JimboJones
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2007
- Messages
- 935
- Reaction score
- 1
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown
I won't miss it.
I won't miss it.
Radian (Dainty Dot) | 120 Kingston Street | Chinatown
- Thread starter PaulC
- Start date
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown
This is idiotic...I suggest we all write to the BRA saying so. Here is the project manager.
Rodney.Sinclair.BRA@CityofBoston.gov
This is idiotic...I suggest we all write to the BRA saying so. Here is the project manager.
Rodney.Sinclair.BRA@CityofBoston.gov
tobyjug
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2007
- Messages
- 3,401
- Reaction score
- 446
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown
A point with some merit, but I'd be happier to miss the fugly little box that will follow.
A point with some merit, but I'd be happier to miss the fugly little box that will follow.
Bos77
Active Member
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
- Messages
- 482
- Reaction score
- 294
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown
Well hopefully people across the city will get the message do not get fixated on height alone, but rather judge the project as a whole. What a loss for a measely 34 feet of additional sky. I always loved the Deco signs and thought it could be turned into something modern and very cool looking. And that first incarnation was sweet. But really in the end, this is no surprise, and typical for Boston.
The old addage 'the devil you know is better than...' applies here.
Well hopefully people across the city will get the message do not get fixated on height alone, but rather judge the project as a whole. What a loss for a measely 34 feet of additional sky. I always loved the Deco signs and thought it could be turned into something modern and very cool looking. And that first incarnation was sweet. But really in the end, this is no surprise, and typical for Boston.
The old addage 'the devil you know is better than...' applies here.
Beton Brut
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,380
- Reaction score
- 327
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown
In this miserable burg, everyone wants his pound of flesh, even if it puts the butcher out of business.
An utter disgrace.
In this miserable burg, everyone wants his pound of flesh, even if it puts the butcher out of business.
An utter disgrace.
Confused
I'm a bit confused about this entire project and the recent "compromise."
Here is what is clear:
-Starting with the very first design (back on page 1 of this thread), all previous designs incorporated at least some of the walls of the Dainty Dot into the new building
-Much of the community opposition was about preserving the Dot, wasn't it? Or was it just about not having those extra 3 (!!) floors? Have concerns about the Dot's preservation all disappeared?
What's unclear is how the "compromise" design can be the only one that, as the Globe implies, doesn't preserve anything of the Dot.
Moreover, is the community OK with this BRA-brokered "compromise"? Is it final? Will it definitely be built? Given all the hooplah over previous (and better) designs, will this really be what gets built? The Globe article implied some finality to the design; I hope (though I haven't seen the "final" design, I don't have what you'd call great expectations) that's not the case.
The whole project has been a string of sad comedies. A somewhat-bold design that simultaneously preserves a building that, if nothing else, has more historical and aesthetic value than an anonymous, cheaply built new structure seems to have morphed into a truly dull lump.
Although the Dot isn't a masterpiece, a 120-year-old brick facade with some evidence of human handicraft enlivens a street (especially next to a public square) much more than the ubiquitous steel-and-big window look. A word to developers: Glass boxes with huge first-floor windows are not particularly impressive and, especially when you fill them with a CVS and sale advertisements or a Bank of America "branch" of 2 tellers and 2 ATMs, they are deadening.
Anyway, I just wanted to agree that I don't understand what "compromise" has been struck other than to suspect that the BRA, which has arguably inflicted more pain on Boston than any other orgnization since 1620, is back up to its old tricks, this time with a man who cut his teeth in ... Hartford... Not good.
I'm a bit confused about this entire project and the recent "compromise."
Here is what is clear:
-Starting with the very first design (back on page 1 of this thread), all previous designs incorporated at least some of the walls of the Dainty Dot into the new building
-Much of the community opposition was about preserving the Dot, wasn't it? Or was it just about not having those extra 3 (!!) floors? Have concerns about the Dot's preservation all disappeared?
What's unclear is how the "compromise" design can be the only one that, as the Globe implies, doesn't preserve anything of the Dot.
Moreover, is the community OK with this BRA-brokered "compromise"? Is it final? Will it definitely be built? Given all the hooplah over previous (and better) designs, will this really be what gets built? The Globe article implied some finality to the design; I hope (though I haven't seen the "final" design, I don't have what you'd call great expectations) that's not the case.
The whole project has been a string of sad comedies. A somewhat-bold design that simultaneously preserves a building that, if nothing else, has more historical and aesthetic value than an anonymous, cheaply built new structure seems to have morphed into a truly dull lump.
