|
an attempt to uncover the truth about September 11th 2001 |
|
| mirror of “NERDCITIES/GUARDIAN” site : disclaimer |
M.I.T., Rotch Visual Collections
Elder was determined to salvage what development opportunity remained at Sixty State, and he convinced CCF that SoM and IAN+A were the design professionals they needed. At a meeting in Boston on July 28, 1972(20], the new team was introduced to the old problems. CCF discussed the BRA design guidelines, reviewed the NACHP recommendations, and outlined their requirements. Intended for small, professional tenants and CCF' s corporate home, the building was to be of the highest quality: tall ceilings, refined interiors, and prestigious public areas. The building had to be efficient, both in terms of energy consumption and space utilization. SoM was requested to develop a preliminary design within a few weeks' time for review by Elder, Blakeley and the BRA.
Bruce Graham, an SOM general partner, took charge. Sixty State was assigned to Studio Head/Project Manager, Robert Diamant.[2l] Together with Senior Architect, Robert Siegle, they gathered necessary information and began the preliminary design process. Design constraints imposed by CCF, the NACHP and the BRA demanded a significant departure from earlier concepts. Within two weeks, SOM proposed a number of design concepts that, although refined and articulated, remain apparent today:
A preliminary design synthesizing these concepts was developed in four weeks. Schematic drawings were presented for CCF review by August 24, 1972 (see figure 1.11). [22]*Multi-faceted Shape -- attempting to maximize the floor area while maintaining the newly opened sightline between the Old State House and Faneuil Hall, the concept of a non-rectangular building was developed.
*"Folded-Tube" Structural Design -- a new application of a structural system frequently employed by SOM.
*Sloping Roof -- a desire of Gerald Blakeley's, resulted in the first hip-roofed Boston skyscraper since the l930's.
*Chevron-shaped Columns -- a pentagonal shape for the exterior columns reflected the complex shape of the structure and further articulated the mass.
*Granite Exterior -- a granite cladding system was the consensus of the major actors: SOM, CCF and the BRA. The granite would relate to traditional Faneuil Hall as well as the contemporary New England Merchants Bank and Boston City Hall.
*Plaza adjacent to Dock Square -- the Plaza provided the setback required by the NACHP and a transition between the Congress Street Bridge and Dock Square.
*Decentralized HVAC System -- a feature brought north by Robert Elder and I.A. Naman, each floor having its own mechanical room.
*Double-paned Glass -- an energy saving feature.
*Fully Sprinkled Building -- life safety system of simple design and operation.
CCF approved the preliminary design and the SOM project team began a fast-track design/construction process. [23] In contrast to the conventional design and documentation process that proved the undoing of Breuer's design, this approach requires all design professionals to interact early in the design process. The advantage of this system is the saving of six months to one year's time in design and construction. To guide the design decision process, Elder and CCF Project Manager, Ray Miller, consulted Aberthaw Construction Company regarding passive system costs, and employed their own staff for costing of active systems. [24]
CCF devoted increasing attention to the legal and regulatory problems of Sixty State. Controversy resurfaced over the necessity of an EIS. On November 9, 1972, the Department of Housing and Urban Development formally advised the BRA that such a statement would probably be required. [25] The BRA, pleased with the SOM design, was anxious to approve the Sixty State project. Hale and Dorr suggested that preparing the EIS might save six months should the document ultimately be required for state or federal approval. Although still unsure of its final use, CCF began preparation of the EIS in December, 1972. A tax agreement with the City and State was reached on November 13, 1972. This agreement fixed Sixty State's property taxes over a 15-year period to reduce the developer's risk. Preliminary accord was also reached on the Land Disposition Agreement, and the price for the BRA-owned property was set at "...not less than $800,000."[26]
Foundation design proved a challenge to both the architects and the engineers. Site evaluation revealed that 84 State Street's foundation encroached on the site. This necessitated a 90deg. rotation and flip of the original building's shape, as well as the abandonment of a 30' by 30' "super module."
[27] Haley and Aldrich recommended a six-foot-deep concrete mat for Sixty State's foundation. To minimize environmental impacts, a slurry wall was suggested for excavation retention. This system would prevent water table drawdown on adjacent properties, avoid shock waves caused by driving sheet or soldier piling, and act as a final basement wall. [28]
On February 16, 1973, the BRA Design Advisory Committee gave preliminary approval to a 46-story, 657-foot-tall structure with a total area of slightly more than one million square feet (see figure I.ll). The Committee's notes read, "Superior solution, but needs refinement and definition at pedestrian level."[3O]
The tower's vertical transportation was supplied by 19 elevators in three elevator zones. A 90' by 50' space was reserved for the building's service core, although on the low-rise floors this pinched the lease depth from a desirable 40 feet to as low as 22 feet (see figure 1.12). Below ground were two parking levels, contrary to the NACHP recommendation, and one level primarily for mechanical equipment. A core of gravity load-carrying steel columns combined with concrete columns of the lateral loadcarrying exterior tube to form a composite structure. Shaped as chevrons, the concrete allowed simple connections for granite panels. [31]
Marketing efforts were successful in early 1973, and CCF began to look for financial backing for the project. Preliminary financial commitments were signed by CCF on May 30, 1973, with Teachers Insurance Company for the long-term mortgage ($53,000,000, 35 years at 8 3/8 percent) and Chase Manhattan Bank for the short-term construction loan. (32] The commitments contained escape clauses providing for the forfeiture of a contingency payment should CCF back out.
CCF sought the myriad local, state and federal governmental approvals needed for its project. To obtain a building permit, the Board of Appeals had to rule on the zoning changes required by the project. The Public Improvement Commission had to approve the needed utility and street improvements around the site. The Public Safety Commission had to review several aspects of the design. All three agencies held the mandatory public hearings in the spring of 1973, but they withheld approval until the BRA Board gave the project its final blessing.
With everything in readiness, CCF set August I for groundbreaking.[33] All that remained to be secured was BRA approval of the changes in the urban renewal plans and other minor technical matters. But political forces were at work in the City. The BRA declined to act.
 |
 |
Page |
 |
 |