Hook Wharf | 400 Atlantic Ave | Downtown

[stick n move]

I think the aspect ratio and general shape is there, especially from the knifes edge, its pretty good. Lets get one more iteration on the facade and it should be good to go. I dont think brown and blue go very well together on a midrise, but the rest is pretty alright. They should be able to click through different colors on whatever rendering software theyre using and see what looks best. I know they were going for the “pallette” here, but I think a diff color would probably be better.

-I almost didnt even notice until I looked close but yes, can confirm... they slipped in double height window colossal order. I guess at this point its the law of the land.

 

[Pop Alexandra]

I think the aspect ratio and general shape is there, especially from the knifes edge, its pretty good. Lets get one more iteration on the facade and it should be good to go. I dont think brown and blue go very well together on a midrise, but the rest is pretty alright. They should be able to click through different colors on whatever rendering software theyre using and see what looks best. I know they were going for the “pallette” here, but I think a diff color would probably be better.

-I almost didnt even notice until I looked close but yes, can confirm... they slipped in double height window colossal order. I guess at this point its the law of the land.

I tend to agree. My overall feeling is that it's quite good with some chromatic mishaps, but it's probably due to the software rendering.
________________________________________________
Alexandra from Revetement Agro

 

[cjbski]

This whole thing is BORINGGG but at least it cleans up a dead parcel and adds to the Harborwalk. "Welcome to the Seaport. Another bland building coming soon to the front door of Seaport Blvd."

Why do so many projects hire Elkus Manfredi? (I know why - they know how to design to easily get approved in Boston, etc.) -- but their work is just so blah. Can't the city encourage the use of other architects to get a range of design and creativity?

 

[stefal]

Why do so many projects hire Elkus Manfredi? (I know why - they know how to design to easily get approved in Boston, etc.) -- but their work is just so blah. Can't the city encourage the use of other architects to get a range of design and creativity?

I keep harping it on this board, but it's the developers "designing" this, and the architects listening. The architects are (for the most part) fully competent in their design skills.

Rather than recommending developers which on architects they use, the city needs to foster and promote an easier approval process, and that partly means doing something about NIMBYS and BANANAS. While I don't have an easy fit-all solution, I think in general they can be more informative/communicative about how development is a good thing, a little more shadow in December when not many people are out isn't the end of the world, so on and so forth. These developments, from the city's perspective, most certainly aren't terrible. This project and the harbor garage tower are directly funding a new park by the Chart House, and will likely include some pretty impactful flood control for the area, but that's not really being promoted. Similarly, I think dshoost pointed out in another thread that a Globe commenter wished for a new community center in the WS/Red Sox development "instead of more office and condos" but failed to realize one of those pesky new office buildings in the Fenway has a community center.

But today, as you alluded to, getting easy approvals is a big plus for a developer, especially on a high risk parcel like this. Any delay because a building is a little more creative than its neighbors means more design fees, delayed construction contracts and loans, which only go up, and more risk in forecasting of the market even further out than if it were approved today. Developers need certain margins, and banks will only loan if it makes sense. Very risky to play with in good ol' Boston.

 

[393b40]

Listen to these responses. "My only complaint...?" Talk about faint praise. My gosh...

This, my friends, is a prominent parcel. On the water, viewed from a park, near an historical bridge, not far from the granite piers that describe Boston history, to say nothing of a multi-generation Boston family that has carved a place in our city's waterfront/civic history. And this is what we, what that family, gets? From a Boston firm? This is what the city proposes? How does this proposal relate in anyway to any of the above details?

This modest offering is better suited for 495.

I've been checking in here for many years and maybe I'm just growing weary of the mediocrity that passes as architecture in this city. This proposal is not architecture. Let's call it what it is - this is real estate development by people who know how to maneuver the system and get a yes. I appreciate how hard it is to do that, to move the ball, how hard it is to accomplish anything of merit, but let's at least make the attempt.

Forgive me my venting. I suspect this lands on deaf ears. We are so lucky to be a city in the northeast that enjoys the blessings we have, blessings that allow us to continue to grow the way we have this past decade. This was not always the case. Some of us remember that. And how are we respecting our present day blessings? Proposals like this...

