Four Seasons Tower @ CSC | 1 Dalton Street | Back Bay

[coleslaw]

You're even worse than the other guy. A total follower. What do you even do here?

With how much of the discourse here is repetitions of the same completely uncritical pro-market solutions, pro-developer geographic trickle-down drivel accusing me of all people here of being a total follower is laughable.

 

[DZH22]

With how much of the discourse here is repetitions of the same completely uncritical pro-market solutions, pro-developer geographic trickle-down drivel accusing me of all people here of being a total follower is laughable.

All I see here are flowery words without a shred of substance behind them.

This is how you come across from where I'm sitting...

Capture by David Z, on Flickr

 

[coleslaw]

All I see here are flowery words without a shred of substance behind them.

This is how you come across from where I'm sitting...

Capture by David Z, on Flickr

Many people here out of a completely nonsensical conception of supply and demand often suggest that building tall buildings full of luxury condos will somehow bring down rents or make housing more accessible in general. This mirrors trickle down economics in the geography where the rich and "innovation areas" are prioritized and we are led to believe this will somehow accrue benefits for others as well, however they do not ever seem to appear and instead communities are being priced out and displaced to further develop the city for the benefit of the rich, David Harvey calls this accumulation by dispossession. Building more luxury housing does fuckall for those who are struggling in this city. If you think that is shallow and pedantic I think you have a poor understanding of what those words mean.

 

[DZH22]

Many people here out of a completely nonsensical conception of supply and demand often suggest that building tall buildings full of luxury condos will somehow bring down rents or make housing more accessible in general. This mirrors trickle down economics in the geography where the rich and "innovation areas" are prioritized and we are led to believe this will somehow accrue benefits for others as well, however they do not ever seem to appear and instead communities are being priced out and displaced to further develop the city for the benefit of the rich, David Harvey calls this accumulation by dispossession. Building more luxury housing does fuckall for those who are struggling in this city. If you think that is shallow and pedantic I think you have a poor understanding of what those words mean.

There you go. You actually used an argument. What you didn't do is argue why THIS BUILDING in THIS LOCATION is a bad thing for the city, or what would make sense here instead of this. You also piggy-backed on the nonsense statement of "wooo a glass triangle" while there is not a single triangular shaped building I can think of in the whole city. It's a striking piece of architecture, which explains why people in an architectural forum would be excited about it.

That's what this really boils down to. Your whole argument seems centered more around being a SJW than about addressing the architecture itself. You piggy-backed on ty's opinion there, and that's why I eviscerated you.

 

[FenwayResident]

Many people here out of a completely nonsensical conception of supply and demand often suggest that building tall buildings full of luxury condos will somehow bring down rents or make housing more accessible in general. This mirrors trickle down economics in the geography where the rich and "innovation areas" are prioritized and we are led to believe this will somehow accrue benefits for others as well, however they do not ever seem to appear and instead communities are being priced out and displaced to further develop the city for the benefit of the rich, David Harvey calls this accumulation by dispossession. Building more luxury housing does fuckall for those who are struggling in this city. If you think that is shallow and pedantic I think you have a poor understanding of what those words mean.

I'm sympathetic to the idea of more low-income housing, but you're just impotently raging about income inequality here. A prime piece of property in the middle of Back Bay, with significant design challenges, is not going to get developed into low-income housing. Nor should it. Besides, even if this building were 100% low-income housing it wouldn't even make a dent in the larger housing shortage.

Instead you should be advocating for large-scale developments built around public transit further out of the city. We need to be building densely around our already-existing infrastructure in places that are cheaper than a tiny plot in the middle of Back Bay. Only then will we be able to build enough units to actually make a difference in our housing supply.

 

[odurandina]

I'm 3 hours behind. Beat the traffic into Pershing Sq. Had an hour to kill before my 9:00 am. Reading these posts wasn't a bad way to start my morning. Not as exhilarating as the drive through Las Virgines Cyn to Cars and Coffee (Malibu) yesterday....

Reading DZH defend one of the most unique structures going up in the country, as opposed to another blah or obnoxious tower (seen LA lately)? Great points.... I can't believe anyone could be any less than thrilled about this project on its merits, everyhing DZH said, and probably a few more good things about the concept, design and its execution we'll soon see. He's right. I believe it's going to be loved by almost everyone in the City -- less the most hardened haters of rich people things.

