Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District
- Thread starter vanshnookenraggen
- Start date
fattony
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 2,099
- Reaction score
- 481
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
The financial district is part of downtown, but not all of it. Downtown is more or less the Shawmut peninsula minus the residential neighborhoods. Financial District, Government Center, Faneuil Hall, DTX, even Chinatown are all "downtown."
The financial district is part of downtown, but not all of it. Downtown is more or less the Shawmut peninsula minus the residential neighborhoods. Financial District, Government Center, Faneuil Hall, DTX, even Chinatown are all "downtown."
BostonObserver
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 566
- Reaction score
- 90
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
Tell us how you know more about flight safety rules than the FAA, then give them a call and show them the error of their ways.
Tell us how you know more about flight safety rules than the FAA, then give them a call and show them the error of their ways.
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
Completely agree and hopefully sooner than later. If Boston gets 1,000 footer it's going to have to be at back bay station.
Completely agree and hopefully sooner than later. If Boston gets 1,000 footer it's going to have to be at back bay station.
Jahvon09
Senior Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2011
- Messages
- 3,316
- Reaction score
- 803
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
I know just as much, if not more than they do. Don't get me started. Planes fly OVER buildings, not AROUND them, like a chopper can.
They're so busy sitting behind their big brass desks trying to figure out how to make travelers' lives more miserable going through security checkpoints at the airports while trying to board a flight, that they don't have time to even figure out a flight path that would allow tall buildings to be built.
Exasperating!
I know just as much, if not more than they do. Don't get me started. Planes fly OVER buildings, not AROUND them, like a chopper can.
They're so busy sitting behind their big brass desks trying to figure out how to make travelers' lives more miserable going through security checkpoints at the airports while trying to board a flight, that they don't have time to even figure out a flight path that would allow tall buildings to be built.
Exasperating!
Last edited:
KentXie
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,192
- Reaction score
- 756
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
I don't remember there ever being a 2nd shorter proposal. Are you getting this confused with the South Station Tower proposal?
We almost had the tallest building (Tommy's Tower) in all of New England practically at our doorsteps, and then it was killed because of some ridiculous height issues forced on the city by the FAA.
Then a 2nd shorter tower was to be built as a compromise, and it looks like even THAT program was killed also, so they are now back to Square One, with no tall tower there, but even today, that ugly dark dismal eyesore of an antiquated dinosaur garage still sits there like a scalded dog, unscathed!
They should put some type of a tall tower there in honor of a great legend who ran the city for over 4 consecutive terms (20 years)!
I don't remember there ever being a 2nd shorter proposal. Are you getting this confused with the South Station Tower proposal?
BostonObserver
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 566
- Reaction score
- 90
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
Ha ha ha ha ha
I know just as much, if not more than they do. Don't get me started. Planes fly OVER buildings, not AROUND them.
They're so busy sitting behind their big brass desks trying to figure out how to make travelers' lives more miserable going through security checkpoints at the airports while trying to board a flight, that they don't have time to even figure out a flight path that would allow tall buildings to be built.
Exasperating!
Ha ha ha ha ha
Jahvon09
Senior Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2011
- Messages
- 3,316
- Reaction score
- 803
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
No.
Go back to about '08 or '09 in this thread.
No.
Go back to about '08 or '09 in this thread.
Jahvon09
Senior Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2011
- Messages
- 3,316
- Reaction score
- 803
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
Here it is!
It almost looks like the new 7 World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan, New York.
Something that they were toying around with the thought about possibly doing. I wish they DID build it, or it might be revived.
I've read about lots of taller buildings in Boston made shorter because of certain restrictions and were built at the shorter height.
Click on the link below.
http://www.archboston.org/community/showthread.php?t=1649&page=31
Here it is!
It almost looks like the new 7 World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan, New York.
Something that they were toying around with the thought about possibly doing. I wish they DID build it, or it might be revived.
I've read about lots of taller buildings in Boston made shorter because of certain restrictions and were built at the shorter height.
Click on the link below.
http://www.archboston.org/community/showthread.php?t=1649&page=31
GeneseeJunction
New member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2014
- Messages
- 32
- Reaction score
- 18
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
You do understand that an engine out at V2 by definition will only get you to clear the runway threshold by 35 feet, right? So when you're departing runway 27 from Logan and have a flameout, and clear the end of the runway by 35ft on a great, foggy Boston day, you better hope you gain 1000ft of elevation by the time you cross the inner harbor (1mi), or you're going to hit that shiny new 1000ft tower.
Now you could bank hard to miss downtown, but even a small 15 degree bank angle will sacrifice 100 ft/min climb rate, which is bad when you're about to hit a tall obstacle. And note that 1 engine out climb performance required for a 2 holer is 360 ft/min, and it takes less than 3 minutes to cross the inner harbor, so clearing 1000ft is not going to happen and now it's a dart match against the new crop of 1000ft towers.
