Pierce Boston (née The Point )| Boylston St/Brookline Av | Fenway

I'm having the hardest time warming up to this thing. It is cold and surprisingly inert for such a dynamic location. The glass to precast balance is way off, and there's virtually nothing of human scale going on anywhere, with either the massing or glazing.

But the biggest problem I have is what it represents, and that is the oncoming glut of blank glass slabs that you're most likely going to get; the Four Seasons is the next one to come... zero detail, zero scale, zero fucks given to relating to anything around it. And while a couple of these can work in a big city like Boston, the problem is that the state of architecture is so diminished that these are all that's coming for the foreseeable future. Here in New York there's so many of these un-designed towers going up that I'm having a real hard time not turning into a complete cynic, and it sucks to see Boston finally get the building boom it's long overdue for only to happen at the point when developers have more or less completely moved beyond that whole pesky architecture thing. GLASS BOX GLASS BOXES BOXY GLASS BOX -- there's your future.

Sorry to rant. I wish this one didn't get under my skin but it does.
 
kz1000ps said:
I'm having the hardest time warming up to this thing. It is cold and surprisingly inert for such a dynamic location. The glass to precast balance is way off, and there's virtually nothing of human scale going on anywhere, with either the massing or glazing.

But the biggest problem I have is what it represents, and that is the oncoming glut of blank glass slabs that you're most likely going to get; the Four Seasons is the next one to come... zero detail, zero scale, zero fucks given to relating to anything around it. And while a couple of these can work in a big city like Boston, the problem is that the state of architecture is so diminished that these are all that's coming for the foreseeable future. Here in New York there's so many of these un-designed towers going up that I'm having a real hard time not turning into a complete cynic, and it sucks to see Boston finally get the building boom it's long overdue for only to happen at the point when developers have more or less completely moved beyond that whole pesky architecture thing. GLASS BOX GLASS BOXES BOXY GLASS BOX -- there's your future.

Sorry to rant. I wish this one didn't get under my skin but it does.
Click to expand...

I think we have a large enough amount of variety in Boston to absorb a few more glass towers. I understand what you're saying about NYC, although if any city has gone overboard to the point of disgusting it's Toronto. Luckily, even our glass towers have some nice differentiation from each other at the moment, and are mostly of high quality.

I don't think the negativity towards Four Seasons is warranted. (at least not towards the building design itself) The glass looks like a different color than any other tower here, and the shape is certainly differentiating. However, add in South Station, Winthrop Square, North Station, Back Bay Station, etc. with all the glass involved and I will probably start agreeing with you more. I'd like to see the next slate of big proposals to resemble more of the "brick and mortar" that our skyline was built on.
 
kz1000ps said:
I'm having the hardest time warming up to this thing. It is cold and surprisingly inert for such a dynamic location. The glass to precast balance is way off, and there's virtually nothing of human scale going on anywhere, with either the massing or glazing.

But the biggest problem I have is what it represents, and that is the oncoming glut of blank glass slabs that you're most likely going to get; the Four Seasons is the next one to come... zero detail, zero scale, zero fucks given to relating to anything around it. And while a couple of these can work in a big city like Boston, the problem is that the state of architecture is so diminished that these are all that's coming for the foreseeable future. Here in New York there's so many of these un-designed towers going up that I'm having a real hard time not turning into a complete cynic, and it sucks to see Boston finally get the building boom it's long overdue for only to happen at the point when developers have more or less completely moved beyond that whole pesky architecture thing. GLASS BOX GLASS BOXES BOXY GLASS BOX -- there's your future.

Sorry to rant. I wish this one didn't get under my skin but it does.
Click to expand...

I will agree with this one (as you could have guessed from my previous posts). I fell asleep looking at this building as soon as the cladding turned the corner. This is a missed opportunity.
 
Its going to have an antenna. I almost have the opposite opinion on the current state of architecture especially when it comes to nyc. Some of the buiildings going up mainly the supertalls are extremely unique and well thought out. The mid rises in nyc have always been garbage you just dont even notice because of the shear numbers that blend together but if you stop and look one by one its bad. When I look at our skyline i still see overwhelming brown were nowhere near max glass capacity yet where like someone said Toronto is.
 
