Kenmore Square North (WHOOP) | 533-541 Commonwealth Ave | Fenway

Massachoicetts said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't think the issue was ever how it would turn out, it was what they were tearing down.
 
Equilibria said:
I don't think the issue was ever how it would turn out, it was what they were tearing down.
Click to expand...

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.
 
HenryAlan said:
Not really, hasn't been Kenmore Freakin' Square in about 20 years. Kenmore Vanilla Square, perhaps.
Click to expand...

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.
 
shmessy said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Bananarama said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
HenryAlan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
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.
 
nm88 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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...
 
It's hardly comparable to what happened to the West End, even on a far, far smaller scale. A series of empty and derelict commercial buildings, occupying half a block have been replaces with one, modern building. No residential displacement, no re-working of the street grid, nothing remotely anti-urban about the replacement. Aesthetically it's nothing special. Unlike the West End, in a decade or two, nobody will remember what was there beforehand, nor will they care.
 
i said "far, far smaller scale" -- which is just a four-word way of saying what you managed to do in four longwinded sentences. you are absolutely incorrect in thinking that nobody will remember, but hey - you do you, bro.
 
bigpicture7 said:
Foreground crane is at MIT's "The Engine" project on Main St. in Cambridge.
Click to expand...
Photogs in the Cambridge area -- we need some good update pix on the Engine -- that is going to be a singularly important development in Cambridge in the coming years
Not because of the building -- but just as Blg 20 spawned many of the labs at MIT -- so the Engine has the potential to spawn entire new industrial clusters
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top