archBOSTON.org

Go Back   archBOSTON.org > Boston's Built Environment > Development Projects

Development Projects New urban and/or architectural developments in Boston metro.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-30-2007, 07:44 PM   #21
JSic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 578
I can't wait to see the view from the top of this building. Its so much taller than anything else in town that's its ridiculous (in a good way! :shock: ).
JSic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2007, 08:46 PM   #22
TheBostonBoy
Senior Member
 
TheBostonBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: My house
Posts: 442
The view from the top of The Pru was astonishing, so I agree that the view from Trans National Place would be breathtaking. I bet you could see Mt. Washington all the way over here in NH from it...It's gonna be sick.
But also like besides that, you never really get like that view down back bay. Most of the views you will see are Back Bay looking towards downtown...With a 1000 foot observation in downtown, I think we are gonna start seeing a lot of pictures with The Back Bay/ The South End/ Fenway IMO
It's gonna be pretty sick
TheBostonBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2007, 09:04 PM   #23
BostonSkyGuy
Senior Member
 
BostonSkyGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Boston
Posts: 337
Quote:
Originally Posted by dirtywater
What does it take to be considered "cutting edge"? Contrary to assertions in this thread, this building is very cutting edge.
Agreed that the features of the building make it "cutting edge". Sustainability, being the largest green building in the world is very intriguing to me and something I really like about the project. The elevator and the park at the top will be nice additions as well.

However the design of the building itself leaves much to be desired in my opinion. I'm not calling for anything crazy, I'd like to see the current design tweeked a bit is all. I understand that it might not be feesable to change the design and keep all the features intact. Either way, I hope it gets built. I'd love to see the views from the top and the park is something I'd be a regular visitor to. I also think that a building like this might spur on more large towers or at least prove that a large tower isn't the worst thing that could happen in Boston.
BostonSkyGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2007, 09:50 PM   #24
lexicon506
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 471
Quote:
The elevator and the park at the top will be nice additions as well.
Unfortunately, it sounds like Belkin is gonna scrap the external elevator to maximize the views (see the Greater Boston video posted in the old thread). That's too bad, rising 1,000 feet above Boston in a glass elevator would've been amazing.
lexicon506 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2007, 11:53 PM   #25
InTheHood
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 103
I continue to be amazed at how much ink this puppy is generating on this Board. Wake me when they sign up the anchor tenants necessary to fund it.

Not that I wish the project ill, even if the tall box rates a tall yawn. I really do hope the proponents are successful in cobbling together the dollars. Otherwise, we'll have to endure at least 80 pages of whining about NIMBYs when the banks decide that there are a couple dozen smaller buildings that are a much better bet than Tommy's dream.
InTheHood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2007, 11:59 PM   #26
KentXie
Senior Member
 
KentXie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Fenway
Posts: 3,736


Is it just me or does the Trans-National Place's spire looks higher than 1200ft? I tried stacking both International Place and Federal Reserve Bank Tower on each other and I found out that both did not reach the height of the spire. I also noticed that in the 3-d diagrams they had, TNP looks about 1100ft+ to the roof. I tried comparing it against other towers and it looks significantly a lot taller than 2 times the height of the First National Bank of Boston (maybe it was made to look taller to emphasize the tower or maybe its the angling). Though the official height has not been revealed (1000ft is the minimum height), I believe that it might actually be taller than that.
KentXie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2007, 12:17 AM   #27
tmac9wr
Senior Member
 
tmac9wr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,376
From the rendering in the picture in the post above and the pictures shown in the Boston Globe magazine, it almost looks like it's a revised rendering. If you look at the previous renderings compared with these ones, the roof looks a bit taller and the spire a bit shorter. I wonder if the "solution" to the lack of office space is to keep the total height the same, but make the building part a bit taller (thus compromising the spire height). Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but I haven't been reading any of the other posts, I've been away for a week or so, came back to see the renderings in the Globe, got drunk, then made this post....so excuse me if this is a repeat.
tmac9wr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2007, 02:42 AM   #28
KentXie
Senior Member
 
KentXie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Fenway
Posts: 3,736
Here's a diagram I made to compare with our sister cities of Philly and SF and their new tallests.

KentXie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2007, 02:49 AM   #29
KentXie
Senior Member
 
KentXie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Fenway
Posts: 3,736
Sigh...too bad I didn't get this earlier. I have to redo the diagram. The news isnt exactly that great but the interesting thing is that apparently, Gateway Center is slated to be completed by 2011 and that Trans National Place is either 1145 ft to the roof or to the spire.

