an attempt to uncover the truth about September 11th 2001

M.I.T., Rotch Visual Collections

1.7 ONE MORE TIME (WITH FEELING)

The pause in development did allow contemplation of the proposed environmental impact of the Sixty State Project. Preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement revealed potentially harmful effects Sixty State might have on the surrounding area (see figure l. 14). Lunchtime shadows by the future Sixty State and its two CCF companions, New England Merchants and the Boston Company, would substantially reduce the ambience of Dock Square, Faneuil Hall and the Quincy Markets. Wind-tunnel studies conducted by Mt. Auburn Research indicated that entrance conditions at Sixty State might resemble or even exceed the difficult wind problems encountered at New England Merchants Bank.

The BRA Board responded to the political and environmental problems on December 20, 1973, by reducing the scale of the project. They changed the urban renewal plans to allow high-rise development of the site, but the new guidelines included a reduction in maximum building height from 657 feet to 509 feet, and a decrease in permitted bulk by about 200,000 square feet, resulting in a new FAR of 14. These changes mollified Mayor White, who announced that his questions concerning the impact of Sixty State had been answered. White met with Blakeley on February 5, 1974, and encouraged the developer to proceed.

SOM and IAN+A were soon back at work. The height reduction proved beneficial to the building layout. Too large for two elevator zones at the original height, yet not quite large enough for three, the reduction permitted a more efficient core design (figure 1.15). Two elevator zones and the smaller core now allowed one mechanical room location for each floor without cramping lease spans on low-rise floors. Floor-to-floor height was reduced, from 13 feet to 12 feet 6 inches, to squeeze more rentable space from the permitted envelope (figure 1.16). A new cost analysis of structural system alternates rated an all-steel tubular frame less expensive than the previously proposed steelconcrete composite tubular frame.

Standard rolled steel sections replaced composite concrete columns at the perimeter tube. The simple granite cladding system previously envisioned was abandoned and a more complex exterior wall system devised.

The labyrinthine approvals process was again initiated. A number of approval tracks were followed simultaeously. On February 14, 1974, the BRA Board officially designated CCF as the developer of the site and took the necessary steps to execute the Land Disposition Agreement. HUD approved the redevelopment plan, finding that it substantially complied with the NACHP recommendations.

At the same time, HUD ruled the changes in the urban renewal plans were minor in nature, and did not constitute a "major federal action." Therefore, the EIS did not require HOP approval. The DCA, however, needed the EIS to decide if the project was environmentally sound. A DCA public hearing was held on April 30, 1974, and on May 21, the state agency approved the draft EIS, which was published in final form in June. Although technically not required, since the urban renewal plan changes had been ruled "minor," the City Council approved the Sixty State project on March 25. An amendment sponsored by Councilman Tierney to reduce the building's height to 180 feet was easily defeated. Other city approvals were quickly obtained [42] after BRA, HUD and City Council sanction of the project.

Most crucial to the project was the City of Boston building permit. The Massachusetts State Building Code was scheduled to take effect January 1, 1975, and action delayed to the New Year would cause financial penalties due to significant design changes required by the new code. CCF encouraged SOM and IAN+A to prepare necessary drawings as quickly as possible. On June 5, 1974, an application for building permit was filed with the Boston Building Department. Excavation and foundation drawings were submitted concurrently, and a zoning review was begun. Sixty State required several zoning variances to increase the permitted FAR from 10 to 14; to decrease the size and number of off-street loading bays; and to allow a garage within a restricted parking district. The Board of Appeals considered these on July 9, and granted provisional approval July 30. On September 18 a permit for excavation was issued, although plans for the superstructure had not yet been considered. On November 8, CCF submitted final design drawings for technical review. Finding the plans in conformance with the Boston Building Code, a Boston building permit was issued December 13, 1974.

Financial commitments were again discussed. Teachers Insurance was again willing to be the long-term lender, although the $42,500,000 permanent mortgage included higher interest rates than the forfeited commitments of 1973. The construction loan proved more difficult. Deeply involved in real estate foreclosures, Chase Manhattan was unwilling to sponsor the full commitment. While Chase sought participants for the construction loan, temporary financing was made available in the form of a line-of-credit. Ground was finally broken in December, 1974. But even this event was complicated by the absence of a construction tax agreement on the day of the groundbreaking. CCF threatened to postpone construction until an accord was reached, and the City quickly signed the necessary documents.

Home Page