Boston Properties Office Tower | 888 Boylston Street | Back Bay

Arlington

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 10, 2011
Messages
4,789
Reaction score
914
Given their cylindrical shape, it seems like the windmills could be mounted "on a spit" (a pole with both a top an bottom anchor), rather than just standing on bottom footing.
 

MjolnirMan

New member
Joined
Jan 18, 2016
Messages
88
Reaction score
77
any word on those "windmills" that first went up, then got partailly blown down, then removed, and then were said to be being redesigned and soon re-installed? last time i checked there was nothing up there where they used to be.
Taken yesterday - there's still no "reinstall" but I realized that nobody had posted an image yet. This building's crown was already an eyesore IMO, and now it's so much worse (even worse than Millennium's unfinished roof).

IMG_20191225_142040105_HDR (1).jpg
 

odurandina

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2015
Messages
5,328
Reaction score
259
i captured a wonderful aerial image the other day.
but i buried it somewhere.
i'll see if i can find it and, post it.
 

chrisbrat

Active Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
981
Reaction score
468
yeah, i've noticed the same in the past year or so (though i wasn't useful enough to post pix, so: thanks). not the most elegant building, for sure. the vertically aligned windmills were gimicky, but at least provided some distraction.
 

chrisbrat

Active Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
981
Reaction score
468
This may not be the right place for it, as the building in question is "done" (apart from what I'm going to ask about, maybe), but I couldn't figure where else works better:

It was generally agreed that the little wind turbines at the top of 888 Boylston were silly and a meaningless nod (either the original shape or the "stand-up" vertical ones that went in) and of course them blowing over in heavy winds was a design flaw, *but* without wind turbines or whatever type or anything at all up there now, the "frames" for said turbines which remain atop the building look distractingly pointless and ugly.

So, my question -- after a longwinded buildup -- is: Are they ever replacing those mini turbines on the roof? Replacing them with something else that's purley ornamental? Doing nothing?

If it's the latter, then between 88 Boylston's stupid roof windmills, 1 Dalton backing out of the lit-up Four Seasons logo promised in the renders, and Millenium Tower opting to not cover the roof (again, as per the approved design), Boston is having a seriously lame trend of failing to execute the intended designs of highrises/towers with respect to "crowns."

It's bad enough that all but three or four highrises in the entire city have boring, flat roofs (or slanted, straight roofs -- exciting!), but all these minor ornamentations that add a TINY bit of "pop" to newer projects are failing to materialize. That'd mean that smart money would be on the lit-up crown on Winthrop Center never materializing either.
 

whighlander

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2006
Messages
7,812
Reaction score
630
This may not be the right place for it, as the building in question is "done" (apart from what I'm going to ask about, maybe), but I couldn't figure where else works better:

It was generally agreed that the little wind turbines at the top of 888 Boylston were silly and a meaningless nod (either the original shape or the "stand-up" vertical ones that went in) and of course them blowing over in heavy winds was a design flaw, *but* without wind turbines or whatever type or anything at all up there now, the "frames" for said turbines which remain atop the building look distractingly pointless and ugly.

So, my question -- after a longwinded buildup -- is: Are they ever replacing those mini turbines on the roof? Replacing them with something else that's purley ornamental? Doing nothing?

If it's the latter, then between 88 Boylston's stupid roof windmills, 1 Dalton backing out of the lit-up Four Seasons logo promised in the renders, and Millenium Tower opting to not cover the roof (again, as per the approved design), Boston is having a seriously lame trend of failing to execute the intended designs of highrises/towers with respect to "crowns."

It's bad enough that all but three or four highrises in the entire city have boring, flat roofs (or slanted, straight roofs -- exciting!), but all these minor ornamentations that add a TINY bit of "pop" to newer projects are failing to materialize. That'd mean that smart money would be on the lit-up crown on Winthrop Center never materializing either.
Chrisbrat -- when you say " all but three or four highrises in the entire city have boring, flat roofs " -- are you including largish antenna structures?
and of course what do you consider a "highrise" -- let's use the Emporis definition for Highrise "architectural height is between 35 and 100 meters..." and allow it to exceed the100m to be classed as an "Emporis skyskraper"]