Although the Dot isn't a masterpiece, a 120-year-old brick facade with some evidence of human handicraft enlivens a street (especially next to a public square) much more than the ubiquitous steel-and-big window look. A word to developers: Glass boxes with huge first-floor windows are not particularly impressive and, especially when you fill them with a CVS and sale advertisements or a Bank of America "branch" of 2 tellers and 2 ATMs, they are deadening.
Anyway, I just wanted to agree that I don't understand what "compromise" has been struck other than to suspect that the BRA, which has arguably inflicted more pain on Boston than any other orgnization since 1620, is back up to its old tricks, this time with a man who cut his teeth in ... Hartford... Not good.
"Facadectomies"
P.S. I also wanted to see if others agree or disagree with me when I say I don't understand the recent burst of hatred for "facadectomies."
Given the economics of construction in today's world, you simply aren't going to get a well-crafted brick or stone building that isn't pre-cast without paying out the ear for it. While I fully embrace innovative modern designs and appreciate the benefits of working in a well-equipped, contemporary office or home, the ubiquitous glass-box architecture of New York or half-assed PoMo of Boston create streetscapes that, IMO, often suck.
As above, I see no great boon for a community in building a first floor that is all windows, all filled with Chase Manhattan signs. Older stone or brick facades that would be prohibitively expensive for anything but smaller buildings or uber-luxury like CPW15 (in New York) cost too much in manpower and materials.
If a "facadectomy" (a deceptively negative term; what's wrong with "adaptive reuse"? -- one term is as loaded as the other) is a hodgepodge, an architectural cyborg, then I'd definitely say that cyborg is better than a cheap robot.
Ron Druker or John Palmieri might argue with that, but that's really because they think they can get more money from the banks with a window-friendly first floor. Outside of the banks and pharmacies, though, the sort of small-scale, boutique retail that most people want would probably rather have the adaptively re-used older storefront than an institutionalized, pre-fab face. Or is it just me?
P.S. I also wanted to see if others agree or disagree with me when I say I don't understand the recent burst of hatred for "facadectomies."
Given the economics of construction in today's world, you simply aren't going to get a well-crafted brick or stone building that isn't pre-cast without paying out the ear for it. While I fully embrace innovative modern designs and appreciate the benefits of working in a well-equipped, contemporary office or home, the ubiquitous glass-box architecture of New York or half-assed PoMo of Boston create streetscapes that, IMO, often suck.
As above, I see no great boon for a community in building a first floor that is all windows, all filled with Chase Manhattan signs. Older stone or brick facades that would be prohibitively expensive for anything but smaller buildings or uber-luxury like CPW15 (in New York) cost too much in manpower and materials.
If a "facadectomy" (a deceptively negative term; what's wrong with "adaptive reuse"? -- one term is as loaded as the other) is a hodgepodge, an architectural cyborg, then I'd definitely say that cyborg is better than a cheap robot.
Ron Druker or John Palmieri might argue with that, but that's really because they think they can get more money from the banks with a window-friendly first floor. Outside of the banks and pharmacies, though, the sort of small-scale, boutique retail that most people want would probably rather have the adaptively re-used older storefront than an institutionalized, pre-fab face. Or is it just me?
Padre Mike
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2007
- Messages
- 681
- Reaction score
- 1
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown
No, itchy, it's not just you. I like it when parts of older buildings can be gracefully incorporated into new ones. Often the transition from old to new is jarring, and this gives this form of preservation a bad name. Summer St. is richer for the inclusion of the Kennedy's store facade, as is State St., with the retention of Peabody and Stearns' stock exchange facade. That said, I'm not sure, given the pictures I've seen for the inclusion of Dainty Dot into a new tower, that it would have been a graceful transition. I wish we could save DD; it's stonework is a good foil to the building next door and is every bit as important to the street as H.H. Richardson's little warehouse (now a bank) on Washington St., formerly the site of strip joints (its name escapes me...). State St. Bank, when developing 1 Lincoln St., saved another warehouse, added to it and used it for condos. DD fits into this context beautifully, yet its location right next to the greenway, and the desperate need to redevelop the buildings in Chinatown facing the greenway, makes it an easy target to "tear down and start fresh" and to make the new tower more feasible economically. I'm sad to see it go.
No, itchy, it's not just you. I like it when parts of older buildings can be gracefully incorporated into new ones. Often the transition from old to new is jarring, and this gives this form of preservation a bad name. Summer St. is richer for the inclusion of the Kennedy's store facade, as is State St., with the retention of Peabody and Stearns' stock exchange facade. That said, I'm not sure, given the pictures I've seen for the inclusion of Dainty Dot into a new tower, that it would have been a graceful transition. I wish we could save DD; it's stonework is a good foil to the building next door and is every bit as important to the street as H.H. Richardson's little warehouse (now a bank) on Washington St., formerly the site of strip joints (its name escapes me...). State St. Bank, when developing 1 Lincoln St., saved another warehouse, added to it and used it for condos. DD fits into this context beautifully, yet its location right next to the greenway, and the desperate need to redevelop the buildings in Chinatown facing the greenway, makes it an easy target to "tear down and start fresh" and to make the new tower more feasible economically. I'm sad to see it go.
