🔹 What's Happening With Project X?

nm88 said:
This is an embarrassment. This is architecture? This is intended to be a meaningful contribution to the city of Boston? A well-considered addition to Stuart Street? Really? Explain to me how? Please.
Click to expand...

I don't hate SOM's design nearly as much as you do, but I strongly agree from a broadly civic standpoint that we'd do well to preserve the handsome old facade; the interior of the building (based on my perusal of StreetView) appears to have undergone some unsympathetic modifications about thirty years ago.
 
390 to maybe 410' is about as high as you can go. The developer is forcing considerable more sq ft than the block can support. A possible alternative might be to build to the correct width – then add 1 or 2 more occupied floors by locating the mechanical floors at southwest corner. (a wedge shape).

This would keep unwanted shadow off the Public Garden and Mall. Interestingly, i don't see a wedged shape roof making things any worse for the abutter (the Clarendon).

As it stands, the shape is 'retarded.' It looks like a gaming tower. It will be a terrible mistake that fowls this part of Back Bay until it is torn down. That alone kill what else you might say about it. The attractive skin embellishes its 'computer box' silliness.

Maybe in Dubai, Taipei, London or Dallas where they embrace stupid architecture. In Boston – already weighed down by faux pas hulks from the 60's and 70's, it will be spurned possibly as our greatest blunder yet.
 
odurandina said:
390~400' is as high as they can go. The developer is forcing significant more sq ft upon a block that won't support it. A possible alternative might be to build a narrower tower, and then put the mechanical floors at southwest corner w/ a wedge shape. This would prevent the unwanted shadow on the Public Garden and Mall. Interestingly, i don't see a wedged shape roof making things any worse for the abutter (the Clarendon).

As it stands, the shape is absolutely retarded. It looks like a trendy gaming tower. It will be a terrible mistake that fowls this part of Back Bay. That fact alone kills anything else you might attempt to say about it. The nice skin even acts against it to complete the 'computer box' silliness.

Maybe in Dubai, Taipei, London or Dallas where they embrace stupid architecture. In Boston – already weighed down by faux pas hulks from the 60's and 70's, it will be spurned possibly as our greatest blunder yet.
Click to expand...

I think I like this even more because you dislike it. I'd actually say that Boston would be lucky to have this.
 
Last edited:
I agree this looks like a huge game system but I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing.
 
I don't get why people are criticizing the crown on that building proposal using an angle that no one will ever see unless they're in a helicopter. The crown is fine, street level isn't great though.
 
It's a giant chode. The building currently there is better.
 
odurandina said:
390 to maybe 410' is about as high as you can go. The developer is forcing considerable more sq ft than the block can support. A possible alternative might be to build to the correct width – then add 1 or 2 more occupied floors by locating the mechanical floors at southwest corner. (a wedge shape).

This would keep unwanted shadow off the Public Garden and Mall. Interestingly, i don't see a wedged shape roof making things any worse for the abutter (the Clarendon).

As it stands, the shape is 'retarded.' It looks like a gaming tower. It will be a terrible mistake that fowls this part of Back Bay until it is torn down. That alone kill what else you might say about it. The attractive skin embellishes its 'computer box' silliness.

Maybe in Dubai, Taipei, London or Dallas where they embrace stupid architecture. In Boston – already weighed down by faux pas hulks from the 60's and 70's, it will be spurned possibly as our greatest blunder yet.
Click to expand...


Its not thaaaaat bad, it just had a shitty base and a weird crown. Its basically hidden and isn't tall enough or in prominent enough a location to really ruin anything or "foul the back bay until its torn down". Its a nothing tower, its really no big deal besides whats being knocked down to build it. Its effect on the skyline will be negligible.

The main tower isnt bad
psw6sdt8rmnykg5mhvwe.jpg



tysmith95 said:
I don't get why people are criticizing the crown on that building proposal using an angle that no one will ever see unless they're in a helicopter. The crown is fine, street level isn't great though.
Click to expand...

People are criticizing the crown because its stupid. That being said this is a nothing tower that would be forgotten about in 5 seconds and doesnt have the location or height to be able to ruin anything. It would get built, people would either be like oh thats not bad or oh that sucks, then 5 minutes later everyone would forget about it. Unlike 888 Boylston that looks horrible and is right on the charles and extremely visible, this has almost no visibility and 90% of the tower is decent.

565177ee-ff81-45df-b7b4-1626436ea335
 
i've never criticized the crown. i criticize the shape of the tower.

That's what needs to get fixed. Deflate the ___ damned building.
 
I never criticized the crown or the height. My concerns are deeper. Settling for "it's not that bad" is no way for a city to protect its legacy.

Beyond the economic success we've achieved with development in the past decade (needed, yes, all to the good), is anyone really all that happy with the results? Honestly?! 1 Dalton, okay, agreed. After that...?

Think about what we've lost. Littlest Bar block, for instance - complicated, understood, not an easy decision - but the truth is, once these historical markers are gone they are gone forever. We nibble away at the special fabric that makes us Boston.

You make an argument like this, no matter how shrill it may sound, while there is still time to make it.

It is time the city hold the design community to a higher standard. Because when it's too late, it's too late.
 
