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

Status
Not open for further replies.
^ Can't wait till somethings done with the old Woolworth's garage as a foil to the new tower.
 
Downburst said:
Given that it'll be more or less hidden by and reflecting the tower portion, I'm not sure that high quality glass was a priority on the Burnham portion. If the facade sampler is anything to go by, however, then the tower itself will have stunning glass.
Click to expand...

Good point ... here is my counterpoint. To upgrade to a glass worthy of a landmark building here in Boston would likely cost .01% of the total construction cost of this building. This is not like it is a project without significant context to care about. I find it disappointing ... but not surprising.

cca
 
cca said:
Good point ... here is my counterpoint. To upgrade to a glass worthy of a landmark building here in Boston would likely cost .01% of the total construction cost of this building. This is not like it is a project without significant context to care about. I find it disappointing ... but not surprising.

cca
Click to expand...

But it is not like this is some kind of new practice.

The Hawley Street side of the Burnham Building is cheaper brick, not stone, because it is not going to be seen by many.

The rear (alley) side of Back Bay townhouses are much cheaper brick than the street facing façade.

Developers have always saved the "good stuff" for the faces with significant public view.
 
BeeLine beat me to the punch, but whatevah...these are from Sunday:

14540200875_ba1ae19b27_b.jpg


14560318353_bd3295a086_b.jpg


14538695594_3303d2933a_b.jpg


14540177015_c4b6e67289_b.jpg


14353594748_2ce55b4f9a_b.jpg


14538672284_14f441796b_b.jpg


14353477240_d81b617746_b.jpg


14517052156_db99d006b2_b.jpg


14353547499_b72b71d7ec_b.jpg


14353569028_3673d2478c_b.jpg


14353533959_815132db84_b.jpg


14517023926_00cfd05d41_b.jpg


14538630264_8a08e1876c_b.jpg
 
What is it about officials that makes them think, "THIS TIME concrete pavers/bricks will work!"
 
JeffDowntown said:
But it is not like this is some kind of new practice.

The Hawley Street side of the Burnham Building is cheaper brick, not stone, because it is not going to be seen by many.

The rear (alley) side of Back Bay townhouses are much cheaper brick than the street facing façade.

Developers have always saved the "good stuff" for the faces with significant public view.
Click to expand...

This is a completely reasonable and accurate argument. This has been done throughout history. I like to dream big though .. :)

cca
 
AmericanFolkLegend said:
Why the hatred for brick sidewalks? They look lovely in the Back Bay, South End, Charlestown, etc.
Click to expand...

They are accessibility nightmares. There is no worse ground cover material than brick in terms of accessibility and maintenance. I work in DTX and trip over loose or uneven bricks daily.
 
Oh, gotcha - accessibility, not aesthetics.
We put down brick sidewalks along Huntington Ave around 10 years ago. After we finished the project, the city told us they were out of tolerance and to replace the sidewalk. Turns out an advocate had sued the city claiming that the bricks did not comply with AAB and when the advocate had his day in court NO ONE FROM THE CITY SHOWED UP. Obviously the judge found in favor of the advocate.
So we pulled the cut sheets on City Hall Pavers (which Boston had spec'd) and it turns out the tolerance of the individual bricks is outside what AAB allows. Sadly the City continued to spec City Hall Pavers for years after losing that case.
 
The only place I've seen brick sidewalk work well is Post Office Square and that's only because they are maintained religiously. Which, of course, these won't be.

Edit: Part of it, for me at least, is aesthetics. Poorly maintained brick/paver surfaces look awful, especially if missing bricks are filled in with asphalt.
 
statler said:
The only place I've seen brick sidewalk work well is Post Office Square and that's only because they are maintained religiously. Which, of course, these won't be.

Edit: Part of it, for me at least, is aesthetics. Poorly maintained brick/paver surfaces look awful, especially if missing bricks are filled in with asphalt.
Click to expand...

You mean like the lovely plaza around the world fountain here in Kendall Sq.?

I've tripped over so many missing or misplaced bricks, but would rather that than the black asphalt patches they 'fixed' them with.
 
These seem to be done better, with an actual concrete base. It seems like the older installations just laid over compacted sand. I think the city specs an asphalt underlayment now, which is marginally better (I don't trust asphalt to hold up as well as concrete with the freeze/thaw). The real issue, of course, is the utility companies. They should not be allowed to dig up streets unless they have the competency to relay the pavers.

I was amazed last time I was in Nuremberg, a lot of the sidewalks in postwar neighborhoods are these roughly 10"x10" concrete tiles. The utility companies carefully pried them up and stacked them at the side of the worksite. At the end of the day they tamped the soil underneath back down and relayed them PERFECTLY. Same thing with the abundant cobblestone streets (how does germany manage to not have the issues with cobblestones we do?). Here it looks like half get broken removing them, and the remainders are just tossed in the hole and covered with asphalt.
 
The utility companies don't have the competence to deal with asphalt much less any other pavers.

My street was freshly paved less than two years ago. It now looks like complete shit, ridges and potholes galore, with rubble everywhere. All due to utility digging.
 
Relevant to this topic - I took this pic on Sunday in Berlin. You can see that the pavers on the far left side of the photo were recently removed for utility work - they pull out the pavers and stack them on the side, and then replace them with some new sand when finished. I think it works well for light vehicle traffic areas.

EPJAtoY.jpg
 
This development along with Atlantic Wharf sets the bar for how Boston needs to expand in the future when we run out of empty lots to build on. Preserving the street level while adding high quality towers above needs to be the norm not the exception.
 
statler said:
The only place I've seen brick sidewalk work well is Post Office Square and that's only because they are maintained religiously. Which, of course, these won't be.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the developer has entered into a maintenance agreement with the BRA/PWD to maintain in perpetuity the Summer St. Plaza pavers which are currently being put down... thus, I suspect you are quite mistaken [if only for an exceptional reason].
 
Matthew said:
The utility companies don't have the competence to deal with asphalt much less any other pavers.

My street was freshly paved less than two years ago. It now looks like complete shit, ridges and potholes galore, with rubble everywhere. All due to utility digging.
Click to expand...

Due to some state law or local ordinances the utilities don't put things back to square one and/or reconstruct the impacted area, but rather pay into some fund to the affected local town or state in lieu. The idea is the town will use those proceeds for repaving etc.
 
davem said:
(how does germany manage to not have the issues with cobblestones we do?).
Click to expand...
Because they are Germans. It's their thing. (Well, that and starting wars.)

Glad to hear the developers agreed to maintain the pavers. Hopefully they they do half a good a job as the folks at PO Sq.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top