Talk:List of tallest buildings in Cambridge, Massachusetts

The Green building seems to have height discrepancy
The Green Building (Building 54) at MIT seems to have a minor height discrepancies between sources. I was trying to find the building on the City Assessor's website 1) to include official parcel ID and 2) hopefully for clarity on the actual height, however it seems to be omitted from the site. Various sources claim it is 21 Ames (which has a number of buildings at that official street number however the Cambridge City Assessor's doesn't list it. I also tried Memorial Drive, Main Street and other locations trying to find it but it seems it is hidden or under some other pseudo address. Curious in deed. CaribDigita (talk) 03:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Found it.  It is lumped under #33 Massachusetts Avenue  Under "Commercial Building Number 32, Section 1" it seems. CaribDigita (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Perseverence sometimes does pay off. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Buildings over 200 feet in Cambridge with no verified heights
This article is missing the following buildings: Eastgate Married Student Housing [MIT], Watermark Residences, Archstone North Point Phase I, Fresh Pond Apartments I, II, III; Peabody Terrace Apartments I, II, III; Twenty|20

I need assistance please finding the height of these highrises. Fresh Pond Apartments and Peabody Terrace may not qualify if memory serves me right, they could be in the 190's range. Mountainfister2015 (talk) 10:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Emporis gives an estimated height for the Fresh Pond Apartments of 264.52 feet. As of March 2014 they gave 226.85 feet, and have since revised the published figure. With 22 stories, Peabody Terrace probably tops 200' even with its low ceiling heights. Hertz1888 (talk) 11:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposing to trim the list
With apologies to those who labored to grow and help grow the list in recent weeks, I propose to do a major pruning. I am finding that information on the shorter buildings is often inaccurate, skimpy, or simply unavailable, making it impossible to guarantee that the list is complete. Unless it is complete, it would be a misrepresentation to call it a list of the tallest, and many rankings will be meaningless. As new buildings at the shorter end of the scale, where solid information is hardest to obtain, will proliferate the fastest, long-term maintenance of a comprehensive list down to 200 feet may be an unrealistic ambition despite the best of intentions and commitment. I think that a threshold of 250 feet (perhaps we could say 240) is a realistic cutoff for this particular urban area. Raising the threshold for inclusion to such a level would produce a compact list that can be kept complete and accurate with a high degree of confidence. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I suggest that the list stays as it is for the following reasons: 1. Springfield and Worcester lists go well below 200' due to the fact that the tallest buildings in those cities range from 400' to 150'. There appears to be no bottom limit on those pages. 2. For just the city of Cambridge, I think 200' is a fair cut off number. However, buildings taller than the city hall (158') would be interesting to know and find out. 3. Does Wikipedia have a minimum height limit? The answer is no, even though I accepted a minimum height of 250' for the tallest buildings outside of Boston list, which made sense. 4. The more information, the better. This article is very informative to skyscraper buffs as well as for citizens / government of Cambridge who want to know more about their city. This could possibly have a positive or negative affect on future affairs.


 * If there is inaccurate information, then please inform me and I will correct it. I will have to work harder (which is not an issue, a standard is a standard) to find more sources that are reliable. Thank you for taking the time to quality control my work, I do appreciate it. Mountainfister2015 (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't doubt your abilities or willingness to work hard, but am concerned that some information is just not there to be found. "The more information, the better" is an admirable ideal, but information in WP must be verifiable in a reliable source. What will you do when heights are unpublished? I think we can say that in general the higher the building, the more celebrated and well documented; conversely, the lower the building the less likely for reliable information (or any information at all) to make it into Emporis and other databases. We must have reasonable criteria to keep the list complete and accurate and save it from being misleading and a futile effort. Rather than apply a lower height limit as such, we might consider following the customary practice in Emporis of listing the 20 tallest buildings in a given municipality. As for Cambridge City Hall, its height was surpassed long ago, and many times since. That ship has sailed. One example of a flaw in the current table is the absence of Rindge Towers (Fresh Pond Apartments). That makes all given rankings below the towers' height erroneous.


