Four Seasons Tower @ CSC | 1 Dalton Street | Back Bay

[chrisbrat]

Maybe because Boston already has a Four Seasons? Most people know the existing Boston Four Seasons as just "Four Seasons" so to avoid confusion people call this One Dalton. Calling buildings by address is not new, but it is quite trendy right now imo. But especially as there is already a Back Bay four seasons in Boston it would be really hard to name this one.

see post #4414

 

[odurandina]

You may be the only human being to use 200 Clarendon who isn't contractually-obligated to not say "The Hancock".

And you listed a bunch of office buildings, so not sure of your point.

I was asking about the Four Seasons - it's a hotel and attached condos. The Ritz, The St Regis, The Taj, the Mandarin Oriental... none of them go by their addresses.

Could you imagine a well-heeled buyer saying "I live at 150 Seaport" and not "I live at the St. Regis?" Seems odd here. One Dalton is the outlier.

Add Tim Logan to the short list of 200 Clarendon name promoters. How about most towers that have gone up in NYC the last 25 years? Seems the 1920's~80's skyscrapers were name oriented; The Flatiron Bldg, Chrysler Bldg, Empire State Bldg, World Trade Center, Pan Am Bldg, Seagram Bldg, Trump Tower, McGraw-Hill Bldg, But when construction went nuts x many years ago, it appears street addresses became the norm.

 

[whighlander]

200 clarendon st, one beacon st, one marina park drive, 100 federal st, 111 huntington ave, 888 boylston st, 60 state st, one beacon st, one lincoln st, 28 state st, 33 arch st, 100 summer st, 125 high st, one post office sq, one international place, one boston place..

Since this weekend the Red Sox and hated NY Yankees are playing in London -- sort of like homecoming a few hundred years in the making

Anyway we need some names like: Cheese Grater, Shard, Gherkin, “Walkie-Talkie”, the Olympic velodrome, called the “Pringle” "can of Ham", Trellis, Scalpel

and the Mother of all nicknames for buildings the Elizabeth Tower aka "Big Ben"

 

[stick n move]

You may be the only human being to use 200 Clarendon who isn't contractually-obligated to not say "The Hancock".

And you listed a bunch of office buildings, so not sure of your point.

I was asking about the Four Seasons - it's a hotel and attached condos. The Ritz, The St Regis, The Taj, the Mandarin Oriental... none of them go by their addresses.

Could you imagine a well-heeled buyer saying "I live at 150 Seaport" and not "I live at the St. Regis?" Seems odd here. One Dalton is the outlier.

Where did I say I call it that? I was just highlighting that, that is in fact its name. You knew what I was talking about when I said it though. Anyways that list is just showing that a massive number of towers are named for their address, its nothing new or unusual. The explanation that we have another 4 seasons already is probably why they went that way here also.

 

[JumboBuc]

Robert Campbell has weighed in

 

[stick n move]

^ edit: beat me to it.

Nice pics

https://news.google.com/articles/CBMilAFodHRwczovL3d3dy5ib3N0b25nbG9iZS5jb20vYXJ0cy8yMDE5LzA2LzI5L29uZS1kYWx0b24tY2l0eS1jb21tYW5kaW5nLW5ldy1za3lzY3JhcGVyLWNvbmp1cmVzLWFyY2hpdGVjdHVyYWwtbWFnaWMvRWdrQklxaGVLSFd0NWFmd2czOU0ySy9zdG9yeS5odG1s0gGjAWh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmJvc3Rvbmdsb2JlLmNvbS9hcnRzLzIwMTkvMDYvMjkvb25lLWRhbHRvbi1jaXR5LWNvbW1hbmRpbmctbmV3LXNreXNjcmFwZXItY29uanVyZXMtYXJjaGl0ZWN0dXJhbC1tYWdpYy9FZ2tCSXFoZUtIV3Q1YWZ3ZzM5TTJLL3N0b3J5Lmh0bWw_b3V0cHV0VHlwZT1hbXA?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen

Get a load of this:

“Start with the triangles. Cobb is fascinated by the question of how new buildings get their shapes. He likes what he calls “contingent architecture,” meaning buildings that look the way they do because they’ve been designed to respond, in some way, to where they find themselves.”

“At One Dalton, Cobb studied historic railway lines and street maps of this part of Boston. He saw that the land had always been organized as a loose arrangement of triangles. It was very different from the squared-off grids of the Back Bay and the South End, which flank it. Even the Mother Church at the nearby Christian Science Center was at one time a triangular building on a triangular site. Cobb’s response was to create a building on which every floor plan above the fifth level has the shape of an equilateral triangle.”

“But he’s never literal, never rubs your face in geometry. He rounds off the three points of the triangle and gently curves the three sides, softening the shape of his building and making it less obvious, something that asks to be explored.“

Pfffff... “In some way”...The plot is literally a triangle. He drew 3 glass walls up vertically from that grass triangle plot and theres your tower. It has nothing to do with that crock story he told about railways and crap... I hate when people fill in the blanks after the fact to pretend it was more than it actually was. You made a triangle building on a triangle plot. If it was some other shape and he had made a triangle okay then, but here.... what a bunch of bs. He should have described why he added the wonderful vertical lines..etc, you know the stuff he actually had to make decisions about. I like the tower, dont bs us.

Lol “But he rounds off the 3 points of the triangle” The tower is the EXACT shape of the plot. The plot has the rounded corners. Its a uniquely shaped tower, because of the uniquely shaped plot its built on, nothing more.

 

[odurandina]

i can see why the like using this color. i'm not crazy about it. It looks decent in the Globe photos (peering up). But from other angles, possibly on other days it looks too grey and drab. Just doesn't look all that great. i wish it could be a different color on most days, (or even some days) like the JHT almost seemingly manages to pull off.

