11-21 Bromfield Street | DTX | Downtown

+1 The cantilevers look weird when all at the same height it creates an awkward silhouette. If the anything is done to the cantilevers they either need to be removed entirely or left as is. Personally I like how they look and the will actually allow more sunlight to reach the ground I don't see how that is a "gimmick".
 
The sudden fetishism of spires on this board has been really bothering me lately, but what is driving me crazy is the discussion on this thread. The aesthetics of the exterior of a building is not all that matters. Instead of asking "does this building look better without the cantilevers?," which is a totally subjective question, we should be asking "why did the architect feel cantilevers were necessary in this design?" I can guarantee you that the architect has already considered all of these variations people are Photoshopping and posting. If you go back to the BCDC presentation, they basically spell out the reason for these "lower cuts" on page 5, and it all seems to boil down to that the architect believes that the value added in a large, calm, sunlight filled, exterior amenity space is greater than the loss of interior rental space. The cantilevers help to further confuse the wind, allow light to penetrate to the terrace, and allow room for many more exterior uses. All of this, plus the added public realm advantages in less wind, more light, and a building shape not seen in Boston allow the developer to claim positives for the city, which means it is more likely to make it through the review process. Also, in all likelihood these lower cuts will let the developer charge more per sq.ft. for the rent-able space inside because of the outdoor amenities. The options posted above, while likely adding more space to the tower, would probably lower the income available to the developer, as well as generally make the building and the corner it is on less pleasant to be at by adding wind, increasing shadows, and removing private and public amenities.

Ask questions and think about why something is done. Don't just assume that you have a better aesthetic sense than someone else.
 
found5dollar,

200.gif
 
found5dollar

Thank you, though I understand why there is a desire for spires because a tower with a spire has more character than a flat roof building. It is the attention to detail that matters, just like the cantilevers design for this building.
 
I think they are just prioritizing different details (budget, code, etc). It is not as if they complete a design and think "Oh! A spire! Why didn't I think of that?"
We can disagree with why they choose to make the decisions they do (though, for the most part we never will know) but I don't think it's fair to chalk it up to laziness.
 
I think the presentation that we have been commenting on, is just an opening gambit in the approval process.

Now we need to wait for the next [and perhaps semi-final] iteration to be presented to the BRA -- then the comments can be more substantive

However, given the amount of detail that was presented to the BCDC -- it might be a short process before final approval.

I'm betting this one is digging by this time next year -- unless the Globe's prediction of markets collapsing because of the incipient trade war is on target :p
 
found5dollar said:
The sudden fetishism of spires on this board has been really bothering me lately, but what is driving me crazy is the discussion on this thread. The aesthetics of the exterior of a building is not all that matters. Instead of asking "does this building look better without the cantilevers?," which is a totally subjective question, we should be asking "why did the architect feel cantilevers were necessary in this design?" I can guarantee you that the architect has already considered all of these variations people are Photoshopping and posting. If you go back to the BCDC presentation, they basically spell out the reason for these "lower cuts" on page 5, and it all seems to boil down to that the architect believes that the value added in a large, calm, sunlight filled, exterior amenity space is greater than the loss of interior rental space. The cantilevers help to further confuse the wind, allow light to penetrate to the terrace, and allow room for many more exterior uses. All of this, plus the added public realm advantages in less wind, more light, and a building shape not seen in Boston allow the developer to claim positives for the city, which means it is more likely to make it through the review process. Also, in all likelihood these lower cuts will let the developer charge more per sq.ft. for the rent-able space inside because of the outdoor amenities. The options posted above, while likely adding more space to the tower, would probably lower the income available to the developer, as well as generally make the building and the corner it is on less pleasant to be at by adding wind, increasing shadows, and removing private and public amenities.

Ask questions and think about why something is done. Don't just assume that you have a better aesthetic sense than someone else.
Click to expand...

^First, fetishism of spires is not a bad thing. Maybe it's because we don't have many here, and want a few more. Second, since when is discussing aesthetics wrong? Isn't that the most important thing, seeing as how we'll all have to look at the final product forever? Believe me, I would never assume I have "better" aesthetic sense than anyone else. But seriously, is the functional utility of the building more important than the sensory delight one receives when looking at it?..(taking into account the challenges of the site, of course)...I thought about the sunlight, wind, and other factors the designers had to take into account when designing this building. I guess it's just the final product that has me disappointed. Personal taste in this case. You make valid points, but I don't think questioning how the building will look as completed is a non-worthy discussion.
 
Last edited:
I agree Im not saying I know whats better Im just trying to see some things from a different perspective how they would look. I have my opinions others have theirs. In my opinion I don't like the cantilevers but others do thats fine. Just wanted to add to the discussion since there isn't really any new news and see things from a different side of the coin. I realize they aded them for a reason but they could have also added them to any other building ever built for the same reasons. Just trying to have a discussion. With regards to spires I don't think its that big of a deal to want to see a couple spires in a city where 99% of the buildings don't have them. Again its peoples opinions that they are entitled to but me personally I would like so see some spires to break up the boxiness of the skyline. I think a few here and there would do wonders for the skyline.
 
