11-21 Bromfield Street | DTX | Downtown

[odurandina]

Is the meet and greet going on now? or is it still going to happen tomorrow?

 

[393b40]

This is why we have a design and development process. This will likely go through several iterations over the next 2-3 months with the biggest changes likely coming in the earliest revisions.

I do hope the BCDC pushes back on preserving the Payless building.

 

[stick n move]

^exactly.

 

[datadyne007]

They would never do these types of cantilevers back then either.

False.

Prentice Women's Hospital Building, Bertrand Goldberg & Associates, 1976 (Demolished)

 

[DZH22]

False.

Prentice Women's Hospital Building, Bertrand Goldberg & Associates, 1976 (Demolished)

Ehhh that's so much simpler though. It's not the same thing, particularly on a tower so large. Also we have a replica of that building in Longwood.

 

[stick n move]

I mean the tower. The tower itself actually looks pretty awesome. (next part not directed at DD) Doesn't look 70's at all. They would never do these types of cantilevers back then either. Also, it's not like we're getting 70's cladding. Just because it's a similar shape to Lake Point Tower, BFD. Like wow, they're both curvy, BFD!!! Not the same.

In terms of the base, as I said, I'm not a fan. I want a Payless facadectomy to preserve the old building on the corner, with this tower rising behind it. We already lost the 1905 facade diagonally across the street, which makes it that much more urgent to me. Keep the historical character of DTX. Also, the garage on Bromfield is a total downer.

In Boston, 1977.

 

[FK4]

Agree with you. This is the design's very soft underbelly. For an example of how this could turn out, look at what "One Financial Center" did to destroy Essex Street. An interesting fine grained area wiped out and now a traffic sewer.

Seriously, just walk that stretch of Essex. (The problem being that most of you will be too young to remember the buildings that had the Garcia y Vega cigar store, the Essex Café, the model store, the leather tailor...)

Elaborate on this... I had no idea.

I believe the "GEM" building stays, so it's not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison picture.

The gaping hole on bromfield sinks this. Those small streets are one the quintessential features of Boston. Can't ruin that, shame on them for trying.

You both realize that Millennium Tower is a proud ripoff of a 45-year-old Back Bay tower, right?

Yeah but copying a striking but ultimately stately oblong rectangular tower is much more tolerable than copying an interesting but ultimately showy and goofy Dubai-esqu tower.

 

[ngb_anim8]

Maybe when everyone was clamoring for something "bold" it was a case of "careful what you ask for". Is this new design too bold? Is it too retro/futuristic? With Boston's conservative architectural nature/history in mind, why don't we ever get something like this? This is a perfect design for Boston. Pays respect to the past (albeit to a style of building Boston really doesn't' have) but pushes towards he future. An 800-900' version of this would be phenomenal here or at the 111 fed location. Spired of course.

 

[citylover94]

How is Copley Tower goofy or Dubai-esque? Compared to anything I have seen in Dubai Copley Place Tower looks as restrained as the Hancock.

 

[ngb_anim8]

citylover... you got this sucker drawn up and submitted to the skyscraper diagram page yet or what?

 

[odurandina]

I seem to be in the minority here, but I quite like this proposal, with the exception of the massive hole blown through the streetwall on the Bromfield side.

I like it a lot too. Have no problem with it's similarity to 1 Congress and Copley Square. Not surprised. Someone at the BRA is very serioius about circular near maximum foot traffic. I believe it has a chance.

 

[stick n move]

Maybe when everyone was clamoring for something "bold" it was a case of "careful what you ask for". Is this new design too bold? Is it too retro/futuristic? With Boston's conservative architectural nature/history in mind, why don't we ever get something like this? This is a perfect design for Boston. Pays respect to the past (albeit to a style of building Boston really doesn't' have) but pushes towards he future. An 800-900' version of this would be phenomenal here or at the 111 fed location. Spired of course.

We want bold but that doesn't mean we want excessive and tacky. Bold can be done very right(NYC) and it can be done very wrong(Dubai). Not saying this is very wrong its just average. Look at any how many bold towers are going up in NYC. Almost all of them are incredible. No reason that we cant get in on some of what they are doing 4 hours away.

 

[JSic]

Lets get this rendering up on the skyscraperpage diagrams!

