Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

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

stellarfun said:
As you seem to be a fount of great knowledge, you should readily understand this image. The radar issue with respect to Chiofaro's proposed tower is an azimuth one, related to elevation of the plane / helicopter. Perhaps you would care to explain it to the board.

radar-techniques-primer-principles-apr-1945-qst-1.gif


From October 29 2009, B&T


Emphasis mine.

Rosslyn and radar (December 2007)



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/27/AR2007122702154.html

____
And while you are at it, you can explain to the board how azimuth affects the Winthrop St garage site differently than the Harbor garage site.
Click to expand...
http://www.nats.aero/news/television-signals-a-possible-alternative-to-radar/

Maybe sometime in the near future technological advances can solve the problem. Having worked near high power radar previously I find it bizarre that people never latched onto the very real concerns over the potential health effects from radar exposure. I think Radar is due for replacement with new technology.
http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs226/en/
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Jouhou said:
http://www.nats.aero/news/television-signals-a-possible-alternative-to-radar/

Maybe sometime in the near future technological advances can solve the problem. Having worked near high power radar previously I find it bizarre that people never latched onto the very real concerns over the potential health effects from radar exposure. I think Radar is due for replacement with new technology.
http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs226/en/
Click to expand...

JouJou -- if you worked with radar then you should be familiar with the Inverse Square Law -- the power that you can collect in a 2mx1m [surrogate for a human] decreases with the square of the distance from the source [outside of something called the near field zone very very close to the radar]

In other words:
  • if you are say 100 m from the radar and you could collect 1 W in the 2 sq m rectangle
  • then if you moved to be 1 km from the radar you would collect only 10 mW
  • at 10 km you would collect only 100 micro W etc.

No one receives much exposure from the terminal approach control radar
beam for three reasons:
  • one is distance from the radar -- no one is in the primary beam close in -- its out in the middle of the air field where there are only airplanes
  • and the other is elevation angle it looks upward
  • and finally the low average power of the radar used for terminal approach control
1129181958_3507.jpg


PS: the radar on top of the tower is used for monitoring the movement of planes on the ground -- that's why its up high it looks down
kveus3243s.jpg
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

INvers SQuare LAW: drunkser sHE get BETTSER you LOOKS!!!! IAM tryin this. thankin you

Ps NOT wantin surrogate BLOW uP RUBBER JON or POLYTHING PAMS!!!!!! BAD DOG!!!!!!
 
Last edited:
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Anyone who's worked near high power radar has been trained to be terrified of it... and the WHO article says it's still unknown if low dose exposure has any health effects. Just saying something better and safer for those who work near it sounds like money to me. And where there is money to be made, there are R&D teams on the job.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Same i worked on attack aircraft in the marines and when they ran up the nose radar you were allowed nowhere near the jet, they said it would make you sterile.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

It's possible that this could get cleared up this week. It shouldn't be shirk's concern where the proceeds go, as long as the sale is just. And that could be proved (or disproved I suppose) this week.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

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

Jouhou said:
Anyone who's worked near high power radar has been trained to be terrified of it... and the WHO article says it's still unknown if low dose exposure has any health effects. Just saying something better and safer for those who work near it sounds like money to me. And where there is money to be made, there are R&D teams on the job.
Click to expand...

Joujou -- there is a much higher probability of harm to you when you get in your car to drive to near the radar than from the radar

There is absolutely no evidence of anything other than thermal effects from microwave radiation [unless you have wires in your body such as pacemaker]

People have been dealing with microwaves for over 80 years and looking for any secondary effects -- None

As for the thermal effects -- if you realize that it takes about a minute to boil a cup of water in a typical microwave oven -- you can make a pretty good estimate from the allowed exposure of about 1 mW/cm2 [FCC] or 5W/M2 [IEEE] -- although somewhat frequency dependent these are comparable as 1 mW/cm^2 ==10 W/M^2

all this is averaged over about 1 minute [again somewhat freq dependent]

see http://standards.ieee.org/getieee/C95/download/C95.1-2005.pdf
for the full accepted standard

anyway either one translates into a few to 10 W over a full human body average power -- which means you essentially you have to sit on top of the antenna