1) There is no practical reason for a spire. They are almost exclusively used as a cheap height grab to get bragging rights, and do nothing for the use, looks, or status of a building. This is true for the Empire State Building (airship docking was a ruse to get it to be the tallest building in the world, they never even installed pulleys and cables to dock with), The Bank of America Tower, and One World Trade, just to name some of the biggest culprits.

2) A building is not a sculpture. You can talk about aesthetics till you are blue in the face, but people have to actually use this thing, not just look at it. A beautiful chair is useless if it hurts to sit in it (ask anyone that has ever sat in a Frank Lloyd Wright dining room chair).

3) Answer to your question - "...is the functional utility of the building more important than the sensory delight one receives when looking at it?" Yes. Oh my God yes.


Buildings are built from the inside out. The skin rarely matters. Ever since the invention of the curtain wall virtually nothing on the outside of a tall building is structural. This disparity is what much of contemporary architecture is trying to deal with by adding texture, detail, and visual interest back in through offset windows, colorful textures, curving shapes, and in this instance cantilevers. We decry the offset windows because there is no reasoning behind them besides "look I'm doing something different and fresh." These cantilevers are interesting in how they work, have a true purpose and help create a useful building with an unfamiliar shape. Weird shapes can be beautiful, but more often weird shapes solve problems in interesting ways.
 
^ I agree with parts of that but at the same time if the style didn't matter at all then why isn't every building in Boston a 1 Beacon St clone. They could have built 30 bland boxes and called it a day. Style matters because it sets your building apart, makes it recognizable from a distance, and draws bigger rent. If your headquarters needs a new 50 story tower your not going to want to put up a 50 story 1 beacon to go with the rest of them because it doesn't set you apart. Companies want their building to instantly be recognizable from a distance, match the identity of the building with the identity of their brand (tech company, tech lobby, (comcast center in philly). To say it doesn't matter at all is not true at all. It is not the most important part at all though, you are right about that. When people see the Comcast center in Philly from 20 miles away gleaming over the rest of the skyline they know Comcast is doing well and now that there is a new tower going up next to it it looks like Comcast is progressing even further forward. Or what about trump residence in NYC. At the time it was the tallest residential in the world. You know as well as I do having that title at the time along with the gold letters above the entrance allows him to get more money per unit than if he just built a dull box that was 30 stories.
 
found5dollar said:
1) There is no practical reason for a spire. They are almost exclusively used as a cheap height grab to get bragging rights, and do nothing for the use, looks, or status of a building. This is true for the Empire State Building (airship docking was a ruse to get it to be the tallest building in the world, they never even installed pulleys and cables to dock with), The Bank of America Tower, and One World Trade, just to name some of the biggest culprits.
Click to expand...
I only agree with this if the spire was built just for height sake (i.e. 1 WTC). However, some spires are built to enhance the aesthetic of the skyscrapers, i.e. Chrysler Tower, Bank of America Tower, Key Tower, etc. Most people mistaken spires as antennas with decoration but they are not. It's just that recently, architects have been bastardizing them into these skinny looking antenna spires. Again, the Bank of America tower is a great example of a spire that isn't the typical antenna looking ones we see nowadays.

800px-Bank_of_America_Corporate_Center.jpg


found5dollar said:
2) A building is not a sculpture. You can talk about aesthetics till you are blue in the face, but people have to actually use this thing, not just look at it. A beautiful chair is useless if it hurts to sit in it (ask anyone that has ever sat in a Frank Lloyd Wright dining room chair).
Click to expand...
It can be both. Otherwise, why would anyone build anything that isn't a box? Are you saying that the Chrysler Tower is negatively impacted by the gargoyles that sit near the top of the tower?

found5dollar said:
3) Answer to your question - "...is the functional utility of the building more important than the sensory delight one receives when looking at it?" Yes. Oh my God yes.
Click to expand...
That's fine but adding something that isn't detrimental to the building is not a bad thing. It's an extra and can enhance (or the opposite) the building aesthetically without negatively affecting the functionality of the building itself.

By the way, the height of the Empire State Building is 1,250 ft because the height of the building only counts spire, not antennas. Including the antenna brings it to 1,454 ft so no the antenna wasn't included so that it could be the world tallest. It was the world tallest without the antenna. People need to remember that antenna does not equal spire.
 
Last edited:
Yeah let's just keep building big brick rectangles. No spires or crowns. Nothing lit up at night. It'll make for a great skyline!

(Sigh).
 
1WTC cant even be ripped on because the old tower had an antenna and they were trying to bring that massing back to the skyline. It didn't need a tall antenna so they just used a spire. They also made it a little taller than the old antenna so it had a reason for the height it was at, at 1776ft. I am glad they brought that shape back to downtown and it would have been a loss if they had not put a spire to evoke partly the old tower.
 
