Bulfinch Triangle Infill & Small Projects

I believe you are correct.

In terms of style, I'd call these projects: "Chili's," "Ruby Tuesday" & "Appleby's" -- same here as everywhere else...
 
Beton Brut said:
I believe you are correct.

In terms of style, I'd call these projects: "Chili's," "Ruby Tuesday" & "Appleby's" -- same here as everywhere else...
Click to expand...

Very perceptive, very funny yet very true. I guess when you're trying to please about everyone, those are the styles that will do the trick. Easy on the eye, not controversial, compliments the neighbors pretty well...adds some splashes of color here and there. I frankly don't think the neighbors would want it any other way.
 
It's a shame that in a neighborhood that takes its very name from Boston's greatest architect, we can't expect something better than what's being built here.
 
That's a nice building. Nice is the word I will use. Not great but not terrible. It will blend into the background nicely.
 
atlantaden said:
This is getting confusing....all these parcels suddenly coming on line/or ready for approval. Is this parcel 1b directly across the street (east) from Avenir? Is there someone clever enough to show a map with the parcels and the development that will be happening on each parcel? Correct me if I'm mistaken.....the above one ,the Merano, will have two Marriot hotels and no residential, the Greenway Center will have the Stop and Shop and no residential, and Avenir will have 250+ residential rentals. So, these are the big 3 I guess with a few smaller ones as well?
Click to expand...

I believe the sequence west to east is: Avenir, Simpson, and Merano. Greenway is south of these three.
 
The middle rendering actually looks quite nice. The other two, especially the bottom one, make this building look appalling.

This project could turn out to be decent. But there's no way it'll be as nice as what was torn down was. And if the plot had been split up and the various pieces sold to different developers, I bet even a CBT could've done a better job with some of the individual smaller buildings.
 
Do we know what was torn down? Some of the demolition here was a century or more ago, to make way for the elevated Green and Orange lines.
 
To further answer ablarc's question, that blank plot is a parking lot (you can see the little office structure lurking in the shadows). However, that vast majority of their lot ran along the backside of the existing buildings, and the Merano will wipe out at least 80% of their spaces.

Why this development doesn't include that last little piece in their plans, I don't know. Not doing so probably means it'll stay empty for quite some time, since there aren't many developers out there interested in ~2,000 sq ft parcels.
 
itchy said:
The middle rendering actually looks quite nice.
Click to expand...

It faces the Zakim -- perhaps something "worthy" of the approach from the bridge would have been better. Think Richard Meier, and I don't generally like Richard Meier. This render shows polite building. But what would Rafael Moneo do? Or ?lvaro Siza?

itchy said:
...there's no way it'll be as nice as what was torn down was.
Click to expand...

But could we build something of quality. Something bold and imaginative that enlives the space, instead of three scoops of disingenuous, deferential contextualism. Collectively these three projects might turn out to be a lost opportunity. It's about the materials, and the tenants. Bulfinch Triangle is only saved by its density from being as dull as the South Boston Waterfront.

itchy said:
...if the plot had been split up and the various pieces sold to different developers, I bet even a CBT could've done a better job with some of the individual smaller buildings.
Click to expand...

I could live with eight buildings as good as Niketown on this site.
 
explain to me... What's better? Something new that fits in fairly well with its surroundings or something very bold that has a very good chance of being viewed as an albatross in 20 years?
 
I've grown weary with the "faux-warehouse eclectic" that seems to be Boston's default style of late. Let Kansas City and Atlanta build "nice" -- these parcels deserved something great, and none of these buildings qualify.

And on your albatross -- there's no accounting for taste, and in any event, my disappointment about how the Bulfinch Triangle build-out will look is more than a matter of taste. It's a matter of civic ambition -- I see none in evidence here.

I'm well aware that good architects can phone it in. Two of Cesar Pelli's would-be Boston projects (South Station and that abomination Druker has proposed for the Shreve's site) are phone-ins. And I know the public is fickle, mainly because most people have no earthly idea what's good in the first place.

