on-sinking-9395243.php
Click to expand...

Wouldn't they have completely separate finances/insurance/etc on each project though to isolate them as much as possible financially ?
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

bakgwailo said:
Wouldn't they have completely separate finances/insurance/etc on each project though to isolate them as much as possible financially ?
Click to expand...

We discussed this a bit up-thread. The answer is "yes, but.." As in, yes, developers and RE owners compartmentalize as much as they can from one development to the next, and that is usually sufficient to prevent spillover from one project's problems to the rest of the portfolio. However, every insurance policy has a coverage limit, and the same is true whether you're talking about site-specific property insurance, corporate liability insurance, umbrella policies, you name it. And every insurance policy has exclusions, which policy carriers will use ruthlessly when claims pile up into really high numbers.

The concern with the SF problem is that it might be extreme enough to blow past the insurance coverage limits and / or coverage might get denied due to exclusions. I have no clue if that'll be the case, it's still way early in the discovery phase, and the legal aspects seem wickedly complicated. But as for magnitude of repair? The engineering issues are also complicated as hell, as are any suggested mitigations that I've seen. A lawyer employment booster for SF law firms, the legal bills alone will be absurd, then if Millennium gets forced into some heroic engineering fix, ...... this could be the type of situation that goes past the compartmentalization. Emphasis on "could be".

The take-home is that compartmentalization will not protect any real estate firm from having any and all micro-level risk spill into the macro level. It helps enormously, but it's not foolproof.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall when their various investors / lenders take their apps to credit committee on this Boston tower. "Track record on everything aside from this one building in SF? Stellar, we rate them A+++!! Magnitude of risk on this one SF building, and the percentage chance it could spill over to existential risk at corporate level? We rate that risk ..... er, um, [sound of throats being cleared], aaaah....."
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

bakgwailo said:
Wouldn't they have completely separate finances/insurance/etc on each project though to isolate them as much as possible financially ?
Click to expand...

Typically yes, each project is its own LLC to limit the liability carry over. But everyone involved is be sued and counter sued by everyone else related to the building (and the one next door, that may have triggered the problem). In reality this is going to be in court for a decade at least.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Assuming they use the same structural engineering firm I would imagine the only scrutiny they might receive is being told to get a 2nd review done by another firm.

It's gonna take forever for that other case to get through the legal system but I'm willing to bet the structural engineering firm takes the brunt of any fallout.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

meddlepal said:
Assuming they use the same structural engineering firm I would imagine the only scrutiny they might receive is being told to get a 2nd review done by another firm.

It's gonna take forever for that other case to get through the legal system but I'm willing to bet the structural engineering firm takes the brunt of any fallout.
Click to expand...

The geotechnical engineering firms are not the same between Millennium's SF tower and their Boston projects (e.g., the just-completed tower and 111 Fed. proposal). I believe have gone with well-known local firm HaleyAldrich for their Bos projects (discussed elsewhere on this forum...I don't have time to find it now).

Either way, the risk is not that they'd mess up this new tower, the risk is whether financial repercussions from the SF tower will affect this (but as others have said, it is probably a long time before that would hit).
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I think what's interesting about this is that all the media reports I've seen have said that MP advertised this project as going to have a certain subsidence level--which of course it way overshot in the most catastrophically unanticipated fashion. Still, the point remains: settling-in of X inches was most explicitly baked-in; what was quite literally "sold" to everyone. Without that, I think they might have an issue. But with it, it does seem to point a finger at the SF transit folks for doing the excavating that cause the massive dehydration (i.e., compressing) of the groundwater-infused strata. Or am I overstating the benefit of the predicted subsidence as a shield?
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

For the record, and not that anyone cares or that it matters, but I think this design is garbage.., it's like some Terminator 2 meets PoMo, and the building itself looks fat, which those lines (presumably meant to give the appearance of being sleek) only accentuate the thickness. Perhaps, as often happens, it'll end up looking great, but the whole thing rubs me the wrong way as it looks now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top