Kenmore Square North | 533 Commonwealth Ave | Fenway

Equilibria

Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
4,854
Reaction score
1,644
This seems like its taking a while. They've added two stories in the same time SSHQ added 16 stories lol.

But Im starting to visualize the impacts of the Street Wall and I think it will be pretty alright. Great pics. This might turn out better than we hoped.
I don't think the issue was ever how it would turn out, it was what they were tearing down.
 

Bananarama

Active Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
215
Reaction score
305
I don't think the issue was ever how it would turn out, it was what they were tearing down.
I'd argue the replacement looks like a VE'd office park development with a fancy hat.
SI6IQbYh.jpg


The problem is those monotonous punched windows, brickwork devoid of any character, and a chunky massing that just exacerbates those issues.
 

shmessy

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
1,875
Reaction score
681
Not really, hasn't been Kenmore Freakin' Square in about 20 years. Kenmore Vanilla Square, perhaps.
So keep it going in that direction????? Instead of doing something restorative and transformative at the same time, in a location that is central to the history and vibrance of the city????

'Naaaah, let's just throw up our hands and simply forfeit even WITH an open opportunity in front of us.' Nice.
 

HenryAlan

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Messages
2,538
Reaction score
591
So keep it going in that direction????? Instead of doing something restorative and transformative at the same time, in a location that is central to the history and vibrance of the city????

'Naaaah, let's just throw up our hands and simply forfeit even WITH an open opportunity in front of us.' Nice.
You are overr-reacting. My point is that this building isn't what makes (or breaks) Kenmore. It replaces a collection of run down ugly buildings (and one run-down gem) with a bland but inoffensive single building that maintains the street wall. Not every building is going to win awards. Most won't, and that's okay. I'm excited for what is proposed across the street, this building won't detract from that one.
 

citydweller

Active Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2019
Messages
148
Reaction score
156
I'd argue the replacement looks like a VE'd office park development with a fancy hat.
View attachment 9516

The problem is those monotonous punched windows, brickwork devoid of any character, and a chunky massing that just exacerbates those issues.
how do you notice any of details of the new building with the hulking / hideous Citgo sign overshadowing the building? Yeah .. I know, it's blasphemy to say anything condescending about the sign. whatever, I said it anyway.
 

shmessy

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
1,875
Reaction score
681
You are overr-reacting. My point is that this building isn't what makes (or breaks) Kenmore. It replaces a collection of run down ugly buildings (and one run-down gem) with a bland but inoffensive single building that maintains the street wall. Not every building is going to win awards. Most won't, and that's okay. I'm excited for what is proposed across the street, this building won't detract from that one.
The one "run-down gem" was on the iconic corner lot. It hurts the Square because of an opportunity lost and a facade gem destroyed and replaced - - with something far worse and bland.

It's not just an OPEN opportunity lost, it's also a step backward into bland. This lot is directly in the line of vision as the 'Welcome to Kenmore Square' postcard for anyone entering from Beacon Street and Brookline Ave. It is their first impression.

Just my opinion, though. Everyone's entitled to theirs. Evidently, you believe this "seems to do no harm to the square". I simply disagree, but my opinion is no better than yours.
 
Last edited:

nm88

Active Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2007
Messages
500
Reaction score
60
I would agree with Henry that not every building needs to be noteworthy. Background buildings are fine sometimes. Does this prominent corner need to be a background building? I'd say probably not. A distinctive, quasi-gem (arguable, sure; rundown, yes) has been replaced with this. That doesn't seem like a fair trade to me. Maybe I'm wrong? I don't blame the developer. I blame the city.
 

shmessy

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
1,875
Reaction score
681
I would agree with Henry that not every building needs to be noteworthy. Background buildings are fine sometimes. Does this prominent corner need to be a background building? I'd say probably not. A distinctive, quasi-gem (arguable, sure; rundown, yes) has been replaced with this. That doesn't seem like a fair trade to me. Maybe I'm wrong? I don't blame the developer. I blame the city.
Agreed. It all comes down to location. I'm fully on board with the value of "background buildings" so that the city doesn't become an architectural petting zoo.

This is an iconic corner location in an iconic area.
 

stefal

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2015
Messages
1,141
Reaction score
968
One Kenmore Square, directly across the intersection, if completed, will frame this lot as one of the centerpieces of the new square. It's really sad to see all the money being spent on proper planning and architecture across the street at One Kenmore to reinvigorate the square, when Related put in the absolute bare minimum here.
 

chrisbrat

Active Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2015
Messages
932
Reaction score
354
this fugly new construction and the demolition of what had been there previously will be looked at by "non-architecture folks" in a decade or two with the type of scorn that everyone has for what happened to the west end (albeit -- thankfully -- on a far, far smaller scale). how the city approved this is beyond me. those who fail to learn from the past...
 

Top