As of this afternoon, the elevator shaft had been removed from the top half of the building.

36612876672_888bc9f27d_h.jpg
 
You all love complaining.

It is far better than a D'Angelo's sub shop. What would you like to see here? I am legitimately interested.

As far as the Quattro Stagione tower, the street level isn't that great, but none of the mega towers in NYC are all that spectacular in that regard. I think the curved glass is really special and the building will look much better as it gets taller.

Oh, and KZ - if you don't like glass boxes, you best stay clear of Hudson Yards and the developments on West End in the low 60's. :)
 
Typical Boston "high-rise" fat as hell from some angles and sleek from others...looks very cool from hynes area boylston as well as Brookline ave
 
Complaining is a reason one belongs to a forum in the first place, isn't it?

I was in L.A the other day and saw two structures that are occupied, and I think owned, by two of the town's leading creative organizations - the Writers' Guild and the Director's Guild. I found myself thinking, how could two entities dedicated to the creative arts inhabit such bland, even mediocre, buildings?

I find I have similar feelings these days about Boston. I am, like all of us here, grateful for the rebounding economy that has allowed our city to grow the way it has. I remember when it was struggling. I recognize times have changed for the better and I am happy for it. In spite of this, I find myself wondering, how can a city like Boston, with it's deep intellectual, historical and artistic bona fides, standards that in many ways set us apart - so often end up building what we build?

This building will serve its purpose fine. Some will like it and sing its praises. Good. Some day there may be neighbors that will add to it's presence. Not everything can be special, one accepts that. But let's make no mistake, this is not the solution-driven, creative architecture this city should aspire to. The business of this building is real estate, rental floor space, a respectable outcome that allows a city to prosper. That is a fine and worthy pursuit. But to my mind, that's all its about.
 
Having just recently come back from Chicago, I can't help but say that Boston has got one of the most uninspiring batch of high-rises of any city. Granted that Chicago has many more years experimenting with architecture than Boston, nevertheless, I feel like the architects who designs Boston's high-rises give little thought into their designs and instead opts for cookie cutter towers that doesn't mesh or complement the neighboring buildings. With buildings already short, they also do a terrible job making them look less squat by refusing to use set backs that gives up to a telescopic top. Every architect based in Boston should be required to spend a significant time each year going to NYC and Chicago to study good architecture.
 
Czervik.Construction said:
Oh, and KZ - if you don't like glass boxes, you best stay clear of Hudson Yards and the developments on West End in the low 60's. :)
Click to expand...

I hate Hudson Yards. Nothing but cold glass and steel -- buildings for the Gordon Gekkos of the world and not a damn person else. West End Ave isn't quite as enormous and is tucked away from the rest of the city a bit more, whereas I have to interact with Hudson Yards almost every time I hop on a bus to head up to Boston. Hate it hate it hate it.

What can I say: I love architecture and I hate sociopathy ¯l_(ツ)_/¯
 
nm88 said:
Complaining is a reason one belongs to a forum in the first place, isn't it?

I was in L.A the other day and saw two structures that are occupied, and I think owned, by two of the town's leading creative organizations - the Writers' Guild and the Director's Guild. I found myself thinking, how could two entities dedicated to the creative arts inhabit such bland, even mediocre, buildings?

I find I have similar feelings these days about Boston. I am, like all of us here, grateful for the rebounding economy that has allowed our city to grow the way it has. I remember when it was struggling. I recognize times have changed for the better and I am happy for it. In spite of this, I find myself wondering, how can a city like Boston, with it's deep intellectual, historical and artistic bona fides, standards that in many ways set us apart - so often end up building what we build?

This building will serve its purpose fine. Some will like it and sing its praises. Good. Some day there may be neighbors that will add to it's presence. Not everything can be special, one accepts that. But let's make no mistake, this is not the solution-driven, creative architecture this city should aspire to. The business of this building is real estate, rental floor space, a respectable outcome that allows a city to prosper. That is a fine and worthy pursuit. But to my mind, that's all its about.
Click to expand...


