West End Library | 151 Cambridge Street | West End

mssrro said:
Yes, but even as recently as two years ago, none of the buildings directly sitting on the north side of Cambridge were particularly tall - other than 165 Cambridge at 9 stories, almost none of these buildings were materially taller than their neighbors on the south side of the street. This created a nice setback area where overtall construction wasn't looming over BH.



That setback area is now being eliminated with the MGH project and this one. Hemming a historic neighborhood like BH in with tall modern (and IMO, ugly) buildings is a disappointing move by the city. At least that's my feeling.
Click to expand...
I get your point about the proximity to Beacon Hill, but have you taken a serious architectural look at the buildings on the south side of Cambridge Street? They are not exactly gems. You need to move at least a block up the hill to get to consistently decent (historic) architecture.
 
Jeremi said:
Bad to worse.
Click to expand...

You know, as excited as I am about a new library and more housing, I do have to agree that the “before” looked nicer. Still, this is the Boston neighborhood where architecture goes to die, so I personally can’t feel too upset about it.

mssrro said:
That setback area is now being eliminated with the MGH project and this one. Hemming a historic neighborhood like BH in with tall modern (and IMO, ugly) buildings is a disappointing move by the city. At least that's my feeling.
Click to expand...

If the city wanted the West End to be at all contextual with Beacon Hill then it wouldn’t have torn the neighborhood down in the first place. This is what we’re left with; no crying over spilt milk.
 
Eh, agree to disagree. The north side of Cambridge is hardly contextual, but there's a huge difference between a 6-story building that can barely be seen from Beacon Hill and 14-plus story buildings that dominate over it. The fact that the historic buildings are now gone shouldn't give developers carte blanche to go as tall as they want directly next to one of the city's most famous historic neighborhoods. Boston can be a major city without too-tall buildings on Cambridge. I respect that people may disagree with that but that's my take.

JeffDowntown said:
I get your point about the proximity to Beacon Hill, but have you taken a serious architectural look at the buildings on the south side of Cambridge Street? They are not exactly gems. You need to move at least a block up the hill to get to consistently decent (historic) architecture.
Click to expand...

Granted...I doubt any facades on the south side of Cambridge are more than a century old given the street widening in the 1920s. This is more about sightlines along, say, Joy or Garden. There's a big difference between a tall building in the distance and one that's almost sitting on top of you.
 
JeffDowntown said:
I get your point about the proximity to Beacon Hill, but have you taken a serious architectural look at the buildings on the south side of Cambridge Street? They are not exactly gems. You need to move at least a block up the hill to get to consistently decent (historic) architecture.
Click to expand...
There have been a couple great additions in recent years to the south side of cambridge st, I wish theyd add some more:

300 cambridge st, 2015
1763941604046.jpeg

1763941833939.jpeg


The whitney hotel addition, 2019
f763b60baadd4f13bc2a66952d2a1134.jpg

96561d0cb57d4f229059232439e44a44.jpg

 
JeffDowntown said:
I get your point about the proximity to Beacon Hill, but have you taken a serious architectural look at the buildings on the south side of Cambridge Street? They are not exactly gems. You need to move at least a block up the hill to get to consistently decent (historic) architecture.
Click to expand...
For years the Beacon Hill landmark historic district did not include the buildings abutting the south side of Cambridge St. In 2024 the district was slightly enlarged to include the buildings that line the south side of Cambridge St. As far as the north side of Cambridge St. it's more or less anything goes... I'd say this abrupt boundary change is similar to Back Bay, with the north side of Boylston being a landmark historic district and the area south of Boylston st lying outside of the landmark district.
 
I encourage you all to attend this meeting and say you support the development but that it's ugly as sin.
 
It seems in that render the color of the tower has changed again to white from drab grey. If so thats at least an improvement, though all red was best imo. It seems the tower matches the bottom 2 floors now, could be wrong though.
 
I hate the horizontal offset to the right of the 3 upper floors away from the 2 story base. It just doesn't work here.
 
Jeremi said:
If you drink whenever someone discusses poor architecture on a Boston architecture forum, you’re gonna end up dying.
Click to expand...

"Discussing"????? Plenty of room for DISCUSSING poor architecture! Everyone, including me, does it all the time. The difference, though, is the rest of us respect the other members intelligence here and GIVE REASONS, instead of just farting out "It sucks" or "It's ugly" like you. In fact, I often AGREE with your negativity on a project, but you give no REASON for your repeated blanket statements.

If you RESPECTED the other members here, you would actually contribute to the discussion and give a REASON for your opinion. But without that, it's simply you blowing off steam to feel better. Get a therapist. We aren't getting paid by the 45 minute session.

But it's just my opinion. Overall, you have every right to be a 'taker' instead of a 'maker'.

So, yeah, Drink!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top