Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

KentXie said:
I honestly don't know which map is right or wrong. If walking between them a lot is proof though, then well, I used to work at 211 Congress St. which requires me to walk past both MT and WT and 20-30 ft looks plausible to me, especially when the increase in elevation is very gradual, so I don't know what else to tell ya.
Click to expand...

Here's a more exact way to do it, using the FAA determined starting heights.

Winthrop Square is at a site elevation of 19'. Add 691' and you have 710' above mean sea level to the roof. Note that the 758' is for the original proposal before it was cut, but if you search the archives on this site for 2017 Boston and order it by height you'll see these all correspond to Winthrop. You can also click "determination" and scroll down to see a map.

Millennium Tower sits at a site elevation of 32', but that's from Washington Street, where it rises 677' from the ground, which combined is 709' above mean sea level. These 2 links below will work together to show that the 32' must be from Washington because there's a 24' one that would be from Hawley. These can be found by searching the archives for 2013 Boston.

677' from 32' starting point.

666' from 24' starting point. (note there's also a 648' from 26' so it looks like a 35' total height difference from the highest corner (709' amsl) to the lowest (674' amsl)).

So now what we are looking at is a 710' amsl flat roof for Winthrop vs the 709' amsl top corner for MT.

It also looks like that means it's only a 5' total slope from the bottom corner of MT down to the Winthrop Square Tower, which kind of echoes my earlier sentiment. In short, from the rare angle where these 2 are the exact same distance from you, Winthrop Square will appear just above the top corner of MT. Otherwise it will come down to whichever building is closer is the one that will appear taller in that given view. Hence, why MT looks taller in the pic Stick keeps posting above (it's a block or 2 closer!). On the other hand, Winthrop already looks taller in the stretch run before the tunnel (or on the South Station/90 ramp) when taking 93 North. Overall, Winthrop wins in a photo-finish. (and yes, there will be plenty of photos!)
 
Is it possible that MT‘s height includes that little spire on its top corner? It may not be architectural but it would still be an obstruction to aviation.
 
Heres the old renders showing how itll look in the skyline. They were released before the rear wing of the tower was chopped down, so its still visible.


EF5-B4-A1-F-5-C2-A-4494-9511-E89-C1609035-B.jpg






 
From Saturdays walk.

IMG_3262 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
IMG_3284 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
IMG_3283 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
IMG_3296 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
IMG_3297 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
IMG_3299 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
IMG_3304 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
IMG_3307 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
IMG_3310 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
IMG_3312 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
IMG_3316 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
IMG_3323 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
IMG_3329 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
IMG_3330 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
IMG_3575 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
IMG_3574 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
IMG_3596 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
IMG_3598 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
IMG_3648 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
 
The more I see how this is coming together, the more I'm convinced that this should've been 75-100' taller. I realize the FAA constraints but this is not pushed all the way up to its very maximum allowable/doable (with FAA approval) height and that is a detriment of what should be one of Boston's most iconic buildings. After all of these years, what we're getting is something that will disappear in the skyline, look fat from many street-level angles, and basically amount to a large infill building. The "Great Hall" is not "great" and we'll see how "good" it even is from a pedestrian point, hopefully not merely being a massive wall. But it's better than the rotted garage, sure... but what could've/should've been...
 
I hadn't realize it was cut down (again) to 691'. I think FAA max was 775, so that is a decent amount of height left on the table. Not sure if it would ultimately make that much of a difference - would rather we got the great hall and/or observation decks that were promised vs another ~84 feet. It's too bad they can't revise again and add back a few floors, though. All that said - don't forget all the money going towards the emerald necklace and other projects from this. If those actually come to fruition, then I would argue this will be the most impactful building in the city; not for what it is, but for what it allowed to happen else where.

Edit: further research says FAA limit was/is 702' (per the FAA), which was the original chop from 775'. The second to 691' doesn't seem that bad anymore. So: in the end at best this could be ~10' taller. So, yeah, this could never be taller and is close to the max it could be. It shouldn't really be anything else - it is what it is.
 
Last edited:
Max FAA according to the map was right about 725', but on the line so that part of the building was in a slightly lower spot than that. Then the map itself is based on sea level, so at the end of the day the belief is that max FAA was really about 697' and they only left 6' on the table.

Obviously if there was a way to enhance the radar somehow then maybe these limits could have been raised, but that solution has not been seriously pursued. So instead of everybody complaining about this one, turn your focus to 1 Bromfield (wrecking a site for potential 709' slim stunner with a 345' giant fat box piece of crap), and the Hurley Building (requesting 400' despite being a zone that could build on par with the Pru, and despite the Hurley site being more difficult than this 2 story garage was). Underbuilding on those 2 sites in particular will keep our skyline stunted, much more so than leaving 6' on the table here.
 
Agree with all of you guys. I was just lamenting what it could've been aesthetically and impactfully (is that a word?) and not acknowledging the benefits to the Greenway and other aspects it could bring, hopefully. I must've misread the info from earlier on because I too thought the max FAA was around 775' and thought with the pursuit of upgrading to more advanced radar technology that it could go even higher (and benefit other parcels, including Bromfield and Hurley). I am in disbelief at what miniscule height has been proposed for those sites. I'm still hopeful that at least Hurley can be brought up to at least 700'+ as with a few other parcels in that part of the city that can go big on visual impact as well as VASTLY improve the street-level pedestrian interaction. I mean, can it be any worse than how awful the Hurley is now??
 
gac108 said:
Agree with all of you guys. I was just lamenting what it could've been aesthetically and impactfully (is that a word?) and not acknowledging the benefits to the Greenway and other aspects it could bring, hopefully. I must've misread the info from earlier on because I too thought the max FAA was around 775' and thought with the pursuit of upgrading to more advanced radar technology that it could go even higher (and benefit other parcels, including Bromfield and Hurley). I am in disbelief at what miniscule height has been proposed for those sites. I'm still hopeful that at least Hurley can be brought up to at least 700'+ as with a few other parcels in that part of the city that can go big on visual impact as well as VASTLY improve the street-level pedestrian interaction. I mean, can it be any worse than how awful the Hurley is now??
Click to expand...
The Hurley is truly putrid. 😝
 
gac108 said:
I am in disbelief at what miniscule height has been proposed for those sites. I'm still hopeful that at least Hurley can be brought up to at least 700'+ as with a few other parcels in that part of the city that can go big on visual impact as well as VASTLY improve the street-level pedestrian interaction. I mean, can it be any worse than how awful the Hurley is now??
Click to expand...

I'll throw in the Lindemann as well. The whole State Services Center complex needs to be bulldozed and redeveloped into something the city can be proud of.
 
So, from what I can find, it would have been in the take off path of runway one according to the FAA, so that sounds like a full stop non starter (vs a radar issue). Apparently there is a pretty detailed 9 page study the FAA put out.. somewhere, but I haven't found it yet. The FAA originally was propsinging only in the mid 500' range. I will say the CommonWealth magazine article further pushes me to the theory that everyone in the city/etc were fully aware of the FAA limits (or a good guess of what they would be), but let Millennium proposal just win (even after it went over the city's own limit of 750 in the original RFP). Kind of shady.

Millennium Partners to lower Winthrop Square tower height after FAA study

Millennium promises shorter Winthrop Sq. tower
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top