In the shadow of the future?
Trans National Place tower up for review
Christopher Loh, cloh@bostonnow.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Print ? Email ? Comment ? Add to del.icio.us ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Projected as the tallest building in New England, the proposed Trans National Place tower, slated for completion in 2011, could cast a shadow over the Boston Public Garden.

At 80 floors and 1.3 million square feet of office space, the 1,000-foot tower would be located at 133 Federal St. and is set to enter its official review phase this summer.

According to the Friends of the Boston Public Garden, the tower would cast a 15-minute shadow over the park every morning.

Project officials are unsure of the predictions and said they are performing a "comprehensive series of studies."

Backed by Trans National Properties of Boston, the project will include 40,000 square feet of retail space and 31,000 square feet of public space. Trans National Properties owner Steve Belkin said the tower incorporates "innovative world-class sustainable design."

In 2011, Boston's skyline will feature three new skyscrapers. Here are Boston's projected top-five tallest buildings in 2011:

1. Trans National Place: 1,145 feet
2. South Bay Tower: 777 feet
3. Hancock Place: 771 feet
4. Prudential Tower: 732 feet
5. South Station Tower: 604 feet


Published on Wed, Jun 6, 2007

http://www.bostonnow.com/news/local/...rans_national/
KentXie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2007, 02:57 AM   #30
czsz
Senior Member
 
czsz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: brooklyn
Posts: 6,052
Brings a new meaning to the phrase "if you don't like the weather in New England, wait a few minutes".

I guess the Friends of the Public Garden aren't hardy enough to brave a quarter-hour sun-blockage early in the morning.
czsz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2007, 09:37 AM   #31
econ_tim
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 21
Quote:
1. Trans National Place: 1,145 feet
2. South Bay Tower: 777 feet
3. Hancock Place: 771 feet
4. Prudential Tower: 732 feet
5. South Station Tower: 604 feet
Why would the article even list the "South Bay Tower" (aka Gateway Center)?
econ_tim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2007, 10:04 AM   #32
JimboJones
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 935
Not sure...

I don't know if the article is accurate.

Scotty Van Voorhis always talks about how the tower will cast a shadow on the COMMON, not the public garden.

I think it's impossible that the tower would cast a shadow on the public garden.

Did the reporter get it wrong?
JimboJones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2007, 10:09 AM   #33
stellarfun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: salem ma and washington dc
Posts: 4,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by czsz
Brings a new meaning to the phrase "if you don't like the weather in New England, wait a few minutes".

I guess the Friends of the Public Garden aren't hardy enough to brave a quarter-hour sun-blockage early in the morning.
The shadow would be cast on the Common, not on the Public Garden. The recent law prohibits new buildings from casting shadows on the Public Garden, but only limits the extent of additional shadows on the Common.

Unfortunately, the recent law did not provide for the demolition of Tremont on the Common.
__________________
A man gazing on the stars is at the mercy of the puddles in the road
stellarfun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2007, 11:26 AM   #34
tmac9wr
Senior Member
 
tmac9wr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,376
Re: Not sure...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimboJones
I don't know if the article is accurate.

Scotty Van Voorhis always talks about how the tower will cast a shadow on the COMMON, not the public garden.

I think it's impossible that the tower would cast a shadow on the public garden.

Did the reporter get it wrong?
I don't think it's accurate either. All the heights of the already-built buildings are incorrect. John Hancock is 790 ft., not 771. The Pru is 750 ft., not 732. Also what happened to the previous measurements of 1,087 ft. to the roof, 1,270 ft. to the spire? Looking at the picture from the cover of the Boston Globe Magazine, there's no way the roof of the building is only 1,000 ft. tall, which makes me think that the roof has to be 1,045 ft. tall.
tmac9wr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2007, 03:10 PM   #35
TheBostonBoy
Senior Member
 
TheBostonBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: My house
Posts: 442
ya, it looks way taller than 1145, it most definitely is 1200 at least...and also how come it lists South Bay Tower? I thought that was just a like a vision or proposed...Has that building been approved or even review yet?? Because i haven't heard anything about that building since like March. Just curious
TheBostonBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2007, 03:17 PM   #36
castevens
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,051
Not only that, but this person expects it to be done by 2011....
castevens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2007, 08:15 PM   #37
statler
Moderator
 
statler's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Approaching a City
Posts: 7,448
Say what you will about her. At least she is doing something.
As opposed to us who sit and bitch anonymously on an obscure website. :?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weekly Dig Letters
Reader demands transparency, justice

Paul McMorrow?s Winthrop Square story (?Yoon-a-Tard,? Daily Dig blog, 5.10.07) was right on the money (so to speak). Any councilors who would bury a public hearing to allow the BRA to abscond with public assets, just so they can cut a deal for their favorite causes, cause two harms: They undermine the council?s role in city budget allocation, and worse, they legitimize the mayoral practice of funneling city-owned land to the BRA in order to fund it with public money off-budget to evade public accountability.

