Atlantic Wharf (née Russia Wharf) | Atlantic Ave | Waterfront

Striking 111 Huntington? Does anyone else think it looks like a nice building with a bad hat?! It's like when you're at a bar with a buddy whose looking to hook-up; you can always steer him towards the girl in the bad hat, because everyone knows girls in bad hats want to hook-up. 111 Huntington looks like it wants to hook-up with the Prudential Center, but the Prudential Center isn't going to be that desprate until much later in the evening.
 
Nope I think the crown is beautiful and I like how it lights up at night. Without the crown, it will be a dull regular looking glass structure with a flat top.

BTW, would anyone please scan the rendering of the tower from the Globe so the rest can see? :eek:
 
The new rendering looks better because it's less cartoonish. The removal of the diagonal cross-bracing, though, made this building a lot less interesting. Now it has all the aplomb of a glass 28 State Street.
 
"Does anyone else think it looks like a nice building with a bad hat?!"

This is actually in my top 10 for favorite skyscrapers anywhere. I think it's a masterpiece!

"The removal of the diagonal cross-bracing, though, made this building a lot less interesting. Now it has all the aplomb of a glass 28 State Street."

Damn! I have to go get a globe at lunch
 
I may have to eat my words. The online rendering is slightly nicer than what I saw in the physical paper...I guess it didn't translate well to print.

1184254494_5961.jpg


I still maintain the first (left) design was more interesting; it was just rendered in a less sophisticated manner.
 
czsz said:
I still maintain the first (left) design was more interesting...
Click to expand...

Agreed. Add 15-20 stories and it would be better still, worthy of Foster or Rogers. I like that it's a stone's throw from the Fed, a Hugh Stubbin's building that presages Foster's HSBC tower in Hong Kong -- Russia Wharf, though much smaller (and more "tame"), bears a strong resemblance to HSBC.

HSBC_Hong_Kong_Headquarters.jpg
 
stellarfun said:
The long-stalled project was about to move forward with its new owner recently when an earlier design of the tower proposed for the site, published in the Globe in April, drew negative reviews for being uninspired.

"There were people who were concerned about the design," said Kairos Shen, director of planning for the Boston Redevelopment Authority. "It could be improved on."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



czsz said:
1184254494_5961.jpg
Click to expand...



So they improved it by making it less inspiring? I think from now on I'm going to refer to this building as the Steve Bailey Tower.
 
It's still just a dumb box with a light stick.

Snooze..
 
First off, thanks for scanning that in czsz!

I'm starting to wonder if we are getting a clear shot of the new rendering. It seems that distance of the building is a little further, thus blocking out the bottom. Also, the image is a little grainier than the original rendering. I'm not sure, but it looks as if they have just taken the existing top and encased it in glass. If that's the case, this tower could still be pretty awesome.
 
First off, thanks for scanning that in czsz!
Click to expand...

I didn't scan it; the Globe is actually doing a better job complementing online articles with photos.
 
Well, I think the new rendering is much better but it still has scale issues.
 
The Globe weighs in on the revised Russia Wharf design with its lead editorial today:

GLOBE EDITORIAL
Ugliness on the water

August 8, 2007

IT MAY be too late to prevent another architectural disaster from going up on the Boston waterfront, but let's give it a try. The Russia Wharf project, even in its latest iteration, is an ugly amalgam of 19th-century warehouse and 21st-century glitz. It would increase architectural confusion on the western edge of Fort Point Channel and diminish the appeal of what ought to be a vibrant waterfront district.

The plan has been under discussion for years, and its durability speaks to the combined failure of the Boston Redevelopment Authority, the Civic Design Commission, this editorial page, and many others who care about the shape of the waterfront. None of us raised an outcry against the notion of putting a 20-story glass box atop three brick warehouses.