This tower is fucking amazing. Two amazings in 1 cycle? This isn't allowed. This is Boston.

 

[coleslaw]

There you go. You actually used an argument. What you didn't do is argue why THIS BUILDING in THIS LOCATION is a bad thing for the city, or what would make sense here instead of this. You also piggy-backed on the nonsense statement of "wooo a glass triangle" while there is not a single triangular shaped building I can think of in the whole city. It's a striking piece of architecture, which explains why people in an architectural forum would be excited about it.

That's what this really boils down to. Your whole argument seems centered more around being a SJW than about addressing the architecture itself. You piggy-backed on ty's opinion there, and that's why I eviscerated you.

The problem is my problem is not with this one building it is with the contemporary mode of development of the city. It goes deeper than this one building although this is indicative of it. I find that people here don't actually want to limit discussion to just the architecture, thinking the market solves everything predominates, only when someone points this out or challenges it is it then seen as political. If you think you "eviscerated" me by saying "its a triangle we have not many of those" over and over again I don't think you know what that word means. If you genuinely care about architecture I think that requires more than just caring about the exterior shell of buildings but also what is in them and the way they relate to the social world around them. The few people who are even slightly raising the issue of whether we want our city to become a sterile sea of glass boxes full of luxury condos, offices for the rulers of the internet, and overpriced chains are worth thinking a bit more about. Clearly you are more comfortable being a trumpet boy for those who are profiting on this, that's on you, just maybe think twice before calling others followers for not doing so.

I'm sympathetic to the idea of more low-income housing, but you're just impotently raging about income inequality here. A prime piece of property in the middle of Back Bay, with significant design challenges, is not going to get developed into low-income housing. Nor should it. Besides, even if this building were 100% low-income housing it wouldn't even make a dent in the larger housing shortage.

Instead you should be advocating for large-scale developments built around public transit further out of the city. We need to be building densely around our already-existing infrastructure in places that are cheaper than a tiny plot in the middle of Back Bay. Only then will we be able to build enough units to actually make a difference in our housing supply.

People in this thread are calling this building a renaissance and suggesting that it along with a few other towers would put a dent in housing prices, none of this is ranting (even though it is far more incoherent) only calling it into question is apparently. My point is precisely that it won't do anything but further a cycle of development that benefits the very few and that the priorities of the city correspond to that. If your only solution to affordable housing is build more housing, ignoring that affordable units are a tiny fraction of what is being built and that these developments are compounding not undermining gentrification, you are ignoring important questions of political power and control over resources. Something like bringing back rent control and tenant unions would do far more to increase affordable housing than building some new buildings that actually contribute to rising rents. I am not saying boston does not need new housing stock btw, only that for profit development prioritizes luxury markets over affordable housing by its nature, and that if we want to actually put a dent in rising rents we need to stop buying into the idea of trickle down development.

 

[odurandina]

People are being priced out because there's still an extreme shortage of development throughout the neighborhoods, and nil development of the outer urban and suburban environment just beyond.

If you avoid repetative and over-regulations, and stop sending high paying jobs overseas, the society prospers. Then you don't have to rely on economic theories. Everyone's too busy working and value producing.

 

[DominusNovus]

I'm sympathetic to the idea of more low-income housing, but you're just impotently raging about income inequality here. A prime piece of property in the middle of Back Bay, with significant design challenges, is not going to get developed into low-income housing. Nor should it. Besides, even if this building were 100% low-income housing it wouldn't even make a dent in the larger housing shortage.

Instead you should be advocating for large-scale developments built around public transit further out of the city. We need to be building densely around our already-existing infrastructure in places that are cheaper than a tiny plot in the middle of Back Bay. Only then will we be able to build enough units to actually make a difference in our housing supply.

And we need to realize that, if we want a more equitable distribution of housing options, we need to not choke off development for a few decades. There’s such a pent up demand and so many hoops to jump through that of course its the luxury units that are getting built. And they ultimately will help the supply of lower valued housing, as the rich stop using up housing that would otherwise be affordable to lower incomes.

