30 Dalton St. Residences | Back Bay

[statler]

See, I really like that and I'm not much of a Gehry fan to say the least.

 

[type001]

That Beekham building makes me want to vomit every time I see it, so thanks! ;-)

 

[stick n move]

Boston is handling this fine. We are getting mostly quality filler buildings and then the tall buildings are going to be really good(copley, 1 dalton, millennium, most likely 1 bromfield) Millennium is already making everything around it look much better, these will do the same.

 

[kz1000ps]

 

[JeffDowntown]

You know this building really is not that bad when you compare it to its neighbors!

 

[Equilibria]

You know this building really is not that bad when you compare it to its neighbors!

Also, you kind of have to factor in that the view in the picture will be dominated by One Dalton, which IS statement architecture. Two years from now, your eye won't notice any of those buildings.

 

[Czervik.Construction]

The back of that building is basically a blank slab on 2 sides. Party in the front, business in the back.

Perhaps because I've not been classically trained as an architect (and have been living in Boston for 6 years), I can only think of this when I see people complain about 'filler' residential buildings and pine for 'world class...art':

 

[KentXie]

Boston is handling this fine. We are getting mostly quality filler buildings and then the tall buildings are going to be really good(copley, 1 dalton, millennium, most likely 1 bromfield) Millennium is already making everything around it look much better, these will do the same.

I guess the standard is really low here in Boston. In many other cities, the "quality" fillers we are getting are junks, and the really good buildings are what they get as fillers because their signature towers are iconic. MT is good, but it's far from iconic.

This is what a quality filler tower is, not that office looking residential tower that is going up at 30 Dalton.

 

[stick n move]

^ That would not be a filler in Boston because of how tall it is but what is so special about that? That looks like any generic building built in Toronto in the last 10 years.

 

[KentXie]

^ That would not be a filler in Boston because of how tall it is but what is so special about that? That looks like any generic building built in Toronto in the last 10 years.

Slanted roof, higher quality material, taller, no blank walls, curved corners, cohesive facade compared to what we normally get: flat top, cheap material, boxy, jekyll and hyde facade and short. This is what SHOULD be considered a filler building in Boston. Why are we settling for the Kensingtons, Jacob Wirths, and the W Hotels of the world? It's sad to say, a generic building in Toronto looks better than 30 Dalton which looks generic anywhere in any city.

And if you're wondering what I meant by not having a cohesive, jekyll and hyde facade, I'm talking about this:

Back and Front doesn't match.

Vertical then Horizontal glass windows.

A mishmash (aka a clusterfuck) of different designs. Great photo though.

And now this which looks nothing like the other side.

 

[DigitalSciGuy]

I guess the standard is really low here in Boston. In many other cities, the "quality" fillers were are getting are junks, and the really good buildings are what they get as fillers because their signature towers are iconic. MP is good, but it's far from iconic.

^ That would not be a filler in Boston because of how tall it is but what is so special about that? That looks like any generic building built in Toronto in the last 10 years.

This is what's really confusing to me as a lay person. I know I like how it looks, but I definitely feel like I've seen better than MT. I can't differentiate it from anything else that everyone else is calling 'value engineered' down at the Seaport District other than being more than twice as tall and having high quality glass.

And yet, I pine for the bold shapes and designs I see whenever I go back 'home' to NYC, I see tons of beautiful skyline shots of Toronto submitted to the /r/cityporn subreddit, etc. Even though it's not a masterpiece, the building in San Francisco that Kent offers does at least appear to be inoffensive that adds to downtown SF's skyline/background buildings.

Stick, I guess I'm confused about what makes Toronto's 'generic' buildings less desirable than 30 Dalton or AVA Theatre District, both of which seem to speak the same design language as 33 Arch Street (I thought it was a hotel the first time I saw it and didn't know it was an office building until I had an interview there for my last job). Can you point out other buildings that could've been more successful filler designs for 30 Dalton's blank walls than Toronto's 'filler' residential towers?

 

[type001]

I'm going to guess that this phenomenon comes down to 2 things.

1) The grass is always seemingly greener.
2) You've been looking at the same renders and construction photos continuously for the last umpteen months/years in your own city that when seeing another city shot gives you a fresher perspective.

 

[Tombstoner]

As a layperson as well (but one who travels a lot, loves architecture, and has the opportunity to see what is going up in several cities in the US, Mexico, Brazil, W. Europe, SE Asia and W, S and E Africa) I have to say the hype surrounding most major projects in Boston is laughable. For instance, I can't fathom the enthusiasm for MT--of course, it will do a lot for street-level revitalization and it has huge symbolic and political significance--but it would be completely ignorable filler in most major world cities. One Dalton will be pleasant enough, but again, nothing remotely iconic about it.

