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

This thing is surrounded by hideous concrete - it's too bad the Hilton and Sheraton can't be imploded and completely rebuilt. Add in the Westin while we're at it.
 
Brookline-ish said:
IwUP3LV.jpg
Click to expand...

Great shot right there. Sort of a ... heavenly perspective. Even though it's still not all that tall, the shot really captures something about where this is going.

Edit - I think it's the lighting on the Pru - really great for this building. I grew up with the Pru so I've always liked it just because it was the most iconic building I remember, basically WAS Boston to me when I was a kid, but I can see how people might not like it.... this pic does it justice, though.
 
I said nothing about opposition to this I actually used an example that nobody is noticing that its even going up yet and that it still has over 20 floors to go.

Anyways this looks great and still has a lot to go. Cant wait to see the “cut outs” rise from here on up.
 
With 1000 boylston and the Huntington theatre project on one end and sst, Winthrop square, bullfinch crossing, hub on causeway and the other garden garage project on the other end our high spine is going to look a lot different in 5 years. But every time I see these pictures and imagine it all it just makes me more annoyed that Copley tower was cancelled. Really could have filled in a gap.
 
^^Yes, Copley. Yes 5-7 years. :)

Take every approved tower; then add Copley Tower, Columbus Center to 40 Trinity, Back Bay Station, 1 Dalton, 1000 Boylston + Phase 2, The Huntington, Fenway Center, and Kenmore Square...... add all that to what's in the refrigerator Downtown + SST.... add to infill projects. A renaissance many of us awaited for so long!

Fingers crossed on SST, Copley Tower and.... Columbus Center. Copley Tower needs a developer with some balls, possibly change to multi-use office/residential/ hotel.
 
nepatz11 said:
With 1000 boylston and the Huntington theatre project on one end and sst, Winthrop square, bullfinch crossing, hub on causeway and the other garden garage project on the other end our high spine is going to look a lot different in 5 years. But every time I see these pictures and imagine it all it just makes me more annoyed that Copley tower was cancelled. Really could have filled in a gap.
Click to expand...

other than 1000 boylston and huntington (and copley tower) none of the buildings mentioned are part of the high spine.
 
Probably was a good plan 57 years ago. Not sure we need to get permission from '1961' to go (somewhat) tall where appropriate just a few hundred feet off the left or right flank. Say hello to Walsh's "High Spine 2"
 
A renaissance now means filling the sky with phallic monuments filled with offices and luxury condos; nothing to do with arts, or quality of architecture, urbanism, or ability of working people to actually live in this city, no it's just more tall things.
 
coleslaw said:
A renaissance now means filling the sky with phallic monuments filled with offices and luxury condos; nothing to do with arts, or quality of architecture, urbanism, or ability of working people to actually live in this city, no it's just more tall things.
Click to expand...

Actually the vast majority of things being built are not tall at all, and are continuously stitching the city together from an urban standpoint. Neighborhoods that used to be an oasis amidst nothing are now expanding and connecting to adjacent neighborhoods.

In the main downtown areas themselves it makes sense to go taller, much taller, to satisfy demand and account for the serious lack of open space available. But it's beyond disingenuous to write off the absolutely insane amount of square footage, mostly in low-rises and mid-rises, that has been built over the last decade in metro Boston.

Also, you lament the lack of architecture on a thread for what will likely be one of the best looking skyscrapers built in the entire country since the year 2000.
 
coleslaw said:
A renaissance now means filling the sky with phallic monuments filled with offices and luxury condos; nothing to do with arts, or quality of architecture, urbanism, or ability of working people to actually live in this city, no it's just more tall things.
Click to expand...

Lets block development because we're too jealous of the people who can afford to rent or buy on the top floors. That's a good idea!

And anywhere the majority of new buildings have been shorter in places like the Seaport and other outlying neighborhoods. We still haven't had a building tall enough to eclipse the Hancock tower.
 
DZH22 said:
Actually the vast majority of things being built are not tall at all, and are continuously stitching the city together from an urban standpoint. Neighborhoods that used to be an oasis amidst nothing are now expanding and connecting to adjacent neighborhoods.
Click to expand...

I was responding to a comment that was literally a list of tallish buildings and claiming it was a "renaissance." The connections emerging between neighborhoods is not a bad thing but a couple tall towers are not what is really doing that.

DZH22 said:
In the main downtown areas themselves it makes sense to go taller, much taller, to satisfy demand and account for the serious lack of open space available. But it's beyond disingenuous to write off the absolutely insane amount of square footage, mostly in low-rises and mid-rises, that has been built over the last decade in metro Boston.
Click to expand...

If anyone is writing that off it is the comment I was responding to. Also not saying that we shouldn't build tall buildings just criticizing the idea that tall buildings in and of themselves are at all worthwhile. A lot of tall buildings do little to nothing to really improve the urban fabric as it is actually experienced on the ground.


DZH22 said:
Also, you lament the lack of architecture on a thread for what will likely be one of the best looking skyscrapers built in the entire country since the year 2000.
Click to expand...

