tmac9wr
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 1,445
- Reaction score
- 63
Well we're just going to have to disagree with this. I don't think you're giving the building enough credit here.
Boston Properties Office Tower | 888 Boylston Street | Back Bay
- Thread starter Rick
- Start date
Well we're just going to have to disagree with this. I don't think you're giving the building enough credit here.
underground
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 2,390
- Reaction score
- 3
A reminder about what exactly is on the ground floor street level:
See and I think you're all giving the building too much credit. It would go really well in Portland, Providence, Hartford, Worcester, Manchester, etc. Cambridge wouldn't be inappropriate, and even areas like Longwood are OK. I just don't think this type of building belongs right downtown. We have enough mistakes there already (like all the red residentials in the Pru complex) and this is just one more underwhelming building for what's supposed to be the HIGH spine!
Call me crazy but I was totally ok with the plaza. Some parks/plazas don't make much sense, like the tiny triangle being redeveloped at CSC, but I thought this was a fine spot to have that bit of open space. I guess, like the Harbor Towers residents, I just hate losing my views.
On a somewhat similar vein, in Burlington there used to be an excellent view of the Boston skyline when getting off the 3A (Burlington, not Winchester) exit on 95N. The ramp would loop around and BAM! Marvelous! Then they built a big fat 6 story office building right in that space, and now the view is gone unless you want to risk glancing over right before getting off the exit. I have a friend who works in that building and has the view. Doesn't do me a damn bit of good. Maybe nobody cares, but I like good views and it always annoys me when something mediocre gets in the way of what used to be a spectacular angle.
Very fat, very short, extra large base. It's basically the exact same dimensions as most of the buildings currently being built in the seaport! It's like a slightly nicer looking version of EY or Fan Pier. Can't we at least relegate all of those ultra fat boxes to one area of the city???
tmac9wr
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 1,445
- Reaction score
- 63
I just think it's a disagreement of principle. I didn't like that plaza at all. I worked nearby for 3 years and ate in the Prudential Food Court often...the plaza was dead the vast majority of the time, even in warmer months.
Regarding the high-spine thing, isn't this building's height limited due to technically being over a ramp? I thought I remember seeing that this was more/less the max height allowed for this parcel.
This building works here even if it is heigh deficient since it'll add to the street-level interaction. There's going to be a café and a department store in one of the most retail-heavy areas of the city. This is a net gain in my opinion.
bobthebuilder
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2013
- Messages
- 433
- Reaction score
- 158
Psssh, economic development shmeconomic development. I wanna be like China with 100 of the worlds tallest buildings that are all 75% vacant. Compensating much?
But for real tho, yep +1,000
It's funny, here I am thinking we could have both. I guess I just believe in this city more than the rest of you do. I wish everyone with your attitude would just move to Washington DC, and let people who dream big (while still focusing on street level interaction!) shape this great city going forward.
underground
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 2,390
- Reaction score
- 3
Judging from your posting, the only thing you believe in is the skyline.
type001
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2006
- Messages
- 1,731
- Reaction score
- 233
Yes, damn Nokia, Nuance, Oracle, SAP, Microsoft, CRD (to name a small few) to develop there and grow 128 as "Silicon Valley East" so that you could have your view of Boston from 10 miles away as you come down the off-ramp to cross Cambridge Street when you're going to Chucky Cheese. I actually personally miss that view also, because it was thing of my childhood. That being said, I still cracked up at what you wrote.
Are you actually mad at your friend who works in one of those buildings as if he orchestrated blocking your view so that he could have it personally?
JeffDowntown
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 4,558
- Reaction score
- 3,189
A reminder about what exactly is on the ground floor street level:
It also appears to retain street level public access to the food court. See the entrance in the lower right of the rendering.
On the flipside, at street level, we already have the best city in the country, bar none. I'm just hoping the skyline catches up. I probably average 20 miles walking through the city every weekend, and each walk is inherently unique and open-ended. Very few cities allow pedestrians such an infinite playground. For instance, leave the main street in Atlanta at your own risk!
Basically, at street level, I probably know this city better than 90% of you, and I can definitely see the positive impact much of this infill is having. I can also see that the bigger a project is allowed to be built, the better the quality we tend to get. For instance, Atlantic Wharf is an absolute gem. This building will probably be VE'ed into another piece of garbage.
But yes, I do care about the skyline, and that's my prerogative. You know what else I care about in this city? I care about the sports teams. I have no affiliation to them, and I'm not going to walk into work after the Patriots win and get a raise/bonus for it, or anything like that. But I care. For me, the Filenes tower is the equivalent of Adam Vinatieri's kick splitting the uprights against the Rams. It's a big deal. I'm sure many of you don't like sports, and don't care about another Superbowl or even that the Sox broke their "curse" in 2004. That's your right, but don't try to rain on my parade!!! If you can't appreciate tall buildings in the few areas they are appropriate, go move somewhere that doesn't have any! Of course, most European cities no longer qualify since they are all (skyscraper) booming over there, but Washington DC beckons. It's everything you want in a city, and it's right down 95!
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 6,959
- Reaction score
- 8,036
I don't think this is going to be VE'ed into anything. The renders show the final design. There have been many iterations.
underground
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 2,390
- Reaction score
- 3
Wait. So I stick up for a building you don't like, and suddenly I need to move to DC because I don't appreciate tall buildings? Is there some sort of logic to this that I'm missing?
I like skylines and have been attacked for it. That's the logic. Many of you are looking down your noses at me because I want to have my cake and eat it too. If you just want to have your cake and stare at it, then go to DC where there is plenty of cake (street level) but no eating allowed. (height)
pixelsand8
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2013
- Messages
- 467
- Reaction score
- 2
not to be a pedant but shouldn't it be the other way around? Skylines are for staring, street life is for "eating" (ie engaging with the city).
Well in that case I need a new analogy. It doesn't make sense to eat a cake without first "having" it. But yes, I want both, and yes, I'm currently more concerned about shoring up Boston's "weakness" since the street level is already the best this continent has to offer. Obviously, I don't want anything that detracts from that, but it's not my first focus.
What if the Millennium Tower just finished the stores and then capped the building at 6-7 stories? Many of you would still be fully satisfied, because you got your activation back. Every one of you who said "+1000" or whatever, you'd have to be totally A-OK with this, otherwise you'd be talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Same thing with North Station. The podium looks great, so I take it a solid 50% of you would be totally fine capping that at 6 stories, throwing the tower plans in the trash can, and calling it a day. Right? Right?!?!
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 6,959
- Reaction score
- 8,036
No need to be worked up about it. I'm not speaking for myself, but I'm fairly certain that in both cases the answer to your question would be yes. Particularly at North Station, there are at least 50% of the people on this board for whom the towers could be removed and the project would still be successful, since the podium makes more of a difference.
How a city is enjoyed can be affected both at and above ground level. A great tower with terrible street presence (Burj Khalifa, Sears Tower, 1 WTC, and so many others), impresses from the ground as well as from a distance. A project like North Station, where a fantastic streetwall is topped by utterly forgettable towers, also enhances the experience on the ground.
For Millennium Tower, the tower design is considered so good (though personally I don't really care for it) that it can enhance the city just by looking up at it, regardless of the lack of ground-floor interaction (which for that project is all in the Burnham Building). I don't think 50% of the board would be happy losing that tower, just because of the regard in which its design is held, but they might be OK with it if it got the hole filled and the Burnham Building redone.
You're talking about trading street interaction for one particular vista of two buildings that many people don't find all that attractive, even if they can be striking in their scale and boldness. Given that other vistas of those buildings exist, I think that's a trade most people here are willing to make.