Drawdown

Boston, MA

Markley Group – One Summer Street

Markley Group · Operating · 1 Summer Street

The largest multi-tenant telecommunications "carrier hotel" in New England, home to more than 90 carriers and network providers. Markley Group purchased the building in 1997 and opened it as a carrier hotel and data center in 1998, three years before Markley's Lowell facility, giving it the longest continuous operating history of any facility tracked on this site.

Estimated water use

Estimate

01,500,000 gal/day

The operator has not disclosed a cooling technology, so this range spans every cooling type this site tracks, at the published capacity of 30 MW. The width of this range is exactly the uncertainty a cooling-type disclosure would remove.

By cooling technology

  • Fully air-cooled≈ 0 gal/day
  • Closed-loop chilled water21,300–55,500 gal/day
  • Evaporative cooling towers555,000–1,500,000 gal/day

30 MW capacity: datacenterhawk.com

Each scenario uses that technology's own published ratio and source. Scenarios are never averaged — no source supports a number in between.

Derived from published industry ratios; actual use depends on the cooling system chosen, operating conditions, load, and weather.

Lifecycle timeline

Observed

Confirmed events only, each with its source.

  1. ~January 1997

    Land acquisition

    Markley Group, founded in 1991, purchases One Summer Street in downtown Boston.

    Source
  2. ~January 1998

    Construction completed

    One Summer Street opens as a carrier hotel and data center, eventually becoming home to more than 90 carriers and network providers -- the largest multi-tenant telecommunications facility in New England.

    Source

Observed hydrologic data

Observed

From nearby USGS and NOAA monitoring stations, refreshed monthly. Dashed lines mark lifecycle milestones.

Groundwater level (ft below surface)

2 stations, overlaid · monthly average

Regulatory records

Observed

Water permits and environmental compliance records from MassDEP WMA permits and decisions and EPA ECHO.

No permit or compliance record from these sources currently matches this facility.

Drawdown story

Assessment

Is the water table's behavior near this facility consistent with its estimated draw — and how strong is the evidence? A fixed rubric, recomputed monthly; every number below is stored with the inputs that produced it. Method: attribution-v1.

  1. 1 · Pathway

    The operator has not disclosed where this facility's water comes from. Until a source is published, the assessment is capped: an unclassified pathway can never raise the score.

  2. 2 · Detectability

    At the high end of the estimate, the expected signal at the nearest monitored well 8.1 mi away is marginal (~0.8 ft) and may be lost in noise.

  3. 3 · Signal

    No monitored well within 2 miles of this facility — there is no near-field record to compare against controls.

The monitoring record around this facility is too sparse to assess.

Attribution evidence score: withheld · as of 2026-07-22 · attribution-v1

Estimate inputs uncertainNo monitored well within 2 miles
Pathway0/35
Detectability8/15
Temporal signal0/30
Robustness0/20