L
lndscpr
Guest
TheBostonBoy said:
my vote is to keep as much of the facade as possible. build it.
Radian (Dainty Dot) | 120 Kingston Street | Chinatown
- Thread starter PaulC
- Start date
my vote is to keep as much of the facade as possible. build it.
B
bosman
Guest
I'm all for preserving history, but I honestly don't think that the Dainty Dot building should be preserved, other than possibly the front entrance point. I think that this proposed tower is magnificent and would be one of the only really good pieces of architecture that Boston has had built recently. I would much rather have them build that tower and demolish Dainty Dot than preserve the Dainty Dot at the expense of the tower.
For me it comes down to a very basic question; Just b/c something is old, is it necessarily historic? (especially in a city like Boston)
I know that you're not against developing the site, but by keeping just the facade you're saying, "I want it to give me that olde tyme feeling." Real historical-ish. They're gonna have to doctor up the facade; new windows, re-point the brick, fix the entry ways, maybe add some new-old lighting, replace the missing letters, or replace all the letters so they match. When they're done you might as well have put up a Hollywood mock-up across the street. By it's very nature, it can not be authentic or historically accurate. And when you're all done and someone says, "why did you do all that?" you're gonna have to say "Because it's historical...don't you get it?" And I don't...so I looked it up.
Our Word Thesaurus listed these words for synonyms for historic:
Significant, momentous, notable, famous, remarkable, extraordinary, and celebrated. No match here.
When you get down to it, the only redeeming quality this building seems to have is that it's old. It's not highly functional, it's no engineering, architectural or artistic marvel from what I understand, and half of it was torn down 50 some odd years ago when evidently it wasn't all that important.
It's really about feelings. Let's give it the look, the feel of another place, or another time in this case. We want a romanticized version of something we've never experienced (b/c we really wouldn't want to go back to actual turn of the century factory conditions...we just like the way it looked in black & white), and that's fine...but no-one would ever say that b/c it sounds stupid, and b/c it's hard to tell a private property owner that they've got to spend big money to maintain and restore the facade on an old pantyhose factory because it gives someone else the feeling of stepping back in time.
I know that you're not against developing the site, but by keeping just the facade you're saying, "I want it to give me that olde tyme feeling." Real historical-ish. They're gonna have to doctor up the facade; new windows, re-point the brick, fix the entry ways, maybe add some new-old lighting, replace the missing letters, or replace all the letters so they match. When they're done you might as well have put up a Hollywood mock-up across the street. By it's very nature, it can not be authentic or historically accurate. And when you're all done and someone says, "why did you do all that?" you're gonna have to say "Because it's historical...don't you get it?" And I don't...so I looked it up.
Our Word Thesaurus listed these words for synonyms for historic:
Significant, momentous, notable, famous, remarkable, extraordinary, and celebrated. No match here.
When you get down to it, the only redeeming quality this building seems to have is that it's old. It's not highly functional, it's no engineering, architectural or artistic marvel from what I understand, and half of it was torn down 50 some odd years ago when evidently it wasn't all that important.
It's really about feelings. Let's give it the look, the feel of another place, or another time in this case. We want a romanticized version of something we've never experienced (b/c we really wouldn't want to go back to actual turn of the century factory conditions...we just like the way it looked in black & white), and that's fine...but no-one would ever say that b/c it sounds stupid, and b/c it's hard to tell a private property owner that they've got to spend big money to maintain and restore the facade on an old pantyhose factory because it gives someone else the feeling of stepping back in time.
TheBostonBoy
Active Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2007
- Messages
- 442
- Reaction score
- 0
nico, you make a very good point and i agree with most of the stuff you said
I mean in Boston, people are way to afraid to tear down these old buildings, which they call historical, but in reality they are only old buildings and for Boston to progress we need to tear some down so we can replace them with new, tall towers....That's how things are now...I mean i understand keeping historical things, but I mean Boston keeps a lot, and Dainty Dot really isn't like a historical building like nico said, and some others. So I would rather see the new building up and have the old one torn down, than get screwed over again and keep that piece of crap for who knows how much longer.
We got trinity church, we got the old state house, we got Paul Revere's house, we got Fanuiel hall, and many more. So i don't see why keeping one old building, that isn't even that famous, is so important to everyone. Boston has plenty of those and we are well known for all our history.
BUILD THIS DAMN BUILDING!
I wish some of the people from that neighborhood could see what we discuss, then maybe they could open their minds a little more and start seeing why it should be built
I mean in Boston, people are way to afraid to tear down these old buildings, which they call historical, but in reality they are only old buildings and for Boston to progress we need to tear some down so we can replace them with new, tall towers....That's how things are now...I mean i understand keeping historical things, but I mean Boston keeps a lot, and Dainty Dot really isn't like a historical building like nico said, and some others. So I would rather see the new building up and have the old one torn down, than get screwed over again and keep that piece of crap for who knows how much longer.
We got trinity church, we got the old state house, we got Paul Revere's house, we got Fanuiel hall, and many more. So i don't see why keeping one old building, that isn't even that famous, is so important to everyone. Boston has plenty of those and we are well known for all our history.
BUILD THIS DAMN BUILDING!
