Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

odurandina said:
big Globe story......

https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2018/03/31/winthrop/3QpLJKeskQSzDg0CvpduEI/story.html
Click to expand...

So basically its going to change again... hopefully for the better but they said they need more sq ft, but they do want to separate the T even more. It says they were allowed 710’ but went to 690’. Theres your sq footage...


New render in the article too. Bring this up to 710’ for the added sq ft no? Why would they not. Either way looks much better so far. Hopefully it doesnt change too much and what changes happen are for tthe better.

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

stick n move said:
Check out this render I found on Accordiapartners.com. The setbacks are individually
lit at night, this looks amazing.

160608_02.jpg
Click to expand...


If you want a great building, then we're right back here where we started: Accordia.... Truth; based on what the BCDC is saying,
the site isn't worth much more than $80M. That's not conjecture. The other bidders were offering between about $50 and 75M.
Think they weren't trying to win?

They knew that to follow the instructions of the rfp, the first rule was, it couldn't be 'just a revenue tower.' To win, it must be
amazing, and slender enough to be amazing. We all know the only design tower that was truly beautiful, was Accordia.
The rest weren't even close.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Wasn't there a proposal where there was a podium with two towers on it?
 
Re: 111 Federal St. | Formerly Trans National Place (Winthrop Square) Part 2

odurandina said:
If you want a great building, then we're right back here where we started: Accordia.... Truth; based on what the BCDC is saying,
the site isn't worth much more than $80M. That's not conjecture. The other bidders were offering between about $50 and 75M.
Think they weren't trying to win?

They knew that to follow the instructions of the rfp, the first rule was, it couldn't be 'just a revenue tower.' To win, it must be
amazing, and slender enough to be amazing. We all know the only design tower that was truly beautiful, was Accordia.
The rest weren't even close.
Click to expand...

To me this is the best proposal and it was the original Accordia proposal. The one above was interesting but it was green and has weird rounded step backs. It was close but no cigar imo. Th original proposal below was incredible and extremely elegant.


ACCORDIAPARTNERS-3A[1].jpg


Accordia1.png


Accordia%20winthrop.jpg


In my opinion that fits the skyline better than something green.

160418_Render_Aerial_mdr_JMB+copy.jpg



I think Millenniums old proposal was perfect though when they were selected. It has the opening curtain facade that is much more intricate than it seems at first. Plus if they had built it to 775' that would have been very imposing over downtown. I hope that once we get a better render of the new tower it looks close to this, although the lines seem to be straight and they don't open up as they move down the tower like the older proposal. Either way it should still look good and Im glad they went back in this direction vs trying to keep changing it even further.

115-Winthrop-Square-rendering-against-Charles-River.jpg



I like how the glass went all the way to the roof and they hid the mech floor vents between the cut outs in the crown- which actually finally looked like a crown for once. You can especially see them at the top of the first set back.

040817winthropsquare4.jpg
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

In hindsight the Trinity proposal is the one that would have served the city best. A lot of affordable units and the design is no worse than what we are likely to get here. The added economic benefit of having more mid-range economic residents in the area would have outweighed a lot of the negatives IMO.

The Accordia proposal would have been VE'd to death anyways most likely.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Design is no worse? Its still the worst Ive seen even after the redesign that everyone hated. Trinity was a huge waterside place. I dont see this being VE’d to the point of it becoming a giant gray precast monstrosity in any scenario as long as it stays with Millennium. Millennium is giving the city $150 mil and I dont think you need “affordable” in the tallest building in downtown. Putting them off site is perfectly reasonable and where many of them should go. Put affordable in Dorchester we’d love it vs the luxury condos theyre building out here now. Not the place.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

stick n move said:
Design is no worse? Its still the worst Ive seen even after the redesign that everyone hated. Trinity was a huge waterside place. I dont see this being VE’d to the point of it becoming a giant gray precast monstrosity in any scenario as long as it stays with Millennium. Millennium is giving the city $150 mil and I dont think you need “affordable” in the tallest building in downtown. Putting them off site is perfectly reasonable and where many of them should go. Put affordable in Dorchester we’d love it vs the luxury condos theyre building out here now. Not the place.
Click to expand...

Eh, put 'em in Westie and Brighton - seems like all "affordable" units are dumped in Dot and Mattapan.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Yea I agree about spreading the affordable units over the entire city not just certain neighborhoods. I was just saying the tallest building in Downtown isnt really where you need subsidized housing and theres nothing wrong with them building off site.
 
Last edited:
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Jesus. Roll the BPDA Board hearing for 1000 Boylston. Someone in possession of the numbers was asked by the Board to compare the # of units they can build on site vs off site. Even though it's Mass Ave and Boylston, you can include many sites further out from Back Bay.

i can't recall the exact numbers. But it confirmed all the sunshine we've been pumping up our collective asses. Attempting to build a sizable chunk of affordable housing on site, or generally, on these premium value parcels is the road to ruin. If you want more people moving to Brockton, Lowel, and out of Massachusetts altogether we must keep peddling utopia.

