Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

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

stick n move said:
^ Depending on which way your runways are aligned. In our case 9/27 is all thats screwing us over. The FAA height guidelines arent law, and can be given exceptions. Menino knew that. This tower will be basically directly behind 1IP when looking from Logan. If your flying under 200 ft directly over the roof of 1 international place your already screwed.
Click to expand...

And runways, also, are pragmatically aligned based on predominant wind directions. They are not randomly placed. They are aligned to minimize the frequency of high cross-wind takeoffs and landings -- a huge safety issue in aviation.

So you need aviation corridors aligned with the prominent wind directions. Logan already skates on the edge of aviation best practices in safety with the sharp turnouts over the water on takeoffs. We are asking for an engine out on takeoff crash that is caused by the aircraft being in a steep bank at the time of engine loss, causing a low altitude, non-recoverable stall.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

It would be more of a radar coverage issue than a no shit safety of the building occupants issue here. You would have to blow your right tires on take off, lose your right engine, lose your flaps, then lose your other engine all within 20 seconds and still theres a 90% chance your not going over International place from this runway. Maybe over the Fed, but I dont see it as an occupant safety issue other than radar coverage-which is still a safety issue. Landing in heavy fog would be more likely but every time Ive landed on this runway your still a good ways away from any buildings other than the Seaport.

full_238.jpg
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

stick n move said:
It would be more of a radar coverage issue than a no shit safety of the building occupants issue here. You would have to blow your right tires on take off, lose your right engine, lose your flaps, then lose your other engine all within 20 seconds and still theres a 90% chance your not going over International place from this runway. Maybe over the Fed, but I dont see it as an occupant safety issue other than radar coverage-which is still a safety issue. Landing in heavy fog would be more likely but every time Ive landed on this runway your still a good ways away from any buildings other than the Seaport.

full_238.jpg
Click to expand...

You are correct that the downtown height issue is more the radar coverage. As your image shows, we have a clear aviation corridor carved out just south of South Station (hence the sharp drop in allowed height there). SST will just make it in the downtown area before the drop.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I'm not even going to preface this with an "at the risk of going off-topic..." But is there any way a new building (i.e. 111 Federal) could incorporate some radar infrastructure at the top to help with radar coverage? IIRC, one of the concerns is that taller buildings in the Financial District may interfere with radar- not so much the "danger" to aircraft and occupants near the flight path. Not knowing how radar works, and also knowing that if this idea would work, someone would have proposed it already, my guess is "No." However, I'm curious as to why it wouldn't be an option. I feel like a developer would totally throw Massport/FAA that bone if it meant more overall sq. footage on the same footprint.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Lrfox said:
I feel like a developer would totally throw Massport/FAA that bone if it meant more overall sq. footage on the same footprint.
Click to expand...

That assumption is your problem. No, there's no engineering-technical reason why they couldn't do it (though it would be complicated by things like fail-safe power supply, radiation impact - minimal but meaningful and covered elsewhere on this thread - fail-safe communication across the harbor, and security).

It's just not even close to being worth the money.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

CSTH said:
It's just not even close to being worth the money.
Click to expand...

What kind of money are we talking about? I have never seen a figure for cost of radar.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Dunno.

I'm thinking in terms of 'is it probably a meaningful % of the profit on a development' and the answer i think is 'probably yes'.

And then you add 'would the added complexity create a lot of risk and almost-certain delay for a developer' and the answer i think is 'probably yes'.

And then I ask 'would that make it harder / more expensive for the developer to get financing?" and the answer i think is 'probably yes'.

I don't have anything beyond that. But that's probably enough.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Lrfox said:
I'm not even going to preface this with an "at the risk of going off-topic..." But is there any way a new building (i.e. 111 Federal) could incorporate some radar infrastructure at the top to help with radar coverage? IIRC, one of the concerns is that taller buildings in the Financial District may interfere with radar- not so much the "danger" to aircraft and occupants near the flight path. Not knowing how radar works, and also knowing that if this idea would work, someone would have proposed it already, my guess is "No." However, I'm curious as to why it wouldn't be an option. I feel like a developer would totally throw Massport/FAA that bone if it meant more overall sq. footage on the same footprint.
Click to expand...

Lrfox -- have you ever seen Star Trek?

There is a very commonly used [by the bad guys] plot [and physical] device called a Cloaking Device

How it works -- well the electromagnetic waves bend around the object in question and you don't get any absorption nor any reflection -- Voila it looks as if the object is not there

OK -- that's Science Fiction -- but its already fact with Microwaves [i.e. Radar]
http://scitechdaily.com/duke-university-creates-perfect-microwave-cloak/
Duke University Creates “Perfect” Microwave Cloak
November 14, 2012
duke-unversity-microwave-cloak.jpg

microwave-cloak.jpg
Click to expand...

The Duke approach only works from one direction -- but its absolute in its cloaking and the structure could easily be added to the top of a tower in line with the radar

Minor problem is that if the aircraft approached along the same axis as the radar then its [the aircraft's] radar wouldn't see the tower either
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Whigh, you need to stop derailing threads. Yes you are a wealth of information however no one is clicking on an Architecture forum looking for information on electromagnetic bends and Star Trek.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

tysmith95 said:
Whigh, you need to stop derailing threads. Yes you are a wealth of information however no one is clicking on an Architecture forum looking for information on electromagnetic bends and Star Trek.
Click to expand...