We have a perfect canvas for a few icons. Our filler is of high quality compared to many cities and its really only going to take a couple great towers to pull it all together. Millennium already started the change, winthrop square should help with a peak, SST is going to be hit or miss, and 1 dalton looks amazing so far. Copley would have really changed things with the addition of those above, but its not happening. That being said I think after these towers are complete were not going to look like the city of fillers anymore or at least not to the same extent at all. Then this cycle leads up to the next one perfectly with drastic changes in height and quality and that will probably be when the skyline really comes into its own. In the mean time once these are built we will be in a much better architectural space.
 
nm88 said:
I found myself thinking, how could two entities dedicated to the creative arts inhabit such bland, even mediocre, buildings?

I find I have similar feelings these days about Boston. I am, like all of us here, grateful for the rebounding economy that has allowed our city to grow the way it has. I remember when it was struggling. I recognize times have changed for the better and I am happy for it. In spite of this, I find myself wondering, how can a city like Boston, with it's deep intellectual, historical and artistic bona fides, standards that in many ways set us apart - so often end up building what we build?
Click to expand...

The real answer is that most people don't care what a building looks like. Maybe if one is really impressive they'll say "that's a cool building!" but their eyes just glaze over any bland ones. Some from the developer's perspective, if they aren't going to get any more money from it, and they don't care personally, why would they spend the extra cash for a well-designed building?

Also, just because someone is creative in one field doesn't necessarily mean they are in another. A world-class chef might enjoy pop music. A graphic designer might hate modern art. Etc etc.

It's a shame, since good architecture is something that impacts people's lives every day as they move around a city. But until people are willing to pay more money to live/work in a building with good architecture, it's always going to be a secondary consideration to the economics of a building.
 
KentXie said:
Having just recently come back from Chicago, I can't help but say that Boston has got one of the most uninspiring batch of high-rises of any city. Granted that Chicago has many more years experimenting with architecture than Boston, nevertheless, I feel like the architects who designs Boston's high-rises give little thought into their designs and instead opts for cookie cutter towers that doesn't mesh or complement the neighboring buildings.
Click to expand...

I too, just came back from my first visit ever to Chicago, what a town, I was blown away! The River Walk (along with so many other parks and beachfront) is amazingly beautiful, lined with cafes, restaurants, bars, filled with people, with every view up looking at the skyline. But back to the skyline, I believe that Chicago residents are known to take great pride in their architecture going back years and encourage their city fathers and business leaders to continue with cutting edge architecture where as Boston residents look at things quite differently. Frankly, even on this forum, when a building is proposed that is different, there are many objections, many comments about...being unBostonlike, doesn't fit in, etc. People do care about architecture and how their cities look, Chicago residents and Boston residents just have a much different take on what makes a city beautiful. I will say this, however, where Chicago is just beginning, in maybe the past few years, to rehab old warehouses (Montgomery Ward's huge warehouse along the river) into stunning condo's/apartments, Boston has been doing that for years, starting in the 70's. So, in that respect, Boston is way ahead of Chicago in finding value in it's past.
 
atlantaden said:
I too, just came back from my first visit ever to Chicago, what a town, I was blown away! The River Walk (along with so many other parks and beachfront) is amazingly beautiful, lined with cafes, restaurants, bars, filled with people, with every view up looking at the skyline.
Click to expand...

Well, not to keep this Chicago thing going, but I also just came back from my first visit to Chicago last night! I'd agree there is a greater appreciation for high quality architecture there. I was amazed by some of their buildings.

That being said, Boston is different from any city I've ever been to. It handles the balance between historic colonial city and modern high-rises very well, IMO, though a few buildings could've used a little more thought in the design process. Boston was also founded almost 200 years before Chicago was, so there was probably a little more urban planning and appreciation for architecture from the start, I'd say.

Back to the Pierce, I'm loving the front view, but I'll have to agree the proportions from the side seem a lot wider and/or shorter than they should be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top