Millennium Tower (Filene's) | 426 Washington Street | Downtown

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Filene's

I really don't see why everyone is so down on this design, especially considering the circumstances and environment (what's there now, wind issue, BRA hoop-jumping, Nimby's)

It's tall, sleek and bordering on elegant compared to some of its neighbors. It seems to pay homage, perhaps unintentionally, to the Hancock with the subtle grooves down the face of the building - similar to the groove down the side of the HT. It's not just a straight-up, straight-down glass box. It has some variations in height, also like the Hancock is quite narrow from certain angles. If this building has some type of lighting scheme at night, I'd consider this a major win.
 
Re: Filene's

Architectural lighting has been mentioned at meetings.
 
Re: Filene's

dshoost88 said:
If you have such an issue with the project design, then what's your excuse for neither attending the public input meeting(s) nor speaking in opposition of this project at the BRA hearing on Thursday night?
Click to expand...

I don't know I'd characterize to my overall sense of disappointment in this design as "opposition." I'd prefer something with a bit more edge and/or substance (when you have both in a project, like Jeanne Gang's Aqua, it's a home run).

I think that you'll agree that it's a bit of a snooze when you compare it to the similarly scaled residential proposal above Neiman-Marcus:
7123_the-residences-at-copley-square.jpg


Tombstoner said:
Once the pieces are in place politically, do you really think voices not liking the design are going to be heard? Yeah, I'm cynical.
Click to expand...

I hear ya, brother -- Boston is a breading-grown for cynicism. It's part of our sociocultural DNA. When people stop believing in "better," they end up with five terms of Tom Menino.

Tombstoner said:
Voicing dislike on this forum is just that--I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I just think this design is a missed opportunity. I realize no one is laying awake nights worrying about what I think.
Click to expand...

Worry? No. But they should be aware. This forum has been around for at least a decade in some form. The BRA must be aware of what's said here. So should developers and architects. Few cities have such an active and shrewd urban design community. City Hall would be wise to tap into some of the ideas our posters express.

commuter guy said:
Most memorable was the time a number archboston people, particularly, Itchy, practically hijacked a BRA meeting re: the proposed demolition (and redevelopment) of the Shreve Crump and Low building!
Click to expand...

That was a magic night.

Favorite moment: During the pithy verbal assault on Druker, a woman seated behind me leaned over and asked Shirley Kressel if itchy was her son.

commuter guy said:
I'd drive myself crazy running around attending all these BRA meetings trying to pick up the slack where leadership from the BRA is lacking.
Click to expand...

There is no leadership. It's groupthink with a side of ennui.
 
Re: Filene's

Your last point hits home. I find it's most effective to encourage change outside the confines of the BRA public meetings. I suspect they're more often than not a burden to developers and the BRA. "Let's go hear the neighbors bitch, shall we?"

That sort of environment doesn't allow dialogue and compromise. (Not that I think every J. Doe should have an input on project design of course.)
 
Re: Filene's

statler said:
Purchased: July 7, 2006

Final Design Posted: May 8, 2007

Demo Started: July 9, 2007

Slightly better than one year. That's really not too bad for Boston.

I agree with you about the 1905 facade though. That's a fucking sin.
Click to expand...

People in the office were working on it in 2006 before I went on the team for '07-'08. It was 3 years of work for the firm. Except for a pricing break in late 07 when I worked on Station Landing. Even though I am but a minor functionary, I have a terrible track record with large projects I have touched.
 
Re: Filene's

datadyne007 said:
Meh, a dedicated express elevator for the observation deck would do the trick. They could even make it scenic. That would be sweet.
Click to expand...

So are you building taller or getting rid of one floor of residential? Are you increasing the size of the core or eliminating an express elevator for the PHs? And are you taking away space from the residents lobby or eliminating retail? And since there's only one elevator, where at the base of the luxury residential tower are tourists loitering? I agree it would be nice, but I think "Meh" vastly underestimates the costs/considerations.
 
Re: Filene's

BB - I totally get your sentiment about comparing this project to Copley. But that Jeanne Gang building makes me scratch my head. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't find it the least bit attractive and don't get the fascination. It's sort of Geiger-esque, but nearly as cool.
 
Re: Filene's

ngb_anim8 said:
BB - I totally get your sentiment about comparing this project to Copley. But that Jeanne Gang building makes me scratch my head. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't find it the least bit attractive and don't get the fascination. It's sort of Geiger-esque, but nearly as cool.
Click to expand...

I personally don't like Aqua either. Studio Gang does some great work but Aqua doesn't do it for me.
 
Re: Filene's

ngb_anim8 said:
BB - I totally get your sentiment about comparing this project to Copley. But that Jeanne Gang building makes me scratch my head. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't find it the least bit attractive and don't get the fascination. It's sort of Geiger-esque, but nearly as cool.
Click to expand...

the picture doesn't quite do it justice--in person it's much cooler. but I would never say it is "amazing"--it is distinctive, however and reflects a number of aesthetic and functional choices that make you pause. The new building at filine's doesn't do that for me. the new copley building is certainly better and I know people on this forum love it, but it too is derivative and not really eye-popping IMHO (kind of the poor man's trump-chicago).