 * It would be helpful to hear what others might have to say about setting reasonable criteria for the list. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think trimming is very helpful without a demonstrably clear criterion to trim with that would increase accuracy. Unfortunately it's not the case that taller buildings are more accurate, nor that older buildings are. If anything, newer buildings are more likely to undergo rigorous permitting that leaves a clearer record of actual height than older buildings, and sometimes as a side effect of that permitting, height information (in the form of plans) is available online.


 * Unfortunately this really cries out for some Original Research. I don't know what to do about that. Given that in most parts of Cambridge, you cannot build buildings much above 80', I don't think a 200' threshold makes a lot of sense. jhawkinson (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Some very interesting view points shared. When I first came up with the idea for this list last year I realized no sources at this time accurately depicted Cambridge's high-rise order.  As more are going up in North Point, Kendal (and its environs), and CambridgePort/Central Square I started to realize I don't know all of the new buildings going up.
 * The creation of this list I hoped to be an attempt at clarity as long as references could note even where things are flawed so it isn't original research. For example the current Sullivan tower note states tallest building built in the 1970s.  I believe that could conflict with the estimated height of The Rindge Towers (for example) built I believe something like 1971, 72, and 74? those are estimated to be roughly 282 feet (There is also a rumor of the middle tower having settled a bit due to clay footing below the towers.)
 * I've also noticed all sources neglect Harvard's William James Hall building at 33 Kirkland Street and it made me wonder is really as tall as it looks? or is it just due to the fact that everything else around there is only a few stories?
 * The Museum Towers are in NorthPoint, when MediaOne/AT&T Broadband was still the cable co. those towers were the locations where MediaOne first tested it's local digital phone services. I've lost track of which was built first a.k.a. Museum Tower I & which was II. CaribDigita (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The links here give 1970 as completion date of the Rindge Towers (now Fresh Pond Apartments). Addition of this group to the list is a task still awaiting attention. As noted in the previous thread, the height is sourced at Emporis, according to which they are tall enough for sixth place, but not tall enough to displace the ex-courthouse. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * P.S. Emporis has revised the published height again. The Towers seem to have grown nearly five feet since January. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing for height figures
How do we know the Kendall Square report and zoning proposal are reliable sources of architectural heights? I would say that we don't. Judging from how the Green Building is plotted at its pinnacle height, these sources cannot be relied upon for architectural heights (i.e., height without penthouses, mechanical rooms and other appurtenances), and better sourcing needs to be found. Lacking that, I suggest we mark the heights as estimated ("est."). Hertz1888 (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree until further, hands on research can be done.Mountainfister2015 (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned about the 2 recent edits, and I wanted to highlight them here. MIT numbers all the buildings on its campus and its how they are generally referred to. | MIT Building 4 is part of the classic Bosworth Main Group buildings, and is nearly 100 years old. But confusingly, MIT's special permit application for its Main Street development has marked the proposed buildings "Building 1" through "Building 5," which have no relation to the existing buildings of those names/numbers. They have also adopted the terminology "NoMa" and "SoMa" for north and south of main street. I don't really think there is a good term for any of these developments, and there hasn't been enough discussion to know how people are going to refer to them (and MIT hasn't assigned them official numbers yet?), so I've relucantly changed "Building 4" to "SoMa#4." I don't think that's a very good choice, and I think it might be unwise to popularize the SoMa/NoMa wording, but I don't see an obvious better choice ("Special Permit #303, Building 4"?).

On its architectural height, I don't know what to make of Emporis, or how credible you find it. Looking at the actual filing, the only thing above the 299'7" roof line are 2 elevator shaft penthouses that reach 315'. I'm not sure what the right definition of "architectural height" is, and whether penthouses should normally be counted, but because these two are so far in from the edge of the building, I'm skeptical they'll be visible from the ground in a meaningful way (but this is the N/S elevation; the E/W elevation would probably have them more prominent? It doesn't seem to be included?):

I dunno?