Have a think about it. The FAA's policies have gotten us to an unprecedented era of safety in the last decade where domestic jet crashes are practically non-existent. The problem here is an airport located right next to a business district.
Thus, 1000ft towers don't comport with established safety practices, so they won't be built. Sure, you could say "we won't allow takeoffs from runway 27, only landings," but every landing can be a takeoff if a go around is necessary, and losing an engine on go around puts you back in the same failure mode described above. Now we could just close all the runways but 4/22 R/L, but then Logan's going to have a problem when the winds don't line up and they aren't going to be able to maintain those 1100 movements a day.
Source: https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/avi...e_operators/training/media/takeoff_safety.pdf
You do understand that an engine out at V2 by definition will only get you to clear the runway threshold by 35 feet, right? So when you're departing runway 27 from Logan and have a flameout, and clear the end of the runway by 35ft on a great, foggy Boston day, you better hope you gain 1000ft of elevation by the time you cross the inner harbor (1mi), or you're going to hit that shiny new 1000ft tower.
Now you could bank hard to miss downtown, but even a small 15 degree bank angle will sacrifice 100 ft/min climb rate, which is bad when you're about to hit a tall obstacle. And note that 1 engine out climb performance required for a 2 holer is 360 ft/min, and it takes less than 3 minutes to cross the inner harbor, so clearing 1000ft is not going to happen and now it's a dart match against the new crop of 1000ft towers.
Have a think about it. The FAA's policies have gotten us to an unprecedented era of safety in the last decade where domestic jet crashes are practically non-existent. The problem here is an airport located right next to a business district.
Thus, 1000ft towers don't comport with established safety practices, so they won't be built. Sure, you could say "we won't allow takeoffs from runway 27, only landings," but every landing can be a takeoff if a go around is necessary, and losing an engine on go around puts you back in the same failure mode described above. Now we could just close all the runways but 4/22 R/L, but then Logan's going to have a problem when the winds don't line up and they aren't going to be able to maintain those 1100 movements a day.
Source: https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/avi...e_operators/training/media/takeoff_safety.pdf
Jahvon09
Senior Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2011
- Messages
- 3,316
- Reaction score
- 803
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
I've been on planes to Chicago & Washington, where they would get airborne off Runway 27, bank slightly left and fly over the South End, Roxbury, Mattapan and fly on out to their planned destinations.
But I thought that planes were rerouted anyway from going over certain residential areas because of noise pollution, especially with older planes.
The more modern fuel-efficient far less noisier ones like the Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner are much quieter, but as of late, they STILL seem to be using that runway & banking left, making a U-turn as if it going up north.
Or is it the runway that runs parallel to that one?
I've been on planes to Chicago & Washington, where they would get airborne off Runway 27, bank slightly left and fly over the South End, Roxbury, Mattapan and fly on out to their planned destinations.
But I thought that planes were rerouted anyway from going over certain residential areas because of noise pollution, especially with older planes.
The more modern fuel-efficient far less noisier ones like the Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner are much quieter, but as of late, they STILL seem to be using that runway & banking left, making a U-turn as if it going up north.
Or is it the runway that runs parallel to that one?
GeneseeJunction
New member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2014
- Messages
- 32
- Reaction score
- 18
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
Planes certainly can bank. Knock out an engine on takeoff in MTOW conditions on a hot day and they climb much more slowly. Bank and you climb even slower. If we had 700ft towers in South Boston and 1000ft towers in the financial district, then safety margins would be either impinged upon or broken.
You're right about noise abatement. Several KBOS runways are not allowed to have takeoffs at pretty much any time because of the neighborhoods they overfly.
As to the 787, it sure is a quieter bird, but it is also a large bird flying ultra long haul routes out of KBOS (Tokyo, Beijing, Hong Kong) so that bird is completely stuffed at takeoff with people, cargo, and fuel. In such MTOW conditions, tall end of field obstacles are not desirable.
It's also worth note that we don't see many 747's here in Boston because a 74 can only takeoff with a 3/4 load of fuel. Boston's runways are not long enough for a full load (10,000ft). Now if only we had runways like KDEN, then everyone would be happy.
Planes certainly can bank. Knock out an engine on takeoff in MTOW conditions on a hot day and they climb much more slowly. Bank and you climb even slower. If we had 700ft towers in South Boston and 1000ft towers in the financial district, then safety margins would be either impinged upon or broken.
You're right about noise abatement. Several KBOS runways are not allowed to have takeoffs at pretty much any time because of the neighborhoods they overfly.
As to the 787, it sure is a quieter bird, but it is also a large bird flying ultra long haul routes out of KBOS (Tokyo, Beijing, Hong Kong) so that bird is completely stuffed at takeoff with people, cargo, and fuel. In such MTOW conditions, tall end of field obstacles are not desirable.
It's also worth note that we don't see many 747's here in Boston because a 74 can only takeoff with a 3/4 load of fuel. Boston's runways are not long enough for a full load (10,000ft). Now if only we had runways like KDEN, then everyone would be happy.
citylover94
Senior Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2012
- Messages
- 1,140
- Reaction score
- 58
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
I am pretty sure that shorter tower is 100 summer street.
http://goo.gl/kmS1gE
Here it is!