They are also naive to think that they can actually force the BRA to part with its money. Hayward Place and Yawkey Way are two recent examples where such promises were broken. The Yoon memo already reveals the seeds of default, referring to getting ?excess revenue??obviously the loophole-in-waiting for the BRA when the time comes to pay up. Whoever has ?excess revenue?? I?d like to see that agreement!

The follow-up story, ?Taking a Bath? (5.16.07), is a bit confused.

Menino was not, all this time, looking for public-housing money, and then he cleverly found Winthrop as a creative source; he was indeed merely cooking up ways to hand the parcel and all its proceeds to the BRA. Months ago, to emerging criticism, he mumbled something about seeing that the money would go to ?worthy causes,? even if it?s in BRA hands. The BHA is just the worthy cause that came in handy to silence Yoon, an affordable-houser (although I doubt the BHA was high on the list of priorities in his recent constituent e-survey), when he proposed a public council hearing. It?s only Menino?s desire for secrecy that gave Yoon the ?opportunity? for this illusory triumph.

And the city official who credited the Finance Commission and the city council with preventing the BRA?s collection of the $2.5 million a year is wrong. Menino has already signed the agreement giving the garage (and maybe also the land) leasing rights to the BRA. The BRA is going to bid the garage out in June and will collect the money (assuming the decrepit garage isn?t a safety hazard) as soon as it comes in. I assume he?ll do the same with the land leasing rights, which are worth far more for the land (valued at $100 million or more), although Yoon is focused on the garage.

Most important, this is not a chance for the mayor to ?leverage public assets? to get something done?he didn?t need leverage to get that money. It was his. I mean ours, the city?s. He gave it away to the BRA (as he gave away Hayward Place, worth $23 million, and City Hall Plaza, worth $400 million) unlawfully and unethically. Now, as a cover-up, he?s pretending to be a hero and get it (or the ?excess? part of it) back to help poor people. That?s all it?s about. And Yoon, who thinks he discovered some great new fountain of money, actually gave it all up; but meanwhile, he can get a lot of credit for helping/forcing the mayor to help poor people.

The question is: Will the taxpayers, carrying a crushing?and rising?property tax burden, let their elected officials get away with this corrupt boondoggle while the mayor looks to tax their meals and parking?

Shirley Kressel
Link
statler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2007, 04:30 PM   #38
KentXie
Senior Member
 
KentXie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Fenway
Posts: 3,736
I made a diagram based on the 1145ft version to the roof stated earlier (don't know whether or not that it is 1145ft to the spire or the roof or whether the height is accuate). Using paint and a calculator, I came to an estimate for the total height of the tower including the spire which comes up to around 1319 ft. The spire adds about 174 feet in addition to the the tower itself.



I divided 1145ft by 514 (the amount of pixels I got up to the roof) and got about 2.23 ft per pixel. Then I multiplied it by 78 (the amount of pixels from the roof to tip of spire) and got about 174 ft. Thus the total is about 1319ft. However I have my doubts on that and I'm pretty sure the spire will be shorten or that 1145 will be the total height of the tower including the spires. I doubt NIMBYs will allow a 1300ft tower to be built anyways but here's to wishful thinking.

Also if I replace 1145ft with 1000ft the final height will be 1151 feet so I won't be surprise if the 1145ft stated before is the total height.
KentXie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2007, 11:46 AM   #39
statler
Moderator
 
statler's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Approaching a City
Posts: 7,448
Old news, new info..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bankers & Tradesman
Down Payment Process Eased for Developer of Skyscraper
May 21, 2007
By Thomas Grillo

Mayor Thomas M. Menino is backing away from a timetable that requires a developer to make a substantial down payment for a city-owned parking facility.

Trans National Properties, or TNP, had been facing a June deadline for a payment of up to $20 million to the city of Boston for the Winthrop Square Garage, the proposed site of a 1,000-foot tower.

But the mayor now says the date is ?changeable? and he expects the city will operate the lot for at least two years before it is sold to make way for the skyscraper.

?We are not selling the garage now,? Menino told Banker & Tradesman. ?Why would the developer pay us any money if he?s not going to run it??

The terms of a Request for Proposals issued last year calls for a 1 percent payment upon a developer?s tentative designation to build the tower and another 25 percent upon the completion of the public review process ? but no later than June 30. The city estimates the value of the garage at between $70 million and $100 million.

At issue is the $1 billion, 80-story tower that TNP?s Steven B. Belkin hopes to build in Boston?s Financial District. Dubbed ?Tommy?s Tower? by Boston?s two daily newspapers, Menino wants to transform the crumbling parking garage into the city?s tallest building, with 1.5 million square feet of office and retail space as well as an acre of public space.