TySmith -- actually they did exactly ask the question -- almost like a fish hook tossed at a candidate in a graduate qualifying seminar

all I've done is bold the relevant parts
Originally Posted by Lrfox
I'm not even going to preface this with an "at the risk of going off-topic..." But is there any way a new building (i.e. 111 Federal) could incorporate some radar infrastructure at the top to help with radar coverage? IIRC, one of the concerns is that taller buildings in the Financial District may interfere with radar- not so much the "danger" to aircraft and occupants near the flight path. Not knowing how radar works, and also knowing that if this idea would work, someone would have proposed it already, my guess is "No." However, I'm curious as to why it wouldn't be an option. I feel like a developer would totally throw Massport/FAA that bone if it meant more overall sq. footage on the same footprint.
Click to expand...
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Thanks for the feedback. Regarding the Radar information, I was genuinely curious and found Whigh's info to be pretty interesting. It's my fault this got derailed.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

The limit is a one engine out limit.

The Logan Airspace Map* defines the critical airspace around Boston Logan International Airport to protect the flight corridors in and out of the airport. It was created by Massport with input from airlines, pilots, city officials, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to help guide developers and regulatory authorities on building heights. The map aids developers in their planning and assists the FAA in its review of individual projects to determine if they present a potential hazard to air navigation.

For example, one area of protection is the path that an aircraft must clear if there is a loss of power to one engine. A tall structure in this "one engine inoperative" corridor will interfere with the aircraft, resulting in airlines requesting different runways for departures, or the weight of a plane being adjusted to maintain an appropriate rate of climb.
Click to expand...
https://www.massport.com/logan-airport/about-logan/logan-airspace-map/

Chiofaro's Harbor Garage was/is a radar coverage issue.

If the FAA declares a building is a hazard, it, essentially, becomes uninsurable.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I feel like we need a new aB drinking game. Let's do it every time that "one engine out" & "radar" FAA discussions happen.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Arlington said:
To me it makes no sense that the city doesn't think--and is never asked by the state--to spend some $ from projects like this on mobility/transit.
Click to expand...

Is there an obvious transit project that relates to this site? It's not associated with a particular station. Millennium did spend plenty of money on Downtown Crossing (though, having been there yesterday, they could have spent more).
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Equilibria said:
Is there an obvious transit project that relates to this site? It's not associated with a particular station. Millennium did spend plenty of money on Downtown Crossing (though, having been there yesterday, they could have spent more).
Click to expand...

We know a huge % of 111 Federal will be coming/going by the existing transit grid. From an engineering standpoint, they're probably fairly evenly distributed between Park, DTX, State, SS, etc.

If you want to think of it as specific offsets, then have them build an elevator at DTX or Chinatown

But really, the city should be putting all of this aside for, say, a 10% contribution to some kind of core mobility fund, funding the same kind of stuff you'd fund with a congestion tax or parking tax. Stuff like the NSRL or finally connecting the Silver line. There should be a fund and the whole core should be putting money aside.

The whole problem in the seaport is that Menino never owned the mobility problem.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

God the globe comments section is frightening (except for Odura (tosh) who probably is too extreme to convince anyone). Well there is a meeting on December 5th at suffolk university, 120 Tremont St at 6:30 pm. Maybe some pro development people on this site would be interested in helping to muddle the hoards of NIMBY'S that will probably show up.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Arlington said:
We know a huge % of 111 Federal will be coming/going by the existing transit grid. From an engineering standpoint, they're probably fairly evenly distributed between Park, DTX, State, SS, etc.

If you want to think of it as specific offsets, then have them build an elevator at DTX or Chinatown

But really, the city should be putting all of this aside for, say, a 10% contribution to some kind of core mobility fund, funding the same kind of stuff you'd fund with a congestion tax or parking tax. Stuff like the NSRL or finally connecting the Silver line. There should be a fund and the whole core should be putting money aside.

The whole problem in the seaport is that Menino never owned the mobility problem.
Click to expand...

Okay, but then what do you not fund? Does the City not need parks or affordable housing? Like it or not (and it's for the better), the City doesn't control transit here - the Commonwealth does. The City pays the MBTA for the service. We can definitely talk about raising those rates, but that's how Boston contributes to the MBTA.

Plenty of projects around Boston are built on the MBTA's land, bought or leased. Those proceeds fund transit 100%. If the Legislature wants to work out some way that Downtown Core projects put money aside from a State perspective to win State approval, then fine, but that's not the City's business. They should use their income to improve the stuff they're responsible for.

FWIW, official PNF out a week ago:

http://www.bostonplans.org/getattachment/5f51a0ad-6157-419e-a437-089917c78905

We've seen these pictures before. Listed height is "up to 775 feet" (BPDA height, but I bet that's also structural height, since the FAA won't let them build that tall anyway).

Now that the PNF is in and we know the address, can we please change the thread's name to reflect the proposed project? It's "115 Winthrop Square | Financial District".

Also, if you want full-screen renders, they have a website up at mpwinthropsquare.com. Somebody could have some fun extending the building to 775', since they haven't done it.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Weren't we mentioning last spring how Millennium's renders looked well taller than 725'? Maybe they were accounting for 775'.

Accordia was also a lovable exaggerator in many of their renders

DZH22 April 21 said:
Is Millennium too tall? All of the other proposals are 725' to the very top. Millennium seems to be a good 750', maybe slightly more. However, unlike most of Boston's zoning, this site's height is strictly dictated by the FAA.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top