Talent does what it can, genius does what it must. Alas, neither seems to have been involved with this parcel. We continue to lower the bar.

Fire the architect. Today. Fire Brain Golden. Yesterday. Or our blessings will be diminished...

It looks good and offers a better street presence than what is there now. Build it yesterday.

 

[HarvardP]

Listen to these responses. "My only complaint...?" Talk about faint praise. My gosh...

This, my friends, is a prominent parcel. On the water, viewed from a park, near an historical bridge, not far from the granite piers that describe Boston history, to say nothing of a multi-generation Boston family that has carved a place in our city's waterfront/civic history. And this is what we, what that family, gets? From a Boston firm? This is what the city proposes? How does this proposal relate in anyway to any of the above details?

This modest offering is better suited for 495.

I've been checking in here for many years and maybe I'm just growing weary of the mediocrity that passes as architecture in this city. This proposal is not architecture. Let's call it what it is - this is real estate development by people who know how to maneuver the system and get a yes. I appreciate how hard it is to do that, to move the ball, how hard it is to accomplish anything of merit, but let's at least make the attempt.

Forgive me my venting. I suspect this lands on deaf ears. We are so lucky to be a city in the northeast that enjoys the blessings we have, blessings that allow us to continue to grow the way we have this past decade. This was not always the case. Some of us remember that. And how are we respecting our present day blessings? Proposals like this...

Talent does what it can, genius does what it must. Alas, neither seems to have been involved with this parcel. We continue to lower the bar.

Fire the architect. Today. Fire Brain Golden. Yesterday. Or our blessings will be diminished...

I won't argue it's uninspired, but absolutely nothing similar to this exists along 495, nor is there an appetite to build such along that beltway. These are not the suburbs of Toronto.

There are also rules re: waterfront development, boatloads of them, especially when actually building over water. I'm sorry these realities interrupted your fantasy, but maybe take the win - this parcel was a contentious development battle for years on end - and move on.

 

[Bananarama]

I won't argue it's uninspired, but absolutely nothing similar to this exists along 495, nor is there an appetite to build such along that beltway. These are not the suburbs of Toronto.

There are also rules re: waterfront development, boatloads of them, especially when actually building over water. I'm sorry these realities interrupted your fantasy, but maybe take the win - this parcel was a contentious development battle for years on end - and move on.

I think we can be thankful for the development existing in the first place while also being critical of the architecture.
NM's point is that the site has a lot of potential and meaning for the city, yet we get this. It could go anywhere and would be at home in a much more minor city.

As for it, the plinth is incredibly bland and glassy. Tiny, uninspired sun shading/louvers on the south corner. Essentially the maxed out lot shape with a couple minor entry inflections, extruded straight upwards.
The tower is more of the same.

There's a real lack of material depth here that makes it feel dated and cold. Compare this to the new Amazon building in Seaport with much more attention paid to human scale and fenestration at the base (solidity, color, change of facade plane, material texture, etc.). Feels like night and day.

 

[JeffDowntown]

From the presentation, the red line appears to denote the perimeter of the Hook property line, and the thin blue sliver by the Moakley Bridge represents waters of the United States. The United States owns the airspace over its territorial waters.

If so, then the Federal government would need to grant an easement for any structure bridging this sliver of the harbor, and built in the 'airspace' between the Hook property and Moakley Bridge.

The exact same gap exists on the other side of the Moakley Bridge and the Harbor Walk at Griffin Wharf. I have to assume it simply is not worth the developer's effort to jump through those hoops.

 

[stellarfun]

While I agree with much of the criticism, I am also mindful that much of the building is supported on pilings, which are partly exposed to weather and seawater. A maximized, large volume, multi-use building with probably a relatively low dead load perched as it is above the harbor, becomes an architectural adventure.

 

[dirtywater]

I have to disagree with most people on here. Is it bold, innovative architecture? Of course not. But I like the building, and it will fit in well and bring increased vitality to the area. An active ground floor, with a publicly accessible restaurant and bar on the next level and another rooftop bar, all with outdoor seating overlooking the water is a big plus too.

