Midtown Hotel Redevelopment | 220 Huntington Avenue | Back Bay

stick n move said:
Matching the surroundings is not always necessarily the best implementation, for example the Hancock tower over old copley sq. The drab grey and brutalism of the surroundings is perfectly fine, but what we would call here the filler or background buildings, perfectly situated to accentuate something more iconic.
Click to expand...
I get that, but that is not what the Christian Science Center Master Plan calls for here. They are responding to the institutional master plan. This has always been called out as a drab gray landscraper, like its cousins along the street. It is neither the architect's nor developer's fault; their hands are tied.
 
JeffDowntown said:
I have to disagree, in that this is totally in context with the surroundings. The dominant color palette of all the blocks there and the Christian Science Center is limestone beige, either as stone or as bare concrete. Huntington and Mass Ave are both a sequence of landscrapers in these blocks. Even the Christian Science Center has two landscrapers.

I am not a huge fan of the bland urban design that dominates here, but this is fully in keeping with the urban design intent of the Christian Science Center plan.

Also the lack of retail in this area is largely due to the lease restrictions placed on properties by the Christian Science Church (who owns essentially all this land). I honestly don't think they want a vibrant street scene. They want the focus to be on the Mother Church.
Click to expand...

I had totally forgotten the Scientists were developing this. Still a real disappointment to not see a bolder design, but it jives.
 
I like it, the variation and depth in the facade is interesting and adds some modernity to an otherwise traditional design. The renders also show the precast panel gaps, which only seem to scream at the top/cornice, which won't be greatly visible from ground level, or far away/on the plaza.

I'd get a unit above the 3rd floor in a heartbeat, if I had the money. The plaza is a beautiful piece of architecture, and I wouldn't get sick of looking at it.
 
This is my second most favorite project in the city after Parcel 12 development over I90 - it is going to have a similar transformational impact to a forgotten corner of a long established area.
It is unfortunate that it's taking this long - but at least the proposal is very solid.
 
About 1 Cumberland. Years ago I'd sit in the parking lot at Mass Mental waiting for my wife to do her clinical. Three old school Mission Hill houses sat among vacant lots where the Brigham cardiac building is now. One day they picked them up and moved them to vacant lots on Francis Street. It was excellent. So I think these old buildings don't need to be landmarks to be saved or particularly distinctive example of something to be a real asset on a street with a gap tooth. They don't make them like that any more and they should never be torn down so casually. Just saying...
 
BCDC: https://bpda.app.box.com/s/so8tdvevh0bk50odkyshug3rjx17f0af

I appreciate that they're being so thorough here, even though there's a clear preference/agenda. I wish Samuels had done this with the Parcel 12 cladding.

Scott said:
About 1 Cumberland. Years ago I'd sit in the parking lot at Mass Mental waiting for my wife to do her clinical. Three old school Mission Hill houses sat among vacant lots where the Brigham cardiac building is now. One day they picked them up and moved them to vacant lots on Francis Street. It was excellent. So I think these old buildings don't need to be landmarks to be saved or particularly distinctive example of something to be a real asset on a street with a gap tooth. They don't make them like that any more and they should never be torn down so casually. Just saying...
Click to expand...

In this new presentation it's not casual. They do argue the case and consider alternatives (you can certainly argue about whether they're sandbagging them, but at least they're acknowledging them).
 
1 Cumberland is an interesting "problem" for the architect. It feels like the resolution of keeping the facade or the form of 1 cumberland could use some further development. In place of some building on that corner, that mini-park/pocket-park looks quite a useless bit of open space -- it'll become the smoking area/dog waste area quickly. Even with the narrow alleyway/driveway, it feels like it should be building rather than open.

Also, interesting bit about the new service drive. I'm not sure how I feel about a new vehicular access drive there. If I read the plan right, Alley 405 just a few hundred feet away?
 
Equilibria said:
In this new presentation it's not casual. They do argue the case and consider alternatives (you can certainly argue about whether they're sandbagging them, but at least they're acknowledging them).
Click to expand...

I definitely don't get the feeling this is a sandbagging attempt... too much detail including an alternative proposal to move the building.

I agree with @ra84970 this is a tricky problem for an architect and good mitigation's here don't seem to be in play either. Basically if you keep the building you're asking developer to sacrifice square footage and probably have to sell the units with the partywall/window at steep discount compared to the rest of the building. To offset they would need more height but more height requires zoning variance which complicates the project immensely since right now it is a (rare) of rights project.

I also agree that the space without the building is poorly utilized.
 
Wow the part of the BCDC presentation about 1 Cumberland alternatives is so disingenuous. Asking the proponent to develop workable solutions to a problem they do not want to solve is of course going to result in alternatives that are all unappealing.
 
The image with Cumberland poorly photoshopped next to the development is sort of hilarious.
cumberland.JPG


They couldn't get a higher res photo of it after all these months/years of planning??
The Cumberland/Alley proposal is pretty sad too, no matter how many blue highlighter lines they try to call out on the facade to seem related to what's new.

I understand the challenge though. Just move it to St. Botolph St and be done with it. The loss of parking should be the least of their worries.
 
I like the massing, especially the undulating facade. I like the texture. It does seem to be done in a way that would be conducive to plastic panels . . . bleght . . . such a high profile location . . hope they can at least do terra cotta or even precast concrete panels in the front.
 
Good one, but most brownstones are in NYC. The stone originates from a series of quarries mainly in Vermont. This is a later example of a brick bow front common to this area. To an architectural forum that is an important distinction. I can only think of a few actual brownstones in Boston and few examples of this in NYC.
 
I guess the debate among the landed gentry is "brownstone" or "rowhouse". While for the unlanded gentry, it's "three-decker" or "triple decker".
 
Italianate style red brick, bow front, row house with stone trim. Pretty standard in the St. Botolph neighborhood (although many are yellow brick).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top