 

[citylover94]

citylover... you got this sucker drawn up and submitted to the skyscraper diagram page yet or what?

Yes I do if you check the buildings pending approval diagram you can see it. I made the building a bit too light and probably a bit too thin though so I may resubmit it at some point. Hopefully a mod approves it soon.

 

[ngb_anim8]

Yes I do if you check the buildings pending approval diagram you can see it. I made the building a bit too light and probably a bit too thin though so I may resubmit it at some point.

Good man! I'm sure it will get revamped along the way anyway.

edit: I can't find a link/portal to a pending approval diagram on the website. I'm obviously missing something. Can you provide?

 

[citylover94]

Yeah and there is another contributor on their Shortpants128 that often does really high quality diagrams of the taller buildings so they may create a replacement. They drew the images for Copley Place and One Congress for example.

 

[DZH22]

In Boston, 1977.

Again, TOTALLY DIFFERENT!!! Both examples (yours and DD's) are cantilevers barely above street level. In both examples, the tower goes straight up from there with no more setbacks. In this one, the cantilevers turn into setbacks further up. Also, the cantilevers are staggered and way further up the tower than these 2 examples. 1 Bromfield is way more complicated and organic than this garbage.

I totally agree with all criticisms regarding 1 Bromfield's base. But the tower being too "plain, unoriginal, 70's looking, etc." are the criticisms of insane people. Another box is too plain. More blue glass is too plain. This is totally different from anything currently on the skyline. (variety is the spice of life) I also think the Copley Tower will have a much whiter/bluer tone, based on the mockup, so aside from both having some curves this one will look quite different from that as well.

I'm here. I'm here.

Based on this pic, if the orange section goes up to the 683' "zoning height" then this is probably 715'-720', not the 740'-750' some of you seem to think it is. The lowest part of the base is probably at least 10' higher than Hawley Street, which is the bottom of where Millennium is measured from, adding to the effect.

 

[whighlander]

^exactly.

Stick -- Too Too Many Facetectomies makes for a faux city -- the classic is the Długi Targ, Gdańsk, Poland

at the end of WWII, retreating Germans, arriving vengeful Russians and some accidental Allied Bombing aimed at the Kriegs Marine wharfs managed to destroy about 80% of the original Grand King's Way and Long Market street

During the Communist era the city rebuilt the facades from meticulous plans documenting the history and photos made during the 1920's and early 1930's -- but with very few exceptions the buildings were nameless / faceless Communist Boxes with the Hanseatic League Gilding glued-on the front

I'm all for preserving the the facades of the Great Vaudeville and early Cinema-years Theatres and what is left of the Great Department Stores

However, the typical buildings in and around DTX don't have that charm and sense of history -- they are just oldish, late 19th or early 20th C, non-descript, commercial buildings -- the kind of buildings that were thrown-up quickly to replace what had burned in 1872 or were the 2nd gen structures that replaced the 1870's vintage structures circa 1910

 

[DZH22]

Look at any how many bold towers are going up in NYC. Almost all of them are incredible.

The Vanderbilt Tower you quoted in the 111 Federal thread is one of my least favorite proposals of all-time. Just saying.

 

[lapradetom]

Again, TOTALLY DIFFERENT!!! Both examples (yours and DD's) are cantilevers barely above street level. In both examples, the tower goes straight up from there with no more setbacks. In this one, the cantilevers turn into setbacks further up. Also, the cantilevers are staggered and way further up the tower than these 2 examples. 1 Bromfield is way more complicated and organic than this garbage.

I totally agree with all criticisms regarding 1 Bromfield's base. But the tower being too "plain, unoriginal, 70's looking, etc." are the criticisms of insane people. Another box is too plain. More blue glass is too plain. This is totally different from anything currently on the skyline. (variety is the spice of life) I also think the Copley Tower will have a much whiter/bluer tone, based on the mockup, so aside from both having some curves this one will look quite different from that as well.



Based on this pic, if the orange section goes up to the 683' "zoning height" then this is probably 715'-720', not the 740'-750' some of you seem to think it is. The lowest part of the base is probably at least 10' higher than Hawley Street, which is the bottom of where Millennium is measured from, adding to the effect.

^^I still think it looks 70's-ish from most angles, and no, I'm not insane! (If I was insane, how could I have slipped out of my straight jacket so easily to write this?)