There's a sampler on the site of the 88 N Washington St hotel that doesn't seem to match the Beverly or One Canal. Is it moving forward?
 
i think it's really neat. i hope it gets built, as-is.

i also really like the crown - hopefully lit.
 
no clue where to put this question, so apologies in advance: any idea who to talk to/lobby about re-lighting the old Hancock? it was so cool and such a bummer that it's not like that nowadays.

also -- when i was a little kid, they used to have what essentially amounted to christmas lights strung along the top, just before the ziggurat crown, that were lit green and red during the holiday season.

that was awesome
 
nm88 said:
I never criticized the crown or the height. My concerns are deeper. Settling for "it's not that bad" is no way for a city to protect its legacy.

Beyond the economic success we've achieved with development in the past decade (needed, yes, all to the good), is anyone really all that happy with the results? Honestly?! 1 Dalton, okay, agreed. After that...?

Think about what we've lost. Littlest Bar block, for instance - complicated, understood, not an easy decision - but the truth is, once these historical markers are gone they are gone forever. We nibble away at the special fabric that makes us Boston.

You make an argument like this, no matter how shrill it may sound, while there is still time to make it.

It is time the city hold the design community to a higher standard. Because when it's too late, it's too late.
Click to expand...

100% with you. I'd say the state of architecture is at a nadir, what with every building, regardless of context, is comprised of poorly differentiated glass and metal.

We're in an age where, having seen that the starchitechture boom of the last decade produced little real benefit to developers' bottom lines, buildings go up that are brazen in their bare-minimum attitude towards design as well as the public at large, since nobody of consequence (sorry all us here at aB) seems to give a shit either way. Sure, the super high end projects still use an architect's name to market the product, but beyond a select few truly good projects it's a vast sea of garbage out there.
 
chrisbrat said:
no clue where to put this question, so apologies in advance: any idea who to talk to/lobby about re-lighting the old Hancock? it was so cool and such a bummer that it's not like that nowadays.

also -- when i was a little kid, they used to have what essentially amounted to christmas lights strung along the top, just before the ziggurat crown, that were lit green and red during the holiday season.

that was awesome
Click to expand...

That would be great if they bring that back. At one point they had flood lights that lit up the entire building in white at night I thought that was pretty badass. We definitely need more lighting (cough MT) and shouldnt be losing what was already there either. Liberty mutual is randomly not lit up at night sometimes too idk what thats about.
 
Last edited:
What is going on at the corner of Melnea Cass and Washington? I thought this was park land.
 
nm88 said:
I never criticized the crown or the height. My concerns are deeper. Settling for "it's not that bad" is no way for a city to protect its legacy.

Beyond the economic success we've achieved with development in the past decade (needed, yes, all to the good), is anyone really all that happy with the results? Honestly?! 1 Dalton, okay, agreed. After that...?

Think about what we've lost. Littlest Bar block, for instance - complicated, understood, not an easy decision - but the truth is, once these historical markers are gone they are gone forever. We nibble away at the special fabric that makes us Boston.

You make an argument like this, no matter how shrill it may sound, while there is still time to make it.

It is time the city hold the design community to a higher standard. Because when it's too late, it's too late.
Click to expand...

Millennium tower is really good. Liberty mutual, Lovejoy Wharf, Atlantic Wharf, 1 Dalton as you said, then theres been lots of infill that isnt bad. Thats how cities work and I think were doing pretty good. You build good infill then a few standout taller buildings to steal the show like MT, 1 Dalton, govt garage office tower, redesigned 115 Winthrop...etc.

When you get too many buildings trying to be the star of the show you get London. The Seaport has made up a lot of the development of this cycle and they set a good base for the more standout towers to now go up at 150 seaport, M parcels, 88 Seaport blvd, the next phase of Seaport sq. We built a lot of infill on Stuart st also. With MT done, 1 Dalton climbing, 115 winthrop redesigned, and the govt ctr office tower starting soon-ish with a possibility of SST its going to look pretty good. Then 1000 boylston over the pike is going to be very good infill, and although the hub on Causeway kinda got ruined, the base is undoubtably a major win for the area and the other landscrapers in the area do a nice job to fill it in.

Hopefully SST looks good in person and it seems as the best is still yet to come for the most part in the seaport and back bay/downtown besides MT. 1 Dalton isnt finished yet so thats still coming down the line. Ask people who live in NY theyre throwing up tons of garbage, way more than us, but they’re also building some of their best work at the same time like Tower Verre. Thats just the way things work no city only builds superstar projects all the time. Really as long as you avoid Waterside Places and 888 Boylston the rest just helps to fill in the skyline for the taller ptojects to shine. Too many rockstars in one room leads to a mess... or London. After 1 Dalton tops off, gvt ctr, 115 winthrop and we look back and see MT also added to that mix the skyline is going to look 100 times better than it was. Honestly MT alone changed downtown more than all the infill we got combined and that alone was worth it. But the street level of the city is filling back in and most notably in bulfinch triangle and soon to be pike parcels. That is going to be what really is the deal maker. I cant wait to see that area by mass ave after that is wrapped up and see how much better it is and how much it ties into the surrounding areas with the scar or the highway gone.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top