Ron Newman
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2006
- Messages
- 8,395
- Reaction score
- 10
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown
Hayden Building? Unfortunately, the bank moved out a year or two ago, and I don't think any new tenant has replaced it.
Hayden Building? Unfortunately, the bank moved out a year or two ago, and I don't think any new tenant has replaced it.
tobyjug
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2007
- Messages
- 3,401
- Reaction score
- 446
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown
I agree with Padre.
What stuns me is the very poor deal the city struck. In that negotiation, if that is what it was, you have the developer where you want him...he needs height variances and you aren't obliged to give them. If you say no, the project is dead and he has virtually no recourse.
I would have preferred the first iteration of the design but WITHOUT Dainty Dot. The mix, well, it kind of reminded me of the Porsche 928: slick in the front, AMC Pacer in the back. But I might have required the disassembly of the facade for reuse in capping the stub end of some of those Greenway eyesores.
Or, I'd have said, "Lads, back to the drawing board. Come back when you can give me a solid 29 story Richardsonian skyscraper that uses the D.D. as a base. Nice big Richardsonian entry arch on the park side to echo those round Chinese portals in the Forbidden City. If it helps you, imagine its 1930 and you are designing something on the Bund in Shanghai."
But no.
No nothin'.
I agree with Padre.
What stuns me is the very poor deal the city struck. In that negotiation, if that is what it was, you have the developer where you want him...he needs height variances and you aren't obliged to give them. If you say no, the project is dead and he has virtually no recourse.
I would have preferred the first iteration of the design but WITHOUT Dainty Dot. The mix, well, it kind of reminded me of the Porsche 928: slick in the front, AMC Pacer in the back. But I might have required the disassembly of the facade for reuse in capping the stub end of some of those Greenway eyesores.
Or, I'd have said, "Lads, back to the drawing board. Come back when you can give me a solid 29 story Richardsonian skyscraper that uses the D.D. as a base. Nice big Richardsonian entry arch on the park side to echo those round Chinese portals in the Forbidden City. If it helps you, imagine its 1930 and you are designing something on the Bund in Shanghai."
But no.
No nothin'.
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown
Now THAT would've been awesome.
Where have ambition and imagination gone? I wasn't around in the post-war years, but they and their International-style buildings seem to have done a number on whimsy (broadly speaking; there are notable exceptions, but before 1940 they were the rule rather than the exception in much of Boston).
You make a good point about the bargaining power the city should have had, Toby: Boston really did have Ron by the -- pardon my Spanish -- cajones. It could've pushed for something worthy of what it thinks the Greenway is/wants it to be. But no. The public spends $20 billion to create what is supposed to be a great space, and the city, despite loads of leverage, can't get a developer willing to pay an architect more than $500,000 (my guess at the architect's fees, not based on any real number -- anyone know how much this job cost?) for a design right on top of the Greenway's entryway park.
Good first effort, Mr. Palmieri.
Now THAT would've been awesome.
Where have ambition and imagination gone? I wasn't around in the post-war years, but they and their International-style buildings seem to have done a number on whimsy (broadly speaking; there are notable exceptions, but before 1940 they were the rule rather than the exception in much of Boston).
You make a good point about the bargaining power the city should have had, Toby: Boston really did have Ron by the -- pardon my Spanish -- cajones. It could've pushed for something worthy of what it thinks the Greenway is/wants it to be. But no. The public spends $20 billion to create what is supposed to be a great space, and the city, despite loads of leverage, can't get a developer willing to pay an architect more than $500,000 (my guess at the architect's fees, not based on any real number -- anyone know how much this job cost?) for a design right on top of the Greenway's entryway park.
Good first effort, Mr. Palmieri.
JeffDowntown
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 4,499
- Reaction score
- 3,043
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown
Sent to the Mayor, BRA, Globe, Herald, Boston Business Journal, Sampan, Chinatown Blog...
"BRA Dumps a Glass Turd on the Greenway"
Dear Mayor Menino:
I am extremely disappointed with the BRA?s ?compromise? development decision for the new tower at 120 Kingston Street on the Rose Kennedy Greenway in Chinatown.
First, please let me express that I am not opposed to development on the site. In fact, I am strongly in favor of the original design proposed by the developer, both for its graceful design, contextual sensitivity and urban planning elements.
