Kenmore Square North (WHOOP) | 533-541 Commonwealth Ave | Fenway

stick n move said:
Somehow this came out even worse

image.jpg


View attachment 73664
Click to expand...
We need a cringe emoji for this one. Yeesh.

I still can't get over how cheap and plasticly The Whoop still looks to me. The windows look like saran wrap.
 
It looks like a LEGO building, only not even real LEGOs but a Chinese whitelabel knockoff.

Then again, that applies to 90% of contemporary architecture - this is just an example of run-of-the-mill contemporary architecture (just as the much-nicer building it replaced was an example of run-of-the-mill pre-WWII architecture)...
 
It just baffles me that Boston puts developers through such a laborious, tedious review process only to end up with projects like this...? It defies belief and is honestly so upsetting. Does anyone in local government understand what makes Boston's cityscape interesting, or how new development can add to the city's urban fabric in a meaningful way? I am just so sick of these cheap-looking projects.
 
Charlie_mta said:
It's a sin they didn't keep the original facade. Its floor heights were identical to the new building so it would have fit in nicely, plus look a 1,000 times better.
Click to expand...
Agreed, and case in point is the Kendall square area by comparison. Numerous projects in/around Kendall have invested in full facade preservation of otherwise unremarkable historic industrial buildings. It's been a game changer in terms of preserving a sense of historic character of the neighborhood.
 
bagel4boston said:
It just baffles me that Boston puts developers through such a laborious, tedious review process only to end up with projects like this...? It defies belief and is honestly so upsetting. Does anyone in local government understand what makes Boston's cityscape interesting, or how new development can add to the city's urban fabric in a meaningful way? I am just so sick of these cheap-looking projects.
Click to expand...
Design review destroys good design and reduces it to the lowest common denominator. There's a great case study on this very forum for the newish building at Dartmouth and Newbury.
 
bagel4boston said:
It just baffles me that Boston puts developers through such a laborious, tedious review process only to end up with projects like this...? It defies belief and is honestly so upsetting. Does anyone in local government understand what makes Boston's cityscape interesting, or how new development can add to the city's urban fabric in a meaningful way? I am just so sick of these cheap-looking projects.
Click to expand...
It really is insane, go through years and years of the arduous community process only to end up with a bag of ass. Isnt that the opposite of how things are supposed to work?

I do give boston credit though that weve been doing a great job at filling in empty lots and when something is demolished most of the time its nothing very noteworthy. Thats what makes kenmore square even more annoying though because the buildings were noteworthy AND there is an empty lot literally directly across the street.
IMG_5983.jpeg
 
curcuas said:
Design review destroys good design and reduces it to the lowest common denominator. There's a great case study on this very forum for the newish building at Dartmouth and Newbury.
Click to expand...
I have to respectfully disagree, I think your referring to the newish building that houses the "Google store". It's in the Back Bay landmark preservation district, it may not be spectacular but from a pedestrian's perspective it's way better than most of the shlock that's built elsewhere in Boston . To my eye, what's built in landmark districts with strict design review, generally results in better overall design than what has been constructed elsewhere in Boston. There is some design review protocol outside of historic landmark districts in Boston but it seems to be ineffective at least in my opinion, and results in disappointing projects such as the Whoop building. Overall, other cities, such as DC, seem to fare better in regard to new construction.
 
Here's t
commuter guy said:
I have to respectfully disagree, I think your referring to the newish building that houses the "Google store". It's in the Back Bay landmark preservation district, it may not be spectacular but from a pedestrian's perspective it's way better than most of the shlock that's built elsewhere in Boston . To my eye, what's built in landmark districts with strict design review, generally results in better overall design than what has been constructed elsewhere in Boston. There is some design review protocol outside of historic landmark districts in Boston but it seems to be ineffective at least in my opinion, and results in disappointing projects such as the Whoop building. Overall, other cities, such as DC, seem to fare better in regard to new construction.
Click to expand...
Whoop building with some of the design elements of Newbury and Dartmouth
 

Attachments

  • Image 3.jpeg
    Image 3.jpeg
    492.4 KB · Views: 69
  • Image 2.jpeg
    Image 2.jpeg
    449.1 KB · Views: 69
commuter guy said:
I have to respectfully disagree, I think your referring to the newish building that houses the "Google store". It's in the Back Bay landmark preservation district, it may not be spectacular but from a pedestrian's perspective it's way better than most of the shlock that's built elsewhere in Boston .
Click to expand...
I agree regarding that building, especially as it replaced a parking lot.
 
commuter guy said:
I have to respectfully disagree, I think your referring to the newish building that houses the "Google store". It's in the Back Bay landmark preservation district, it may not be spectacular but from a pedestrian's perspective it's way better than most of the shlock that's built elsewhere in Boston . To my eye, what's built in landmark districts with strict design review, generally results in better overall design than what has been constructed elsewhere in Boston. There is some design review protocol outside of historic landmark districts in Boston but it seems to be ineffective at least in my opinion, and results in disappointing projects such as the Whoop building. Overall, other cities, such as DC, seem to fare better in regard to new construction.
Click to expand...
You're missing the point: design review made it *worse* than what the developers wanted to build, not that the final design is awful. If you go to the thread here on ArchBoston, you will see a wide variety of more interesting designs that were initially proposed, then watered down in design review to something much less interesting and welcoming. The new building is definitely good, don't get me wrong, but much *less* good than it could have been.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top