One Post Office Square Makeover and Expansion | Financial District

[kmp1284]

i love 40 Wall St.... but we'll never get something that incredible.

cuz we're not wealthy enough.....

To put it in language you might understand, when 40 Wall and buildings like it were built, Boston was a shithole city.

 

[stick n move]

And what Im saying is that since we were passed over during the golden age and raped and pillaged during the brutalism era we need to get on this. All great American skylines have one+ art deco high rise, and "replicas" are now being built again, we need to get on the bandwagon. We do have the Custom House tower but that isn't what were talking here, although that is my favorite of the clock towers that many cities also have (NYC, Philly). I remember when they were first starting there was one built in Chicago near the Hancock that came out okay, but what they're doing now is incredible, they figured it out. Since other cities (including us with Liberty Mutual) have now figured it out its time to get in on it.

This is now possible and being built in 2018.

These are very good. What Im saying is people at the BRA need to be looking at things like this- the big picture. We have a 1970's skyline plus MT. Great skylines have very old to very new towers all playing off each other in harmony and working together to give the overall look/effect. Were building new style towers- whatever its called, but we should also be looking at filling in a gap where the art deco era missed us (high rise wise). There is no downside to this and only upside. What Im saying is that we need to go even beyond what these towers above are doing and put a copper crown/spire on top that will turn that beautiful green after years of existence. These towers above are great, but the true greats of years past had spires. Also the "true" green patina cannot be faked and look as good as it will naturally. This is a part of a building that takes time to happen and as it does it says Ive been here a while and the world has changed as I have. Someone at the BRA please try to find a place to put one of these downtown with a spire and end the worst drought in Boston since the Red Sox.

The way these new towers are different is that they don't express their verticality the way the old greats did. They had vertical lines and setback usually black floor plates in between as well as actual setbacks. Theres no reason we cant do this and we should literally try to build something that looks like it was from that time period. It would do friggin wonders for the skyline. Go full on replica, get a spire which were in dire need of anyways, and win. Then go full bore with all of the new glass were doing and we essentially have it all covered. As it is now yes we can modernize the skyline all we want, but you need at least 1 great art deco tower to truly be a great skyline. We have a great base already to work with an art deco here, a new tallest glass tower there and things really start looking great. Our waterfront skyline already looks incredible as the sum of its parts together work very well. Id argue our waterfront skyline is better than NYC because they have some reallll turds right against the water and just general ugliness and brute force, where ours looks more coherent and less brute force. Thats just my opinion though.

 

[kmp1284]

And what Im saying is that since we were passed over during the golden age and raped and pillaged during the brutalism era we need to get on this. All good American skylines have one+ art deco high rise, and "replicas" are now being built again, we need to get on the bandwagon. I remember when they were first starting there was one built in Chicago near the Hancock that came out okay, but what they're doing now is incredible, they figured it out. Since other cities (including us with Liberty Mutual) have now figured it out its time to get in on it.

This is now possible and being built in 2018.

These are very good. What Im saying is people at the BRA need to be looking at things like this- the big picture. We have a 1970's skyline plus MT. Great skylines have very old to very new towers all playing off each other in harmony and working together to give the overall look/effect. Were building new style towers- whatever its called, but we should also be looking at filling in a gap where the art deco era missed us (high rise wise). There is no downside to this and only upside. What Im saying is that we need to go even beyond what these towers above are doing and put a copper crown/spire on top that will turn that beautiful green after years of existence. These towers above are great, but the true greats of years past had spires. Also the "true" green patina cannot be faked and look as good as it will naturally. This is a part of a building that takes time to happen and as it does it says Ive been here a while and the world has changed as I have. Someone at the BRA please try to find a place to put one of these downtown with a spire and end the worst drought in Boston since the Red Sox.

These are also all in New York. The numbers for this kind of stuff would never work in Boston. Boston should try to set realistic expectations - Seattle and Philadelphia come to mind as reachable peers in terms of skyline quality.

 

[stick n move]

These are also all in New York.

Chicago is doing it as well and like I said we already did it with liberty mutual, so its not like it cant be done here... because it already has. Im not talking about building a supertall, build it as tall as allowed. Hell build it at the garden garage or that parcel directly next to GCG office tower where height is allowed. That would be a HELL of a contrast if we had a copper crowned art deco spire tower right next to probably what will be our 2nd best tower in the city after the Hancock. If we could do it with liberty mutual we can do it here...again...taller. This time with a spire, because were in dire need of them and one was just taken away from our already non existent stock at the gahhden with that Japanese thing they just dropped on us. The Liberty Mutual tower is incredible and extremely needed and appreciated but its too short and squat to make any real impact on the skyline as a whole, along with its location. We need something thin with verticality downtown.


