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

Status
Not open for further replies.
What in the hell is "Boston's architecture" then? It's not the Kensington. It's not the Radian. It's not the Avalon Exeter. It's not the Avalon Theater District. It's not International Place. And now it's not Millennium Tower.

Call it 1980s, yes. But say it's not "Boston," huh?
 
DZH22 said:
Can you provide examples of 200 meter residential towers being built anywhere else that you think are far superior to what we're getting here?
Click to expand...

• 56 Leonard, NYC
• Aqua, Chicago
• 1000 Museum, Miami

I wouldn't say that any of these examples "look like Boston," but all show a design ethos that far exceeds the stunningly generic vibe of MT @ Filene's. It's a 200 meter background building.
 
Beton Brut said:
• 56 Leonard, NYC
• Aqua, Chicago
• 1000 Museum, Miami

I wouldn't say that any of these examples "look like Boston," but all show a design ethos that far exceeds the stunningly generic vibe of MT @ Filene's. It's a 200 meter background building.
Click to expand...

In person, MT appears way higher quality than Aqua. That building was a disappointment.

Miami's will probably be VE'ed to unrecognizable schlock, like the rest of the city.

NY's is debateable. Some pics of the construction look quite good, but many do not. It's innovative, but the cladding isn't all that impressive.
 
No one's on the fence about Aqua -- are you commenting on design, or the materials and finishes? From the standpoint of pure design, I think Aqua's one of the most inventive tall buildings of the last quarter century.

If you don't like Studio Gang's approach, consider Adrian Smith's Trump Chicago as an alternate example (though it's ~2X the height of MT).
 
Beton Brut said:
No one's on the fence about Aqua -- are you commenting on design, or the materials and finishes?
Click to expand...

The materials aren't as good as the design itself. Mostly, the glass doesn't look that great.
 
I like the Millennium Tower and and appreciate Boston's downtown residential building boom as a sign of the city's vitality. But, as with Paris and London, I think Boston's skyline is merely incidental to the city's economic power and not central to its identity. Several US cities have equal or mightier skylines (Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Charlotte, etc.), but lack the density, activity, beauty, and culture that make Boston special. In fact, the innovation that drives Boston's economy and positions it ahead of the sunbelt cities in the 21st century economy is housed in low-rise academic buildings and research labs, and not in thousand-foot towers.

Chicago and New York have unique skylines with truly beautiful prewar towers and modern supertall icons. But America's other great cities (let's say San Francisco, Seattle, DC, and Boston) are great with or without their tall buildings.

DZH22 said:
What exactly about the Prudential Center, JHT, Federal Reserve, IP, all of the other fatties downtown, anything in the West End, and pretty much any other big building built in the last 50 years says Boston? Couldn't pretty much 99% of big buildings have been built "anywhere"?

Wouldn't the John Hancock Tower reflecting the Terminal Tower have screamed "Cleveland"? What if Boston had built the John Hancock Center (Chicago) as a follow up to the Pru. Wouldn't that symbolize Boston at this point? Cleveland's Key Tower originally could have been in Hartford. Many failed proposals pop up again with slight variations and get built in another city. What is Boston's identity supposed to be?

Can you provide examples of 200 meter residential towers being built anywhere else that you think are far superior to what we're getting here?
Click to expand...
 
The glass cladding on this tower is really good, and it is certainly not "just a box". It is going to create amazing reflections.
 
Good grief. This is probably the most iconic tower built in this city since the Hancock. How can anyone possibly complain?
 
Put me down in the "It's kind of bland" column. but I'm at peace with it. This is Boston after all.... I don't expect much.
 
ill wait for the finished product. BUT - where a big building is planted matters immensely - if this were planted on some six lane, wind swept boulevard next to a bunch of other glass towers, that would be one thing - but it's not. it's growing right out of a greasy area, with a backdrop of '80s red flattops in the background. it'll make a huge difference - in a positive way - just because it's glass... even if the design is only so-so.
 
It definitely has that brand new feeling if you know what I mean. So many buildings in Boston look like there from the 60s-80s even when they were just built a couple years ago. Its almost like the second a building is completed it looks like its been there forever (a good thing in Liberty Mutuals case). This at least brings that very modern feel to a very old area.
 
stick n move said:
It definitely has that brand new feeling if you know what I mean. So many buildings in Boston look like there from the 60s-80s even when they were just built a couple years ago. Its almost like the second a building is completed it looks like its been there forever (a good thing in Liberty Mutuals case). This at least brings that very modern feel to a very old area.
Click to expand...

This is something I always thought about. I didn't start paying attention to architecture in Boston till about 2010 - I lived out of the area prior to that. I used to think a bunch of buildings constructed in the early part of the millennia had just always been there, at least since the 80's or late 70's. I mean how do you differentiate 1 Exchange Place from 33 Arch or 1 Lincoln? They all look about the same, like they were built 25-35 years ago, just like the rest of the skyline. The notable exceptions are 111 Huntington, which screams "early 2000's" and the Millennium Place Towers which scream "90's" even though they were finished after 2000. There are no other points on the skyline that actually look like they were completed relatively close to the current day. This tower should change that, along with 1 Dalton and Copley Place (if it ever gets built).
 
datadyne007 said:
What in the hell is "Boston's architecture" then? It's not the Kensington. It's not the Radian. It's not the Avalon Exeter. It's not the Avalon Theater District. It's not International Place. And now it's not Millennium Tower.
Click to expand...

Brownstones, Beacon Hill, Old North Church and North End alleys are all iconic Boston architectures. Towers are for skyline shots and to give the occupants nice views. MT will be good at both. Better than just about every skyscraper except perhaps the Hancock tower.

Incorporating the old and new is also a great tradition of Boston Architecture and that is being accomplished with the Burnham building. Reusing and restoring the Burnham building is a big part of this project.
 
Lrfox said:
Well, if we're picking nits, it's "Marriott's Custom House."
Click to expand...

Thanks for the correction. One of my pet peeves is people addressing places by a name other than the proper name. You even got the 's.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top