In response to criticism by Globe columnist Steve Bailey and others, the new owner of the property did tweak the design. But the basic concept remains, and it doesn't work, especially when placed alongside the glassy Intercontinental Hotel, which in turn clashes with the nondescript brick of 470 Atlantic Avenue to the north. If the Russia Wharf high-rise goes just to the south of the hotel, this section of the waterfront becomes a brick and glass jumble. The waterfront is one of the city's great assets. It deserves to look better than this.

The BRA ought to have learned a lesson from the design shortcomings of Exchange Place in the financial district, a 1980s project that squashed the facade of the old Boston Stock Exchange onto the front of a 40-story glass high-rise. Architects cannot combine styles in such an arbitrary way and expect to create an aesthetically pleasing building.

Redesigning Russia Wharf will be difficult, but it might make sense to consider moving the high-rise portion to the back of the site, even if it means tearing down one of the warehouses. These are venerable buildings, but they are not enhanced by serving as the foundation for a modern structure.

For all the talk about its importance, the waterfront is strewn with architectural miscues, among them Harbor Towers and the Federal Courthouse. Perhaps the most notorious is the Marriott Long Wharf, with its ungainly, pedestrian-discouraging design. Mayor Kevin White rammed the design through the BRA in 1978 to compensate the Boston Properties company for its unsuccessful attempt to develop the Park Plaza megaproject in the Back Bay.

That very same company just bought Russia Wharf, and commissioned the slightly revised design. The BRA had given all necessary approvals to the project with the old design, but the revision means that it must undergo one more review. Boston Properties needs to take a fresh look at the site and devise a design that does justice to the site and the city. No more Long Wharfs, please.
Click to expand...


What's wrong with a mishmash of styles on the waterfront? I think it will look great and show a more modern side of Boston from the water, and you can also see the historical side of Boston from the water too, so I don't see anything wrong with this. Boston's got its head up its ass too much when it comes to historical preservation. We can't build anything modern, even right next to the modern InterContinental Hotel.
 
I'm definately in the anti-mish mash camp. The best streetscapes and skylines have a unity of style that is expressed individually in each distinctive building (Beacon Hill, Back Bay).

m197806060397.jpg


That said, it's odd to see the article criticize the the Long Wharf Marriott and the Federal Courthouse which are definately in a unified yet updated style with the existing structures.
 
^^ In material only (red brick). Otherwise they are thoroughly modern (small m).
 
consider moving the high-rise portion to the back of the site, even if it means tearing down one of the warehouses. These are venerable buildings, but they are not enhanced by serving as the foundation for a modern structure.
Click to expand...

Why exactly are they trying to save all 3 buildings? The main Peabody and Sterns building fronting Atlantic Ave. and Congress Street is certainly nice, and deserves preservation. The other 2 buildings are much more plain, and could be found in any old faded mill city in New England.
 
What What WHAT!? Tear down old buildings!? We can't do that, it will ruin the city! [/sarcasm]

If people are up in arms over the Dainty Dot building they sure as hell won't stand for tearing down any of these buildings.
 
Some people seem to really hate Exchange Place, but I think it's a pretty good melding of new and old elements.
 
(sigh) Did the Globe consult Robert Campbell before penning that ignorant hack piece?

The editorial is full of contradictions. A "mishmash" of styles (what architects and people who know architecture might call contrast) is bad, but might be permissable if a historic building is demolished so that the same "mishmash" can take place elsewhere on the site. Marriot Long Wharf, meanwhile, which attempts to evoke the "building as ship" metaphor while keeping to Boston's brick orthodoxy, is the waterfront's greatest apostacy. Why? Because it's "anti-pedestrian", which clearly has a lot to do with design and relates to Russia Wharf...somehow.
 
I like the melding proposed at Russia Wharf. I'm tired of brick on large buildings. The old buildings are 7-8 stories tall already and have great fenestration, making life at the street potentially more interesting than say, the Long Wharf Marriott or the immediate neighbors of the proposed tower all along Atlantic Ave. Hopefully the developer will open up the street level all around the building and create a busy environment for pedestrians, commerce and even entertainment. It will be a shame, however, if this doesn't happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top