 

[Mike02125]

Lol “But he rounds off the 3 points of the triangle” The tower is the EXACT shape of the plot. The plot has the rounded corners. Its a uniquely shaped tower, because of the uniquely shaped plot its built on, nothing more.

Haha - brilliant observation. Says as much about the state of journalism and public relations as it does about the state of design and architecture.

Not knocking this building, I just chuckled at this diatribe about the theory of triangles. What would be so wrong with stating the authentic truth? "The site is a triangular plot with gently rounded corners. The architects began their design within these exact constraints and exact size and shape to maximize the valuable square footage."

I think this building is far too plain to command its place on the skyline. This would be fine buried within the Financial District - but if it's going to stand out, then it should stand out.

 

[DZH22]

I think this building is far too plain to command its place on the skyline. This would be fine buried within the Financial District - but if it's going to stand out, then it should stand out.

It's simple, sleek, and classy, just like the JHT.

I was just in Philadelphia and let me tell you, I would not want something like their new Comcast Technology Center. From many angles it just looks oddly proportioned, oddly colored, and/or chunky. It has one very tall sleek angle from directly in front of the "spire" which runs the total height of the building. Looking straight up that angle it's like a stretched out version of what we thought we were getting for the North Station office tower. Every other angle just wasn't great.

Sometimes, simple is better. Personally, I would like to see a nice classic spired building, similar to 1 Liberty in Philly or Key Tower Cleveland, topping off the skyline either at the Kings parking garage right by 1 Dalton, or across the city near North Station. We could use one of those buildings in Boston. All we have is the fat old Hancock Building.

Anyway, just got back from seeing a bunch of cities (and taking over 1200 pics!) and it definitely adds some perspective. Sometimes, bold designs can backfire, especially when serving as a city's new pinnacle!

 

[odurandina]

Key Tower is fat. It's seriously fat. We're talking Orca fat.
i think it's ugly too btw, for this reason.
https://www.google.com/search?q=key...iw=1188&bih=623&dpr=1.1#imgrc=8rGnQ6PXEE_naM:
But, narrow it by ~35% and it could work at like, 1065~76 Boylston.
More realistically, what we need is something very similar to 180 Freemont
at you know where. It's probably the best site if another skyscraper is in the cards.

 

[atlantaden]

https://images.search.yahoo.com/sea...laza-atlanta-brian-young.0.0.jpg&action=click

An updated version of the BofA building in Atlanta definitely could work! I was hoping a spire topping the South Station tower would happen. And I agree with DZ about One Dalton! Simple, Sleek, Classy!

 

[DZH22]

Key Tower is fat. It's seriously fat. We're talking Orca fat.
i think it's ugly too btw, for this reason.
https://www.google.com/search?q=key...iw=1188&bih=623&dpr=1.1#imgrc=8rGnQ6PXEE_naM:

The picture you linked cuts off the bottom 16-18 floors. I have seen it in person and it is extremely handsome and well proportioned. Mainly, the point of it is my desire for a more classical looking spired building to top off the skyline and finally surpass the Hancock after 50 years.

 

[HelloBostonHi]

I was just in Philadelphia and let me tell you, I would not want something like their new Comcast Technology Center. From many angles it just looks oddly proportioned, oddly colored, and/or chunky. It has one very tall sleek angle from directly in front of the "spire" which runs the total height of the building. Looking straight up that angle it's like a stretched out version of what we thought we were getting for the North Station office tower. Every other angle just wasn't great.

Wow that has a real giving you a middle finger vibe to it, kinda reminds me of the plans for South Station tower...

 

[Czervik.Construction]

Once again, I read the comments section. I feel so dirty inside. Every time, I tell myself I can resist, that I am strong enough to just. read. the. article. But it turns out I am weak.
The stuff people write is terrifying.

 

[bigpicture7]

The picture you linked cuts off the bottom 16-18 floors. I have seen it in person and it is extremely handsome and well proportioned...

Agree x1000. It is a gorgeously proportioned building. I too have seen it in person.

Honestly, this is fat?:
https://goo.gl/maps/72NxRHK3PjP7KmHMA

 

[DZH22]

Honestly, this is fat?:
https://goo.gl/maps/72NxRHK3PjP7KmHMA

I recommend everybody spin this view 360 degrees and you'll see all 3 of Cleveland's tallest buildings. The top 2 in particular are absolutely dynamite. The third tallest not so much... Downtown was very clean (in 2010 when I saw it) with solid architecture and is underrated in the scheme of this country.

 

[odurandina]

Well, when you see it from all vantage points from all over Cleveland, you don't see that much of the bottom, which certainly doesn't help. Not only that, when you factor in the height, it's a humongous tower. Not well proportioned for Boston's smallish dimensions at all, imo.

 

[tmac9wr]

Once again, I read the comments section. I feel so dirty inside. Every time, I tell myself I can resist, that I am strong enough to just. read. the. article. But it turns out I am weak.
The stuff people write is terrifying.

I'm with you. I get some unexplainable horrible joy out of reading the nonsensical rants of the Globe comment section.

 

[stefal]

I'm with you. I get some unexplainable horrible joy out of reading the nonsensical rants of the Globe comment section.

I've been trying to avoid the comments section for a while now, but visited today for a laugh. Particularly loving the lists of (no exaggeration) 45 buildings and their respective heights.

 

[DZH22]

...Particularly loving the lists of (no exaggeration) 45 buildings and their respective heights.

Tosh in the Globe is odurandina here. We get the lists in both places.