11-21 Bromfield Street | DTX | Downtown

Cool. Makes you appreciate how much the Egyptian revival building on Bromfield was an upscale addition.
 
Very cool photo links! Makes you realize that if Boston's built environment had been frozen in 1900 (or 1870, or 1920) and modernized/retrofitted it'd probably be a more vibrant, livable and aesthetically compelling place (tenfold) than it is today.
 
itchy said:
Very cool photo links! Makes you realize that if Boston's built environment had been frozen in 1900 (or 1870, or 1920) and modernized/retrofitted it'd probably be a more vibrant, livable and aesthetically compelling place (tenfold) than it is today.
Click to expand...

Itchy -- but it wasn't because in Boston just like Vegas nothing stands for ever =-- its just that the timescales are different in Vegas its old and imploded after 25 years in Boston it takes a hundred or so

This is both good and bad:
we lost: the olde Featherstore, Province House, the John Hancock House, Tontine Crescent, the original Opera House, Mechanics Hall, and the "olde MIT" to "progress"
but
we got: the New Statehouse, New MFA, [the original] Quincy Market, Rowe's Wharf, the Pru Center, Copley Place, the original and subsequent JHT, and the original facadectomy, the new Customs House Tower and Millennium Tower

So -- if the building now housing payless shoe goes -- I won't be too too sorry if we get another DTX tower for the ages
 
^ Yes, that's true, Whigh. A city that isn't evolving isn't growing. We can't be precious about every little inch of brick on every block. That would be unreasonable. SE, BH and BB are pretty sacrosanct, after all. We always have that.

Nonetheless, I worry how we nibble at the edges. We accept diminishment as readily as we accept underwhelming design. A little here, a little there. It won't matter. Look what we're getting. That's the argument. Well. Consider Dainty Dot. And others.

Is Payless important? Historically, maybe not. As a contributing piece of the street wall - a street that's personally historic for Bostonians - I say it may be important. I like old and new, side by side. The march of time in brick and steel. Even the confrontation of opposites. That's a real city. But that's just me.

If I were the BRA I'd ask them to consider keeping the Payless corner. It's handsome. It holds the corner well. It would make a fine neighbor to glass and steel.
 
Lose the Dunkin Donuts and Burger King for the new Payless.
 
Bottom line - other than a few exceptions, the major commercial districts are not landmarked historic districts and are going to be vulnerable to parcel consolidation and degradation of urban streetscape now and in the future. The ladder district (and the payless building) are worth more as a sum than the individual parts. This ladder district is unique and IMO should be landmarked or have some kind of overlay conservation district zoning in place. This area is a prime candidate for more liberal liquor licensing, permitting for restaurants and bars, etc. It's the core downtown area most accessible by transit. Further, the small footprint commercial spaces are the ideal spaces that cater to unique bars and restaurants. This could be the path forward for downtown crossing.

It's a shame that the organizations responsible for Boston's urban planning and design agencies seem to be completely inept. If the planning arm of the BRA was effective, we could have our cake and eat it too on projects such as this. We could have new investment and increased density in the form of a more narrow sliver high rise next to the payless building and in lieu of a carport on Bromfield, actual storefronts. More expensive yes, but entirely possible.
 
Last edited:
commuter guy said:
It's a shame that the organizations responsible for Boston's urban planning and design agencies seem to be completely inept. If the planning arm of the BRA was effective, we could have our cake and eat it too on projects such as this. We could have new investment and increased density in the form of a more narrow sliver high rise next to the payless building and in lieu of a carport on Bromfield, actual storefronts. More expensive yes, but entirely possible.
Click to expand...

Commuterguy -- Payless is not the Burnham -- that building was a one for the ages and need to be carefully restored and indeed allowed some space between it and the MT

Saving the Payless facade might involve a significant but manageable amount of work marginally justifiable for a 100 year old run of the mill building -- to save the actual Payless Building and hence confine the tower to much smaller footprint might require far more work than is justifiable, as I'm sure all of the systems and such in the Payless Building date probably from the 50's or so

I think the best compromise is to save the Payless Virtually -- retain the look in a modernized form with the same spacing of the windows and the same kind of human-scale detailing. Perhaps even use some of the same kind of exterior masonry for a bay or two on each side of the corner up to the 4th floor level above which the glass can take off and fly away

Actually from what I remember fondly the best of Bromfield St. was in the camera store windows that used to line the other side of the street.
 
whighlander said:
Commuterguy -- Payless is not the Burnham -- that building was a one for the ages and need to be carefully restored and indeed allowed some space between it and the MT

Saving the Payless facade might involve a significant but manageable amount of work marginally justifiable for a 100 year old run of the mill building -- to save the actual Payless Building and hence confine the tower to much smaller footprint might require far more work than is justifiable, as I'm sure all of the systems and such in the Payless Building date probably from the 50's or so

I think the best compromise is to save the Payless Virtually -- retain the look in a modernized form with the same spacing of the windows and the same kind of human-scale detailing. Perhaps even use some of the same kind of exterior masonry for a bay or two on each side of the corner up to the 4th floor level above which the glass can take off and fly away

Actually from what I remember fondly the best of Bromfield St. was in the camera store windows that used to line the other side of the street.
Click to expand...

