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

I will never understand how people can be so averse to things that look nice, endlessly seeking garish experiments in the hope that one in a hundred actually works.
Click to expand...

To err is to be human, and to complain is to internet.
 
Equilibria said:
Paris is beautiful. La Defense is a fine contrast with contemporary buildings, but some of the towers proposed in the last ten years are simply hideous. Fortunately the Euro crisis seems to have killed the really hideous ones for now.

I know you're joking, and I know that architecture is one of those things you can't really critique online (like music, and airline liveries...) because everyone has such an emotional reaction to things. There is, however, nothing comatose about this building - it simply looks nice. I will never understand how people can be so averse to things that look nice, endlessly seeking garish experiments in the hope that one in a hundred actually works.

The people of Paris, by the way, love experimental architecture so much that they made all their buildings look the same and imposed strict height limits on the city when a single modernist high-rise was built over their objections, so I don't think they're the best example for you. Their croissants, however, are indeed incomparably good.
Click to expand...

I agree that La Defense if not uniformly successful and there are some buildings that I think are complete fails (though of course, the context of La Defense is so completely different from anyplace in Boston...maybe Kendall Square if it had higher aspirations...). The point is novelty and architecture-as-statement. Done cheaply, it's crap when the novelty wears off, but with the quality of La Defense, I think several buildings will be appreciated for their beauty and innovation for many decades to come.

As I and others have said, The CSC and Millennium Towers are not "bad" at all. If we had 5-7 really iconic/beautiful/thought-provoking towers, these would make nice (quality, restrained [which I appreciate]) fillers, but we don't. We get very few shots at making a statement and these make a very dull statement in my view.

I just think it odd that some people want to smugly sneer at places like La Defense and Dubai for their flashiness and gaudiness. Really? We're sneering? Really??
 
underground said:
To err is to be human, and to complain is to internet.
Click to expand...

Devil's advocate here, but... would you say the same to a doctor? Architects leave the same irreparable or extremely expensive-to-remove scars on cities in the same manner that malpractice by a doctor does to people.
 
I think the way to really impose a landmark, iconic, statement tower would be by having a design competition. The city or state identifies a parcel of land and send out and RFP. Architects & Developers team up and deliver their best, and the city chooses. The Winthrop square garage is the most obvious location for this in my mind, but there must be others.
 
As I said earlier and others have also said, I would prefer restrained elegance and is welcomed by the community than being too risky and left with something that doesn't age well aesthetically or is VE'd to death.

Not to get all NYC on everyone, but there are a large number of tall buildings going up right now and only a few are "iconic". Most are "meh" at best and offensive at worst. NYC has more opportunities to roll the dice (bigger area for talls in Midtown and the bedrock underneath it), but Boston does not. If that means we don't get stuff that are my personal faves, like the Bank of America tower or the Time Warner Center, then so be it. We also don't a long list of lousy buildings as well. I will take projects like CSC and MP all day over 432 Park Ave.
 
Drawing in the stahhhchitects with an RFP would be nice, but I say we give every site to ADD Inc. for the next 5 years and let 'em let loose. They obviously have something to say and that's more than can be said for just about every other local firm.
 
underground said:
I wouldn't, because I wouldn't make that analogy.
Click to expand...

There's a difference though between "erring" and "really f'ing up." "Err" to me is forgetting a mullion detail and having to answer an RFI when it comes to architecture. That is human.
 
I think you misread me. My point is that people on the internet will complain about anything just because that seems to be the nature of the internet. Exhibit 1: this thread.
 
underground said:
I think you misread me. My point is that people on the internet will complain about anything just because that seems to be the nature of the internet. Exhibit 1: this thread.
Click to expand...

Ah, I was ignoring the internet part of that and simply responding to "to err is human" in response to architectural experimentation at the expense of cities. We were on different wavelengths. My bad!
 
bobthebuilder said:
I think the way to really impose a landmark, iconic, statement tower would be by having a design competition. The city or state identifies a parcel of land and send out and RFP. Architects & Developers team up and deliver their best, and the city chooses. The Winthrop square garage is the most obvious location for this in my mind, but there must be others.
Click to expand...

You basically just described the exact process the city went through in producing this gem:

2bt5W9b.jpg
 
AmericanFolkLegend said:
You basically just described the exact process the city went through in producing this gem:

2bt5W9b.jpg
Click to expand...

Here's how we save government center:

Step 1) Plant trees around the perimeter, plant grass in the middle square area

Step 2) Build a large reflecting mirror-tower or dome to get more natural light into the middle courtyard, like the renovations to the Reichtag.

Step 3) Coat the entire building facade in chrome/metallic finish so that it looks clean again, and also has a crazy unique finish that reflects the surrounding nature and park space.

Step 4) Replace windows and clean up the brick steps and courtyard.
 
bobthebuilder said:
I think the way to really impose a landmark, iconic, statement tower would be by having a design competition. The city or state identifies a parcel of land and send out and RFP. Architects & Developers team up and deliver their best, and the city chooses. The Winthrop square garage is the most obvious location for this in my mind, but there must be others.
Click to expand...

I think Winthrop Square, South Bay / Gateway Center, and possibly South Station Tower (though I know it was already approved) would be good sites for a design competition. And I really don't think we'd end up with another city hall, though there would probably be disappointed folks somewhere. If the state ever decides to do air rights platforms themselves, a competition might be held for those plots too.
 
I know we are getting far off-topic, but had to chime in that I love this idea... but I think you can only get that effect at the time the concrete is poured.

Galactic said:
Step 3) Coat the entire building facade in chrome/metallic finish so that it looks clean again, and also has a crazy unique finish
Click to expand...
 
AmericanFolkLegend said:
You basically just described the exact process the city went through in producing this gem:

2bt5W9b.jpg
Click to expand...

So a design competition produced a giant turd once, so we should never do it again?

Speaking of city hall, that's another place for a good design competition, per Marty's campaign proposal.
 
Hmmm, was the Johnson addition to the BPL the result of a competition?
 
bobthebuilder said:
So a design competition produced a giant turd once, so we should never do it again?
Click to expand...

Of course not. I didn't say that. You wrote "the way to really impose a landmark, iconic, statement tower would be by having a design competition" and I thought your phrasing was ironic. Because if an "iconic" building has ever been "imposed" on a city by a design competition, I think City Hall would be it.
 
AmericanFolkLegend said:
Of course not. I didn't say that. You wrote "the way to really impose a landmark, iconic, statement tower would be by having a design competition" and I thought your phrasing was ironic. Because if an "iconic" building has ever been "imposed" on a city by a design competition, I think City Hall would be it.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, and for the sake of argument, I said "I think the way to...." Meaning, in my opinion. Not that it's the only way to get something built that has a wow factor.

I now see the irony in what I said. I guess I just don't feel the only way to really get a stand out, iconic building, a competition would force the issue. I don't see developers really going out of their way to make their building iconic, because it doesn't necessarily add a ton of value to their bottom line.

That all being said, I don't think every new tower proposed needs to be landmark, and ones that are just "nice" like this one, will do great. I do believe that Boston is due for a new tallest, and it should come during this building boom, and that tower should be something that stands out. In my opinion, the Pru and the Hancock Tower are boring. The only reason they stand out is because they stand alone.
 
bobthebuilder said:
I guess I just don't feel the only way to really get a stand out, iconic building, a competition would force the issue. I don't see developers really going out of their way to make their building iconic, because it doesn't necessarily add a ton of value to their bottom line.
Click to expand...

That's a very good point. A competition would prevent (or at least) reduce the kind of value engineering that 99% of buildings go through.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top