Bay Village Apartment Tower | 212 Stuart St. | Bay Village

20220331_204019.jpg
20220331_203939.jpg


The all important new LED gas lamp replacement at 212 Stuart
 
cden4 said:
I don‘t understand anything about this building and I think it looks terrible. The asymmetric windows, the grouping of multiple floors to look like one big floor, the 3D elements that don’t line up. Do architects actually think this is good?
Click to expand...
I'm not one to casually bash new construction (WHOOP aside), but this is definitely a big swing...and miss. Especially the south facing side, it's a disaster.
 
Cortes said:
I'm not one to casually bash new construction (WHOOP aside), but this is definitely a big swing...and miss.
Click to expand...

I'd say it looked like it was going to be hit out of the park but came up just short. Then a cannon-armed outfielder combined with one of those homerun-or-bust lumbering runners turned into just a single. Maybe you could say they were thrown out at second. But it wasn't a whiff; it just wasn't quite what we briefly believed it could be.
 
king_vibe said:
I genuinely think this is the worst example of the aLtErNaTiNg WiNdOwS trope
Click to expand...


Let's talk about this a little more because it seems like an obvious vehicle for some lively debate/passionate advocacy. The best example in the city is clearly the Mass College of Art tower at 578 Huntington, no? To me it is brilliantly evocative--reminiscent of a piano roll, say. Or early 1980s computer font.

In contrast, there seems to be a pretty solid majority here saying 212 Stuart is a putrid turd (I happen to fall in that camp). I also think 45 Stuart is a rather wretched example.

But what are some others in the city? I can't think of any off the top of my head... and would people organize them in a Bell curve-style distribution, with a handful of dogs, a large mass of mediocrities in the middle, and a few exemplars? Or do people perceive of a more lopsided distribution, where its more just a huge mass of excrescence, and (lamentably) very few stand-outs?
 
DBM said:
Let's talk about this a little more because it seems like an obvious vehicle for some lively debate/passionate advocacy. The best example in the city is clearly the Mass College of Art tower at 578 Huntington, no? To me it is brilliantly evocative--reminiscent of a piano roll, say. Or early 1980s computer font.

In contrast, there seems to be a pretty solid majority here saying 212 Stuart is a putrid turd (I happen to fall in that camp). I also think 45 Stuart is a rather wretched example.

But what are some others in the city? I can't think of any off the top of my head... and would people organize them in a Bell curve-style distribution, with a handful of dogs, a large mass of mediocrities in the middle, and a few exemplars? Or do people perceive of a more lopsided distribution, where its more just a huge mass of excrescence, and (lamentably) very few stand-outs?
Click to expand...

1 Western Ave in Harvardland is a nightmare, probably the worst example of the type. The Veridian in Fenway looks like a bad joke. Nearly every building in the Ink Block…
 
DBM said:
Let's talk about this a little more because it seems like an obvious vehicle for some lively debate/passionate advocacy. The best example in the city is clearly the Mass College of Art tower at 578 Huntington, no? To me it is brilliantly evocative--reminiscent of a piano roll, say. Or early 1980s computer font.

In contrast, there seems to be a pretty solid majority here saying 212 Stuart is a putrid turd (I happen to fall in that camp). I also think 45 Stuart is a rather wretched example.

But what are some others in the city? I can't think of any off the top of my head... and would people organize them in a Bell curve-style distribution, with a handful of dogs, a large mass of mediocrities in the middle, and a few exemplars? Or do people perceive of a more lopsided distribution, where its more just a huge mass of excrescence, and (lamentably) very few stand-outs?
Click to expand...
I'm going to say that alternating window, as vibe has already mentioned, is an overuse trope, a lazy attempt at trying to make a façade stand-out, and one that absolutely eliminates any sense of verticality, which when paired with colossal order, does a tremendous job making a building look absolutely squat

Honestly, this building looks like what happens when I try to assemble something from IKEA but lined up the hole and peg incorrectly.
 
