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

Status
Not open for further replies.
datadyne007 said:
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.
Click to expand...

So Data, seriously, when you mention the Zakim Bridge in casual conversation, how do you refer to it as? ;)
 
atlantaden said:
So Data, seriously, when you mention the Zakim Bridge in casual conversation, how do you refer to it as? ;)
Click to expand...

The Zakim, obviously. My peeve only extends to short place names like Copley Mall instead of Copley Place, but let's end this now.

tangent said:
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.
Click to expand...
Back to the tower and finding "Boston's architecture." I think tangent hit on a good point. Pretty much any tower isn't going to adhere to Boston's hyper-historic context of low-rise brownstones & churches. The only exception, as noted, is the Custom House Tower. The only way you can build a tower that would "say Boston" is to build another tower like the Custom House. You could maybe say the Clarendon "says Boston" in its brick style (ode to the brownstones it towers over?), but it's really nothing special.

Flip this to Vancouver and a glassy tower absolutely "says Vancouver," as the city is saturated with them. This isn't the case in Boston with a giant mishmash of styles emerging from a deeply historic base. I think kz's quest for a tower that "says Boston" is simply a wild-goose chase.
 
Show a picture to anyone of the Hancock tower and people will think of Boston. It is a building that exists in difference time-space moments. Like it or hate it ... it is the tall building that spoke the loudest about the values of Boston.

Granted, they cannot all be mirrored monoliths with reflections of the past, but it can be a guide about how a building can be a touchstone to a place.

cca
 
datadyne007 said:
TBack to the tower and finding "Boston's architecture." I think tangent hit on a good point. Pretty much any tower isn't going to adhere to Boston's hyper-historic context of low-rise brownstones & churches. The only exception, as noted, is the Custom House Tower. The only way you can build a tower that would "say Boston" is to build another tower like the Custom House. You could maybe say the Clarendon "says Boston" in its brick style (ode to the brownstones it towers over?), but it's really nothing special.

Flip this to Vancouver and a glassy tower absolutely "says Vancouver," as the city is saturated with them. This isn't the case in Boston with a giant mishmash of styles emerging from a deeply historic base. I think kz's quest for a tower that "says Boston" is simply a wild-goose chase.
Click to expand...

True, but some cities do manage to define a style both for older, smaller buildings and for newer, taller ones. London is a good example. I think the Shard says "London" just fine, and that city definitely defines itself with older low-rise architecture. London skyscrapers are adventurous and modern but not fugly.

Personally, I think that Boston's style for tall buildings isn't defined in any particular architectural trait, but rather how they're sited and how they visually relate to the historic structures and viewsheds around them. No city in the US can match the view of Beacon Hill silhouetted against Financial District monsters that you get from the Mass Ave. bridge. Its urban iconography of the same class as the canyon of the Chicago River with its layer cake of transit and road bridges. Tall buildings feature prominently in that view, and I think that's part of the reason why people on here are (and have always been) so much more excited about Millennium Tower than they are about One Dalton. In my opinion, the latter is more attractive, but its site and positioning in iconic views aren't as prominent.
 
Equilibria said:
Personally, I think that Boston's style for tall buildings isn't defined in any particular architectural trait, but rather how they're sited and how they visually relate to the historic structures and viewsheds around them.
Click to expand...

This is a fantastic point. Nicely articulated.
 
The siting and relationship to historic structures (districts) is indeed key.

Because we did such a horrible job with urban renewal in some areas (West End, Government Center, South Cove), it is easy to forget that we got some aspects of urban planning right in the 60's.

The great zoning compromise that protected Back Bay (and later the South End) and created the Turnpike highrise spine was brilliant. Without that compromise Commonwealth Avenue was headed to becoming a row of nondescript 15-20 story apartment boxes.
 
From the weekend:

SinrCfr.jpg
 
Equilibria said:
Personally, I think that Boston's style for tall buildings isn't defined in any particular architectural trait, but rather how they're sited and how they visually relate to the historic structures and viewsheds around them. No city in the US can match the view of Beacon Hill silhouetted against Financial District monsters that you get from the Mass Ave. bridge. Its urban iconography of the same class as the canyon of the Chicago River with its layer cake of transit and road bridges. Tall buildings feature prominently in that view, and I think that's part of the reason why people on here are (and have always been) so much more excited about Millennium Tower than they are about One Dalton. In my opinion, the latter is more attractive, but its site and positioning in iconic views aren't as prominent.
Click to expand...

In addition to Beacon Hill and the Financial District, a couple other good examples are the Trinity Church reflected in the Hancock Tower and the Old State House surrounded by large downtown skyscrapers. There was some discussion here recently about what defines Boston architecturally - what images can you show people and they think "ah Boston". Some said IP, the Custom Tower or even the Zakim Bridge but I think it's more this juxtaposition between old and new - it's uniquely Boston. For it to work you can't have overly bold skyscraper designs or heights. That would overwhelm the historic low-rise stuff, which will always be the true star. Taller building are an important supporting cast though - lot's of historic low rise cities in the world but few mix in a modern metropolis as well as Boston. Larger new buildings going up should look good and be of high quality, but I don't believe they need to make a "this is Boston" type statement in order to work to their best effect.
 
Equilibria said:
Tall buildings feature prominently in that view, and I think that's part of the reason why people on here are (and have always been) so much more excited about Millennium Tower than they are about One Dalton. In my opinion, the latter is more attractive, but its site and positioning in iconic views aren't as prominent.
Click to expand...

While I completely agree with this point (the excitement/positioning, not attractiveness) I think the #1 reason why people are more excited about this tower is that it's further along than 1 Dalton. (not to mention had the longer buildup) MT is coming up on 400', while 1 Dalton is still excavating.

I think the other main reason is that MT "heals a scar", so to speak, in the busiest area of Boston. 1 Dalton is kind of in a no-man's land. Most pedestrians in the area are either going to the mall, walking near the reflecting pool, or sticking to Boylston.
 
Last edited:
datadyne007 said:
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.
Click to expand...


Stop shooting the messenger. So I didn't call it right. Arrest me. :rolleyes:
 
DZH22 said:
While I completely agree with this point (the excitement/positioning, not attractiveness) I think the #1 reason why people are more excited about this tower is that it's further along than 1 Dalton. (not to mention had the longer buildup) MT is coming up on 400', while 1 Dalton is still excavating.

I think the other main reason is that MT "heals a scar", so to speak, in the busiest area of Boston. 1 Dalton is kind of in a no-man's land. Most pedestrians in the area are either going to the mall, walking near the reflecting pool, or sticking to Boylston.
Click to expand...

Agreed on both points, but I think we'll see less excitement even in a year when 1 Dalton is approaching 300'.

I was thinking yesterday about trying to quantify real prominence of buildings in Boston - how much vertical prominence does the building have in certain key views. I'm not sure how to handle ground-level views like the Old State House. It would be independent of architectural distinction, because the idea would be to identify which buildings really NEED to be distinctive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top