Here's a partial list of Highrises with interesting or tops at least with some 3Dness - roughly by "height":
Pru -- top of the hub hat and antenna
"Ms Pru" -- the crown or tiara
BNY Mellon Center aka One Boston Place -- top hat
Two International Place -- Johnson dunce cap
Weather Beacon Hancock -- iconic top
Custom House -- the original non-church tower and clock
The Landmark at Federal aka United Shoe Machinery Building -- art deco in Boston
Landmark Center in Fenway aka Sears Warehouse -- late art deco in Boston
State Street Financial Center -- pseudo gothic
101 Federal Street -- pseudo medieval castellated
75 State Street -- gold crown
100 High Street -- wedding cake top
125 High Street -- trapezoidal frustum
50 Post Office Square aka New England Telephone & Telegraph [185 Franklin] -- iconic telecommunications Ziggurat

Special mention for Boston Churches -- the original interesting tall buildings [all of the following are listed with heights above 50m by Emporis]:
1 New Old South Church 10 246 ft - church 1875
2 Church of the Covenant 2 236 ft - church 1867
3 Mother Church Extension 20 226 ft 4 church 1906
4 Park Street Church 12 217 ft - church 1810
5 The Basilica 1 215 ft - church 1878
6 Trinity Church 22 211 ft - church 1877
7 Arlington Street Church 2 190 ft - church 1861
8 Old South Meeting House 6 183 ft - church 1729
9 First Baptist Church 3 176 ft - church 1871
10 Old North Church 3 175 ft - church 1745
11 Church of the Advent 172 ft - church 1894
 

chrisbrat

Active Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
981
Reaction score
468
ok, fair enough. i am familiar with all the structures you painstakingly outlined and i'm familiar with their appearances. from your list, the ones i consider to be highrises or skyscrapers with truly non-flat roofs are: the old hancock, custom house tower, 101 federal, and united shoe machinery. but sure.

sorry that my wording was confusing. if you don't agree that the skyline is dominated almost exclusively by flat-topped roofs, then - hey, cool for you. agree to disagree. all that happy horseshit.

regardless -- does anyone have any news or insight as to what, if anything, is going to replace the wind turbines on 88 boylston?
 

whighlander

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2006
Messages
7,812
Reaction score
630
ok, fair enough. i am familiar with all the structures you painstakingly outlined and i'm familiar with their appearances. from your list, the ones i consider to be highrises or skyscrapers with truly non-flat roofs are: the old hancock, custom house tower, 101 federal, and united shoe machinery. but sure.

sorry that my wording was confusing. if you don't agree that the skyline is dominated almost exclusively by flat-topped roofs, then - hey, cool for you. agree to disagree. all that happy horseshit.

regardless -- does anyone have any news or insight as to what, if anything, is going to replace the wind turbines on 88 boylston?
what about the ones with the castellated and other variegated architectural fringes and such
and of course MS Pru -- you can't possibly consider the tiara or crown as a flat roof
 

meddlepal

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2012
Messages
1,689
Reaction score
453
So, my question -- after a longwinded buildup -- is: Are they ever replacing those mini turbines on the roof? Replacing them with something else that's purley ornamental? Doing nothing?
I think you unfortunately already know in your heart the answer to this question.
 

chrisbrat

Active Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
981
Reaction score
468
what about the ones with the castellated and other variegated architectural fringes and such
and of course MS Pru -- you can't possibly consider the tiara or crown as a flat roof
i forgot about r2d2, you are correct.
 

DZH22

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
6,867
Reaction score
6,573
i forgot about r2d2, you are correct.
On the flat roof topic, don't forget the upcoming State Street tower. It will be the tallest in that whole new cluster North of Government Center, reaching to the sky with its fins.

Also, what about the Fed? It has those 2 "wings" that go higher than the main floors, kind of resembling an H.
 

chrisbrat

Active Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
981
Reaction score
468
I love the Federal Reserve tower -- one of my favorites in the city -- but, even with it's funky shape i still consider that, in essence, a "flat" roof. I don't long to be like NYC or Chicago (if I did I'd move) and I'm not a height fetishest, but I am envious of those two cities' (and others, but those in particular) abundance of nifty crowns. It the dumb height restriction hadn't existed we'd have a few more in line with the Custom House -- or The Chrysler Buildng, The Woolworth Building, Met Life tower, Tribune Tower, Wrigley Buildng, etc. Boston got screwed out of that whole early era of skyscrapers (with the exception of the Custom House).

Plenty of newer examples in other cities, too. State Street will go a long way and be a very welcome addition to Boston's skyline in this respect, for sure.
 

Top