Last edited:
I think most buildings styles today will age as well as the mid-century modern ones. This building is a good example of that. The windows are not great but the totality of the building really looks cheap and plastic and many of its cousins around the city will be absolute crap in 40 years. Imagine a whole neighborhood of this; it would be a nightmare.
 
taketern said:
It appears that new images have been posted to their site. View attachment 23105View attachment 23106View attachment 23107View attachment 23108View attachment 23109View attachment 23110View attachment 23111View attachment 23112View attachment 23113View attachment 23114
212stuart.com
Click to expand...
If the reality of the scallops and shading came out the way they look in these renders, I don't think most of us would be complaining about it. The real building does not photograph like this in 99% of lighting situations and when walking by on the street it's at its worst because the alignment and gaps look extremely amateur, rushed, and not-thought-out. Kent's analogy of the shoddily assembled IKEA furniture is perfect for this.
 
It looks great compared to the Kensington. Just another lost opportunity. When our corrupt, incompetent politicians go back to living on graft from greedy developers instead of trying to design buildings and the city itself, we might see some inspired innovation and grandeur. In 10 years, Sommerville and Everett might have the new architectural gems. It is likely to take an enormous upheaval like that for Boston and Cambridge to get over their smug planning politics.
 
I still by my statement that it just doesn't photograph well. It's not A+ architecture, but its also not garbage either.
 
I'm really torn on this one. Some of the pictures, especially ones from afar, make me dislike the building. But some of the up close, in-detail photos make me really like it.
 
Last edited:
I'm a fan. I actually think a lot of us on here are, but ArchBoston is kind of like Yelp... the haters rush to post, those who appreciate the building do so silently.

If you're reading this Howeler+Yoon, thanks for brining some architectural creativity to our woefully dull collection of high-rise residential towers.
 
You can dismiss opinions as knee-jerk hate but this building, in a prominent place, fails as a gateway from the Back Bay and to Bay Village. It takes chances and gets away with it only because the city around is so forgiving
 
lexicon506 said:
I'm a fan. I actually think a lot of us on here are, but ArchBoston is kind of like Yelp... the haters rush to post, those who appreciate the building do so silently.

If you're reading this Howeler+Yoon, thanks for brining some architectural creativity to our woefully dull collection of high-rise residential towers.
Click to expand...
I find it constantly curious that those who have wanted to have the crowded "tall" appearance of NYC have gotten it. Crowds of mediocre architecture, as if standing in a crowd waiting to get into City Council Meeting. And because Boston doesn't have the NYC grid (except for the Back Bay), every new building simply blocks the view of those around it from nearly every angle.

Then some people here complain bitterly, as if we're all viewing the city from far away and have apartments that overlook the skyline at night. What can one expect? I recall a time when there were "just" enough tall structures in downtown and enough negative space that allowed good viewing of the entire city. Now what do we have? The seaport district and Cambridge crossing that appear from afar to be boxes children's blocks put away for the night. Little differentiation of texture, style, or material.

Who came up with the concept of needing "gateway" buildings in Boston? Is such a concept even feasible? At least the 212 Stuart distracts from the truly ugly stuff around it (the Revere, its garage, and the Transportation bldg) and it fills a tiny hole left by a garage.

Finally many taller buildings are being squeezed into tight, irregular lots, such as the Winthrop. Yes, it will be yet another big shiny block of a building, joining too many already downtown, including the new iteration of OPS. They are all about as interesting Chiafaro's International Place fake Palladian windows, especially after unique street level amenities cater to very narrow demographics or get stripped out after a couple of years, such as we've seen in Quincy Market.
 
We can't criticize the criticism of a building as being a negative attitude and then negatively critique a bunch of buildings with no self awareness. Nobody is immune. I have been on here over 15 years and have verbalized my dislike for only a handful of buildings.

I used the term "gateway" but I meant there should be better (or any) context to where it is. Saying it's better than the Revere is damning it with faint praise
 
Life Coach Mike said:
I find it constantly curious that those who have wanted to have the crowded "tall" appearance of NYC have gotten it. Crowds of mediocre architecture, as if standing in a crowd waiting to get into City Council Meeting. ……
Click to expand...

….without all the farting and b.o.!

And some more feint praise - at least it isn’t another smooth sheen glass rectangle - thank God! I don’t viscerally dislike this building half as much as The Raffles “JHT Mini-Me” building up the street. The over-glassification of Boston is more of a systemic aesthetic threat to Boston than a few swings and misses at greatness. I think they tried with this particular building but failed.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top