I think Boston can stake its claim to the strength of its urban fabric (e.g., green spaces, walkability and density), educational and cultural institutions, and solid (mostly) 19th-early 20th century housing stock. Few people outside of Boston would recognize ANY building here (even the HT, which I personally like a lot, is a footnote). This is just not a city that seems capable of making architectural statements, and maybe that's okay.

 

[JeffDowntown]

As a layperson as well (but one who travels a lot, loves architecture, and has the opportunity to see what is going up in several cities in the US, Mexico, Brazil, W. Europe, SE Asia and W, S and E Africa) I have to say the hype surrounding most major projects in Boston is laughable. For instance, I can't fathom the enthusiasm for MT--of course, it will do a lot for street-level revitalization and it has huge symbolic and political significance--but it would be completely ignorable filler in most major world cities. One Dalton will be pleasant enough, but again, nothing remotely iconic about it.

I think Boston can stake its claim to the strength of its urban fabric (e.g., green spaces, walkability and density), educational and cultural institutions, and solid (mostly) 19th-early 20th century housing stock. Few people outside of Boston would recognize ANY building here (even the HT, which I personally like a lot, is a footnote). This is just not a city that seems capable of making architectural statements, and maybe that's okay.

I actually believe architectural statements are overrated. They rarely actually contribute positively to the urban fabric. They tend to be brash, noisy, "look at me" structures, rather than playing well with the team. I think good urban design is a team sport, rather than a single player spectacle.

Things like the Gehry Stata Center at MIT come to mind.

 

[stick n move]

Idk for the most part I'm fine with whats been going up. A lot of the buildings built in America that are so called "special" a lot of that is because they are tall (besides the art deco gems). If you shrink 1wtc down to 250 feet and remove the spire it wouldn't even look as good as the curved glass tower going up in the seaport. We have had a pretty bad skyline for a while it was mostly made up of 1970's office boxes. I think we need to appreciate that we are even getting what we are getting. 1 Dalton does not look like a filler building to me, MT yes but given the downtown skyline it is a ridiculous improvement, the government center garage tower is going to be amazing, copley is a round glass tower with setbacks- havent seen many of those, the aquarium garage towers were pretty unique but of course those were shot down. For me I think the overall product is whats most important and Boston's is pretty nice. Each tower may not be the best but the way they come together make it a nice place. We also have a few art deco gems downtown that if they were built tall would be up there with Chicago and NY. They were not so they don't make any noise. I am just thankful that we are finally going vertical after decades of not and we have the pieces in place that one day when we get out "icon" everything falls into place.

 

[KentXie]

I actually believe architectural statements are overrated. They rarely actually contribute positively to the urban fabric. They tend to be brash, noisy, "look at me" structures, rather than playing well with the team. I think good urban design is a team sport, rather than a single player spectacle.

Things like the Gehry Stata Center at MIT come to mind.

One is not exclusive of the other. Why not demand both? Btw, none of those three towers I mentioned improved street interaction in any significant way. So we got neither.

 

[JeffDowntown]

One is not exclusive of the other. Why not demand both? Btw, none of those three towers I mentioned improved street interaction in any significant way. So we got neither.

We can certainly try to get both, but I am not sure how you get past value engineering of projects, with construction costs so high in Boston.

I also have to slightly disagree on the street activation issue. The W Hotel certainly provides a lot more street activation than the parking lot it replaced (walk by on a weekend night). And the Ava at least did not destroy the existing streetscape on Stuart Street (it did screw over La Grange Street, however, as did the Kensington -- turning it into a parking access way).

 

[Brad Plaid]

Boston has a well-deserved reputation for design conservatism and reaction. Developers know this and are not terribly motivated to produce anything all that innovative—it could easily cost them in time wasted and money spent for nothing. Unfortunately, the lowest common denominator design is usually the path of least resistance here. Things are changing for the better but it's a slow process.

 

[Bubbybu]

As a layperson as well (but one who travels a lot, loves architecture, and has the opportunity to see what is going up in several cities in the US, Mexico, Brazil, W. Europe, SE Asia and W, S and E Africa) I have to say the hype surrounding most major projects in Boston is laughable. For instance, I can't fathom the enthusiasm for MT--of course, it will do a lot for street-level revitalization and it has huge symbolic and political significance--but it would be completely ignorable filler in most major world cities. One Dalton will be pleasant enough, but again, nothing remotely iconic about it.

