Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

The crown to this building cycle is up!

You consider this to be the "crown" to the cycle? I probably wouldn't put it higher than 4th, behind Millennium Tower (1st, opened the floodgates) 1 Dalton (tallest, created Big 3) and upcoming State Street HQ (crowning achievement of the new cluster from Gov't Center to North Station). This one went from new (super)tall-est, to probable new tallest, to ~750' at least, to 725', to "at least it's over 700 feet" and finally, to 691' fat graceless blob.

I'm actually excited to see it rise too, but put in perspective for me it's not even going to be a top 3 building from this boom.
 
A friend of mine shared this with me today:

IMG_3317.JPG
 
This is quite a massive floorplate. It was apparent in the renders and the plans, but its even clearer now that we have the physical structure going up.
 
You consider this to be the "crown" to the cycle? I probably wouldn't put it higher than 4th, behind Millennium Tower (1st, opened the floodgates) 1 Dalton (tallest, created Big 3) and upcoming State Street HQ (crowning achievement of the new cluster from Gov't Center to North Station). This one went from new (super)tall-est, to probable new tallest, to ~750' at least, to 725', to "at least it's over 700 feet" and finally, to 691' fat graceless blob.

I'm actually excited to see it rise too, but put in perspective for me it's not even going to be a top 3 building from this boom.

I agree with Massachoisetts, and not because this building is Boston's answer to the Taj Mahal from an architectural standpoint, but because it is thus far the biggest "eff you NIMBY's" building yet constructed in the city! Used to be the absurd Shadow Law was sacrosanct. Nobody could get around it. Until this one went up. It also exposed the idiocy of Boston's professional NIMBY class - a bunch of dolts who would blow off $150M just so Common drug dealers don't have to operate in the shadows for one extra hour in the morning in mid January. How the developer and city managed this should be the blueprint going forward.
 
I agree with Massachoisetts, and not because this building is Boston's answer to the Taj Mahal from an architectural standpoint, but because it is thus far the biggest "eff you NIMBY's" building yet constructed in the city! Used to be the absurd Shadow Law was sacrosanct. Nobody could get around it. Until this one went up....

Yeah but didn't they chop this to the point where it didn't violate the shadow law anyway? Then doesn't the "home rule" or whatever they called it actually harm future projects by adding things like Copley Square into the mix? So they really aren't getting around anything, and in fact made future prospects for building a new tallest worse in the process. That's how I saw it. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.
 
You consider this to be the "crown" to the cycle? I probably wouldn't put it higher than 4th, behind Millennium Tower (1st, opened the floodgates) 1 Dalton (tallest, created Big 3) and upcoming State Street HQ (crowning achievement of the new cluster from Gov't Center to North Station). This one went from new (super)tall-est, to probable new tallest, to ~750' at least, to 725', to "at least it's over 700 feet" and finally, to 691' fat graceless blob.

I'm actually excited to see it rise too, but put in perspective for me it's not even going to be a top 3 building from this boom.

exactly. it's a big and tall (for boston) development, which will have a major impact on downtown and i'm excited to see it go up, but the final design is hot garbage. state street hq -- if it comes out as per the renders, if it has the lighting the nightime images suggest -- will be the "crown" (although i've never heard that term used in this way...). MT and 1 dalton both fell short b/c of not following through on design features promised b/c the developers cheaped out.
 
Yeah but didn't they chop this to the point where it didn't violate the shadow law anyway? Then doesn't the "home rule" or whatever they called it actually harm future projects by adding things like Copley Square into the mix? So they really aren't getting around anything, and in fact made future prospects for building a new tallest worse in the process. That's how I saw it. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

It violated the shadow law for the Common hence the need for legislative action. The height reduction to comply with FAA limits prevented the shadows from reaching the Public Garden although I believe the developers kept their commitment to kick in some $$$ to the Friends of the Public Garden anyway.

The Copley Square project currently on hold is grandfathered and not affected by new shadow law.

Regardless, the bottom line is cough up enough public benefits and the shadow law can once again be altered. Provided the impact isn't too great of course.
 
The Copley Square project currently on hold is grandfathered and not affected by new shadow law.

Yeah but it might affect stuff like the Hynes redevelopment, or the Kings parking garage, both potential sites for a new tallest building in Boston. I don't want to give up a potential new tallest for a barely 4th tallest blob which severely hacked up the original design. This isn't as big of a win as you are acting like it is, especially if it hamstrings (ANY!) future development.
 
Yeah but it might affect stuff like the Hynes redevelopment, or the Kings parking garage, both potential sites for a new tallest building in Boston. I don't want to give up a potential new tallest for a barely 4th tallest blob which severely hacked up the original design. This isn't as big of a win as you are acting like it is, especially if it hamstrings (ANY!) future development.

