Photo of the Day, Boston Style: Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
^ Need more of these.

A decent amount of detail compatible with surroundings. An in-scale way for the city to grow.

Now imagine the same building clad in sheer mirror glass. Still in scale?
 
There's another one of these on Beacon St. adjacent to the Common. Can't imagine something on that scale getting built in that location now.
 
Oops...then I should say "there's a similar one on Comm Ave".
 
^ That's right, Comm. Ave.

Tweak the rules and you'll eventually get some more. Developers build within the rules they're issued. In some places, the rules limit their height, in others they force a setback or prevent a certain use category.

They bitch, but they conform. Or they apply for a variance and pay off the mayor.
 
Where is there room in that building for an elevator? Presumably the occupants of the 10th floor don't walk up.

Was this building originally 10 floors, with 2 more added on later?
 
Look on Bing Maps 3-D aerial view. You'll find it about halfway along the right side. That way, each floor can be divided into 2 units, and no views out are blocked.
 
today from Logan
345.jpg
 
AmericanFolkLegend said:
Has anyone ever been to the old quarry in JP? I guess it's in or next to the Arboretum.
Click to expand...

There's a whole neighborhood in JP built inside an old quarry. It is roughly bounded by Paul Gore St, between Oakview Terrace & St Peter St, Boylston St and between Chestnut & Beecher Streets. It is mostly noticable if you walk along Paul Gore St and look up at the houses on Sheridan and Cranston Streets (Including the 12 Sided House). Their back yards all end at the edge of the old quarry wall. There are some houses on the odd side of St. Peter Street that back up to the quarry wall too.
 
ablarc said:
^ That's right, Comm. Ave.

Tweak the rules and you'll eventually get some more. Developers build within the rules they're issued. In some places, the rules limit their height, in others they force a setback or prevent a certain use category.

They bitch, but they conform. Or they apply for a variance and pay off the mayor.
Click to expand...

Excellent point. I can't comment on the paying off the mayor statement (don't know enough) but it wouldn't surprise me. But your point about the "rules" is spot on.

This building is one of my favorite in Boston. Very unique.

Wish there were more like it. I have seen others like this, but usually they are in older cities, some in quebec, but mostly europe.

Speaking of building heights, I have a question. Correct me if I am wrong, but the "new" JH tower is somewhere around 790 feet, with 60 floors, but shouldn't it be much taller than that since it is a commercial structure. My understanding is that the floor to ceiling height was about 10 - 15 feet in residential (with 15 on the very high side) and in commercial it was closer to 20. The JH is only 13. I know its a pointless question in some respects, but where are all the utilities? Are they squished into a wider than necessary footprint or floor plate?
 
You're overstating the figures by a bit. 13-16 feet is typical for an office building (the new Bank of America tower in NYC averages about 15 1/2), while residential is around 10-12.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top