And with respect to 88 Ames St., I'm not sure what definitions we're using for "proposed" and "approved." Maybe it's hypertechnical to say 88 Ames isn't "approved" because it hasn't been issued a building permit. I don't think we would say it wasn't approved because it hasn't been issued a certificate of occupancy… But special permits and building permits aren't the same, and the special permit was certainly the significant high-hurdle? Anyhow, hopefully my edit there was clear without being pointlessly over technical? jhawkinson (talk) 02:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I am…again skeptical that the special permit filing for the new One Broadway extension accurately depicts the architectural height of the current One Broadway building. It just shows it as an unadorned rectangle, so it's not clear what figure 27 (p.10) is referring to. It's my intention to revert that sequence of edits in a day or so, absent guidance here. It's really tempting to do some original research and go measure the architectural heights of the buildings myself, but that's probably not the right way to resolve this either. (Or is it?) Thanks. jhawkinson (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Figure 27 is one source I used for the update; the other sources I used were figure 43 (p.26 in the same PDF file) and Emporis.com. Lets discuss this before the edits are reverted. On another note (after looking at your questions above), please go to Emporis.com > click on BUILDINGS in the top heading > click on Emporis Standards on the left side of the page > look at the structures section - I use this when referring to building heights and statuses. Mountainfister2015 (talk) 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid Figure 43 makes me even more skeptical — it says 230 feet plus-or-minus (±), and gives nothing to suggest it's the architectural height. I'm not sure what your point is about Emporis; I assume you're referring to | their definition of architectural height? I agree that seem to define it correctly, but that doesn't say anything about the quality of their data. Where does it come from? How do we know? jhawkinson (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, Emporis is the premier site on the net for building height data. The data presented there is a combination of original data and what is available on the internet. As a contributor to that site too, any new data that is submitted goes through a vetting process before it is published. As you may have already noticed, it is used for the majority references in this page, as well as other Wikipedia highrise pages. Hopefully this summer I will get a chance to visit Cambridge City hall to delve into what I hope to be a wealth of original data for submission here and at Emporis. In the mean time, what we have here is the best information that is available, excluding the trip to city hall. I look forward to making this page, with your help and Hertz1888's help, the most accurate Cambridge "highrise" reference available. I am game for any suggestions, and I would like to discuss in the future some of my own for this page. Mountainfister2015 (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * So you're saying Emporis is a crowdsourced aggregation of building height data? That doesn't sound like a reliable reference to me at all; it seems like a guarantee of highly variable data quality, as well as confusion between main roof height and pinnacle height and whatnot. (Actually, rereading Emporis' definition of architecural height, I'm a lot less sure it is what we want here, as it includes spires, sculptures, and decorative features?) I'm not sure what you're hoping to get at Cambridge City Hall, but I can guarantee you'll be disappointed. One block away (831 Mass Ave) is Cambridge Inspectional Services; for anything older than 2013, you're going to find that in general the plans of buildings are not easily accessible (national security exemption to the public records law). Going and measuring myself is sounding better and better (ugh) jhawkinson (talk) 03:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I too am skeptical about Emporis and especially disappointed in learning perceiving that its definition of architectural height seems to blur the usual distinction between pinnacle and architectural heights (with & without appurtenances, respectively). Whose published information can one trust, then? Remembering that what we put into WP must be verifiable in published sources is another reason city hall visits probably will not be fruitful. Let me make a suggestion. Posting the question of reliable height sourcing on this talk page will reach a wider group with more collective experience than our small circle here, and may result in useful guidance. I won't be initiating the inquiry myself, but perhaps someone else here will pursue it. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * After reviewing the explanations given here and here, I am more comfortable with Emporis's definition. The main difference between "standard height" and "pinnacle height" in the linked article is antenna towers and masts. I believe mechanical rooms and roof-mounted equipment are also generally excluded from standard height. Perhaps the distinction is not so blurred in Emporis after all. Spires are in, antennas are out. Not that the ambiguity is completely gone, however; as the Boston buildings article states, "architectural features and spires can be regarded as subjective".
 * The question of the accuracy of Emporis's data (or anyone else's) is another matter (see below). Hertz1888 (talk) 08:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Earlier I said, "It's really tempting to do some original research and go measure the architectural heights of the buildings myself, but that's probably not the right way to resolve this either. (Or is it?)" This didn't work out as well as I hoped. I borrowed a laser rangefinder and intended to measure some approximate heights using the triangle method (measure base of triangle, hypotenuse of triangle, and calculate height of triangle), but it's really hard to get a reading over 150' or so without a white target at the other end, even at night. I did go up to the top of the Green Building and measure straight down to a target on the ground, and I get an architectural height of 276.58 feet: from the base of the building to the top of the parapet wall (approx. 3½' above roof surface). Another 50' on top of that for the Crow's Nest should be around 325', plus antennas above that. I don't really get why the current listing reads 295' or why it offers a pinnacle height of 312' for the large radome, given that that's not the tallest appurtenance on the roof. I didn't bother to measure the top of the large radome. Anyhow, this is original research so it's not offered for its truth, but rather as a sanity check for the sources on this page. My vague from-memory recollection is the Green Building plans were supposed to be 263', but that memory is like a decade old and fairly suspect, esp. as I dug through my crummy copy of selected construction drawings just now and I can't find any height information (other than of individual roof structures)… Maybe I can try to find a more capable rangefinder though… jhawkinson (talk) 04:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