It almost looks like the new 7 World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan, New York.
Something that they were toying around with the thought about possibly doing. I wish they DID build it, or it might be revived.
I've read about lots of taller buildings in Boston made shorter because of certain restrictions and were built at the shorter height.
Click on the link below.
http://www.archboston.org/community/showthread.php?t=1649&page=31
I am pretty sure that shorter tower is 100 summer street.
http://goo.gl/kmS1gE
tobyjug
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2007
- Messages
- 3,401
- Reaction score
- 446
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
Video showing loss of lift and altitude in steeply banked large jet:
http://youtu.be/sjFIB1L3BPU
Video showing loss of lift and altitude in steeply banked large jet:
http://youtu.be/sjFIB1L3BPU
Jahvon09
Senior Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2011
- Messages
- 3,316
- Reaction score
- 803
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
A couple of times, a United Airlines Boeing 767 had lost an engine because of a bird strike. It had to bank sharply, go out over the water, dump some fuel and then come back to land. It landed safely, but boy, did those birds do a number on the engine!! It had to be replaced with another engine.
A couple of times, a United Airlines Boeing 767 had lost an engine because of a bird strike. It had to bank sharply, go out over the water, dump some fuel and then come back to land. It landed safely, but boy, did those birds do a number on the engine!! It had to be replaced with another engine.
KentXie
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,192
- Reaction score
- 756
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
Isn't this proposal still the same height as the original proposal minus the 140ft "spire?"Here it is!
It almost looks like the new 7 World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan, New York.
Something that they were toying around with the thought about possibly doing. I wish they DID build it, or it might be revived.
I've read about lots of taller buildings in Boston made shorter because of certain restrictions and were built at the shorter height.
Click on the link below.
http://www.archboston.org/community/showthread.php?t=1649&page=31
Jahvon09
Senior Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2011
- Messages
- 3,316
- Reaction score
- 803
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
Almost similar to what happened with this American Airlines DC-10 in Chicago on May 25,'79, but that was due to the port engine coming off the wing, & the plane itself losing altitude because of a wing stall on the left side.
The craft became perpendicular to the ground and crashed. But American was held accountable for faulty maintenance procedures and the design was given a clean bill of health.
But this tragic event had long lasting ill affects, because people were refusing to book themselves on flights that the DC-10 was being used for, and McDonnell Douglas was also suffering in terms of the amount of the planes made, as well as the would-be larger lucrative amounts that it could've sold later down the road.
And the DC-10 was marked as a bad aircraft by the media and the flying public because it had suffered a rash of crashes that most thought were the supposedly faulty design of the plane.
There WERE design issues with the rear aft cargo hold door on the port side that had contributed to some of those crashes. But I think that I've flown in the DC-10 more times than any other plane. I loved it because it was big & roomy, and I was in first class a lot of those times!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivwyPRljwqw
Almost similar to what happened with this American Airlines DC-10 in Chicago on May 25,'79, but that was due to the port engine coming off the wing, & the plane itself losing altitude because of a wing stall on the left side.
The craft became perpendicular to the ground and crashed. But American was held accountable for faulty maintenance procedures and the design was given a clean bill of health.
But this tragic event had long lasting ill affects, because people were refusing to book themselves on flights that the DC-10 was being used for, and McDonnell Douglas was also suffering in terms of the amount of the planes made, as well as the would-be larger lucrative amounts that it could've sold later down the road.
And the DC-10 was marked as a bad aircraft by the media and the flying public because it had suffered a rash of crashes that most thought were the supposedly faulty design of the plane.
There WERE design issues with the rear aft cargo hold door on the port side that had contributed to some of those crashes. But I think that I've flown in the DC-10 more times than any other plane. I loved it because it was big & roomy, and I was in first class a lot of those times!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivwyPRljwqw
Last edited:
Jahvon09
Senior Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2011
- Messages
- 3,316
- Reaction score
- 803
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
Could be. Never thought about that.
But the design of the tower was changed also.
Could be. Never thought about that.
But the design of the tower was changed also.
dirtywater
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2006
- Messages
- 677
- Reaction score
- 333
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2
^
Nope. Not even close. The original proposal was 1,270 feet with the spire.
^
Trans National Place
115 Federal St, Boston
Status
Proposed
Architects
Renzo Piano (formerly)
CBT/Childs Bertman Tseckares Inc.
Stats
Name: Trans National Place
Project Address: 115 Federal Street at Winthrop Sq, Boston.
Map & Plan Links: Boston Globe Special Interactive - Green Giant
Neighborhood:Financial District
Uses:Unofficial: Office, Retail
Land Sq. Ft.: Unknown
Building Sq. Ft.: Unknown
Height: 75 floors, 1,270ft (with spire)
Nope. Not even close. The original proposal was 1,270 feet with the spire.