Boston Skyline

[Patriots_1228]

^Exactly. Good towers are worthless if they don't complement eachothers. Boston's towers may be ugly, but they mesh together somehow.

Speaking fo the skyline, does anyone have a shot of Boston getting slammed with the wave of fire in Knowing? [horrible movie, but cool shot].

They did a horrible job of feigning boston in that movie. Somehow, the hancock tower ended up next to the Custom House Tower.

 

[ablarc]

Call it whatever you like. Me, I'll take deco. Modernism, too often (though not always), reflects a style instead of a place. And what's a place without a sense of itself?

There are modern buildings I swoon over. Many, however, truth be told, could be erected anywhere. The reason? They often ignore the street, their neighbors, their community.

And, of course, they often look alike.

All this soul-searching about place is itself somewhat out of place, imo. Modernism and Deco both transcended regionalism. If I was unfamiliar with Boston and you'd told me the Financial District Post Office was in Buffalo, I'd say "OK".

Maybe what we should agonize about is quality of design and programming, not regionalism of style. Kendall Square has an identity, and that identity is pretty awful. I doubt that all the stylistic regionalism in the world could save it if its basic assumptions aren't revised.

.

 

[nm88]

^Point taken.

My preferences are showing, I guess. IMHO the best stuff in Boston is the old stuff. The Hancock, Rowes, Sert dorm and a few others are rare exceptions.

 

[ablarc]

La Defense is only arguably "modernist" in the ideological sense of the word.

And art deco is arguably classicist.

Everything is arguable. Isn't that what lawyers exist to demonstrate? But according to their own standards, only 50.0% of their arguments are right.

IMHO the best stuff in Boston is the old stuff. The Hancock, Rowes, Sert dorm and a few others are rare exceptions.

Indubitably.

Boston is due for a Renaissance.

 

[czsz]

Isn't that what lawyers exist to demonstrate? But according to their own standards, only 50.0% of their arguments are right.

This could either mean that there is Truth or that you've just deconstructed the Rule of Law.

Some lawyers actually manage to believe in both. I've been in school long enough not to believe in either.

 

[kennedy]

Truth is whatever the hell we make it?

Renaissance:
For sure. There's really not a good place for modernism in this city. Very few, at least. Why isn't anyone good at neo-classicism? Can anyone invent a style that...works? And looks good? But isn't a revival? I guess I just laid out my goal in architecture...

 

[czsz]

You can sketch as many neoclassical facades as you want, but good luck getting your clients to pay for it.

 

[kennedy]

Why won't they? Simply because it's too expensive?

 

[czsz]

To do it well, yes. There simply aren't as many stonemasons, etc. as there were in 1910.

 

[ablarc]

But there's technology. More than ever before.

There aren't willing designers, clients and contractors.

It's mindset: why pay for anything you're not forced to?

 

[czsz]

Yes, it's a "vision thing" as well. But the technology can still be prohibitive. If you can get away with alucobond and precast and a higher profit, why use the laser-guided machine that some specialist has to operate in order to create that original gargoyle or capital that another paid professional may have to design?

Developers don't even need to hijack the vocabulary of contemporary architecture, so accepted is their cheapness and laziness. I don't think the economics or the will to create truly traditional buildings will ever return on a large scale.

 

[kennedy]

Well, weren't most of these amazing traditional buildings we're so fond of originally built by super rich tycoons as testaments to their wealth? Think the Wrigley buildings in Chicago, or Chrysler in NYC, or again, Sears in Chicago. The only reason for people to shell out to make grand buildings is to show off, and companies do that in other ways now. And developers sure as hell aren't going to put that much effort into a residential tower.

 

[Lurker]

You're assuming all the fine details from everything built after the civil war were crafted by artisans. For the most part almost everything one could image was, and still is if one knows where to look, made by industrial processes in rather large factories and widely available as stock from catalogs. Really unique things were crafted for rich patrons and landmarks, but for the most part the average home or office building, ornate as they appear to be today, we the equivalent of the cookie cutter McMansions we all despise today.

As an aside, the McMansion style use of ornament is partly why the cult of modernists railed against ornament, however in hindsight they went too far.

A lot of the stonework you see was either cast or machine carved, much like wood furniture. Door hardware, no matter how simple or ornate follows the same process of stamping or casting followed by plating, if it isn't solid, with the only real factor being the purity of the alloy or base material to suit the process. Ornate plaster was primarily cast in molds, much like it's plastic counterpart today. Tile is tile, the mechanical process, different adhesives and backing, are the only things which have really changed. All the ornate millwork people love in old buildings came from the Home Depot of the day, the lumber was merely better selected and handled to not be beat to death prior to installation. All that really changed is the taste of architects and developers. Architects have been bullied out of old styles and developers, freed from higher public demands and outright expectations for finish quality, cut every penny per square foot they can.

Laser cutting and welding, easier casting processes for everything, better artificial stones and concrete, computer assisted machinery, etc. have made all those lovely little details actually EASIER TO FABRICATE PER UNIT THAN BACK IN THE DAYS OF YORE. One machine doing the work of many, faster, more accurate, easier to change production on the fly, new designs on the fly, etc. The fact that the economy of scale isn't there anymore from having ornament being the standard spec have eroded the number of suppliers and bumped prices a bit, however if one knows where to look it isn't nearly as expensive as people often think.