For Boston's dynamic community to reach any hope of sustainability, you must figure out a way to get the costs per unit back from current absurd levels.

In the Globe Saturday, i posted the defunct or downsized projects where we've lost hundreds of affordable units--which just makes us more desperate at 115 Winthrop where we're trying to make up for artificially induced losses all over the City. That's the market coming back to bite us. Every time we cut another hundred units here, another 75 there, we lose a dozen and then another dozen affordable units. We'll just continue to tread water, ultimately destined to fail.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Why wont they bring the fixed re-design up to 710' to make up for some lost space? The FAA said that is whats allowed and the BRA was going to allow like 730' until the FAA said 710. So why not push it right to 710? Whats the point of going below the FAA limit here and at the Hub on Causeway? That is lost space/revenue. At this particular project they are pushing it right to the limit and need that extra space, thats why the T had to be extended up the rear face of the tower after the height was chopped down.

Thats 20 more feet or about 2 floors extra at the top and even 3 floors at around 8 ft each on the lower floors of the tower. An extra 3 floors at 8ft each is 21 feet and they could easily knock 1 foot off the tower somewhere to squeeze in those extra 3 floors and bring this to 710'. Thats money being left on the table here. 2 floors is a lot of revenue when were talking about a few multi million dollar units being sold on each upper floor and lower down that can be 3 floors of office space not being rented or turned a profit on. Thats a sizable amount of space and they could do the math and figure out where that extra 20' being placed within the tower would turn the most revenue for them and add that in. Why not?
 
Last edited:
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

stick n move said:
Why wont they bring the fixed re-design up to 710' to make up for some lost space? The FAA said that is whats allowed and the BRA was going to allow like 730' until the FAA said 710. So why not push it right to 710? Whats the point of going below the FAA limit here and at the Hub on Causeway? That is lost space/revenue. At this particular project they are pushing it right to the limit and need that extra space, thats why the T had to be extended up the rear face of the tower after the height was chopped down.

Thats 20 more feet or about 2 floors extra at the top and even 3 floors at around 8 ft each on the lower floors of the tower. An extra 3 floors at 8ft each is 21 feet and they could easily knock 1 foot off the tower somewhere to squeeze in those extra 3 floors and bring this to 710'. Thats money being left on the table here. 2 floors is a lot of revenue when were talking about a few multi million dollar units being sold on each upper floor and lower down that can be 3 floors of office space not being rented or turned a profit on. Thats a sizable amount of space and they could do the math and figure out where that extra 20' being placed within the tower would turn the most revenue for them and add that in. Why not?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how solid the 691' is. I remember the info said "to average grade". Not sure how that's measured but as we've seen with 1 Dalton is it 744 or 756 or something else? Might be by FAA measurements it is closer to the height limit because as you say there's no economic reason to build lower than allowed and even if it costs the developer one floor that's real money they're leaving on the table.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

It's possible. But i wouldn't trust Massport's quote from a year back either. They might have lowered it even a bit more. Millennium might be trying to make it seem like they gave height back to the Friends of the Public Garden. Or it might be hushed up like MT, until some time after the building tops out.

If we know Millennium, don't be surprised if they're right at the limit. i know Joe said each part of the parcel is now 'very close.' Sorry, i was trying to absorb 2 conversations that were taking place. One where Joe was talking and another with Stephen from Handel a few feet away.

There's more light on this thing than Millennium, because of all the controversy with shadow. It will be tough to admit there's some part of the building that's higher than 691. i'm uncomfortable admitting it bothers me that it's not reaching 700'. But it really does.

Will we ever know, LOL? There was height controversy with buildings as far back as Dewey Square and Exchange Place. I remember my father stating clearly the tower was 600'. i was curious about it and asked my dad to get the height from the architects which he did. Like David and others have commented, we have buildings in this city where the true height is not actually known. Exchange Place is certainly as tall as 540' or 545'.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

That is true theres still buildings built in the 70's that we don't even know the true height of. Sometimes they hide it well and take it to the grave until somebody actually take a measurement. Didn't somebody like just last year find out the true height of 33 arch st or something like that?

Maybe the streets have different elevations from one side of the great hall to the other and they're going to measure from the highest part and only to the highest occupied floor or something like that to appease people while the no shit structural height to the tip of whatever it is up there like a lightning rod or something is actually 710. Who knows.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

The allowable is 710' above sea level. Average grade is up about 19' from there. Hence the 691' building height. They're using every inch the FAA gave them...
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

As part of this project, the Robert Burns statue in Winthrop Square could be moved back to its original (and rightful) spot in the Fens. [uhub]
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

riserise said:
The allowable is 710' above sea level. Average grade is up about 19' from there. Hence the 691' building height. They're using every inch the FAA gave them...
Click to expand...

Thank you theres an answer.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Cool to see site prep getting underway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top