Proposed But Never Built

While that rendering is exceptionally stunning, I find that alot of renderings of that time and style were highly realistic. Sometimes what we have today seems like a step backwards.

That's precisely the case. Rendering in those days used to require extremely high levels of graphic mastery. It was a fine art in its own right. Now, renders are handed to the interns fresh out of college to create the wildest, least realistic, over-filtered images you can possibly make in Photoshop - which is what is "taught"* in school. I'm also guilty of this, as a recent architecture graduate.

*You're never actually taught computer programs in architecture school, you're just expected to magically learn them to insane levels of mastery. (This is usually accomplished by figuring out what friends know what and can help you out/you can teach others and whatever else you can find on Google or by watching a YouTube video) By using "taught," I mean "encouraged by professors to create."

This issue has actually come to light in very recent times. ArchDaily covered the rendering identity crisis last month: http://www.archdaily.com/383325/are-renderings-bad-for-architecture/
 
That's precisely the case. Rendering in those days used to require extremely high levels of graphic mastery. It was a fine art in its own right. Now, renders are handed to the interns fresh out of college to create the wildest, least realistic, over-filtered images you can possibly make in Photoshop - which is what is "taught"* in school. I'm also guilty of this, as a recent architecture graduate.

*You're never actually taught computer programs in architecture school, you're just expected to magically learn them to insane levels of mastery. (This is usually accomplished by figuring out what friends know what and can help you out/you can teach others and whatever else you can find on Google or by watching a YouTube video) By using "taught," I mean "encouraged by professors to create."

This issue has actually come to light in very recent times. ArchDaily covered the rendering identity crisis last month: http://www.archdaily.com/383325/are-renderings-bad-for-architecture/

Ill throw out a plug for the BAC in this case then. For the most part if a program exists, they have a class specifically for it. I was actually taught revit by two guys who work for autodesk.

Knowledge isn't everything though, the amount of oversaturated renderings with shadows in opposite directions is still all to common
 
That's precisely the case. Rendering in those days used to require extremely high levels of graphic mastery. It was a fine art in its own right. Now, renders are handed to the interns fresh out of college to create the wildest, least realistic, over-filtered images you can possibly make in Photoshop - which is what is "taught"* in school. I'm also guilty of this, as a recent architecture graduate.

*You're never actually taught computer programs in architecture school, you're just expected to magically learn them to insane levels of mastery. (This is usually accomplished by figuring out what friends know what and can help you out/you can teach others and whatever else you can find on Google or by watching a YouTube video) By using "taught," I mean "encouraged by professors to create."

Same for Excel for business majors... I do nothing but excel related work for my job and I learned all of it on my own with a little googling here and there.
 
Kahta, what is your take on that rendering? Missed opportunity?
 
Yikes.

Proposed but not built - at least as drawn.

One Charles (Yeah, I know it looks a little bit like Heritage on the Garden but it's not that building.)

Sorry, but I didn't write down dates on all these images. I think this one is ... 89?

 
Eh. Crummy images but w/e.

Commonwealth Center, which was reborn as the Ritz Carlton Towers.

The second image, from the Boston Common, is hard to see but it's shocking - the new buildings seem so much more intimidating than what eventually was built.

Those two towers look like Kuala Lumpur.



 
Boston Crossing never came together. I knew it to be a big development project (see 2nd image below - it takes up the entire block) but didn't realize the financial impact.

From the estimates below, this thing would have added as many as 10,000 jobs and generated almost a billion dollars in economic development. (This estimate is no doubt generous and it's not all not "added" development, obviously, b/c some of the jobs in this project would simply be due to employers moving from one Boston building to this one).

Imagine the property taxes this would've generated.



 
I found some more drawings of proposals for the Hinge Block that you can find on Photobucket. These include at least two proposals: early 1970s and late 1980s maybe?

The Hinge Block is the city block of land bordered by Stuart Street, Tremont, Boylston, and Washington streets.

Slideshow: http://s369.photobucket.com/user/JohnAKeith/slideshow/Hinge Block Boston 3

While reading about it, I found out a couple interesting things.

The proposal for the Hinge Block included the idea of using "ice thermal storage to cool the building."

Ice would have been stored under Parcel C-4 (site of today's W Hotel) which is next to an abandoned subway tunnel. Across the street, the State Transportation Building, hard large tanks for water thermal storage in its sub-basement."





The other thing is this proposal for "Parking Level 1" which would have been underground.

There would have been pedestrian passage between the MBTA Green Line (at Boylston) and the Orange Line (at Chinatown nee Essex).

 
John, you have really outdone yourself with these last posts. Thank you so much for sharing.
 
The building proposed for what's now Suffolk Law's site -- who was going to build and occupy this? Was it residential, hotel, or office?
 
The scope of the Boston Crossing project is impressive (to say the least) but I'm glad we didn't lose all the smaller buildings on Tremont like Emerson's Ansin building... 800 feet of pomo would've been a pompous mess.

PS thanks John for all these. Please keep 'em coming!
 
Boston Crossing was the proposed mega expansion of Lafayette Place. It failed because the Campeau Group that owned Lafayette Place was in serious financial peril (largely because the mall was a failure).
 
I finally found the Boston Crossing DPIR. I've been searching for a while (as evidenced by this thread). Hit the gold mine today!!!

All 820 pages: https://openlibrary.org/works/OL13788079W/Boston_crossing_draft_project_impact_report
Published: 1989

BostonCrossingDPIR_Page_01_zpsca4f014c.png

BostonCrossingDPIR_Page_03_zps58ab31ee.png

BostonCrossingDPIR_Page_04_zps721faad3.png

BostonCrossingDPIR_Page_05_zpsc7426b13.png

BostonCrossingDPIR_Page_06_zpse142cf9b.png

BostonCrossingDPIR_Page_07_zps2f661d39.png

BostonCrossingDPIR_Page_10_zps97f2403a.png

BostonCrossingDPIR_Page_11_zps42f17df0.png

BostonCrossingDPIR_Page_13_zpsfe2cb500.png

BostonCrossingDPIR_Page_14_zps3615f1f3.png

BostonCrossingDPIR_Page_15_zpsac31d3ec.png

BostonCrossingDPIR_Page_16_zps353c8728.png

BostonCrossingDPIR_Page_17_zps07f12476.png

BostonCrossingDPIR_Page_19_zps59808578.png

BostonCrossingDPIR_Page_20_zps19b012dd.png

BostonCrossingDPIR_Page_21_zps545bad46.png

BostonCrossingDPIR_Page_22_zps5675c418.png

BostonCrossingDPIR_Page_23_zps8e09afcc.png

BostonCrossingDPIR_Page_27_zps55131896.png

BostonCrossingDPIR_Page_31_zps3e2115fd.png

BostonCrossingDPIR_Page_33_zps4facc9b6.png

BostonCrossingDPIR_Page_34_zps15baccc0.png

BostonCrossingDPIR_Page_35_zps07813f4f.png
 
Last edited:
Ditto! The whole arcade system looks amazing.
 
This would have became that incredible arcade at Opera Way:

24xml9c.png
 
I'm doing some reading about Victor Gruen.

Here's his proposal for a "Visitor's Center" to be built in Park Square (prior to it being turned into the Four Seasons, etc.).

yKvStrZ.png
 
And, an office tower built where the Woolworth's was and where the garage & Marshall's is now.

V7m43Mz.png
 

Back
Top