It's one of the better ones going in in boston, I like that it is triangular but it is glass curtain wall it is nothing really out of the ordinary. However a lot of what is being built is the same awful prefab boxes that are being built absolutely everywhere.

tysmith95 said:
Lets block development because we're too jealous of the people who can afford to rent or buy on the top floors. That's a good idea!
Click to expand...

And where exactly did I say that? Everyone critical of any element of development must be a nimby to some of you... Also boston is a really rapidly gentrifying city, by some measures the fastest in the country. To insinuate that anyone who has a problem with perceptual development of the city exclusively for the rich is simply jealous ignores the material ramifications on working people, aka displacement, deepening poverty, etc. It's boring capitalist apologism that thinks everyone must think like you and be purely motivated by individual wealth, dismissing any potential for alternatives or solidarity.

tysmith95 said:
And anywhere the majority of new buildings have been shorter in places like the Seaport and other outlying neighborhoods. We still haven't had a building tall enough to eclipse the Hancock tower.
Click to expand...

Ok and? I am responding to the idea that more tall buildings intrinsically means a better city.
 
Last edited:
coleslaw said:
A renaissance now means filling the sky with phallic monuments filled with offices and luxury condos; nothing to do with arts, or quality of architecture, urbanism, or ability of working people to actually live in this city, no it's just more tall things.
Click to expand...

coleslaw, I often share your views, and as such, feel inclined to constructively explain my disagreement in this case.

Viewing arts/urbanism/quality of life as diametrically opposed to prosperity is not the right way to look at it - and actually is counterproductive toward the very thing you (we) want. IMO, the right way to look at it is: how can we have both? How can we channel prosperity to improve quality of life, arts, education, etc, for everyone - not just the rich? Last I checked, the top several donors to the Boston Symphony, as one random example, are successful tech entrepreneurs from the Boston area who live in the monuments you mock. When times are good, people are going to want nice places to live...do we instead want times to be bad so that such monuments don't get built? Try funding the arts, education, and city programs in those times...

coleslaw said:
Ok and? I am responding to the idea that more tall buildings intrinsically means a better city.
Click to expand...
The two are not causally linked, but they definitely correlate. Michael Dell spent $40 million on a One Dalton penthouse. Would he have if One Dalton topped out at 20 floors instead of 61? Now what I ask is: what is he going to do for our city? I'd like to see some sort of public citizenship and contribution...and maybe there will be (I'm not holding my breath - but, the city can do things in terms of policy and programs to link prosperity toward city improvement). Like it or not, prosperity tends to correlate with tall buildings (unless you are in Geneva or on the French Riviera, etc)...so, to my point, the constructive argument is: how can we channel that prosperity?
 
Last edited:
I think we have to be honest about the fact that that prosperity is being channeled back into the same pockets, or the pockets of people in materially similar situations. Maybe we want something else but what is really happening in reality is that. Money earned is used to give tax breaks to union breaking companies whose employees wear diapers because they don't get bathroom breaks. Development for the rich is being used to fund more development for the rich, while the poor and working class are being displaced. This is the current reality in our city and I really don't see how this shows any signs of changing.

While maybe some elite cultural institutions like the symphony may benefit from more donors, arts are a lot more than that.
 
Tax revenue also correlates with tall buildings as well. That tends to get missing in these NIMBY vs YIMBY discussions. Delays + lower heights = forfeited tax revenue which could be used for parks, affordable housing, sensual massages, whatever, that make a city worth living in.
 
coleslaw said:
I think we have to be honest about the fact that that prosperity is being channeled back into the same pockets, or the pockets of people in materially similar situations. Maybe we want something else but what is really happening in reality is that. Money earned is used to give tax breaks to union breaking companies whose employees wear diapers because they don't get bathroom breaks. Development for the rich is being used to fund more development for the rich, while the poor and working class are being displaced. This is the current reality in our city and I really don't see how this shows any signs of changing.

While maybe some elite cultural institutions like the symphony may benefit from more donors, arts are a lot more than that.
Click to expand...

I agree that we need to be honest about how prosperity is manifesting.
All I am saying, though, is that it is more constructive to demand both (city improvement going along with prosperity).

(p.s., the symphony may be "elite," but I am not going to complain if, say, Michael Dell donated to a program that funds free symphony tickets for kids whose parents can't afford taking them to see it. You mentioned the arts, and we have one of the top symphonies in the world, which happens to be next door to One Dalton. It's a shame if it were limited to only serving elite patrons).
 
I'm with bigpicture here. I find myself aligning the closest with both of you across multiple threads, but I have a bigger beef with the city in this dynamic. We've demonstrated an ability to land big paydays (like Millennium at 115 Federal), but we should all be more critical about what the city does with those funds.

Cities used to build public housing, like, a lot of it. Whatever happened to that?

Developers make a lot of money if they play the game right, but I also don't think they're lying when they say that working toward a lower price point in this environment breaks their models. We can choose to pressure them to make it work, and risk them leaving to build somewhere easier, or we can have the city shoulder more of the housing burden and keep cashing the tax checks. I think it's possible to harness the upside of both, and there are not many soft places in my heart for developers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top