 

[DZH22]

This modest offering is better suited for 495.

I too wish we could do better in this city. However, there is nothing remotely approaching the scale of this tower on 95, let alone 495. We should be so lucky to get 1-2 of these dotting either of those highways in my lifetime. 5-6 stories seems to be the sweet spot in the suburbs.

 

[stefal]

Not only is this prominent from the waterfront/harbor, but this acts as a sort of anchor on the greenway, sitting at the center of the curve - it's prominent from each direction you come from, more-so from the North, where it's almost front and center. Looking at these renders, it appears like it will really blend in with its neighboring glass buildings - wish there was a little more focus put on what is now a very flat and bland glass wall.

I recall pondering a submission to the Northern Ave Bridge competition several years ago, and played with a really obtuse angle for a sleek "mast"/tower that jutted out and over the greenway, the drama it created really worked with its location. It seemed to add to that sense of wonder one may get navigating Boston where there's uncertainty about what's around the corner, but something not entirely in the full field of vision drawing you there.

 

[kmp1284]

I too wish we could do better in this city. However, there is nothing remotely approaching the scale of this tower on 95, let alone 495. We should be so lucky to get 1-2 of these dotting either of those highways in my lifetime. 5-6 stories seems to be the sweet spot in the suburbs.

I think they were referring to the design quality. For some people it’s not always just about height the way that it is for you.

 

[Bananarama]

I think they were referring to the design quality. For some people it’s not always just about height the way that it is for you.

Exactly. This doesn't need to be a super tall and it doesn't need to be something cutting edge or innovative. It should just look nice or of a certain quality at least.

The height doesn't make it alike to something along 495. The generic office park facade and massing does.

 

[DZH22]

I think they were referring to the design quality. For some people it’s not always just about height the way that it is for you.

It's not all about height. I think Toronto resembles a 1950's doctor's office even though it has a bananas amount of tall towers. With that said, more height leads to better proportions which is definitely a subcategory of aesthetics. It's just not the only one.

 

[bigpicture7]

I think so much will depend on the quality of exterior materials here. cca used to discuss this on this board frequently. This is a prominent parcel, yet one with harsh design constraints and challenges. If the latter tempers the interesting-ness of the design itself, then the prominence of the parcel nonetheless demands exceptional quality of materials and fit/finish - this is a gateway to downtown, and resides on a highly pedestrian-traveled route. I don't want to see cheap bowed/wavy glass. If the design must be tame, we should still uphold a standard for jewel-like finish here. cca used to talk about 101 Seaport, notably plain as its design is, as superior to many of its Seaport neighbors in this regard. On somewhat a less pedestrian-traveled, yet nonetheless prominent and constrained location, Lovejoy Wharf also hits it out of the park in this regard.

 

[Life Coach Mike]

A much better design than say, One Dalton. I know, most here swoon over its height, but that's about it. It's tall, boring, black, and has no pedestrian/streetscape interest whatsoever. It screams "I'm an exclusive enclave for a very small, select few." The Hook proposal, at least on paper, looks engaging, announces openness to the public, and fits the site nicely as a gateway tower with ground-floor interest. Height is not everything.

 

[Vivanna]

The exact same gap exists on the other side of the Moakley Bridge and the Harbor Walk at Griffin Wharf. I have to assume it simply is not worth the developer's effort to jump through those hoops.

I wonder how they did it at the Whiskey Priest site, the harbor walk has been built out over the harbor by about 20' it looks like?

 

[JeffDowntown]

I wonder how they did it at the Whiskey Priest site, the harbor walk has been built out over the harbor by about 20' it looks like?

I think the Whiskey Priest site was forced to do it, because they had been in violation of not providing harbor walk along that stretch, or something like that.

 

[bdurden]

This would be a great spot for the city's first JW Marriott. Upscale but not Four Seasons/Mandarin upscale.

I hadn’t given this a thought until this post and it surprises me that Boston doesn’t already have a JW Marriott, although one possible explanation for this could be that many of the existing Marriotts in Boston already function at this level — for instance, the Copley Marriott.