Back Bay Garage Tower | Dartmouth and Stuart | Back Bay

I like the massing of the "twisting" office tower and I'm okay with the massing and placement of the other two, but they're not clear enough on the facades of any building, so it's hard to tell what exactly is going in.

And Back Bay Station still looks awkward, despite the enhancements. The arches-in-a-box thing has always been weird to me.
 
The real-life product would likely look better than the shitty renderings. It seems to be a lost art.
 
Charlie_mta said:
That's a shame. I'd like the development to be clean, crisp and modern, more mid-century and less 80's. The large arched entryway is particularly gross and garish, as are the buildings themselves.
Click to expand...

You're on to something...

stick n move said:
It wont look like this when its built. Everything in Boston goes through multiple design changes before theyre built. Hopefully what they end up with is good.
Click to expand...

it's really quite far along.

Jrubbs said:
I also love the arches and am a huge fan of geometric shapes/patterns, so yeah they should leave well enough alone.
Click to expand...

Not so fast. Did we all miss the most glaring weakness? The City is going massive. The Back Bay and surrounding neighborhoods are growing fast. The new Acela trains are coming.

The station as currently built doesn't instill confidence. It's a barren, frozen morgue w/ nil seating capacity. The new station needs to be warm, fumes all but eliminated, possess plentiful seating (like New Haven), and spacous walking lanes (like Newark, NJ) or other stations on the NEC.

Is this a significant improvement? Not sure. i guess the retail can be shrunken down the road. Anyway, it seems small....


 
Last edited:
Agreed. Assuming all the large developments planned in the neighborhood actually get built, significantly more seating will be needed. Otherwise lots of people will be standing around waiting for trains.
 
HenryAlan said:
You aren't the only one. I like it quite a bit, the only real complaint is that it's a bit dark/dank, but some better lighting and other freshening is probably all it needs.
Click to expand...

Me too. The arches and high ceilings are the best attributes. They look good from the street, too. It's the interior and amenities that suck. I'm always amazed at how there's no seating for the Orange Line at the waiting platform.
 
odurandina said:
In the months after the BBS is completed, new residents will walk downstairs right past Dunkin Donuts to board packed Acela trains full of gleeful passengers.
Click to expand...

While I agree with your sentiment, the same thing is happening at North Station, and I don't think that "Avalon North Station" is having any problems renting. Nor will the other residential complement of the Garden be hindered by, say, a Nicki Manaj concert going on at TD or hundreds of diesel trains coming and going on a daily basis.

Speaking of renders, I would fully expect the residential buildings to look something like Avalon North Station.

As far as the Simon property, across the street, I am starting to think that one of the reasons they bailed on the tower is that their initial estimates on how much it was going to cost to rehab/re-fab the mall were low-balled. Badly. I mean, how much does it actually take to pull a rock weighing a ton off a wall that is suspended 60 feet off the ground that is actually not the ground? I would suspect that complications might arise.

If anybody has the money and the expertise to make this kind of project work, it is Boston Properties. At the same time, this all seems to be a joke.
 
Last edited:
Also worth noting that the vast majority of outbound Amtrak riders board at South Station.
 
I am surprised that people are complaining about the wooden arches and the design of the place. I think that is the best part. The problem with the station in my opinion is the layout and that is a total dump from a retail perspective. Additionally, aside from the Dartmouth Street side, the station is eerily empty, especially the Clarendon Street end.
 
It just needs to follow the model of New Haven or Trenton. Just be a station. In 20~25 years, the retail will have been cut back to sunglasses, handbags bagels and fresh juice on carts. The wall space returned to coffee, croissants, donuts and juice of the bottled variety. ....and that big 626' tower across the street, casting shade on the front doors on long summer days.
 
Seems like residential towers are more for massing sake, and those designs will definitely evolve...office tower seems like more of a certainty.

Liking the new (at least to me) renderings for the station (didn't realize they are spending $34 M on that) and the Stuart St. access is really sleek. Of course a minor gerbil tube from the office tower to the 40 Trinity hotel oddly got a bit of a stink early on...
 
Jeez even the low rises aren't safe...
 
As we peel back the onion.... yes, it's just about over.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2017/04/18/oldsouth/f0vPIBEkDyaXHwdfjZwPyN/story.html

One can be a dickhead about the way he goes about saying it (i'm very guilty). But you all were not the target audience. It was done to get out the word out to the not-daily readers of the Globe to kill off the extremely harmful lies about the destruction of Boston via a coming tidal wave of Skyscrapers. i thought it would help to speak about the current embattled projects from that context in hopes of preventing a panic.

The BPDA had been looking very closely at shadows over Copley Square for several years. It was like, early Nov, 2015 – still months before Back Bay Station proposals... But it was explained to me that Copley Tower would very likely be the last tall thing going up anywhere that could cast a shadow upon Copley Square (re; sacred church bldgs) and about what was going to be built above Back Bay Station. i began posting (on Skyscraper City and the Globe), that contrary to the speculation of a tall tower, we'd be getting 2 400' squat turds (the 3rd tower was so insignificant, it failed upon impact to even register).

It helped to further ram home my 'we're just about done building tall buildings in Boston,' theory. So i ran it by them directly; "so we're just about done here..."

"Yes, we're getting really near the end for what will be a very long time. it lot of things would have to change that, as a City in its current makeup, we're not anywhere close to...."

i realize this site is comprised of a wonderful spectrum of genius, problem-solver planners – and incredible optimists. But Boston is deeply-embedded in its old ways. It's not difficult to arrive at the correct conclusion about the future of seriouis height.

We're not about to start building 600~700 towers all over the West End (outside the protected Bullfinch Triangle)...or Kenmore Square ...or on the northwest side of Brookline Avenue. When you consider every parcel from one end of Boston to the other, at least for anything over about 375' over and above what's already proposed, you'll have a very difficult time demonstrating that our skyline will grow significantly in the coming years.

This crazy opinion that we must adhere to a zero-tolerance approach to protecting sacred buildings from shadows, even if those shadows occur just a few days out of the year is always going to win out. Then add in the State's jurisitiction.....

In a few years time, we'll be hearing these same arguments about shadows reaching the Esplanade when we start the process of deciding the fate of the remaining turd sites (in the West End).

The less-obvious element in the equation (it's actually quite obvious) is why we were never getting a tall tower at Lord and Taylor, or God forbid something very tall someplace. The opinion 'about the end of tall skyscrapers' remains easily defensible despite yours' all gangland beatings!
 
Last edited:
Street activation + good urban design > Tall Tower.
 
I really think that the shadow cries are starting to have some adverse effects on those chat claim them.
 
The article says it's gonna be 365', but I heard 416 or so. Who's right? I have not followed this thread for very long, so I might have missed something awhile back.
 
yes, including the mechanicals etc, office ~396' and residences ~416'

don't tell anybody.
 
Even tho we all know that these are essentially place holders and are not going to be the final product- if there is one, I really hope we can get muuuuch better architecture than what was rendered. The back bay is almost turning into the final frontier of development before the high spine and downtown is filled and they keep going deeper into southie, roxbury, cambridge, somerbille. They need to DELIVER here.
 
stick n move said:
The back bay is almost turning into the final frontier of development before the high spine and downtown is filled and they keep going deeper into southie, roxbury, cambridge, somerbille. They need to DELIVER here.
Click to expand...

Sad. I don't think this scattering of towers will help our skyline particularly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top