Skanska Office Tower | 380 Stuart Street | Back Bay

Someone mentioned in the Garden Garage tower thread how it had been 5 years since the thread was started and it's still not approved. This one ... 3 months.
 
Mike said:
Someone mentioned in the Garden Garage tower thread how it had been 5 years since the thread was started and it's still not approved. This one ... 3 months.
Click to expand...

Mike -- not a record -- but it certainly moved along

similar to the approval process for Liberty Mutual

PS: Garden Garage is not a record for the other end of the approval time spectrum
 
That seemed to be the case with the Liberty Mutual Tower as well. I guess the ticket to quick approval is propose a stumpy, inoffensive tower and tie it to job creation.
 
jpdivola said:
That seemed to be the case with the Liberty Mutual Tower as well. I guess the ticket to quick approval is propose a stumpy, inoffensive tower and tie it to job creation.
Click to expand...

Jpdivola -- that would be a good guess -- but I think it is a correlation without causation

The real reason for quick approval -- no question that the entity making the proposal has the money to build it! and had all its ducks lined up ready to go -- as the esurance commercial says ......... that's what insurance co's do -- invest in buildings -- usually though built by someone else
 
I think it's quite nice. Not amazing but more interesting than most of the boxes going up.
 
chrisbrat said:
why?
Click to expand...

Read my previous posts. Poor massing, scale, shape, contextual design (lackthereof), ground level, etc.

I've heard that SOM is really driving this design on behalf of John Hancock and it's not really CBT. CBT is just the AOR.
 
Last edited:
oh, i've read and i agree with a lot of the posts (yours and others) -- i wish it was taller, i wish the street-level/lobby was less potentially off-putting, etc.

but (as at least one other has said), for a group who seems to be -- justifiably! -- so against the bland, prefab "boxes", i find it surprising that something that is absolutely not the typical, faceless box is being received with so much animosity.

also as others have said (though not necessarily about JHIII) -- the initial response to the hancock tower was of the pearl-clutching "this has no business being in this neighborhood! it's disrespectful of the area's aesthetic!" variety, but these days it's beloved.
 
Yeah, this and Liberty Mutual likely moved fast because they're among good company with office buildings of similar height, regardless of their design. This isn't also in a mainly residential neighbourhood and as Atlantaden suggests, the neighbours are probably still laser focused on blocking Trinity Place.
 
chrisbrat said:
oh, i've read and i agree with a lot of the posts (yours and others) -- i wish it was taller, i wish the street-level/lobby was less potentially off-putting, etc.

but (as at least one other has said), for a group who seems to be -- justifiably! -- so against the bland, prefab "boxes", i find it surprising that something that is absolutely not the typical, faceless box is being received with so much animosity.

also as others have said (though not necessarily about JHIII) -- the initial response to the hancock tower was of the pearl-clutching "this has no business being in this neighborhood! it's disrespectful of the area's aesthetic!" variety, but these days it's beloved.
Click to expand...



the majority of high profile projects CBT is involved with is as the Architect of Record, not the Design Architect. in other words they facilitate the construction of the building, producing the construction documents and another architect comes up with the actual design, CBT probably takes over at nearly 100% level around the 60-90% design phase, once the design details have been mostly flushed out.
 
Great news, and thank you!! Or be careful what i wish for.
i have been on a personal crusade in the hopes to discourage the construction of that ghastly thing.
 
My personal feelings are always to incorporate a facadectomy, then go twice as tall to recoup those extra costs. (and for aesthetics) The original proposal, replacing a stately old building with a fat blob, was.... not good.
 
Is the site approved for 26 stories or was that what JH desired to build? Just wondering if another developer sees that parcel and has other ideas like residential or hotel and has to stick to those dimensions.
 
In lieu of Copley Tower grandfathered in for shadows....
This was very close to max Shadow Law height,
and possibly, the impetus for it's shape.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top