Millennium Tower (Filene's) | 426 Washington Street | Downtown

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, I think "bland" is the word--not a terrible building but when we get so few opportunities for something on this scale this is the best we can do?
I've been interested to see all the scorn poured on 888 Boylston and all the love MT gets; feels like being in some parallel universe where up is down...
 
JohnAKeith said:
This building is so bland.
Click to expand...

Tombstoner said:
Yes, I think "bland" is the word-......
Click to expand...

Is the John Hancock also bland?

Tombstoner said:
.....not a terrible building but when we get so few opportunities for something on this scale this is the best we can do?
Click to expand...

The tower was originally supposed to be built at 495'. The hole was dug and everything. Then the recession hit, and they came back with a scaled down 420' which luckily didn't happen.

When this came back years later with Millennium, it was originally 600'. Then 606'. As the top of downtown's plateau were 5 buildings between 590'-614', this would have been a 6th in that range, substantial but hardly groundbreaking in size. It also had this top.





Then it went to 625', and suddenly the wonderful 685' sleek glass tower we ended up with. The scale we ended up with kind of came out of nowhere!

It's Boston's tallest building in 40 years, bears strong resemblances to the Hancock, hasn't even finished yet, and adds a distinctive peak without a flat roof. I swear, nothing pleases some of you.

PS 888 is mostly criticized on the general form and location. Short, fat, stumpy, blocks the Pru and kind of "dumbs down" the look of the whole area when you're there. I don't see what one building has to do with the other.
 
Last edited:
The reason I personally like this tower so much is it is a Boston tower. It clearly took cues from different parts of the city and combined them into the crown jewel (for now) of downtown. So many buildings going up here and in other cities are just anywhere usa towers. This building took cues from obviously the Hancock (wide rectangle on very thin sides, tasteful vertical lines up the entire facade, very reflective blue glass, they even did a modern take on the black mechanical floor of the Hancock and gave this tower that same feel but used them for penthouses), atlantic wharfs roof, also the setback lines up perfectly with the old peak of downtown and then the crown stands above it to declare I am the new King. Don't forget the base is also a part of this building and they incorporated it into the old streetscape masterfully. The fourth picture down on this page sums up in one image why I love this city.
 
chrisbrat said:
hmmm... so you feel 888 boylston should get love and MT scorn?
Click to expand...

I think 888 should get more love than it does; it's not amazing, it could stand to be 150' taller and the windmills are gimmicky, but it fits its context so beautifully and cleanly. It has a presence. I don't know why I love it but I do.
I think MT will do great things at street level for DTX, so scorn isn't appropriate, but rhapsodizing about its beauty just seems...odd and genuinely incomprehensible to me (and I'm not passing judgment on others' taste--if you love it, you love it--I just ain't seeing it). So many beautiful buildings are being built in the world and a glass slab with a slanted roof and some indented striation wouldn't get a second glance in most cities. The Hancock tower is elegant and original. MT is derivative in every way (others--like stick n move-- like that it is an obvious homage to the Hancock, but homages usually try to put an interesting spin on/provide some insight into their inspiration). JohnAKeith chose the perfect word I thought: bland. Not an eyesore. Not a disaster. No need for hyperbole. Of course it's a matter of taste and one's points of reference--that goes without saying.
 
It's above average but I wouldn't say it's anything spectacular. It's essentially a higher quality, glassier version of the two Millennium Place towers down the block. The shape is nearly the same. In short, it's nothing breakthrough but it's better than most of the towers that surrounds it. I'm more impressed with the Copley Tower than this.
 
The glass on the Hancock shimmers differently than MT, I don't know why. I thought about that before I criticized - would I some day like MT as I do the Hancock. I don't think so.

Who knows.
 
The glass is still extremely dirty. That definitely plays into the aesthetic. Hopefully they wash it prior to opening in the summer, otherwise people's million dollar views are going to be very disappointing.
 
datadyne007 said:
The glass is still extremely dirty. That definitely plays into the aesthetic. Hopefully they wash it prior to opening in the summer, otherwise people's million dollar views are going to be very disappointing.
Click to expand...

This building needs a massive powerwashing/window cleaning!
 
Here's the magazine cover shot - welcome to DTX:

E6Wyu9L.jpg
 
Tombstoner said:
I think 888 should get more love than it does; it's not amazing, it could stand to be 150' taller and the windmills are gimmicky, but it fits its context so beautifully and cleanly. It has a presence. I don't know why I love it but I do.
I think MT will do great things at street level for DTX, so scorn isn't appropriate, but rhapsodizing about its beauty just seems...odd and genuinely incomprehensible to me (and I'm not passing judgment on others' taste--if you love it, you love it--I just ain't seeing it). So many beautiful buildings are being built in the world and a glass slab with a slanted roof and some indented striation wouldn't get a second glance in most cities. The Hancock tower is elegant and original. MT is derivative in every way (others--like stick n move-- like that it is an obvious homage to the Hancock, but homages usually try to put an interesting spin on/provide some insight into their inspiration). JohnAKeith chose the perfect word I thought: bland. Not an eyesore. Not a disaster. No need for hyperbole. Of course it's a matter of taste and one's points of reference--that goes without saying.
Click to expand...

Dont get me wrong Im not saying this is the greatest tower ever, not by a long shot. Im just saying for a 685 ft tower that hopefully will be overtaken soon this does a very good job at playing its role and I appreciate the homage it payed to other towers to make it fit in. This is not even close to my favorite building ever, I was just saying it looks good and it barely even breaks the plateau so it plays its role well. Once we get that 750ft winthrop tower + 1 bromfield if those come out good this will just be another pretty good tower on a skyline that used to be a time travel into the 1970s. The govt center office tower very well may become the greatest tower in boston, well have to wait n see.
 
So I am working at Boston Conservatory this week and driving in from worcester everyday and noticed that Millennium tower in now the third building that pokes up above the hill just before the Mass Pike Extension starts. It was amazing this morning when i noticed that. It is no longer 2 lonely spires of the hancock and pru.
 
The thing this tower has that a lot of our other buildings lack is a sense of presence. From atop Beacon Hill it dominates the view down towards Tremont and downtown and it looks really good doing it.
 
Not thrilled about the open roof, but worse things have happened. Great shots, DZH.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top