Agree. Perhaps deconstruct the street facing facade, store it and then put it back as skin at the end of construction. Also need to recreate the original roof line transition to the new tower portion (available in old photos, but lost due to years of renovations).

Core of the building is not likely worth saving.
 
I'm not seeing how any of the original building gets used. The glass serves as a shade to eliminate headlight glare inside the mechanically ventilated garage (levels 3-5). How this precludes a facade that matches better with the neighbors isn't clear. I wasn't crazy about it at first, but now i'm fine with it. Maybe it'll be ok. Besides, what would Globe posters have to screech about if it matches the surrounding real estate. I wish they'd could start digging tomorrow.
 
ngb_anim8 said:
Ok - original design, but with the cantilever extended downward. It kind of messes up their whole "More sunlight" thing, but It looks much better from afar.







Click to expand...

This looks extremely good without the cantilevers. I hope they just take those out, get rid of the road pass through on the base, and call it a day. Honestly the base is better than the Payless building. I still would rather integrate them together to keep the fabric of the city together but if not its not a loss at all.
 
I semi almost wanna think that's why they made this tower Bronze; to go nicely with Gen. Washington. Of course there's no connection. But, the proposed tower will rise directly behind George and his beloved horse.
 
I figured I would edit the final render to see it without the cantilevers. I think it looks good like this. Its still a very unique curved glass tower, slanted crown (Boston's new thing), interesting and dark facade.

I don't think losing them make it any less unique. Its a good design, I just think the cantilevers are a bit gimmicky on an otherwise quality proposal. They could still cantilever 1 floor above the base which would look great from ground level as well as fill out the skyline view. This also works out in the developers favor as it adds a lot of units to the lower portion of the tower. This along with the base would make for a great addition to Boston's ever changing skyline/ground level.





Im thinking make all of the cantilevers start in the place where the lower right one in this picture starts. Would look really cool from ground level, look more refined in the skyline without them being so high up, and add more units to the tower ( 9 floors alone in the front of this render). All around great proposal though and I think we need to show these renders to either the developer or at the next bcdc meeting and see what they think. I think it would be hard to argue against gaining a lot more rentable space. Also it brings some Boston flair reminiscent of 100 federal, fiduciary trust... with the cantilevers, while also bringing a slanted crown which is Boston new signature.. Cant go wrong.




Like this. Still get to keep the cantilevers but just bring them much lower on the massing. The same would be done with the cantilever not shown on the backside of the tower in this shot. Win win for everybody, Boston gets a great tower, developer gets more units, still get to keep the cool factor of the cantilevers above the base. Now just have to get rid of the pass through road and this thing is as good as gold.

 
Last edited:
stick n move said:
I figured I would edit the final render to see it without the cantilevers. I think it looks good like this. Its still a very unique curved glass tower, slanted crown (Boston's new thing), interesting and dark facade.

I don't think losing them make it any less unique. Its a good design, I just think the cantilevers are a bit gimmicky on an otherwise quality proposal. They could still cantilever 1 floor above the base which would look great from ground level as well as fill out the skyline view. This also works out in the developers favor as it adds a lot of units to the lower portion of the tower. This along with the base would make for a great addition to Boston's ever changing skyline/ground level.





Im thinking make all of the cantilevers start in the place where the lower right one in this picture starts. Would look really cool from ground level, look more refined in the skyline without them being so high up, and add more units to the tower ( 9 floors alone in the front of this render). All around great proposal though and I think we need to show these renders to either the developer or at the next bcdc meeting and see what they think. I think it would be hard to argue against gaining a lot more rentable space. Also it brings some Boston flair reminiscent of 100 federal, fiduciary trust... with the cantilevers, while also bringing a slanted crown which is Boston new signature.. Cant go wrong.




Like this. Still get to keep the cantilevers but just bring them much lower on the massing. The same would be done with the cantilever not shown on the backside of the tower in this shot. Win win for everybody, Boston gets a great tower, developer gets more units, still get to keep the cool factor of the cantilevers above the base. Now just have to get rid of the pass through road and this thing is as good as gold.

Click to expand...

^^That looks MUCH better. Those cantilevers are too high up in their proposal. I agree that this should be presented as an alternative. In addition to expanding usable space in the building, it makes the tower look dramatically better. The cantilevers higher up look too gimmicky.
 
Of course this is a matter of taste. To my eye the revision above, deleting the cantilevers, seems, well, old-fashioned. I take the architect at his word, sun light and view concerns prompted the cantilevers. I don't see gimmicky. I see problem-solving. And a unique silhouette.
 
nm88 said:
Of course this is a matter of taste. To my eye the revision above, deleting the cantilevers, seems, well, old-fashioned. I take the architect at his word, sun light and view concerns prompted the cantilevers. I don't see gimmicky. I see problem-solving. And a unique silhouette.
Click to expand...

This.
 
I also think it looks better with the staggered cantilevers, at least in the last pic from Franklin Street/DTX.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top