Los Angeles already had a new "old school" proposal a little while back that never came to fruition but something along these lines minus the twin aspect would be great. It would obviously have to be shorter but the spire is there, it works, and it doesnt take up a ton of valuable height that we dont have to spare. Also appears to be copper. I think something like this is much needed to go along with our new glass towers going up.


Make something similar to this as a single tower, shorter, and you have a winner. The spire is pretty short but effective and we all know were strapped for height so this could be a nice solution.

 

[kmp1284]

Chicago is doing it as well and like I said we already did it with liberty mutual, so its not like it cant be done here... because it already has. Im not talking about building a supertall, build it as tall as allowed. Hell build it at the garden garage or that parcel directly next to GCG office tower where height is allowed. That would be a HELL of a contrast if we had a copper crowned art deco spire tower right next to probably what will be our 2nd best tower in the city after the Hancock. If we could do it with liberty mutual we can do it here...again...taller. This time with a spire, because were in dire need of them and one was just taken away from our already non existent stock at the gahhden with that Japanese thing they just dropped on us. The Liberty Mutual tower is incredible and extremely needed and appreciated but its too short and squat to make any real impact on the skyline as a whole, along with its location. We need something thin with verticality downtown.

Liberty Mutual is cartoonish crap, a far cry from the Robert AM Stern work you started with.

 

[stick n move]

I will definitely agree to disagree on that one. My point is though that we now have the chance to make up for lost time and I think it would be in our best interest to take it in some future proposal, thats all.

Downtown will look great with the GCG office tower and maybe one day the harbor garage tower, but it would also be greatly beneficial to have something like one of these somewhere in the mix as well to give us the much needed architectural "range" that great skylines have. Anyways I realize Im dragging us off topic, my apologies, and Ill stop it at this post.

 

[cadetcarl]

I feel pretty strange about what's being proposed here.

The extent of my agreement is thus: I think art deco (but really we're talking about pre-war high rises in general) is really beautiful, and I think it's a shame we didn't get many examples the first time around, I really do.

But I'm not sure I can get on board with doing them now just to round out the skyline; it seems dishonest, or somehow post-processed. This is to say nothing bad of the work of greats like Stern.

The high rise has always been about the bleeding edge of architectural technology. Our 70s skyline may have fallen out of favor but at least for the moment it tells the knowledgeable observer something about Boston. One can "read" the skyline and understand when our periods of relative boom and bust were. It is in this sense that going back to a 30s and 40s aesthetic muddies the waters. We weren't New York in the 40s and we aren't now, and we won't be in a hundred years. At some point we're going to have to be okay with that. We have our own history, we've had our own booms, we've had our own hard times. We had a period where architects were doing good work given the parameters of their day, just like we complain about them now. The economic conditions, the proximity of the airport, the geotechnical condition of much of town.

This is total opinion but we're having such good discussion so I thought I'd throw in my two cents. Personally, I work at an office in town which deals heavily with historic preservation and we are definitely at a turning point in what's possible to achieve now. It used to be that we had artisans craftspeople who were responsible for making the things that we rightly perceive to be of high quality. Then we went through relative dark ages where those skills fell out of favor due to preference for mass-produced, efficient construction methods (with few exceptions, like the work of the aforementioned Stern). Now we have means and methods to make those things possible again at reasonable cost. In a way, any historical thing that we can imagine, we can build now. But should we? Consensus here seems to be yes, but I'm not so sure.

I'm not here just to rain on the parade, so my counterproposal is, Boston should be at the bleeding edge of high rise construction. Luckily, that will achieve the same thing we all want, which is fewer generic glass boxes. Building science has long told us that it's just not thermally efficient to build huge HVAC systems when we hamstring ourselves by making transparent glass towers in the first place. And we know how labor and resource-intensive it is to build with concrete and steel. But what about timber? We have way too many smart people not to be able to do some daring things with timber construction, with innovative, performative facades that are more than just plate glass.

I wish we had more art deco, but I'm not sold on faking our way there. Let's have a 2020s skyline for the 2020s.

 

[stick n move]

Just 1, doesnt even need to pretend like 30 park.

 

[estyle]

I feel pretty strange about what's being proposed here.

The extent of my agreement is thus: I think art deco (but really we're talking about pre-war high rises in general) is really beautiful, and I think it's a shame we didn't get many examples the first time around, I really do.

But I'm not sure I can get on board with doing them now just to round out the skyline; it seems dishonest, or somehow post-processed. This is to say nothing bad of the work of greats like Stern.