I travel a lot fom work and see so many buildings in the middle east, asia, and europe that engage the eye, the mind and the soul. Few skyscrapers in Boston do that--for my money the hancock is the only thing that comes close.
 
Re: Filene's

Is anyone else hoping that Macys moves to the Burnham building and One Summer be destroyed?

Who thought that one of the most prime retail and office spaces in the city was best used as a hub for fiber optic cables and servers?! I mean, really! Move that shit elsewhere. You probably even put in the basement levels of a new development. By the way, anyone take a look at the roof of One Summer? I'm guessing that's all for backup electricity generation and redundant AC units to keep the place cool no matter what. But wow, that's alot of utilities on the roof!
 
Re: Filene's

BostonUrbEx said:
Is anyone else hoping that Macys moves to the Burnham building and One Summer be destroyed?
Click to expand...

I've said it 10,000 times before. It should have happened in 2006.

Macy*s doesn't seem to have any intention of leaving that dump, as they are about to open a brand new bookstore section that store.
 
Re: Filene's

ngb_anim8 said:
...that Jeanne Gang building makes me scratch my head. Maybe I'm missing something...
Click to expand...

datadyne007 said:
...Aqua doesn't do it for me.
Click to expand...

So, maybe the way I read Aqua is different than other folks. I'll try to make sense of it because I think it represents an important moment in the evolution of Organic Architecture.

Consider first, Betrand Goldberg's iconic Marina City towers, just across the Chicago River and a half mile west:
marinacitymaster.jpg


These are circular buildings defined by their semicircular balconies:
marina_city_plan.jpg


marina_city_apartments.jpg


Jeanne Gang does something with Aqua that is equally stunning — a rectangular building defined by free-form curves:
2273.jpg


For me, this is a big deal, a singularity in the evolution of Organic Architecture. Alvar Aalto often eschewed the Wrightian grid, allowing land-form to define his designs, from buildings to housewares:
aalto002.jpg

Baker House, MIT
alvar-aalto-vase.jpg

Savoy Vase
And John Lautner, in his mature work, walked off the grid entirely:
dspe_john_lautner_architecture_6.jpg

Arango House, Acapulco
7992149474_d5a5175c58_o.jpg
Beyer House, Malibu
7992149214_c964ce7434_o.jpg

Levy House, Malibu

I suspect the Jeanne Gang has taken these free-forms and extruded them upwards for 80 floors. The results, for me anyway, are arresting.

(My girlfriend is convinced I have Asperger's)
 
Re: Filene's

datadyne007 said:
I've said it 10,000 times before. It should have happened in 2006.

Macy*s doesn't seem to have any intention of leaving that dump, as they are about to open a brand new bookstore section that store.
Click to expand...

And as we can tell by where they're spending resources, they're obviously thinking ahead to the ... mid-20th century.
 
Re: Filene's

Well if you're going to talk about the undulating wall, you can't leave out Borromini.
 
Re: Filene's

The way the new tower attaches to the old Filene's building looks awkward in the renderings, but it probably won't be that noticeable from the street.

..Aqua looks like it has a fungus infection. It makes me ill looking at it.
 
Re: Filene's

Thanks for the interesting post Beton. I lived in Chicago (Evanston actually) during construction and for a bit after completion of Aqua. I loved the concept and when it was first completed I thought it was stunning - a sculpture masking a building. But as people moved in I thought it lost it's luster a bit. Varying window treatments and lighting, the addition of deck furniture and decorations, imperfections in the color of the concrete decks ... all these things made the building (and the individual units) stand out more. So for me it went from being "a rectangular building defined by free-form curves" to a rectangular building with random curved balconies.
I think Aqua worked better as a concept and a sculpture than as a residential building.
 
Re: Filene's

This is the perfect example why the BRA should be SCRAPPED.

#1 Orginal Proposal did get the BRA greenlight and got fast-tracked throughout the system--- One Franklin which seemed to be acceptable to most of the bloggers on this site. One Franklin development was a safe bet for Boston at the time. Nothing Iconic but nothing disasterous for the area.

#2 The new proposal is just getting slammed down everybody's throat and Millieum is building what is cost effective for themselves & what is the best interest for Millieum and not for the city. This might be a great Iconic development for this location or a Big Giant Glass Piece of Shit that overwhelms the entire area.

The Mayor & the BRA will do anything to fill this hole. Sad but True.

So my point is the Developer controls the situation not the city, NIMBYS or anybody else. Hopefully Millieum believes in Long-term value.
 
Re: Filene's

Today Metro Boston paper reported that Millennium Tower will cost just $6.15 million. Yes, that's right, Millennium Partners found a way to slash $608.85 million from the price tag. Talk about value engineering!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top