So -- bottom line -- the radars at Logan are far less of a concern than holding a cell phone next to your body
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

whighlander said:
Joujou -- there is a much higher probability of harm to you when you get in your car to drive to near the radar than from the radar

There is absolutely no evidence of anything other than thermal effects from microwave radiation [unless you have wires in your body such as pacemaker]

People have been dealing with microwaves for over 80 years and looking for any secondary effects -- None
Click to expand...

As a microwave engineer, I concur with all of this. There is no theoretical basis for nor empirical evidence of damage to living tissue by RF/microwave radiation other than thermal damage.

Radar beams can be very powerful, but everything is a function of both power and distance. Walking in front of the nose cone of a military aircraft while it is radiating is very dangerous. The radar on a missile destroyer can cook a flock of birds that flies too close. The search radar at an airport is not dangerous at all unless, as whigh put is, you are sitting on the damn antenna.

I guess it is because this is the one thing I'm an expert about, but I find it incomprehensible that people are afraid of RF/microwaves. There is no way to accidentally be harmed in everyday life in the western world. You have to jump a fence or something to get dangerously close to a transmitter.

I'm sorry that none of this actually has to do with 111 Federal, but I thought I should share since I actually know what I'm talking about for a change.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

fattony said:
As a microwave engineer, I concur with all of this. There is no theoretical basis for nor empirical evidence of damage to living tissue by RF/microwave radiation other than thermal damage.

Radar beams can be very powerful, but everything is a function of both power and distance. Walking in front of the nose cone of a military aircraft while it is radiating is very dangerous. The radar on a missile destroyer can cook a flock of birds that flies too close. The search radar at an airport is not dangerous at all unless, as whigh put is, you are sitting on the damn antenna.

I guess it is because this is the one thing I'm an expert about, but I find it incomprehensible that people are afraid of RF/microwaves. There is no way to accidentally be harmed in everyday life in the western world. You have to jump a fence or something to get dangerously close to a transmitter.

I'm sorry that none of this actually has to do with 111 Federal, but I thought I should share since I actually know what I'm talking about for a change.
Click to expand...

FT -- Bravo

Its great to have some one with expertise in this area comment to the ones whose knowledge of Maxwell has something to do with a popular singer -- rather than an equation
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

whighlander said:
Jouhou -- Shirley Kressel aka "Shik" has never been known to favor anything -- she is not a NIMBY -- who can be reasoned with under some circumstances

No -- Shik is a BANANA -- Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything
Click to expand...

She is in full whistle blower mode over at Universal Hub, where many are eating it right up. They don't know Shirley the way we do.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

I've worked around military radar too. There are many people like myself who perform maintenance on these that would appreciate safer alternatives, check my wording. I'm referring to the workers who are near these things in everyday life.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

HenryAlan said:
She is in full whistle blower mode over at Universal Hub, where many are eating it right up. They don't know Shirley the way we do.
Click to expand...

She fed them some line like, "I'm completely agnostic about what ultimately gets built there, I only care about the process," which I'm sure caused at least one vein in her forehead to pop.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

^If she doesn't care what is ultimately built there, why is she refered to as "Landscape architect/urban designer"?
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

Just so that I can make sure I understand the city's position clearly, my understanding is that if the City Council sells the garage, they are compelled to sell it to the highest bidder, regardless of that bidder's development track record or intentions with the site? In fact, it is entirely possible that a company like Interpark or LAZ could outbid a potential legit developer by a relatively small amount and maintain that site for parking.

However, by selling to the BRA, the authority can use its resources to solicit proposals from qualified developers who have clear intentions for creating something on this site that will enhance the city. And at the end of their process, they can select and sell the site to the developer who they believe has the best proposal/concept.