In November, Boston-based TNP was the sole respondent to the Boston Redevelopment Authority?s RFP for the project at 115 Winthrop Square. In a carefully worded press release in January, the BRA recommended to the city of Boston the ?tentative designation? of TNP as the developer of the site.

Paul McCann, the BRA?s acting director, said the payment schedule is triggered by the designation, which he insists has not happened.

?We have not tentatively designated anyone, so you can?t expect someone to put up between $10 million and $20 million when we haven?t taken that step yet,? said McCann. ?I?m sure the developer will perform all the requirements when the first trigger happens. We drafted the RFP kit nearly two years ago and figured that the June date would allow plenty of time, but there?s all kinds of issues that have to be resolved. The June 30 date is an impossibility.?

The Boston Finance Commission, or FinCom, an independent agency that monitors the city?s finances, has raised questions about the deal. Jeffrey W. Conley, executive director, said while the dates in the RFP were ?ambitious,? the city is not allowed to change them.

?The BRA has to comply with the public bidding law, Chapter 30B. They can?t change the terms,? Conley said. ?No one made them set those terms. They put it out to bid; let?s stick with the plan. Belkin?s the only bidder and he agreed to pay the 25 percent no later than June 30. It?s that simple. It?s in the city?s best interest to keep to those dates.?

Belkin declined to comment.

?All Wrong?
Last month, FinCom released a highly critical report on the BRA?s disposition of the Winthrop Square Garage. FinCom said the proceeds from the sale of the garage and future revenues from the operation of the facility should go to the city of Boston and not the BRA, an independent agency with its own budget.

The report said the city?s handling of a similar parking lot deal on lower Washington Street cost taxpayers millions and warned the same thing could happen again.

While the city owns the garage, it has been operated by First Federal Parking Corp. Under the terms of the lease dating back to the 1950s, the city receives $76,875, a modest amount, the FinCom report said, given that the garage produces about $2.5 million annually. The lease is set to expire on June 30 and the BRA has yet to issue an RFP for an operator.

Conley said he fears that the BRA?s sale of the Winthrop Square Garage will mirror mistakes made on Hayward Place, a city-owned surface parking lot in Downtown Crossing. The BRA took that property by eminent domain in 2001 and later sold the lot to Millennium Partners-Boston for $23 million.

Millennium made a down payment to the BRA of $13 million. The other $10 million has not been paid. For the first two years of the lease, Millennium made annual payments of $537,000 to the city. Now, the company operates the parking lot, but the city receives none of the proceeds. In addition, because the BRA owns the parcel, Millennium is not required to pay any real estate taxes.

Last fall, the BRA approved Hayward Place at the site, a $200 million mixed-use development that will include 277 housing units as well as create 19,000 square feet of ground-floor retail space and below-grade parking. But plans are stalled for the 155-foot-high building and construction may not commence until 2013.

But BRA officials insist that they will not make the same mistakes. Within weeks of FinCom?s report, Menino said he planned to use revenues from the Winthrop Square Garage to meet the needs of the city?s public housing developments and fund the Boston Housing Police for the next two years.

But Conley remains skeptical. The proceeds of the sale of the Hayward Place Garage were supposed to fund a new school in Chinatown, but construction is not in the planning stages, he said.

?It?s Hayward Place all over again,? Conley said of the Winthrop Square Garage proposal.

Jack McCarthy, a spokesman for the Massachusetts Office of the Inspector General, said communities typically are held to the dates in RFPs, but there are exceptions. If there were a violation of the state?s bidding law, the office could recommend that action be taken by the Massachusetts attorney general.

?As a rule, cities and towns can?t change the advertised dates,? McCarthy said. ?But there can be extenuating circumstances that might allow it.?

Menino denied any wrongdoing. ?FinCom?s got it all wrong again,? he said.
statler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2007, 12:50 PM   #40
KentXie
Senior Member
 
KentXie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Fenway
Posts: 3,736
Well that should be correct since the the tower's completion date is set to 2011. It shouldn't take 4 years to build it.
KentXie is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Winter Garden | 100 Federal St. | Financial District datadyne007 Development Projects 265 08-16-2018 03:12 PM
What to do with the Financial District vanshnookenraggen Boston Architecture & Urbanism 33 04-08-2013 07:30 PM
Sad day in the Financial District czsz General 23 03-20-2009 06:45 PM
115 Federal St. (Winthrop Square) castevens Development Projects 807 05-29-2007 05:11 PM
Winthrop Square Tower Poll | Early Reaction Mike Development Projects 3 11-18-2006 05:56 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.