Pierce Boston (née The Point )| Boylston St/Brookline Av | Fenway

i spent most of the spring, and 2 weeks in July in Chicago. (balance of the summer in Colorado and LA). Chicago is getting fantastic vertical and horizontal architecture to go with their cup already runeth over .... LA is going vertical with a half dozen new very tall towers planned on top of what is already u/c or breaking ground soon. It seems another 800' tower is proposed every other month. To breaking ground seems about 9-12 months on every one of them!.

Dare mention in the Globe or Archboston (an architectural forum) the miraculous effect 115 Winthrop, MT, SST, 1 Congress, Harbor Garage would have, or that 710' at 1 Bromfield would create a 2nd peak.....

people fly into rage, hurl endless vicious assaults, "yimby's are just as bad...."

To desire proposed projects (with the support of City Hall) actually get built, bring thousands of new jobs put food on the table, make it possible for our city to build new transit, and transform people's lives–doesn't make you a Yimby. No need to apologize for wanting to see Boylston Street fill with retail–instead of businesses closed and nothing to take their place.

How does desiring to see the final pieces of the chess board put up, and our forlorn 400-500' 60s and '70s boxes forming the infill of an incredible Downtown skyline make you a yimby?
 
Last edited:
HenryAlan said:
But that is the nature of flat irons.
Click to expand...

If only the Pierce could approach that - the Pierce is much fatter/squat looking from the side views, with its only good angle being straight on.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
bakgwailo said:
If only the Pierce could approach that - the Pierce is much fatter/squat looking from the side views, with its only good angle being straight on.
Click to expand...

The Pierce is 100 feet taller than the Flatiron, fatter yes but more squat looking? I don't see it. But seriously, to compare the Pierce to the Flatiron? Why even try, they're totally different buildings from totally different periods using totally different materials. Ok, so the Pierce is somewhat triangular (especially at the base podium), in that respect they're similiar.
 
atlantaden said:
The Pierce is 100 feet taller than the Flatiron, fatter yes but more squat looking? I don't see it. But seriously, to compare the Pierce to the Flatiron? Why even try, they're totally different buildings from totally different periods using totally different materials. Ok, so the Pierce is somewhat triangular (especially at the base podium), in that respect they're similiar.
Click to expand...

To quote a few posts from around this time last year:

JumboBuc said:
Approximate measures:
Waterside Place: 90m wide x 20 stories (76m) tall = 0.84 height-to-width ratio
Pierce Boston: 75m wide, 30 stories (115m) tall = 1.53 height-to-width ratio
Click to expand...

dirtywater said:
For purposes of comparison, the Flatiron Building is 190 feet wide on its widest side and 307 feet tall for a 1.62 height-to-width ratio. Its less about how wide it is and more about what you do with it. I'm still very optimistic that this will be a successful, iconic building for the area.
Click to expand...
 
I am really not understanding the disdain for the "fat" side, and I don't think this building is trying to be a flatiron.
 
atlantaden said:
But seriously, to compare the Pierce to the Flatiron? Why even try, they're totally different buildings from totally different periods using totally different materials. Ok, so the Pierce is somewhat triangular (especially at the base podium), in that respect they're similiar.
Click to expand...

Hey, the picture was posted - I couldn't help but compare it. Besides there were at least a few articles from various sources (both as the Point and Pierce) claiming it to be an iconic "modern" version of the flatiron - which I think it misses completely on. I don't hate it, and I actually dig the straight on view like I said, but, I don't see it really as iconic, and from other views I think it just looks like wide glass filler at best (and I don't get the trim and the mechanical penthouse choices). All in all I do like it, I just don't think its where the hype originally was putting it.
 
36838538446_d9fe9fd239_b.jpg
 
jass said:
Is the top supposed to look hideous?
Click to expand...

I see this every day and I've been wondering the same thing.

I don't think much of this building in general, but geez, the black sections above the top floor are awful.
 
It should have been all glass. Those metal panel vertical stripes/bands are awful.
 
The breathing gills should have been sprayed blue.

Somebody overVE'd it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top