P.S.: It also seems like a mistake that this article doesn't define what it means by height (and clearly we need to be more specific than "architectural height" since that seems to mean different things to different people. Though I suppose in its current ambiguity perhaps it has the virtue of making the figures in it more correct, even if we have no confidence that the different buildings are measured in consistent ways. jhawkinson (talk) 05:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And if the figures are published in a source generally regarded as reliable, we are entitled to use them. Absolute accuracy may be hard to come by or to guarantee. We can certainly state, as a disclaimer, that the accuracy of the data is that of the cited sources. We are not required to be absolutely accurate, we are only required to provide verifiable, reliable sourcing. Hertz1888 (talk) 08:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I guess it's my fear that nothing here approaches reliable sourcing. In particular, this page cherry-picks data on building heights from multiple sources and puts them in a context that effectively adds new information: ranking. This page says the Green Building is taller than the Marriott which is taller than Eastgate which is taller than 75 Ames Street. That's a conclusion that I don't think the data we have support (because we have no confidence they are measuring the height in the same way), and it's one I am somewhat skeptical of. I don't know what we do about that, since the premise of this page is really ranking, and I suspect people would be upset if we just deleted that column (and even if we did, it would still be implicit by listing heights in a sortable table). jhawkinson (talk) 12:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, here is my two cents on all of this (and I will be working from bottom up with the responses above) Ranking: It provides the list part of the article a base and order to start from. Second, all of the other articles with skyscrapers / high-rise are built that way. It just makes sense. Accuracy of information: Judging from my personal experience, most of the height figures out there (the internet, newspapers, etc.) are wrong or distorted. A great case for that is definitely the Green building or Eastgate housing. Jhawkinson, I think what you did 3 responses above on the Green building was friggin' great, and we need more of that! I totally agree with you that more hands on needs to be done. As for myself, I have had a great amount of success at the planning offices in Sanford, Gorham, Portland and South Portland (all in Maine) when looking for information on blue prints. But, even with original prints, the information can still be hard to extract due to different height definitions in each municipality. Now, in the case of this page, I have used the plans and elevations from cambridge.gov to get the height information for the SOMA project, NOMA project and Ames Street high-rises. They look pretty accurate to me, especially after adding in the mechanical floors (Which are not included in Cambridge height figures). What is your take on these information sources? Lastly, we could be on to something that is just broke everywhere, and could be worthy of a conversation while having a beer. Think about it. Mountainfister2015 (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the plans that accompany special permit filings (e.g. MIT's SOMA/NOMA and 75 Ames St.) are good indicators of how the building is intended to be constructed, and meet the threshold of reliability for inclusion in a page like this, with some provisos: That we read them correctly and more importantly, consistently, e.g. the question that started this thread about whether SOMA#4 is 299'7" or 315'0". And also that we recognize those are not building plans, they are special permit applications (in some cases, only applications, not approved yet, like SOMA/NOMA), and therefore they are subject to change. Height is a significant enough feature that the special permit granting authority would probably have to be involved if it were to change, at least in the upward direction, but if they shortened the building by one foot, I don't think that would trigger any additional filings. The reliable source would be the construction plans associated with the building permit filing, and in Cambridge the process is that the planning department is required to certify that those plans are in "substantial conformance" with the special permit filings that you linked to. On the other hand, the filing for the One Broadway extension which just shows a rectangle for the original One Broadway is probably not a reliable source for the height of One Broadway. jhawkinson (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Jhawkinson, after a lengthy review, I have determined the main roof height of SOMA building 4 to be 299'7" according to Emporis standard 19686 (main roof height). I have also determined that the architectural height to be 330' according to Emporis standard 19417 and Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH) height measurement criteria no. 1. I made these determinations from the final development plan portion of PB303 MIT Kendall Square "SoMa" PUD, subsection Buildings (2/5) on the cambridge.gov/planning site. After looking at the development proposal plan for SOMA building 4, I noticed that the mechanical section added on 15' in vertical height. Now, after saying all that, what remains missing are the tip/pinnacle height (Emporis standard 56239 and CTBUH height measurement criteria no. 3) for the building. You will notice that in the diagram describing the height of the building, the elevator houses are absent, whereas in the elevations, that are present. I suggest that for the time being for this proposed building that we list the main roof and architectural height of this building. Your comments. Mountainfister2015 (talk) 00:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * We are under no obligation to deal with pinnacle heights at all. Why complicate things? Buildings topped by radio masts and towers are very rare—even Boston has only three where the standard architectural height (main roof height) is exceeded by such appurtenances. The sole example in Cambridge is the radome on the Green Building, already handled in a note. Mechanical rooms, elevator houses, HVAC units, etc., all seldom visible from the street, don't count. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * it would be much easier to follow and check your work if you used links! I believe you are referring to | Emporis's architecural height 19417 and | MIT SOMA FDP Buildings 2/5? The first problem is that Emporis' definition of "architectural height" isn't clearly correct, because it includes spires, &c. I agree the FDP version shows a 330' height on in Figure E50, the north/south section, though it is missing all detail above the roof line. It's therefore not apparent whether that 330' includes the penthouse that appears to project above the roof screen wall in elevations Figures E47-E49. And it's also not clear to me whether we would want to count that penthouse as part of architectural height, even if we knew. So I'd say it is somewhat uncertain. This argues well against listing buildings before they have even submitted final construction drawings. This building could remain unbuilt for a decade (though that's unlikely)!