What I am extremely distressed by is the result of the BRA ?public process? that has reduced a once vibrant project with elements for all aspects of the site, to quite frankly, a mediocre glass turd of a tower, suitable for urban anonymity in Atlanta, Houston or Dallas, but certainly not a high prominence site in Boston. Something is seriously wrong with our planning process, if the best we can do on this important Greenway site is a boring, bare bones, ? glass cylinder.
Specific aspects of the compromise that are deeply disturbing include:
1) This development sets a precedent for the quality (or lack thereof) of urban design and architecture to be expected for development along the Greenway. The precedent is extremely disappointing and mediocre. We did not spend $16 billion to get the Greenway with the expectation of mediocrity!
2) The total demolition of the Dainty Dot building shows a disregard for the need to knit together the Greenway developments with the midrise urban elements of Chinatown. Is this a signal that any glass turd tower that wants to bulldoze a site in Chinatown can get approval? What happened to urban planning and the need to create livable streets (read mid-rise, human scale fa?ades, not glass sheet walls).
3) The sham of adding to the park land as a ?compromise? over maintaining the transitional Dainty Dot fa?ade is a complete red herring. Can the BRA really suggest that we need more parkland along the Greenway after just creating 15 new acres of park?
4) Essex Street, which directly abuts one side of the 120 Kingston Street site (and the current Dainty Dot building), is part of your Crossroads Initiative. A key aspect of that Initiative is ?creating a welcoming, informative, and engaging street environment.? This is directly counter to the glass turd tower design approved by the BRA.
I strongly urge you to reconsider the BRA ?compromise? decision on 120 Kingston Street, and reopen the design consideration that included the transitional, historic Dainty Dot fa?ade in the design.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sent to the Mayor, BRA, Globe, Herald, Boston Business Journal, Sampan, Chinatown Blog...
"BRA Dumps a Glass Turd on the Greenway"
Dear Mayor Menino:
I am extremely disappointed with the BRA?s ?compromise? development decision for the new tower at 120 Kingston Street on the Rose Kennedy Greenway in Chinatown.
First, please let me express that I am not opposed to development on the site. In fact, I am strongly in favor of the original design proposed by the developer, both for its graceful design, contextual sensitivity and urban planning elements.
What I am extremely distressed by is the result of the BRA ?public process? that has reduced a once vibrant project with elements for all aspects of the site, to quite frankly, a mediocre glass turd of a tower, suitable for urban anonymity in Atlanta, Houston or Dallas, but certainly not a high prominence site in Boston. Something is seriously wrong with our planning process, if the best we can do on this important Greenway site is a boring, bare bones, ? glass cylinder.
Specific aspects of the compromise that are deeply disturbing include:
1) This development sets a precedent for the quality (or lack thereof) of urban design and architecture to be expected for development along the Greenway. The precedent is extremely disappointing and mediocre. We did not spend $16 billion to get the Greenway with the expectation of mediocrity!
2) The total demolition of the Dainty Dot building shows a disregard for the need to knit together the Greenway developments with the midrise urban elements of Chinatown. Is this a signal that any glass turd tower that wants to bulldoze a site in Chinatown can get approval? What happened to urban planning and the need to create livable streets (read mid-rise, human scale fa?ades, not glass sheet walls).
3) The sham of adding to the park land as a ?compromise? over maintaining the transitional Dainty Dot fa?ade is a complete red herring. Can the BRA really suggest that we need more parkland along the Greenway after just creating 15 new acres of park?
4) Essex Street, which directly abuts one side of the 120 Kingston Street site (and the current Dainty Dot building), is part of your Crossroads Initiative. A key aspect of that Initiative is ?creating a welcoming, informative, and engaging street environment.? This is directly counter to the glass turd tower design approved by the BRA.
I strongly urge you to reconsider the BRA ?compromise? decision on 120 Kingston Street, and reopen the design consideration that included the transitional, historic Dainty Dot fa?ade in the design.
Thank you for your consideration.
Last edited:
JimboJones
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2007
- Messages
- 935
- Reaction score
- 1
Re: 120 Kingston, 29 Story Tower in Chinatown
That's wonderful, but in many cases, these buildings are just "old", not unique. We have a pretty strong preservation society. We have private ownership in this country, we have to abide by the rules.
This building, and the Shreve Crump and Low bldg, can live on in pretty pictures.
That's wonderful, but in many cases, these buildings are just "old", not unique. We have a pretty strong preservation society. We have private ownership in this country, we have to abide by the rules.
This building, and the Shreve Crump and Low bldg, can live on in pretty pictures.