Winthrop Square Garage Demolition | Downtown

dotdude78

Active Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
235
Reaction score
112
I know the previous thread was locked, but I'm curious if anyone knows more about this? I work nearby and it's clear they're starting demolition.

There's an article today on the BBJ about it too.

Is this a good sign for the tower, or was the city tearing down the garage regardless?
 
Looks like Amazon choose there spot.

GREAT SPOT for Amazon in my opinion. Summer Street area is about to blow up.
Keep these type of volume in the core of the city. Build higher along rapid rails

Suffolk downs made no sense for this bluechip company to locate in Revere.
 
any links to any reliable source verifying this amazon thing, or are you just guessing?
 
I can think of any number of reasons for the demo beginning in earnest now that have nothing to do with Amazon or any one, specific "bluechip tenant," yes. I'm not saying your theory won't or cannot eventually prove to be spot-on -- I was wondering if your recent post re: Amazon was based on actual news, or if it was just a guess.
 
Calm down - demolition was planned 4th Quarter, 2017. So they're meeting expectations.
 
I walk by this everyday. They put a fence up around the site... at least on the Winthrop Sq side. There's been a lot more activity, heavy jack hammering and lot's of dust rising above.
 
Make sure these dipshits "millennium partners drill into the BEDROCK"

We don't need a San Fran--leaner in the city of Boston.
 
As usual, Rifleman's impulsive knee-jerk blatherings are driving down the quality of the forum (aka "threadshitting" in FLine To Dudley's immortal phrasing).

1.) Example the first: Rifleman's asinine claim that demolition at Winthrop Sq. Garage "wouldn't begin without a blue-chip tenant."

In fact, the exact explanation for the demolition was given in the article... and needless to say it has nothing to do with a tenant being secured.

"Boston’s long-crumbling Winthrop Square garage is coming down. Crews from Boston-based Suffolk Construction have erected construction fencing around the site, and demolition work is underway. 'The garage had deteriorated to a point where the engineer had concerns about its stability and it was determined that in the interest of public safety the garage should be demolished as soon as possible,' said Suffolk spokesperson Leah Pennino.

Remember, this facility was condemned as unsafe for public use nearly five years ago--and by definition has only continued to degrade since then.

2.) Example the second: Rifleman's asinine fixation on Millennium Partners' leaning tower in San Francisco.

Without being an apologist or fanboy for their work, it's worth pointing out that they've put up at least sixteen highly sophisticated/structurally complex residential or mixed-use towers across the country:

http://millenniumptrs.com/our-properties/

One of them is now sinking.

Any rational person would conclude, based on the record, that a truly exceptional and unique set of geotechnical, architectural/engineering, political, and other factors have converged to bring about this spectacular phenomenon... and would withhold judgment until the case is litigated in a San Francisco court and the various experts for plaintiff and defendant have a chance to take the stand.

Rifleman, on the other hand, has concluded they are "dipshits."

How many skyscrapers have you put up, Rifleman? Less than sixteen? Lol.
 
^ not only that, but he keeps insisting that the SF tower be "demolished," no matter how many times it is explained in that thread (and in the popular press) that demolition is unlikely to be the best resolution to that particular situation.

Demolition = spending a shitload of money to destroy value (and pay off the condo owners)

A technical solution (such as foundation underpinning) = spending a shitload of money to sustain (or even increase) value

I know, a chorus of people will chime in saying "just adjust your settings to 'ignore' him," but seriously, once a thread is totally destroyed, ignoring one person doesn't make a bit of a difference...the discussion thread gets ruined for everyone

Let's just be unequivocally clear about two things:
1) the winthrop garage demo has no direct connection to an anchor tenant,
and,
2) demolishing the SF tower is the least desirable of all possible corrective solutions to that debacle
 
Sorry DBM didn't realize that you worked for this group. Listen pal this is a cuthroat industry welcome to the club.

Concerning rifleman portfolio still trying to buy a 3 unit in a sanctuary city like Somerville.

How many skyscrapers have I built zero.

Overall I actually like millennium downtown tower even if they beat the taxpayers for quick 15million in tax incentives. I also love this proposal.

I just want to make sure they build a solid foundation on this property I wouldn't want it to kill an innocent pedestrian because they save money using sand instead of cemet
 
I just want to make sure they build a solid foundation on this property I wouldn't want it to kill an innocent pedestrian because they save money using sand instead of cemet

Who on earth said anything about any tower "killing an innocent pedestrian"?!?

Per this story, the SF tower has been sinking since 2008 (17 inches, no less... impressive)

http://www.businessinsider.com/is-millennium-tower-safe-still-leaning-sinking-2017-9/#millennium-tower-rises-58-stories-above-san-franciscos-financial-district-1

That's over 3,000 days of sinking without a pedestrian being killed. Tell me, what's the likelihood do you think of a pedestrian being killed by this sinking tower--given that it hasn't happened in the first 3,000 days of the phenomenon taking place? Your lurid hyperventilating fantasies are beyond preposterous.

Forget MTower sinking in SF... how many towers anywhere in the US have "killed an innocent pedestrian" due to subsidence... ever?!

Try to apply reasoned analysis at some point. It's remarkable what it can accomplish.
 
If an earthquake hits San Fran that tower is coming down faster than you can imagine. That foundation is built on rubble.
 
If an earthquake hits San Fran that tower is coming down faster than you can imagine. That foundation is built on rubble.

Actually no. The report from a variety of licensed structural engineers found that it can sustain an earthquake in its present state.
 
It got closed cuz you guys were getting a bit too colorful and zany for 1 mod's liking.... Only threads topping 599' are closed down to avoid threats, lawsuits or loss of life.

In Boston, it is believed by many (including members of this board) that tall towers threaten civilization (despite being LEED-Platinum certified.)
 
Concerning rifleman portfolio still trying to buy a 3 unit in a sanctuary city like Somerville.

Get out of here with that Sanctuary city BS. You know all you're doing is trolling with a comment like that. It has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.
 

Back
Top