 * Unfortunately, antennas are a signficant issue. The Green Building's tallest appurtenance is the 50' crows nest tower, which then has additional antennas above it. Top of the Crow's Nest is approx. 324', whereas the top of the radome at 308' (my original research). Eastgate has a huge radio tower as well. My inclination would be to say that the Green Building's crow's nest is an integral attachment to the original building in a way that Eastgate's antenna tower is not, but I'm skeptical either one is "architectural height." Both can be seen from the ground, however (54's crows nest has a strobe atop it; Eastgate's tower has red lighting all the way up). Also, where a mechanical space is effectively its own story and is clearly visible from the ground and hardly distinguishable from the rest of the building, I'm not sure it would be right to exclude it. That certainly seems to be an issue for SOMA#4, though debatably it is a screen wall rather than a story? I am not certain. In other news, I have a line on some better methodology for measuring the actual heights of these buildings, I'll report back on that next week sometime hopefully. jhawkinson (talk) 01:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I forgot Eastgate (oops). That makes two Cambridge buildings with antenna towers. I'm not sure that makes antennas a significant issue; Eastgate can also be handled with a simple note.
 * To be clear, the mechanical rooms I was referring to are those on the main roof, set back; you seem, I think, to be referring to mechanical spaces constituting the upper story, where, of course, the main roof is above them. It would make no sense to exclude that variety.
 * This already very long thread has deviated from its original subject concerning the sourcing of height figures. If we're going to discuss particular buildings in detail, I would suggest starting one or more new threads. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)