Not really, no. Some building and construction types are more likely to generate quality architecture, others much less so. I think by this point it should be abundantly clear that a paperboard five over one usually looks as cheap as it is. If this area turns into another Everett Gaslands disaster, I think the city would be substantially worse off.
Dorchester Bay City (nee Bayside Expo Ctr.) | Columbia Point
- Thread starter JoeGallows
- Start date
I think there might be a couple passable (by which I mean off-ramp chic) five over ones in the city. The soul-killers in Everett are the norm.
Lord help us if we don’t figure a way out of this.
I think the disaster is our severe forced shortage of housing and insane unaffordability/inequality. Architecture that is not up to your subjective preference might be a threat to your taste, but the housing crisis is an objective threat to all of us and Boston's well-being. Much bigger fish to fry than drab 5 over 1s and alternating windows.
They’re the same problem.
"Dwelling is not primarily inhabiting but taking care of and creating that space within which something comes into its own and flourishes."
Martin Heidegger
We are not discussing subjective preference here. The problem exists in the structures themselves to the extent that the architecture succeeds or fails to attend to and create dwelling space. Many of these five over ones are places to inhabit at best. When the person with a particular taste moves on, the buildings remain. Do these buildings create a neighborhood? Would we rely on them to produce a city?
They are at their worst when there's a whole farm of them soiling the land. When there is a single building tucked in amongst structures that welcome human relationships, it can add people and human activity. They really ought to do more.
Martin Heidegger
We are not discussing subjective preference here. The problem exists in the structures themselves to the extent that the architecture succeeds or fails to attend to and create dwelling space. Many of these five over ones are places to inhabit at best. When the person with a particular taste moves on, the buildings remain. Do these buildings create a neighborhood? Would we rely on them to produce a city?
They are at their worst when there's a whole farm of them soiling the land. When there is a single building tucked in amongst structures that welcome human relationships, it can add people and human activity. They really ought to do more.
Last edited:
Okay
I think this is a concession to the bad faith argument of people who say they'd be fine with more housing if [X] when in reality X is just an excuse to deny the housing they don't want to exist
stick n move
Superstar
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 13,361
- Reaction score
- 23,942
Not necessarily true. I actually think you could create a better neighborhood out of 5 over 1’s than most average neighborhoods in America if you did it right. Transit oriented, dense street grid, no parking garages, courtyard blocks, broken up facades, high quality materials, ground floor retail and residential entrances, built right up to the sidewalk on all 4 sides..etc.
Alicia courtyard urbanist does a good job on twitter with ai showing what some courtyard blocks would look like plopped down in the us.
Chicago south side
But you dont even need ai to imagine.
Parts of portland OR filling in nicely
The entire top left quarter of hoboken has seamlessly filled in
You could 100% build an entire neighborhood or even city out of them and it would probably actually be nicer than a lot of existing american neighborhoods/cities.
The funny part is 5 over 1’s if done right can actually get you closer to traditional european courtyard urbanism than something like the beloved triple decker does.
Copenhagen
Dorchester
Hoboken
-Obviously copenhagen is far superior to hoboken, but there havent been many places in the US that have built anything even remotely similar in built form yet to the european courtyard block. Theres north hoboken, a few parts of portland, parts of seattle, minneapolis…etc. Hopefully much more to come in the future and even better examples will be built.
Last edited:
Scott
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 1,363
- Reaction score
- 922
If we must derail the thread and talk about a building style that isn't planned to be built here and use Dorchester as some kind of example of what not to do, then at least be honest and use the Crescent Ave area right next to DBC. It has 30,000 residents per square mile unlike the example shown that is 3 miles south (with no skyscrapers, and no 5 over 1s either) but still has a higher density than the city as a whole.
stick n move
Superstar
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 13,361
- Reaction score
- 23,942
What do u mean be honest, I wasnt comparing densities or trying to pass that off as the densist part of boston. I was talking about aesthetics and built form, ppl were saying 5 over 1’s look like shit at all times and theres no way a nice looking livable neighborhood could ever be made out of them and I was showing how actually if it was done the right way you could end up with some of the most european style courtyard blocks in the country. Density is obviously a part of that but thats not what I was talking about here.
-Anyways yes its very off topic and can be moved if need be.
Last edited:
Blackbird
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2014
- Messages
- 1,240
- Reaction score
- 1,818
Too bad this has never happened in MA.
Charlie_mta
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2006
- Messages
- 5,088
- Reaction score
- 7,615
That would require some vision and courage from the political and business leadership in the cities/towns. That, of course, is lacking. Also, I prefer some height and massing variability; high rises as well as some townhouses in the mix, and not just all 5-over-1s. Uniformity on a vast scale is tedious.
Yes and no, I generally agree with you but I don't think anyone is complaining about the general height uniformity of the back bay.
Sarcastic?
There are no high quality materials in any of the screenshots above. A whole bunch of plaster, brick-stamped fiberboard, and hardeeboard.
Materials aside, those buildings in Hoboken are absurd. Trying to break a 500' wide building into 10 50' wide long buildings just makes a Disney Main Street USA attraction. For some the New Urbanist principle of bReAKing uP thE MaSsiNG is the only one that really stuck.
Last edited:
Boston Strong
New member
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2023
- Messages
- 8
- Reaction score
- 17
How does the recent development affect the 75 Morrissey towers?
awood91
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2006
- Messages
- 507
- Reaction score
- 594
It doesn't. Separate project.
Blackbird
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2014
- Messages
- 1,240
- Reaction score
- 1,818
No? I think there are examples of 5-over-1s successfully slotting into neighborhoods that already have all of (or a combination of) the things that Charlie listed.
I don’t think there’s been an example of a new, large-scale development made of mostly or entirely 5-over-1s that has grown to have them.
And as much as I agree they can be a bit ugly and monolithic, I do think the problem is more a planning/zoning one than an architectural one personally.
guitarguynboston
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2009
- Messages
- 254
- Reaction score
- 318
What makes Boston area great is the variant heights(minus flat Seaport,) The only thing to improve is smaller lots and every Tall tower must have a shorter building in that same neighborhood and the same every new short height building must be built with a tall building in that neighborhood. I mean the last thing we want here is to turn into NYC where it all looks too gritty except in the middle of the roads when the sun lies up.
What does this even mean?
As for uniform heights in Boston, it's hard to avoid examples of uniform height neighborhoods that are great. Back Bay, Beacon Hill, the North End, and the South End all have a clear uniformity in height (and architecture) that makes them some of the most beautiful places in the city.