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

Re: Atlantic Wharf (formerly Russia Wharf)

SeamusMcFly said:
I actually thought this picture came out pretty good.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I liked that one so much that I downloaded it.

It also shows the uninspired and meaningless slope of the building's wall.
 
Re: Atlantic Wharf (formerly Russia Wharf)

The building is clearly out of scale. Maybe it could be used as a lesson to Shirley Kressel and the rest of the NIMBYs that being out of scale often has not much or nothing to do with height.
 
Re: Atlantic Wharf (formerly Russia Wharf)

Didn't realize that was the problem until ablarc nailed it. I knew I felt something. I often love the mix of old and new. What makes cities vibrant to my mind. I don't mind this building from the Greenway - but then you don't see the grid.
 
Re: Atlantic Wharf (formerly Russia Wharf)

I agree with with Ablarc regarding that stupid, unnecessary grid. It's sort of like 45 Province's big blank wall all over again. I'd really be interested in hearing the designer's justification for such a seemingly unjustifiable and arbitrary design decision.

But I disagree that this is the worst recent building in Boston. The grid appears to be merely a superficial, cosmetic element of this building's facade--it wouldn't be that difficult to fix...relatively speaking. This isn't true for the vast majority of city's other recent large projects which are flawed in very fundamental ways.

That grid is inarguably awful, but let's see how this one turns out. It may have some redeeming attributes yet.

If you had to make a choice, which would you prefer: a sleek tower that was crap at street level, or a moderately crap tower standing above good urban fabric?
 
Re: Atlantic Wharf (formerly Russia Wharf)

Grid? Paint it black, baby.
 
Re: Atlantic Wharf (formerly Russia Wharf)

tobyjug said:
Grid? Paint it black, baby.
Click to expand...

See? That's all.

Or better yet, just take it off. It doesn't do anything. It's an aesthetic flourish probably conjured up in a public design review (hopefully, for CBT's sake). The building behind the grid it is exactly the same as the building not behind the grid. There's no reason it has to be there.
 
Re: Atlantic Wharf (formerly Russia Wharf)

...or at least remove the horizontals....the only thing the grid accomplishes is to somewhat unite it palette-wise to the hotel and the Federal Reserve Building....though this isn't enough to justify it.
 
Re: Atlantic Wharf (formerly Russia Wharf)

Interesting points, particularly ablarc's, and I'm in complete agreement with many of them.

This and other area projects, notably Fan Pier, were all approved and underway long before the economy tanked. Both projects were approved and under construction while master plans for the downtown and Seaport were completed and filed, with input from top waterfront consulting firms including Cooper, Robertson & Partners (NY) and Urban Strategies (Toronto). Most of the issues of scale and context raised in this forum and on the Fan Pier forum were identified long before shovels went in the ground.

I will also point out that there are two sets of books in City planning. There is no resemblance between this project and how it was identified to the media, pre-construction through approvals. It is a travesty to see what is actually rising on a waterfront with the potential of our world-class city, especially relative to the press releases and project filings.

We have months ahead before we will experience the pedestrial realm on this site. Atlantic Wharf (dba Russia Wharf) had set a high standard for its public realm and then, once approved, tossed out nearly every good idea -- as did its two neighbors at the Intercontinental and Independence Wharf.
 
Re: Atlantic Wharf (formerly Russia Wharf)

Are you sure that it is not a structural element holding the windows in place?
 
Re: Atlantic Wharf (formerly Russia Wharf)

I see no problem with the grid. I mean, I could take it or leave it, but it's incredibly obvious that these are not the "giant floors" that ablarc is alluding to.

Even more so, it creates a perfect step up between the InterContinental Hotel and the Fed. Making that monstrosity of a hotel seem to fit into the urban fabric is a huge win in and of itself. Sure, the building COULD be better, but couldn't we say that about almost every building? (especially in Boston!) From my point of view, especially with everything else stalled out at the moment, this is a pretty good addition to the skyline.
 
Re: Atlantic Wharf (formerly Russia Wharf)

DZH22 said:
I see no problem with the grid. I mean, I could take it or leave it, but it's incredibly obvious that these are not the "giant floors" that ablarc is alluding to.

Even more so, it creates a perfect step up between the InterContinental Hotel and the Fed. Making that monstrosity of a hotel seem to fit into the urban fabric is a huge win in and of itself. Sure, the building COULD be better, but couldn't we say that about almost every building? (especially in Boston!) From my point of view, especially with everything else stalled out at the moment, this is a pretty good addition to the skyline.
Click to expand...

completely agree.
 
Re: Atlantic Wharf (formerly Russia Wharf)

IAM thinkin the slopyslopy side is beingSOLOW and havin the NO GRACE. old unsle say NOT the desegn BUT the subsidence of old rusky wharfer footlings
 
Re: Atlantic Wharf (formerly Russia Wharf)

I see no problem with the grid. I mean, I could take it or leave it, but it's incredibly obvious that these are not the "giant floors" that ablarc is alluding to.
Click to expand...

I don't think Ablarc is not saying that people will look at the building and literally assume each story is 50 feet. His point is that it impacts the skyline and particularly it's neighbors.

For another example check out 500 Boylston (which I tend to like). The difference being that the multistory windows at 500 Boylston were at least partly designed to assuage the neighborhood (i.e., it doesn't look as tall in renderings). The grid on Atlantic Wharf has no excuse.

Instersting aside: Hines orignally planned to build a sister building in similar architectural style at 222 Berkeley. But when 500 Boylston was completed, neighbors were so aghast that Hines had to bring in Stern for a completely new design on 222 Berkeley.
 
Re: Atlantic Wharf (formerly Russia Wharf)

AmericanFolkLegend said:
I don't think Ablarc is not saying that people will look at the building and literally assume each story is 50 feet. His point is that it impacts the skyline and particularly it's neighbors.
Click to expand...
That's right, it's not the result of intellectualization; it's something your senses and their receptors in the brain do instantaneously and instinctively. Then, like a rational man, you concentrate, and... It's like the duck/rabbit or any of numerous illusions that you can only shake by conscious effort (intellectualization).
 
Re: Atlantic Wharf (formerly Russia Wharf)

Picture from last week:

bostonwalk02.jpg
 
Re: Atlantic Wharf (formerly Russia Wharf)

this^ and the waterside veiw will be its best.They also forced International pl. pt 2 to make its windows in the larger grid size,but then allow it to gained hieght with its new pionted crown,With its slanted roof line is Atlantic whf. now taller than 1st proposed?
 
Re: Atlantic Wharf (formerly Russia Wharf)

Hi guys, I'm new, been lurking archBoston for a couple days. And rather not dig through 158 pages to answer this question I have... lol

When was Russia Wharf renamed Atlantic Wharf? I've never heard of this and I'm guessing it was fairly recent.
 
Re: Atlantic Wharf (formerly Russia Wharf)

"http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1590065/paint_it_black_rolling_stones/">Paint It Black- Rolling Stones</a> - <a href="http://www.metacafe.com/">More bloopers are a click away</a></font>

I hadda do it I couldnt help myself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top