 

[Justin7]

You're assuming all the fine details from everything built after the civil war were crafted by artisans. For the most part almost everything one could image was, and still is if one knows where to look, made by industrial processes in rather large factories and widely available as stock from catalogs. Really unique things were crafted for rich patrons and landmarks, but for the most part the average home or office building, ornate as they appear to be today, we the equivalent of the cookie cutter McMansions we all despise today.

As an aside, the McMansion style use of ornament is partly why the cult of modernists railed against ornament, however in hindsight they went too far.

A lot of the stonework you see was either cast or machine carved, much like wood furniture. Door hardware, no matter how simple or ornate follows the same process of stamping or casting followed by plating, if it isn't solid, with the only real factor being the purity of the alloy or base material to suit the process. Ornate plaster was primarily cast in molds, much like it's plastic counterpart today. Tile is tile, the mechanical process, different adhesives and backing, are the only things which have really changed. All the ornate millwork people love in old buildings came from the Home Depot of the day, the lumber was merely better selected and handled to not be beat to death prior to installation. All that really changed is the taste of architects and developers. Architects have been bullied out of old styles and developers, freed from higher public demands and outright expectations for finish quality, cut every penny per square foot they can.

Laser cutting and welding, easier casting processes for everything, better artificial stones and concrete, computer assisted machinery, etc. have made all those lovely little details actually EASIER TO FABRICATE PER UNIT THAN BACK IN THE DAYS OF YORE. One machine doing the work of many, faster, more accurate, easier to change production on the fly, new designs on the fly, etc. The fact that the economy of scale isn't there anymore from having ornament being the standard spec have eroded the number of suppliers and bumped prices a bit, however if one knows where to look it isn't nearly as expensive as people often think.

I was referring more to the quality of building materials, not simply ornament.

 

[statler]

^^ That is an important point.
Old-growth hardwoods are more attractive than 'managed' forests woods and far more attractive then plywood. Quarried stone is more attractive than cast concrete and engineered stone veneers.

 

[tobyjug]

^^^^
New growth wood is so much less dense. That, plus all the particle board and Chinese gypsum, man, all those "Chase/Hunt" subdivisions are going to be piles of pulp in 30 years.

 

[statler]

^^ Right, that is one of my major concerns with the new urbanism projects being discussed in the other thread. How well will they age? The look nice now but can they sustain a decade + of neglect and then bounce back a la Back Bay & the South End?

 

[kennedy]

Good point, Lurker. It's absolutely true that with the innovation we've seen in machining and automated production, it probably is easier to build the ornament seen on traditional building. Architect's tastes have changed, but more so to suit the demands of the developer, who is cutting every penny. Unless, of course, you're a starchitect modernist. Then it doesn't really matter.

I guess, in the end, traditional styles are probably going to stay historical due to economics, even if it's cheaper now than it was back then.

 

[Boston02124]

today from Longwood M.A. This view makes our skyline look small

more interesting up close

 

[SeamusMcFly]

Good point, Lurker. It's absolutely true that with the innovation we've seen in machining and automated production, it probably is easier to build the ornament seen on traditional building. Architect's tastes have changed, but more so to suit the demands of the developer, who is cutting every penny. Unless, of course, you're a starchitect modernist. Then it doesn't really matter.

I guess, in the end, traditional styles are probably going to stay historical due to economics, even if it's cheaper now than it was back then.

The point you guys are missing is not that architects tastes have changed, or that developers are pinching every penny (which of course they are.) Both would love the most beautiful building that their money can buy. The problem is, in most instances, they are getting the best looking product their money can buy.

The cost of development has skyrocketed since the good ole days that you are referring to. I'm not going to start a big anti-union rant because I don't really want to be crucified, but the bids, and the rates, and the contingencies (or lack of) associated with construction have gone ridiculously through the roof. Part of this I can't blame on unions or contractors, as they have to buy product and make a profit. The ridiculous part comes from the over staffing when the budget is fat which leads to under staffing and overtime as they are trying to finish, plus the going rate, for what with many on-site workers amounts to un-skilled labor, is getting to be astronomical.

The whole design process (which yes I am a part of) has gone from one end of the spectrum to the other.

For instance. I just worked on a major renovation for an existing MLB stadium. As part of this I needed to understand the existing systems so I took a look at the original design documents. The entire building plumbing design was handled with 16 total drawings. We did a renovation of basically one level plus infrastructure. We issued 113 plumbing drawings. 16 to build it, and 113 to modify it This is probably more drawings than all trades combined back in 1961. The point is, the design contracts are much larger portions of the overall cost as well.

There is also good cause for this, as permitting processes and codes have gotten stricter over the years (which is not necessarily a bad thing.)

So like you guys accurately pointed out, ornamentation & better finishes are easier to create and possibly more readily available, but they still cannot be afforded due to all the other factors driving up cost.

Architects would love to design better looking buildings, but they can't unless they are given the green light and a blank check. Most won't even try when it comes to proposal time, because they know it will get shot down as being too expensive. So not only do they not get to design great testaments to their ability, they don't even get the job and have to lay everyone off. Then again some architects just have no ability or imagination...