Assembly Square Infill and Small Developments | Somerville

Saw this in person over the weekend and it was pretty much as expected. As I've said it will probably do fine as a functioning, busy neighborhood so that's very good.

It's a near total aesthetic disaster however. Only one building (besides the T station) seemed to have any substance or authenticity, the rest has the cheapness and artifice of a Hollywood movie back lot. From the tiresome acorn street lights to the over-sized prop cornices it typifies the clownish PoMo developments that have stained this country for the last 30+ years. There are 3(!) parking garages already. How many more to come?

The best thing is the 20 ft. Lego giraffe. Phase 1 design grade: F+
 
Brad Plaid said:
Saw this in person over the weekend and it was pretty much as expected. As I've said it will probably do fine as a functioning, busy neighborhood so that's very good.

It's a near total aesthetic disaster however. Only one building (besides the T station) seemed to have any substance or authenticity, the rest has the cheapness and artifice of a Hollywood movie back lot. From the tiresome acorn street lights to the over-sized prop cornices it typifies the clownish PoMo developments that have stained this country for the last 30+ years. There are 3(!) parking garages already. How many more to come?

The best thing is the 20 ft. Lego giraffe. Phase 1 design grade: F+
Click to expand...

+1

Thank you. After that last round of photos and the stream of laudatory reception that followed I kept thinking, "I can't possibly be the only person who thinks this looks like a complete and utter joke." It isn't even good as the faux-whatever-it-is-trying-to-be. I actually find it insulting, but you've offered a much more concise description of its failings than I could. Will Greater Boston ever embrace good design?
 
I'll disagree with the harshness of the two above. The first thing I thought was it looked like a Hollywood back lot as mentioned a number of times, but I also like the scale and at least attempt at providing distinct buildings, a reasonable street wall, and some (although faux) detailing.

Building at this size and scale, and providing the "good design" and detail work that we all want is not going to happen based on costs. If real stone, brick, cornices, etc. are put into the design, then the rents and leasing become too much for the area.

You can give all the "they could if they wanted to" explanations you want, but it is not realistic. It's not just better than a parking lot, it is better than 90% of any other attempts at building new urbanism in the greater Boston area in recent memory.
 
+1

This is pretty much exactly how I feel. The cost of stone and the cost of paying people to do detail work on the stone would only be feasible to be done if this were a development in or adjacent to downtown or back bay where they could require stores to pay sky high leases and it would be expected.

When you read about urban design it is often stated that the most important thing is that there is street fronting retail and lots of windows and doors, and that a single store does not take up too long a stretch of frontage. While detailing and using materials that are of high quality and having really good detailing are mentioned as important that does not decide the success of a development. An example of this would be that there are some beautiful buildings in Boston now that lack good street interaction and they are nice to look at but if a whole neighborhood was built with buildings like that it would be pretty but suck to be in. This development while not as nice as it "could be" still accomplishes the most important part of good urban design, an active street wall.
 
The original Hotel Commonwealth is what comes to mind when I think of going cheap n' fancy. In an established, historic neighborhood where your aesthetic competition is across the street, it makes sense to spend extra for the real thing. Given the (lack of a) neighborhood in Assembly Square, I'd say this is the development the area deserves--and I mean that both in good and bad ways. I would love it if there were Somerville artisans sculpting dentils and cornices that overlook the mighty Mystic, but I'm not holding my breath.

That being said, of course the criticism has merit. This ain't Chartres or even the Flatiron. Just because it makes sense to build buildings like this doesn't mean we should pretend it's better than it is.
 
Assembly Sq. is giving a lot of people what they now crave...an opportunity to live in virtual reality. Image, no matter how artificial, has replaced substance in communities like these. After all look where it's located. Aside from the riverfront, it's surrounded by a major highway, shopping malls, train tracks and a transitional industrial neighborhood. I wonder (aside from the traffic issue) what would have happened if the neighborhood torn down to build I93 went through the gentrification that we see happening all over Charlestown?
 
You know, its also brand spanking new. Give it a decade or so and it will blend in better. If you've ever seen an historic building that's undergone a really extensive restoration they tend to look pretty similar to the above. Getting some grime in the mortar really helps flush things out.
 
resisttheist said:
Will Greater Boston ever embrace good design?
Click to expand...

The did in the 50's/60's with Government Center. Most of the buildings were (and some still are) widely praised by architecture critics of the day.

But the backlash was so severe developers and city officials are still gun-shy to do anything even close to high-design.
 
statler said:
The did in the 50's/60's with Government Center. Most of the buildings were (and some still are) widely praised by architecture critics of the day.

But the backlash was so severe developers and city officials are still gun-shy to do anything even close to high-design.
Click to expand...

That's because, then as now, "High Design" is a code word for "Ugly Fad".

Good design doesn't (and indeed shouldn't) always need to be radical.

EDIT: I'm not saying I hate all new modern buildings, but if the best thing you have to say about a design is that it follows all of the latest trends, it clearly can't stand on its merits.
 
statler said:
The did in the 50's/60's with Government Center. Most of the buildings were (and some still are) widely praised by architecture critics of the day.

But the backlash was so severe developers and city officials are still gun-shy to do anything even close to high-design.
Click to expand...

If Government Center is "high design", it just goes to show how fucking full of shit architects are. Or maybe you have to be high on drugs to appreciate it.

Buildings are meant for people. If every normal person (not an architect) says your work sucks, then it sucks.

Architects are their own worst enemies.
 
statler said:
The did in the 50's/60's with Government Center. Most of the buildings were (and some still are) widely praised by architecture critics of the day.

But the backlash was so severe developers and city officials are still gun-shy to do anything even close to high-design.
Click to expand...

How I see it is, only architects praise controversial designs but that means nothing if they are not selling it to other architects (i.e. the public is still going to say it looks like shit because their viewpoints and tastes are different from an architect's).
 
Brad Plaid said:
over-sized prop cornices it typifies the clownish PoMo developments that have stained this country for the last 30+ years.
Click to expand...

Philip Johnson went a little crazy for that crap in the final years of his career (IE the monstrosity at 500 Boylston) and left that as his legacy. Sigh.
 
Roxxma said:
Philip Johnson went a little crazy for that crap in the final years of his career (IE the monstrosity at 500 Boylston) and left that as his legacy. Sigh.
Click to expand...

For as much bashing PoMo gets (and deserves), I've always liked 500 Boylston, even with the plaza of perpetual shadow (which should be glassed in).
 
Matthew said:
If Government Center is "high design", it just goes to show how fucking full of shit architects are. Or maybe you have to be high on drugs to appreciate it.

Buildings are meant for people. If every normal person (not an architect) says your work sucks, then it sucks.

Architects are their own worst enemies.
Click to expand...

+1. It's no coincidence that the Arch school at many colleges are seen as the ugliest buildings on campus.
 
yKAoo9R.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top