Just flew into LAX for instant summer and Malibu fun. Coupl'a spendid highrises going up Downtown. Gosh you guys left me with some reading!! Found fi dahller well done sir. Agree with much of your 1 Bromfield points. AS to spires, obviously not really in the cards for Boston. But, i think a spire is appropriate at at least one site for 900~950'; Back Bay Station. Oh, if 1 Liberty could have only been built there.

found5dollar said:
Buildings are built from the inside out. The skin rarely matters. Ever since the invention of the curtain wall virtually nothing on the outside of a tall building is structural....
Click to expand...

This is one good reason why we're getting these fugly huge square windows all over the place including Broad St right off Fanuil Hall... They look really good from the inside out.
 
Last edited:
found5dollar said:
1)


Buildings are built from the inside out. The skin rarely matters. Ever since the invention of the curtain wall virtually nothing on the outside of a tall building is structural. .
Click to expand...

Found -- do a little digging -- this not really a new matter

Steel and poured in place reinforced concrete just made it easier to hang any skin you want on the actual building -- but it didn't start with steel frames

Ever since Palladio most of what was seen on the outside of a building had little if any structural raison d'etre

Yet somehow, Palladio managed to make good buildings that people enjoyed to live, worship and work within -- they were also pleasing to the eye of the passersby on the street and equally pleasing from a distance

The problem with today's architecture is that just like the current art scene -- architects don't want to be caught doing things that might harken back to some earlier era -- so instead of some-revival or the other -- where architects tried to reinterpret something else that had been good in a new vernacular, e.g. early 19th C Greek Revival or early 20th C Neo-Colonial -- we get Gehry-isms, Johnstrosities, and worse -- less talented architects than those are just trying to be different -- but almost necessarily not better

In Boston the quintessential paradigm of this depressing state of affairs is the BPL -- compare the pleasant and enjoyable human-o-philic facade [it was not structural even then] of the Mckim with Johnson's attempt at some sort of massive faux Medieval MeadHall -- it would have been much better if he just made a BIG version of his Glass House

One of the reasons I really admire what Handel did with MT is that he left a nice space between his glass tower and Burnham's masterpiece

Hopefully, the final version of the Bromfield will incorporate the style of the DTX street and then isolate it from the glass tower above the human level
 
This is the last post I am making on this subject.

I am not saying that every building needs to be a box with no detail, and claiming that is what I am advocating is a purposeful twisting of my words. I am not fucking Mies van der Rohe for Christ's sake.

1 Bromfield is trying to solve the specific issues of this specific parcel and it's intended programing, just like every other building is trying to do with it's specific parcel and programing. That is why there is, and should be, variety in architecture.

I am just sick of no longer hearing from the people on this board that I used to love. It is very obvious that many have been pushed out by all the wanking over kitschy finials for the tops of buildings. These tops and height grabs mean absolutely nothing besides pretending that our buildings are bigger than other cites buildings. The height of a building and its impact on the imaginary thing we call a "skyline" has absolutely no impact on the City of Boston. Period.

What does matter is why we build buildings and how we interact with them. Art and Design are two different categories, and architecture is firmly within the bounds of "Design." In art the most important aspects of a piece are the concept and the aesthetics. A person interacting with a finished artwork is considered a "viewer," they see the object and think about it. A designed object, on the other hand, is used. It is created in a way that allows for it to be worked with, appreciated, and helpful to those interacting with it. For example, The cantilevers of Fallingwater are beautiful, but they serve practically to create expansive outdoor rooms and interior collumless spaces. The beauty comes from solving space issues not from just adding details for the sake of adding details. Le Centre Pompideu solves similar issues of needing large unobstructed spaces on the interior of the building by placing mechanicals and circulation on it's exterior. This creates a crazy web of intricate systems giving a person outside the building something to be awed by, but solving very practical issues in the meantime. A building can and should be beautiful, but the beauty is not a tacked on thing. It must come from the issues the building is trying to resolve.

The practice of building tall buildings is now and always has been, a dick size contest. There is never a reason to build the tallest building anywhere except to try to prove that you are the most powerful in the room. This has been true from the construction of the pyramids through the "Empty State Building" and the topping out of the Burj Khalifa. Tall buildings give you the feeling of power but, much like a guy in his midlife crisis buying a sports car, prove nothing. There is a reason all the Modernists were men.

Now, while I hate to reference Richard Nixon, I will now go back to being part of the "Silent Majority" here that pay attention to context, floor plans, usage patterns, and street level interaction. Go ahead talk more about how adding a spire to this building to artificially inflate its length, sorry I mean height, will do so much for the aesthetics and quality of this building. What we actually need are more well designed structures in this city that bring life to areas that dead, programing to spaces that are empty, and solve the issues modern cites face with out worrying about the Napoleon Complex so many in Boston seem to have. In my opinion, 1 Bromfield is on it's way to fulfilling these goals.
 
I agree I didn't think the spire argument was over this building but must have missed it. I think this building looks bad with a spire I thought it was a general discussion about spires in general.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top