115 Federal St. (Winthrop Square)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm loving this project more and more each time I look at it....great job getting those pics online!
 
It's that last shot where it is next to the pregnant building that kills it for me.

I love the idea behind the garden and open space but damn does that design anger me.
 
Real question is ...

The real question is, can we tell from those photos where the sun and shadows will be, at 8 AM, noon, and 2:00 PM?

Oh, right, nowhere near the Common.

So shut up you f-ing NIMBYs.
 
I think I like the design. Of course it's way more boxy than I would like it to be, but it's not too bad. And eventually (aka 50 years) we should have a nice non-boxy building almost as tall or taller to be near it
 
bra1sd0.jpg


Hm, maybe when the sun becomes a red giant there will be a shadow on the common. Lets not build it!
 
....

its not as bad as I was thinking, but it really does need a new top, I want some tapering, perhaps some set backs and some points- interest! Though its not as big of an issue I want good glass, blue meh.. spice is up gold, pale pink even... lets make a land mark. Its got a lot of promise.. just change the top and perhaps spice up the glass a bit.
 
Thanks for the info.

Why would they be putting elevators in the spire, they would be loosing alot of office space with views which equals $$$. Which is why elevator are usually in the core of the building.

Sounds like they will have double decker elevators.
 
So, according to those figures, the height of the building (not including the spire) will be about 1100 feet. That will make it the tallest building in the U.S. outside of NY and Chicago (beating out the 1023-foot Bank of America tower in Atlanta). Does anyone know if this spire will count towards the building's "structural" height, allowing it to beat out the Empire State building (and all other currently existing towers in the U.S. except the Sears tower)?
 
I'm still rather disappointed by the design...that's the best Piano could come up with? It looks like any other bland Boston box, except twice as high.

The proposed garden/observation deck at the top is a cool idea, though.
 
Gazprom is building its new hedquarters on an abandoned factory site in St, Petersburg, and they got six starchitects to compete for the design of the skyscraper. Images here:

http://www.gazprom-city.info/competition/projects/

You can even vote for your favorite by clicking on the "golosovat' " link (if you don't read Russian, it's the link below the pictures for each project). Gazprom will then take the public opinion into consideration (not).

I don't like any of them, and St. Petersburg is the last place that needs this kind of brash statement-for-statement's-sake. But they are all interesting bad, which is more than our Piano design can boast.

justin
 
But the "spire" that we are including in the height of this building seems more like an antenna, while there may be an actual spire that comes out of the boxy top of this building. We decided to just remove the height altogether until more information comes along (on Emporis).
 
justin said:
You can even vote for your favorite by clicking on the "golosovat' " link (if you don't read Russian, it's the link below the pictures for each project). Gazprom will then take the public opinion into consideration (not).
Click to expand...
Libeskind is the only one with hair. A new trend among architects or radiation poisoning?

Voted for Koolhaas. Never thought I'd catch myself doing that.

But when you consider the alternatives...
 
Really stupid question...

Which one is Koolhaas?
 
kz100ps said:
this tower is through and through a product of Renzo Piano.
Click to expand...
More like a product of Charles Luckman thru and thru. The thing is practically a clone of the Pru. Especially when seen from the side opposite the spire: a dull flat shaft with a box of chocolates on top and an antenna sticking up the middle. IMO, the nifty details don't make up for the ugly design, and I don't expect many of them will actually get incorporated in the building. This is going to be an expensive tower to begin with and you can count on construction costs going up. Many of these features will be value-engineered out of the final product. That's why it's important that the tower itself look good, instead of counting on these tacked-on gimmicks to counter people's initial reaction that it's a bland eyesore.
 
Well our only hope is the fact that probably 0% of buildings look like their first proposal/drawing
 
I have to echo the criticism that this design fails to do what it was intended to do, that is, be an iconic emblem of Boston the way the Empire State is for New York. I can't imagine anyone seeing this building and feeling inspired or impressed with Boston, or really reacting in an aesthetic way at all to this building. When you ask what makes this building great, you get a list of engineering feats or public amenities. What you don't get is any aesthetic virtues, because it has none. No one would describe it as graceful, or sleek, or enobling, or inspiring, or even dignified or dramatic.
Way back on the old board, when this project was announced, I joked that the tower would liik like this:

tower.jpg


Sadly, I came closer to the truth than I would have liked.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top