So ultimately, this process is really not about getting the highest amount of money for the garage, but an outcome that leverages both the garage's value and the intangible value of a building that transforms the surrounding neighborhood. It is then believed that this "trans formative" building will generate additional tax revenue a. by itself and b. by making the neighborhood more attractive for other revenue generating developments such as retail and residential.

Am I off base here? I'm all for making sure the city follows its laws, but to reduce the the entire procedure to the raw value of the garage and its land seems a bit short sighted.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

jdrinboston said:
Just so that I can make sure I understand the city's position clearly, my understanding is that if the City Council sells the garage, they are compelled to sell it to the highest bidder, regardless of that bidder's development track record or intentions with the site? In fact, it is entirely possible that a company like Interpark or LAZ could outbid a potential legit developer by a relatively small amount and maintain that site for parking.

However, by selling to the BRA, the authority can use its resources to solicit proposals from qualified developers who have clear intentions for creating something on this site that will enhance the city. And at the end of their process, they can select and sell the site to the developer who they believe has the best proposal/concept.

So ultimately, this process is really not about getting the highest amount of money for the garage, but an outcome that leverages both the garage's value and the intangible value of a building that transforms the surrounding neighborhood. It is then believed that this "trans formative" building will generate additional tax revenue a. by itself and b. by making the neighborhood more attractive for other revenue generating developments such as retail and residential.

Am I off base here? I'm all for making sure the city follows its laws, but to reduce the the entire procedure to the raw value of the garage and its land seems a bit short sighted.
Click to expand...

Exactly my comment back at post 1434:

http://www.archboston.org/community/showpost.php?p=252299&postcount=1434

The City's role is not max $ for the site (shortsighted), but rather max total value creation for the City (long view).
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

JeffDowntown said:
Exactly my comment back at post 1434:

http://www.archboston.org/community/showpost.php?p=252299&postcount=1434

The City's role is not max $ for the site (shortsighted), but rather max total value creation for the City (long view).
Click to expand...

Then why not give every developer in the city sometype of tax incentive in their developments which it should benefit the foundation and the long-term value for the city of Boston?
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

jdrinboston said:
Just so that I can make sure I understand the city's position clearly, my understanding is that if the City Council sells the garage, they are compelled to sell it to the highest bidder, regardless of that bidder's development track record or intentions with the site? In fact, it is entirely possible that a company like Interpark or LAZ could outbid a potential legit developer by a relatively small amount and maintain that site for parking.

However, by selling to the BRA, the authority can use its resources to solicit proposals from qualified developers who have clear intentions for creating something on this site that will enhance the city. And at the end of their process, they can select and sell the site to the developer who they believe has the best proposal/concept.

So ultimately, this process is really not about getting the highest amount of money for the garage, but an outcome that leverages both the garage's value and the intangible value of a building that transforms the surrounding neighborhood. It is then believed that this "trans formative" building will generate additional tax revenue a. by itself and b. by making the neighborhood more attractive for other revenue generating developments such as retail and residential.

Am I off base here? I'm all for making sure the city follows its laws, but to reduce the the entire procedure to the raw value of the garage and its land seems a bit short sighted.
Click to expand...

The only problem you could run into with this (and the one Shirley is ostensibly concerned about, I assume) is that this is ultimately a subjective decision and if the company you pick to award the project to just happens to offer you a big cushy job a few months down the line, well that's just happenstance, eh?
I know this is being a bit cynical but it's not entirely unfounded.
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

TheRifleman said:
Then why not give every developer in the city sometype of tax incentive in their developments which it should benefit the foundation and the long-term value for the city of Boston?
Click to expand...

Because not every development really adds long term value to the city.

I know this is subjective, but there are essentially two questions that should be answered for a development to qualify for tax incentives:

1) Can we, the City, only get the development we want (when we want it) on this site with incentives? (it is both what and when that matter)

2) Is the value that development creates for the City greater than the cost of the incentives?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top