Lyra (née The Huntington) | 252/258/264 Huntington Avenue | Fenway

kz1000ps said:
JohnAKeith, we miss ya, hun! Never change :ROFLMAO:

54355157792_759f2282f0_3k.jpg
Click to expand...

Great to be back! And Henry, how could you have known?!

I'm relieved to log in today. I kept remembering I posted something awhile back and was sure it was much, much worse than it was.

Very happy to see Lyra going up. Never thought it was going to happen after the Great Pandemic. (Could Tremont Crossing be next??!)
 
itchy said:
What this area really needs is for Symphony Towers to be demo'd. When's that going to happen?
Click to expand...
Ugliest high rises ever in Boston. They put new facades on a few years ago but they were identical to the originals.
 
itchy said:
What this area really needs is for Symphony Towers to be demo'd. When's that going to happen?
Click to expand...
Those towers house low income seniors, I don't want to displace them, just for aesthetic reasons. If the buildings are unsafe, then perhaps an argument can be made, but at the moment, they fulfill an important role.
 
While I acknowledge that Symphony Towers are ugly, I nevertheless like them. There's something unapologetically urban about them and the sunken plazas provide some interesting sidewalk-facing variety. You can find a ton of buildings just like these two throughout Upper Manhattan.

Frankly, I love how hodgepodge this entire corner of Boston is, from the grandeur of mother church to the sculptural brutalism of the parking garage/Whole Foods. I even like the Church Park Apartments, which remind me of parts of northern Europe. This whole area just feels interesting and organic in a way that's hard to find in other parts of the city.
 
Other than the Midtown Hotel and almost all of what was once the West End, Symphony Towers are about the worst thing in the city. So painful to see.
 
What exactly is so painful about them? I lived right by here for almost 3 years and I found it very easy to pay them no mind. They have small footprints for buildings of their type (no towers-in-the-park BS), the color is as neutral as it gets (no ugmo brown '70s BS) and the base retail is engaging enough despite the split grading. Every proper city is going to have some of these bleh modernist slabs, and by that measure I don't see how they're anything noteworthy.
 
kz1000ps said:
What exactly is so painful about them? I lived right by here for almost 3 years and I found it very easy to pay them no mind. They have small footprints for buildings of their type (no towers-in-the-park BS), the color is as neutral as it gets (no ugmo brown '70s BS) and the base retail is engaging enough despite the split grading. Every proper city is going to have some of these bleh modernist slabs, and by that measure I don't see how they're anything noteworthy.
Click to expand...
Ugly flat end facades with near-0 articulation. Ugly horizontally proportioned windows will dated/cheap looking mullions.
Above all, across from two of Boston's most beautiful classical buildings. It is a severe, depressing contrast.
 
BronsonShore said:
While I acknowledge that Symphony Towers are ugly, I nevertheless like them. There's something unapologetically urban about them and the sunken plazas provide some interesting sidewalk-facing variety...
Click to expand...

But are they comparably inexpensive to live in? If they are not, then their ugliness's contribution to urbanity is...superficial. I am all for ugly, affordable places throughout the city if the ugliness is what enables the landlord to charge lower rent. I've lived in many such places.
 
Bananarama said:
Above all, across from two of Boston's most beautiful classical buildings. It is a severe, depressing contrast.
Click to expand...

I totally get this and don't dispute it one bit.

The only other thing I can add here is that the intersection of Mass and Huntington is such a full sensory assault no matter what direction/time of day/mode of transportation that by the time I'm done finding myself into and out of there I simply don't have any bandwidth left to care one way or another about them. I know they're ugly but somehow they always end up blending into the background for me.
 
I do think the location is the biggest factor in why they are so reviled. Not only because they're right across from two traditionally gorgeous buildings, but because they are so prominent. Like I said, these types of buildings are all over Manhattan, but no one complains about them because they blend in. No one notices them -- not even the people who live in them.
 
itchy said:
What this area really needs is for Symphony Towers to be demo'd. When's that going to happen?
Click to expand...
I will defend these buildings to the grave.

BronsonShore said:
I do think the location is the biggest factor in why they are so reviled.
Click to expand...
But they’re great for the location! They have so much retail. Caffe Bene, Lucy’s, Kung Fu Tea, and Blick (I think now closed) are great for the area!
 
Blackbird said:
But they’re great for the location! They have so much retail. Caffe Bene, Lucy’s, Kung Fu Tea, and Blick (I think now closed) are great for the area!
Click to expand...

I love the ground floor. It's better than a lot of ground floors we see on new buildings today. The issue with the location is that they don't flatter Symphony Hall. The reason that walking into Symphony Hall doesn't give you stirrings of grandeur the way that walking into the BPL does is because Symphony Hall is being squeezed out by ugly, modernist behemoths on all sides. Imagine how much grander Symphony Hall would look if it was rising out of South End rowhouses instead of cowering from looming concrete.
 
bigpicture7 said:
But are they comparably inexpensive to live in? If they are not, then their ugliness's contribution to urbanity is...superficial. I am all for ugly, affordable places throughout the city if the ugliness is what enables the landlord to charge lower rent. I've lived in many such places.
Click to expand...
They are owned by a non-profit and are restricted housing for elderly and disabled tenants. I don't know specifics about rental terms, but those populations traditionally are low income. And I do know one of the executives at the company that manages the property, and I'm pretty sure he mentioned once that they were low income units. I care a lot more about the tenants than I do about any aesthetic concerns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top