I think Boston can stake its claim to the strength of its urban fabric (e.g., green spaces, walkability and density), educational and cultural institutions, and solid (mostly) 19th-early 20th century housing stock. Few people outside of Boston would recognize ANY building here (even the HT, which I personally like a lot, is a footnote). This is just not a city that seems capable of making architectural statements, and maybe that's okay.

Just as an aside, you do realize the John Hancock is one of the most innovative and groundbreaking glass skyscrapers ever made, right?

I'm out here in SF and all new projects except a small few are about as dull as dishwater. It's just not necessary for some places to need to make huge statements in their towers. The most livable places in Europe are all tower negative and the cities of the world most bonkers for iconic skyscrapers are all pretty much overcrowded or dead-street shitholes. I mean can anyone honestly say Dubai is a nice city? Toronto has a couple nice ones and then a ton of generics and a shitty street level.

Vancouver, great street level but full of generics.

It's really hard for a city to hit that sweet spot of a Boston-like street presence, jam packed with great modern towers but not be overbearing. Maybe London does this best.

With the Copley Tower, the CSC and Govt Center garage project all looming, we're going to have some of the most unique money shots of old and new with great design and blending. That's under-appreciated around here.

Assuming this is how it roughly turns out, look at the street level elegance of this:

It's not just one tower lost in a sea of towers, it gracefully coexists with all of the classic buildings of Copley Square. You get a full view. It's really a special interaction you won't find in most any city. Not every new project has to be measured against the grain of starchitect structures. What matters is hitting those right notes at the right spot in the city. And we have some great ones coming.

 

[stick n move]

Just as an aside, you do realize the John Hancock is one of the most innovative and groundbreaking glass skyscrapers ever made, right?

I'm out here in SF and all new projects except a small few are about as dull as dishwater. It's just not necessary for some places to need to make huge statements in their towers. The most livable places in Europe are all tower negative and the cities of the world most bonkers for iconic skyscrapers are all pretty much overcrowded or dead-street shitholes. I mean can anyone honestly say Dubai is a nice city? Toronto has a couple nice ones and then a ton of generics and a shitty street level.

Vancouver, great street level but full of generics.

It's really hard for a city to hit that sweet spot of a Boston-like street presence, jam packed with great modern towers but not be overbearing. Maybe London does this best.

With the Copley Tower, the CSC and Govt Center garage project all looming, we're going to have some of the most unique money shots of old and new with great design and blending. That's under-appreciated around here.

Assuming this is how it roughly turns out, look at the street level elegance of this:

It's not just one tower lost in a sea of towers, it gracefully coexists with all of the classic buildings of Copley Square. You get a full view. It's really a special interaction you won't find in most any city. Not every new project has to be measured against the grain of starchitect structures. What matters is hitting those right notes at the right spot in the city. And we have some great ones coming.

^ amen exactly what I am saying. Cant think of anything that looks like the Copley tower a dynamic round shaped high rise with setbacks.

Cant think of another building that looks like this either. Then you add the street level presence of Boston and its on another playing field.

Next up dare I say Iconic. Well have to wait and see.

Not to mention the Hancock is the reason that glass towers exist today. For being a glass box it changes shape from every angle you look at it from. One side it looks like a sliver with an elegant slice cutting up the side. Another angle it can looks extremely fat and takes over the whole shot.

From Cambridge it almost disappears.

From downtown it dominates

From up the charles it plays nice with its older brother

1BP hints toward the Hancock in Chicago but clearly very different. Completely unique tower to Boston because of that crown on materials that have been used many times.

60 State street is my favorite building in Boston. It has great materials, a nice color pallette, and changes shape from every angle. Never seen one of these anywhere else.

The millennium tower is kind of generic but it pays homage to the Hancock on the thin side with the line cutting through it and then topped with a modern day crown. Those slanted crowns are starting to become a Boston thing defining the downtown skyline from most angles and MT does it very well. Russia wharf came out exceptionally nice, hayward place is incredible, Liberty mutual is one of the best modern reincarnations of art deco I have seen. Rowes Wharf is an absolute gem. Just because we got a waterside place or a kensington doesnt take away from what else we got. The W is very short and its a generic glass box but its better than what was there and very inoffensive. IMO the kensington and waterside place are probably the only two truly bad towers we have built in the last 15 years with an honorable mention of 111 huntingtons crown, the rest are either short and inoffensive or actually pretty nice.