Well I prefer to deal in facts instead of speculation. I'd need to see some proof that the updated shadow law will affect these developments given their location. The only one I can think of is One Bromfield @ 700 ft which would not have complied under the old or the new law IIRC.
 
Well I prefer to deal in facts instead of speculation. I'd need to see some proof that the updated shadow law will affect these developments given their location. The only one I can think of is One Bromfield @ 700 ft which would not have complied under the old or the new law IIRC.

I'm pretty sure One Bromfield at ~705' did in fact comply. I think we need somebody more "in the know" to answer these questions if we completely disagree on what the facts are...
 
How would a building on Bromfield ever cast a shadow on the Common? Beacon Hill perhaps, but the park, no.
 
How would a building on Bromfield ever cast a shadow on the Common? Beacon Hill perhaps, but the park, no.
The corner of Bromfield and Washington is about 200 meters east of the Common. In the morning, when the sun is rising in the east, a building at that corner would cast a shadow to the west onto the Common.

That's how all of this "shadow on the Common" stuff works. It's never about shadows on noon in the summer, it's about shadows at 8 am in January, or on summer mornings.
 
The corner of Bromfield and Washington is about 200 meters east of the Common. In the morning, when the sun is rising in the east, a building at that corner would cast a shadow to the west onto the Common.

That's how all of this "shadow on the Common" stuff works. It's never about shadows on noon in the summer, it's about shadows at 8 am in January, or on summer mornings.
Except that in Boston, the Sun is never due East, we are too far North for that. So the Sun would strike the building from the South East, casting a shadow to the North West, right?
 
Except that in Boston, the Sun is never due East, we are too far North for that. So the Sun would strike the building from the South East, casting a shadow to the North West, right?
No, the sun's position moves with the seasons. It's true that we're north of the equator, so one might assume that the sun never reaches due east. But the angle of the earth's axis counteracts that in the sunny half of the year. So the sun is due east of Boston at some point of every day between the vernal and autumnal equinox.

Around the summer solstice, the sun actually rises in Boston to the northeast and shadows are cast to the southwest. And in evenings around this time, the sun sets here to the northwest and shadows are cast to the southeast.

There are plenty of shadow calculators online you can play around with to demonstrate this. A simple one is shadowcalculator.eu.
 
That's interesting, I'm not a flat earther, but I definitely have trouble sometimes conceptualizing how the Earth's curvature can affect things. Found this calculator to be quite helpful: https://www.findmyshadow.com/

Here's the position of the Sun on June 21, so I guess I'll have to cut the shadow NIMBYs a small (very small) bit of slack.

Boston Shadows.JPG
 
I think this tower is going to look great from many angles, especially walking out of South Station and seeing it rise above its neighbors.
 
Except that in Boston, the Sun is never due East, we are too far North for that. So the Sun would strike the building from the South East, casting a shadow to the North West, right?
Henry -- you gotta use a globe not a flat Google Map

The easiest way to understand things is that when you stand on a spot on the earth the same stars directly over your head will be back in the same place 24 hour later. So if the Sun was to behave like the rest of the Universe we would always have 24 hour days with the Sun above the horizon for 12 hours-- this is true only on the Equator.

For every place north of the Equator we spend half the year with the sun above the horizon for more than 12 hours and half the year with the sun above the horizon for less than 12 hours. The crossing points are the Vernal and Autumnal Equinoxes -- First day of Spring and First Day of Autumn -- on that day our day behaves like we were on the Equator

Standing On the North Pole -- the Sun executes essentially a full circle on the Summer Solstice -- never dipping below the horizon
Here on the Solstice for some point North of the Equator such as Boston [ 42 degrees North] - in order to get 15+ hours of daylight you need to follow a curve beginning quite far to the North of East

Today at 8:00 AM the sun was about 5 deg above the horizon at an azimuth angle of 106.95 deg measured from North toward East [or 17 degrees South of East]
A month from now @ 8:00 AM the sun will be 15 degrees high at an azimuth angle of 99.99 deg
April 27 @ 8:00 27 deg up and 92 deg from North -- essentially Due East
April 27 @ 6:00 AM 2 degrees above the horizon but 72.71 degrees from North
May 27 @ 6:00 AM 7 degrees above the horizon but 67.38 degrees from North
June 21 @ 5:30 AM 2.97 degrees above the horizon but 60.31 degrees from North -- this by anyone's definition is about 30 degrees North of East
of course in that last example the Shadow would miss the Common heading too far South

Go to:

to do your own experimenting
 
Last edited:

Back
Top