AvalonBay Tower (Jacob Wirth's) | 45 Stuart Street | Downtown

tvalg said:
if you think the extreme value engineering apparent on the exterior of this isn't also reflected on the interior, you're in for an unpleasant surprise. and as you say, the exterior is for people who don't live in the building; that's to say, *everyone else in boston*, which is why i find it disheartening that as this building reaches completion, the tone in this thread is an unconvincing celebration of a building that is remarkably ordinary.
Click to expand...

The best Boston buildings have an understated elegance. John Hancock Tower is the standard bearer. There are no good "flashy" Boston buildings like Ghery's stuff.

It's hard to be Understated and Good at the same time. It's easy to be flashy and good in a short-term Vegas kind of way. I think the bar is higher for the understatement that Boston's ingrained culture demands.

This leads often to confusion between Understated and Ordinary -- which is harmless. This also leads to confusion between Understated and Bad-Quality-Value-Engineering which is corrosive.

Architecture critics have to sort buildings between these two confusions. Of the high-rise buildings going up in Chinatown in the last decade, this building skirts the line between the two.
 
JoeBoston1 said:
This leads often to confusion between Understated and Ordinary -- which is harmless. This also leads to confusion between Understated and Bad-Quality-Value-Engineering which is corrosive.

Architecture critics have to sort buildings between these two confusions. Of the high-rise buildings going up in Chinatown in the last decade, this building skirts the line between the two.
Click to expand...

an architectural work is only "understated" if we can recognize that the designer, at one point, wanted to "state" more but, with the finesse of his creative control, was able to reduce his or her idea while maintaining and effectively communicating the original concept. the architect is saying more while doing less, a difficult feat that has been the basis of modern architecture for decades. to confuse the understated beauty of piano's beyeler foundation or maki's wtc 4 for ordinariness is, more than anything, a naive mistake and in that sense yes it may be harmless.

i think where your statement is more problematic, is that 45 stuart street is not understated because it presumably never wanted to "state" anything more than what we got; and if it did, those points were lost due to poor creative vision and/or value engineering. in this way, the building is not understated but in fact completely ordinary. also in this way, confusing understated and ordinary is not quite as innocuous as you suggest.

obviously we have moved beyond 45 stuart street with ideas like this but really- the building is terrible.
 
tvalg said:
an architectural work is only "understated" if we can recognize that the designer, at one point, wanted to "state" more but, with the finesse of his creative control, was able to reduce his or her idea while maintaining and effectively communicating the original concept. the architect is saying more while doing less, a difficult feat that has been the basis of modern architecture for decades. to confuse the understated beauty of piano's beyeler foundation or maki's wtc 4 for ordinariness is, more than anything, a naive mistake and in that sense yes it may be harmless.

i think where your statement is more problematic, is that 45 stuart street is not understated because it presumably never wanted to "state" anything more than what we got; and if it did, those points were lost due to poor creative vision and/or value engineering. in this way, the building is not understated but in fact completely ordinary. also in this way, confusing understated and ordinary is not quite as innocuous as you suggest.

obviously we have moved beyond 45 stuart street with ideas like this but really- the building is terrible.
Click to expand...

tvalg: Throwing mud is easy -- being a potter is hard

How would you have addressed the challenge of delivering a modern large residential building without overwhelming the truly valuable and irreplaceable 19th early 20th C streetscape stuff in the foreground?
 
whighlander said:
tvalg: Throwing mud is easy -- being a potter is hard

How would you have addressed the challenge of delivering a modern large residential building without overwhelming the truly valuable and irreplaceable 19th early 20th C streetscape stuff in the foreground?
Click to expand...

Putting aside the distant streetscape, how well did the architects deliver with respect to Jacob Wirth, next door? Granted an entrance to a valet garage replaces an entrance to a parking lot, but they couldn't/wouldn't/didn't take a cue from cornice lines. How friggin difficult is that to do?
 
whighlander said:
tvalg: Throwing mud is easy -- being a potter is hard

How would you have addressed the challenge of delivering a modern large residential building without overwhelming the truly valuable and irreplaceable 19th early 20th C streetscape stuff in the foreground?
Click to expand...

I disagree with tvalg--I quite like the building. But why would you characterize his/her thoughtful deconstruction of "understated" as "throwing mud"? The post was one of the most nuanced and interesting I've read in the forum in a long time.
 
Tombstoner said:
I disagree with tvalg--I quite like the building. But why would you characterize his/her thoughtful deconstruction of "understated" as "throwing mud"? The post was one of the most nuanced and interesting I've read in the forum in a long time.
Click to expand...

Tomb -- perhaps the cut was a bit harsh

My point was that the theoretical discussion of understated versus mundane or ordinary is all well and good -- but in the context of the juxtaposition of the new tower with the historic -- nay iconic Jake's -- there was not enough that was specific to AvalonBay Tower (Jacob Wirth's) | 45 Stuart Street

It would have been illuminating to hear the theories applied to other more or less successful juxtapositions in Boston / Cambridge

For example 3 that work:
  • One Boston Place behind the Old State House -- it works because the tower is a black restrained background against with the positively exuberant Old State House is superimposed
    One_Boston_Place_and_Old_State_House.JPG
  • Hancock Tower next to Trinity -- the best
  • 60 State St -- Ok -- particularly because it stands apart from everything on its private corner and the exterior cladding is real pink granite which combined with the complex shape fits into the immediate surroundings as well as from a distance
    Fsixty.jpg
Five that fail big-time:
  • the ugly Middlesex County Courthouse next to the Bulfinch Courthouse in Cambridge
  • the non-descript Suffolk County Courthouse next to the John Adams Courthouse
  • 101 Federal St. -- the ugly parking garage has better contextual relationship with its neighbors
  • One Devonshire Place -- looms threateningly over the Old South when viewed from near Franklin-Washington intersection
  • One International Place tie with 125 High St
 
whighlander, I'm scared to hear what you think about Exchange Place . . .
 
With how much that long lens flattens perspective, it genuinely looks like 2 separate buildings in that pic.
 
^ Seriously. It's no masterpiece but I very much like its almost shapeshifting like qualities.
 
That shade of glass contrasts nicely with the common Boston cloudy grey.
 
^I was thinking the same thing.

A handsome building.
 
Agreed. This one impresses me more than I thought it would. My only thing against it is the exposed parking garage on the other side. Other than that, great development.
 
^ This concept makes me dizzy. I can imagine the crashes on Stuart Street as a result.
 
the more i see the jacob wirth tower the more it looks like it was lopped off at the top. its a good building after all, but it shouldve been taller and the image above with the added height looks great.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top