I can't say what should be built in the Bulfinch Triangle, but I wish it were better than these three brick-n-precast cures for insomnia.
 
Last edited:
^^ Agree. On a somewhat-unrelated note, I've never understood the lip service Pelli is given as a "great architect." I find his buildings dull and pedestrian. Much like IM Pei or Richard Meier, I'm very suspicious when a new project with Pelli's name comes up. It's too-often unambitious and, well, lame. At least with Pei and Meier, much as they fail to excite me, they were groundbreaking in their day.
 
When the Triangle is built out, will there still be a good view of the Zakim Bridge from anywhere downtown? I love seeing the Zakim from the North End Greenway parks, but that's not going to last long.
 
Elsewhere on the Greenway, developers brought in Libeskind and Safdie to design imaginative buildings that showed "civic ambition" and everyone has panned them as ugly crap, myself included. On these parcels, the developers are building pleasant buildings that blend into the urban fabric, and you're panning them as being "pedestrian" and that favorite of ArchBoston posters: "boring."

These are fair criticisms for TNP and other high-rises which will determine Boston's face and are meant to make a statement, but for filling in what the elevated highway destroyed, "boring" is good. I don't want every building on these plots making a statement. That isn't their purpose. They are meant to restore what the highway took away, which was rowhouses and factory buildings.

Consequently, I see nothing fundamentally wrong with building reimagined rowhouses and factory buildings in these locations. If every building is new, original and edgy, those words lose their meaning. Just look at Brasilia, Canberra, or Dubai. Plus, IMO "edgy" usually translates to "ugly".
 
Regardless of what style the new buildings are, the most important thing is that they activate the streetscape. Pedestrian activity = good. I often get the sense that architects are obsessed with making something look modern and funky, that they totally lose sight of the functional purpose of the building.
 
^^ Exactly.

Styles come and go. Functionality is far more important.
Now, if you get an architect who can do high function with high style, there is your holy grail.
 
itchy said:
The middle rendering actually looks quite nice. The other two, especially the bottom one, make this building look appalling.

This project could turn out to be decent. But there's no way it'll be as nice as what was torn down was. And if the plot had been split up and the various pieces sold to different developers, I bet even a CBT could've done a better job with some of the individual smaller buildings.
Click to expand...

Apalling? It actually looks quite nice, the quality of materials used will have a big effect on whether this project is good or not, and so far we've never seen any intention, at least on other projects, of using good quality materials. The 1st render looks as nice as the 2nd, and the 3rd shows an industrial quality found in all historic boston buildings, not anything unusual.
 
itchy said:
^^ Agree. On a somewhat-unrelated note, I've never understood the lip service Pelli is given as a "great architect." I find his buildings dull and pedestrian. Much like IM Pei or Richard Meier, I'm very suspicious when a new project with Pelli's name comes up. It's too-often unambitious and, well, lame. At least with Pei and Meier, much as they fail to excite me, they were groundbreaking in their day.
Click to expand...

Pelli has made some good buildings, such as 2ifc in Hong Kong. However, most of his buildings are repetitive, like his SF supertall proposal is exactly the same as 2ifc. He's up there, I'd say lower 1st tier but nothiong compared to the good designs SOM put out all the time.
 
Equilibria said:
Consequently, I see nothing fundamentally wrong with building reimagined rowhouses and factory buildings in these locations. If every building is new, original and edgy, those words lose their meaning. Just look at Brasilia, Canberra, or Dubai. Plus, IMO "edgy" usually translates to "ugly".
Click to expand...

Can't it be both? Look at Borneo Sporenburg in Amsterdam. I wish boston would give designers a chance to write with something besides exclamation points and quotes. What happened to the poetry?
 
As many forum members realize, the B&T article includes erroneous information. Avenir is going to be rentals handled by Archstone-Smith, not condos, as originally proposed.

I sent Mr Grillo a note.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top