100 Shawmut Avenue | South End

Hahaha, wait, don't tell me that the last pic is also 100 Shawmut? I mean, I'm scrolling down thinking, this is turning out so nice, then the last pic hits me like a bucket of cold water! LOL Wow, I know lots of work to go, but still, SURPRISE!!
 
Yea it's not great, but half of it is a party wall and I'm guessing the develop anticipates those other parcels will eventually be redeveloped. Why spend on space that will eventually be filled in?
 
BeeLine said:
IMG_2118

by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
Click to expand...
I'm struggling with this one. I don't feel like the two facades are "talking to each other."

The original, brick portion is handsome on it's own and I don't find the newer portion to be unattractive in isolation; it's fine. I'm struggling with how they relate (acknowledging that the introduction of the gray grid on the newer facade appears to have similar proportions to the window clusters on the old building).

From this angle, the setbacks and dramatic contrast in massing almost makes the glass portion to appear as if it's behind the brick building from this vantage point; maybe that was the point...
 
C17E1DBC-455F-4D53-A4E3-2A4F4CB65823.jpeg
 
cburns said:
I'm struggling with this one. I don't feel like the two facades are "talking to each other."

The original, brick portion is handsome on it's own and I don't find the newer portion to be unattractive in isolation; it's fine. I'm struggling with how they relate (acknowledging that the introduction of the gray grid on the newer facade appears to have similar proportions to the window clusters on the old building).

From this angle, the setbacks and dramatic contrast in massing almost makes the glass portion to appear as if it's behind the brick building from this vantage point; maybe that was the point...
Click to expand...

Reminds me of that awful pasting on of The Lucas a few blocks away.

Why can't an architect aim for compatability?
 
shmessy said:
Reminds me of that awful pasting on of The Lucas a few blocks away.

Why can't an architect aim for compatability?
Click to expand...

I dont mind this one but youre right the lucas is bad. The two parts dont go together at all.
 
It's funny I kind of like the Lucas. That was probably harder to incorporate than this one, yet still has the better transition and interplay between the old church and new portions. This one doesn't look like the new portion goes with the brick building at all.
 
I agree with DZH22 about the Lucas. In fact I would say that I like it a lot. It manages to be both distinct from and tightly coupled to the original building, to be both quirky and dramatic. Love how the vertical beams mimic the buttresses below with their spacing and the tapered tops... hell they're even "flying"! Sometimes "incompatible" works (Lucas, Quaker Lane, Custom House of course) and sometimes it doesn't.

I'm not as impressed with 100 Shawmut. I love that they saved the old warehouse facade, but I don't see how the new building does it any justice.
 
I'm not sure if the South End Landmarks Commission weighed in on this project, but in general they LOVE it when a modern building built "on top of" a historic building is set back and appears like it's behind it. They don't like it when architects try to extend the original building. They want it to stand alone.
 
I feel bad for the owners of the unit that looks out on the back side of the cell antennas.
 
There is zero connection between the old façade and the new part of the building. Makes me wonder if it was worth saving at all. It doesn't even look like they spruced up the exterior of the old façade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top