 

[shmessy]

With how much of the discourse here is repetitions of the same completely uncritical pro-market solutions, pro-developer geographic trickle-down drivel accusing me of all people here of being a total follower is laughable.

Once again......Flint, Michigan.

You and Tysmith would love it there. No one is building skyscrapers for the rich. it's a regular paradise.

Increasing the city's revenue base is good and will provide more funds for below market priced affordable housing.

L-I-N-K-A-G-E.

https://owd.boston.gov/neighborhood-jobs-trust/

 

[coleslaw]

Once again......Flint, Michigan.

You and Tysmith would love it there. No one is building skyscrapers for the rich. it's a regular paradise.

Not sure why you think that somehow disproves my point. Capital in its transience leaves areas to rot as it centers itself in new places, or old places again. Leaving booms and busts embedded into our society and the landscape. Flint is the flipside of Boston. I am not a luddite, and a luddite would not likely see post industrial flint as an example either, or an austerian (which is typically imposed by the same people benefiting from this) I would like to see material conditions improve for working people. However this does nothing at all to do that.

 

[shmessy]

Not sure why you think that somehow disproves my point. Capital in its transience leaves areas to rot as it centers itself in new places, or old places again. Leaving booms and busts embedded into our society and the landscape. .........

Ahh, no. Only if those locations sit on their laurels and refuse to move with the times and stay relevant.

THAT is the difference between Flint and Boston. Maintenance AND GROWTH is what breeds survival. Maintenance alone is, indeed a recipe for economic death. A healthy balance, without knee-jerk reactions against growth drivers is what is needed.

Your "Zero-Sum" view is destructive. I'll put my hat in with those that look for solutions like the "Linkage" program.

Win-Win. try it

 

[bigpicture7]

...However this does nothing at all to do that.

cole, you are losing people who share many of your concerns and passions.

We don't need THIS skyscraper to solve income inequality. We need a system that leverages prosperity to improve the conditions, opportunities, infrastructure, schools...a system that smooths out boom-bust cycles...a system that helps sustain the type of society that the majority want/need...

You are making it sound like achieving those things necessitates canceling THIS skyscraper. That is ridiculous. There's money flowing into Boston...and so how can Boston as a whole benefit from that? The question is not: how can we figure out how to cancel One Dalton. The question is not: how can we figure out how to shut off the money spigot? The question is: how can we best leverage that money spigot!

And since One Dalton is not cancelled, it might as well look nice architecturally. And that is why people want to talk about the latter on this thread.

 

[kmp1284]

All I see here are flowery words without a shred of substance behind them.

This is how you come across from where I'm sitting...

Capture by David Z, on Flickr

Ned Isakov, and he's on a tear because he just got blacklisted from Hop Sing's...

 

[Coyote137]

Hey dickheads, we've had this argument many times over. Nobody's convincing anyone.

 

[dirtywater]

Can we create a separate thread for this discussion so that those of us who come to review or discuss a particular project don't have to be subjected to it?

 

[chrisbrat]

Can we create a separate thread for this discussion so that those of us who come to review or discuss a particular project don't have to be subjected to it?

this ^^^ times a billion.

ARCHboston.org -- not batshitsociopoliticalbabblinggrandstandingandselfcongratulatorybackpatting.org.

1 Dalton is a cool looking, well thought out building. I enjoy the photo updates and discussions about its design merits (and/or flaws).

 

[reverend_paco]

a politics-free picture of 1 Dalton:

 

[bigpicture7]

a politics-free picture of 1 Dalton:

I dunno, it really seems like you're viewing 1 Dalton through your particular lens.

Just kidding. Thanks for the pic.

 

[bosdevelopment]

Not sure why you think that somehow disproves my point. Capital in its transience leaves areas to rot as it centers itself in new places, or old places again. Leaving booms and busts embedded into our society and the landscape. Flint is the flipside of Boston. I am not a luddite, and a luddite would not likely see post industrial flint as an example either, or an austerian (which is typically imposed by the same people benefiting from this) I would like to see material conditions improve for working people. However this does nothing at all to do that.

Your writing is over-edited and neo-marxist in tone. I'd wager your life is in disorder.