The high rise has always been about the bleeding edge of architectural technology. Our 70s skyline may have fallen out of favor but at least for the moment it tells the knowledgeable observer something about Boston. One can "read" the skyline and understand when our periods of relative boom and bust were. It is in this sense that going back to a 30s and 40s aesthetic muddies the waters. We weren't New York in the 40s and we aren't now, and we won't be in a hundred years. At some point we're going to have to be okay with that. We have our own history, we've had our own booms, we've had our own hard times. We had a period where architects were doing good work given the parameters of their day, just like we complain about them now. The economic conditions, the proximity of the airport, the geotechnical condition of much of town.

This is total opinion but we're having such good discussion so I thought I'd throw in my two cents. Personally, I work at an office in town which deals heavily with historic preservation and we are definitely at a turning point in what's possible to achieve now. It used to be that we had artisans craftspeople who were responsible for making the things that we rightly perceive to be of high quality. Then we went through relative dark ages where those skills fell out of favor due to preference for mass-produced, efficient construction methods (with few exceptions, like the work of the aforementioned Stern). Now we have means and methods to make those things possible again at reasonable cost. In a way, any historical thing that we can imagine, we can build now. But should we? Consensus here seems to be yes, but I'm not so sure.

I'm not here just to rain on the parade, so my counterproposal is, Boston should be at the bleeding edge of high rise construction. Luckily, that will achieve the same thing we all want, which is fewer generic glass boxes. Building science has long told us that it's just not thermally efficient to build huge HVAC systems when we hamstring ourselves by making transparent glass towers in the first place. And we know how labor and resource-intensive it is to build with concrete and steel. But what about timber? We have way too many smart people not to be able to do some daring things with timber construction, with innovative, performative facades that are more than just plate glass.

I wish we had more art deco, but I'm not sold on faking our way there. Let's have a 2020s skyline for the 2020s.

+1

We have an amazing history of construction here in Boston and we should expand that as we go forward. This is my biggest disappointment about Winthrop Square. There were some really forward thinking submissions but Handel and Millennium came in conservative and have gotten more so. Amazing things are happening in high rise construction around the world and we should be bringing that here along with all of these high tech companies and headquarters.

 

[stick n move]

Yea I wasn't saying build from here on out 1920's rip off towers, I was just saying with whats possible neo deco towers are "new" now because they are constructed and look different from years past so they are still modern towers. What you see for "modern" these days is blue glass. Thats boring and Id like to see a mix of things go up, but we know we get the lowest common denominator here anyways. Just because they have limestone doesn't mean theyre trying to fake it. All of washington DC is built in architectural styles that you can basically say go back to like ancient rome in some places and DC is great. This mindset would also not allow for fanuel hall to have been built.

Someone brought up the wood tower idea though, that is an idea that I like a lot and London had an amazing proposal that Im not sure whats going to end up being done, but it looks great. Id love to see something like that here.

Its almost like a wooden tower verre and looks incredible. I think theres room for all different styles of architecture on our skyline....... but we all know what were gonna get in reality. Still cool to see whats possible other places and appreciate when we do get wins like MT.

 

[stick n move]

Apparently the crown has been changed?

Compared to:

Heres the difference from the same shots:

 

[chrisbrat]

so, as with virtually everything around here, they've made it less interesting than the initial renders/concept.

 

[DZH22]

So they are taking a 500'+ building and making it LOWER than 500'?!?! Is that what I'm seeing here?!?! NO NO NO NO NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

I HATE THIS ONE. Frankly, I hated it before and now I hate it even more.

 

[rjacobs]

Is it possible that the changes are part of either a very late or a fairly early 'April Fools' joke?

I understand that the world doesn't always/often see things my way, but I earnestly can't imagine why anyone would prefer this newest iteration to the version from earlier this year.

 

[nm88]

Who in Boston is allowing this? Is no one minding the store?

A glass box. Add a torch. Ta-da!

 

[TheRifleman]

I’m not crazy about the old building but the new rendering looks even worse.

 

[shmessy]

Boston - where 21st century architecture goes to die. Seriously, how similar to 20 other glass boxes is this building (albeit taller). The sameness of these buildings is becoming stifling.

I’m reminded of those creepy Simpson’s episodes where they clone 1,000 or so Barts or Homers in different shapes and sizes.

 

[dotdude78]

Yet another massive disappointment.

 

[393b40]

This looks infinitely better than what is there right now... and I like the new render more than the previous one. What the fuck are you people bitching about?

 

[mass88]

To each their own, but this a massive upgrade with what's currently there. It's not perfect, but it certainly is a lot better than what's there at present.