Photo of the Day, Boston Style - Part Deux

Status
Not open for further replies.
Charlie_mta:
"I used only MS Paint. Glad you like it."
Shepard:
"<spits out coffee> WHOA. </spits out coffee>. How? Pixel by pixel?"

It wasn't that difficult, due to the repitition from adjoining areas for copying and pasting. I have a talent for that exacting kind of work, being a civil engineer and an artist.

I just had to get those damned traffic signals out of the way to make it look a true period piece. It's on my desk top now. Armpitsofmight created that photo, and its a beauty.
 
4008066519_671142473e_o.jpg
 
Christian Science Plaza landscape: like the Vatican crash-landed in Toronto.
 
THAT is North Station?! And now we have the new Garden shit?! Goddamnit Boston. That building is beautiful. I want it rebuilt. Now.

When I eventually get accepted to, study, and graduate from architecture school (of course, that's the plan right now,) I'm dedicating my practice to the research and design of these types of buildings. Classical architecture. Early 20th/Late 19th century architecture. Brick and stone. Thick walls. Details. And of course I'll have my own contemporary tastes, but there's no reason they can't be incorporated into that style.

Hopefully by the time I'm out of school, some of these buildings will still exist.
 
That's the old old North Station, which was torn down to build the old Boston Garden in the late 1920s. The photo is at least a century old, as it predates construction of the Causeway Street elevated Green Line.
 
Now we are left with boring generic buildings in much of the area. Why did buildings in the early 20th century have so much architectural detail, while the buildings of today are so boring and cheap-looking? Even background apartment buildings had a lot of interest to them. Was the profit motive not as strong at the turn of the century? Was it really more expensive to include these details?
 
kennedy said:
THAT is North Station?! And now we have the new Garden shit?! Goddamnit Boston. That building is beautiful. I want it rebuilt. Now.

When I eventually get accepted to, study, and graduate from architecture school (of course, that's the plan right now,) I'm dedicating my practice to the research and design of these types of buildings. Classical architecture. Early 20th/Late 19th century architecture. Brick and stone. Thick walls. Details. And of course I'll have my own contemporary tastes, but there's no reason they can't be incorporated into that style.

Hopefully by the time I'm out of school, some of these buildings will still exist.
Click to expand...

Honestly, North Station is a pretty underwhelming structure.
 
Great shot, Briv. It put me on the verge of liking that building.

Twofer Wednesday:

img1943n.jpg


img2194c.jpg
 
cden4 said:
Now we are left with boring generic buildings in much of the area. Why did buildings in the early 20th century have so much architectural detail, while the buildings of today are so boring and cheap-looking? Even background apartment buildings had a lot of interest to them. Was the profit motive not as strong at the turn of the century? Was it really more expensive to include these details?
Click to expand...

How could the beautifully detailed cathederals and castles in medieval Europe and later during the Renaissance get built when money was so scarce??? Cheap labor...very cheap labor! Why did the textile mills and shoe factories leave New England for the South? Cheap labor!! Why do so many of our goods come from China and not made in the USA??? Yep, cheap labor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top