Former Grampy's Gas site | 290 Cambridge Street | Beacon Hill

Re: 290 Cambridge Street, Beacon Hill

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz....oh sorry fell asleep looking at the rendering.
 
Re: 290 Cambridge Street, Beacon Hill

The rendering looks like it could be flattening out the details. If the facade has some dimension to it, this could turn out nice.
 
Re: 290 Cambridge Street, Beacon Hill

I get the 'false history' arguments and whatnot but depending on the materials used I think I will like it actually.
 
Re: 290 Cambridge Street, Beacon Hill

It's boring, but that's what the neighborhood wants. It's not bad, just boring.
 
Re: 290 Cambridge Street, Beacon Hill

Can't wait to oogle those lovely seams in those lovely precast brick panels.
 
Re: 290 Cambridge Street, Beacon Hill

Some folks are never happy unless it's a contorted fine art sculpture (surrounded by plenty of buffering green space) that shouts LOOK AT ME I'M DIFFERENT FROM EVERYTHING ELSE! Just for the sake of being different.
 
Re: 290 Cambridge Street, Beacon Hill

You people say boring but I say consistent with the neighborhood look and feel.
 
Re: 290 Cambridge Street, Beacon Hill

It will come down to materials. If they are quality stone and real brick it will look great, if its panel brick and cheap cast stone... well there qee plenty of examples of how bad that looks already.
 
Re: 290 Cambridge Street, Beacon Hill

That's okay...when Cambridge St. was widened in the 1920's to accommodate more cars they tore off the facades of a lot of buildings on that side and reclad them. This rendering looks like it's from that era...And who really will notice it? Most people are rushing around that area in cars. As long as the street level is inviting....
 
Re: 290 Cambridge Street, Beacon Hill

meddlepal said:
You people say boring but I say consistent with the neighborhood look and feel.
Click to expand...

+1. I agree with you and Matthew. It's Beacon Hill. Chiofaro's iconic skyscraper doesn't fit there. I think it's very contextual. Not for Beacon Hill side street, but for a Beacon Hill main street.

What truly appeals to me from that rendering is the active ground floor to pedestrians.
 
Re: 290 Cambridge Street, Beacon Hill

14481286346_d3c4e909cf_c.jpg


Question. See the large windows on the second floor? I remember reading a book (by Campbell?) that referred to those types of widows as "Boss Windows", the idea being that it was cooler on the second floor in the days before AC thus the second floor was reserved for management employees. However, a quick Google search comes up blank for that term. Did he just make it up or has anyone else heard of this?
 
Re: 290 Cambridge Street, Beacon Hill

Matthew said:
Some folks are never happy unless it's a contorted fine art sculpture (surrounded by plenty of buffering green space) that shouts LOOK AT ME I'M DIFFERENT FROM EVERYTHING ELSE! Just for the sake of being different.
Click to expand...

God Damn it Matthew! How many times do I have to tell you!! Your opinion doesn't count because you're not in design school!
 
Re: 290 Cambridge Street, Beacon Hill

statler said:
Question. See the large windows on the second floor? I remember reading a book (by Campbell?) that referred to those types of widows as "Boss Windows", the idea being that it was cooler on the second floor in the days before AC thus the second floor was reserved for management employees. However, a quick Google search comes up blank for that term. Did he just make it up or has anyone else heard of this?
Click to expand...

I remember reading that comment about "boss windows" a long time ago as well. It was definitely Campbell. Don't know if he made it up or not though.

I thought it had more to do with lack of elevators than heat. No one wanted to shlep up 8 or 10 flights of stairs, so the most desirable location for your office was generally on the lower floors. Bosses, having the most clout in the company, would be situated just above the first couple floors of retail. Campbell was pointing out that the 3rd floor windows (or 2nd perhaps) would be given special treatment to illustrate to the world that this was where all the "important" people worked.

I have the vaguest recollection that Campbell might have been writing about the Little Building, which is a really good example of this, in that article.
 
Re: 290 Cambridge Street, Beacon Hill

Matthew said:
Some folks are never happy unless it's a contorted fine art sculpture (surrounded by plenty of buffering green space) that shouts LOOK AT ME I'M DIFFERENT FROM EVERYTHING ELSE! Just for the sake of being different.
Click to expand...

This is the perfect AB response, a complete pendulum swing of a reaction.

Good design is good design. I am not an advocate for art for art sake in design (read: contorted fine art sculpture ... unless it is actually fine art sculpture) ... however, thoughtless design is still thoughtless design even if it has brick and lintels and has a passing resemblance to what preceded it.

This needs a couple more iterations, that is all. There needs to be some subtle tightening up of the proportions and a break down of some of the scale elements to be done well. Nobody is asking this to be a Harelson Parker Award winner ... but please, let us not accept under-cooked design here on a board where we all seem to care about good design.

Rant over.

cca
 
Re: 290 Cambridge Street, Beacon Hill

Poolio said:
I thought it had more to do with lack of elevators than heat. No one wanted to shlep up 8 or 10 flights of stairs, so the most desirable location for your office was generally on the lower floors.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The poorest people lived on the top floors of apartment buildings from Ancient Roman insulae until the 20th century. Primary causes: not wanting to schlep up a bunch of stairs, not wanting to die in a fire, having an apartment that wasn't so hot in the summer. Elevators, fire safety and air-conditioning, among many other factors, all helped lead to desirable pent-house apartments in modern skyscrapers.
 
Re: 290 Cambridge Street, Beacon Hill

cca said:
This needs a couple more iterations, that is all. There needs to be some subtle tightening up of the proportions and a break down of some of the scale elements to be done well.


cca
Click to expand...

I'm trying to see what you see. I know it's just a rendering but the scale and proportions don't look off to my (admittedly untrained) eye. What do you see that need to be reworked?
 
Re: 290 Cambridge Street, Beacon Hill

I think this is overall a pretty good design. Fits in contextually. Active ground floor. Maybe the materials could be better but that's a minor point. I'll take this over some grand artistic statement that is completely out of context and doesn't actually work for the people who will be using or walking past it.
 
Re: 290 Cambridge Street, Beacon Hill

cca said:
Nobody is asking this to be a Harelson Parker Award winner ... but please, let us not accept under-cooked design here on a board where we all seem to care about good design.
Click to expand...

You said it better than I could. And I can't help but imagine the obvious VE-ing cutting down this already mediocre design to yet another bad riff on what a Boston building "should" be. At least they got the ground floor right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top