I wish some of the people from that neighborhood could see what we discuss, then maybe they could open their minds a little more and start seeing why it should be built
statler
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 7,927
- Reaction score
- 525
I also agree that the facade should be preserved, but for a slightly different reason.
How many post WWII buildings can you find that showcase that type of craftsmanship?
I like Modernism and all. The high design and architectural style that goes into a lot of new buildings is fantastic, but it's all missing a certain human element. Glass facades are great but they manufactured en mass in a factory and then just screwed on to steel frame. And we all know the lovely quality that goes into modern stone and brick buildings. A sliver of brick or stone superglued onto a panel.
These old buildings are amazing in the level of quality construction they represent. Not to mention the top shelf materials (real brick, brown stone) used. It would be a shame to tear them down to throw up another glass curtain wall or faux brick front. Why destroy the real thing? Especially in this case where we can have the best of both worlds.
How many post WWII buildings can you find that showcase that type of craftsmanship?
I like Modernism and all. The high design and architectural style that goes into a lot of new buildings is fantastic, but it's all missing a certain human element. Glass facades are great but they manufactured en mass in a factory and then just screwed on to steel frame. And we all know the lovely quality that goes into modern stone and brick buildings. A sliver of brick or stone superglued onto a panel.
These old buildings are amazing in the level of quality construction they represent. Not to mention the top shelf materials (real brick, brown stone) used. It would be a shame to tear them down to throw up another glass curtain wall or faux brick front. Why destroy the real thing? Especially in this case where we can have the best of both worlds.
Merper
Active Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 255
- Reaction score
- 0
...
i can't disagree with your comments nico, but having said that, the quality of any new construction that would replace that side of the Dainty Dot building would be of far inferior value than what is already there. Yes, the new tower would be a welcome change of pace for modern boston, and I welcome that change, but not at the EXPENSE of what already exists. Its what makes Boston, Boston. Get rid of enough of these non-historical 'old' buildings and you end up dilluting the very fabric that makes our city special and then we end up with another Houston or Dallas. Its that very thought process that allowed the demolition of the west end. If the new tower can incorporate and re-use the dainty dot, then it should.
i can't disagree with your comments nico, but having said that, the quality of any new construction that would replace that side of the Dainty Dot building would be of far inferior value than what is already there. Yes, the new tower would be a welcome change of pace for modern boston, and I welcome that change, but not at the EXPENSE of what already exists. Its what makes Boston, Boston. Get rid of enough of these non-historical 'old' buildings and you end up dilluting the very fabric that makes our city special and then we end up with another Houston or Dallas. Its that very thought process that allowed the demolition of the west end. If the new tower can incorporate and re-use the dainty dot, then it should.
briv
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 2,083
- Reaction score
- 3
According to the developers, the Dainty Dot was once a much lager building -- at least twice the size it is currently. When they built the elevated artery it was, like many other buildings downtown, truncated and reduced to its current size. The new tower would keep two bays out of four on the Essex side and I believe three out of four on the Kingston side (or vice versa). Anyways, the Dainty Dot would again be reduced, this time down to a mere sliver.
I dont think these developers are really serious about keeping this building. I dont think it would be too difficult to incorporate a restored Dainty Dot into the base of this tower in a far more integral and satisfying way. To be honest, the way they incorporate it in the current design appeared to be very slipshod, definitely an afterthought.
I dont think these developers are really serious about keeping this building. I dont think it would be too difficult to incorporate a restored Dainty Dot into the base of this tower in a far more integral and satisfying way. To be honest, the way they incorporate it in the current design appeared to be very slipshod, definitely an afterthought.
TheBostonBoy
Active Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2007
- Messages
- 442
- Reaction score
- 0
well i think keeping the facade is cool and putting them into one is sick
but the if Dainty Dot is gonna stop them from building the new tower at all then i would rather see them tear the whole building down
Merper wrote:
And i disagree with what you said....No matter what Boston will always have plenty of these historical old buildings and i understand how by getting rid of them, then you are getting rid of what mainly makes Boston, but I Boston would never end up looking like a Houston or Dallas, never. Boston has way too much history and culture to ever become one of those. Dallas and Houston started out being built like that, with those modern towers and such. They never really had historical buildings like Boston does, which is why Boston would never become a Houston or a Dallas. In order to do that you would have to take down all of Boston and rebuild. Then you could have a Houston or a Dallas.
but the if Dainty Dot is gonna stop them from building the new tower at all then i would rather see them tear the whole building down
Merper wrote:
And i disagree with what you said....No matter what Boston will always have plenty of these historical old buildings and i understand how by getting rid of them, then you are getting rid of what mainly makes Boston, but I Boston would never end up looking like a Houston or Dallas, never. Boston has way too much history and culture to ever become one of those. Dallas and Houston started out being built like that, with those modern towers and such. They never really had historical buildings like Boston does, which is why Boston would never become a Houston or a Dallas. In order to do that you would have to take down all of Boston and rebuild. Then you could have a Houston or a Dallas.
Bobby Digital
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2007
- Messages
- 222
- Reaction score
- 0
they should keep the dainty dot facade i think its important as well... but there's no reason you can build that sick tower above it....
alright legit question.... why do buildings in other cities (ie new york, chicago) get built so easy? do people not care? are the nimby/community associations not powerful? is their version of the BRA so omnipotent? is the zoning completely different? Is it easy to change the zoning? what's the deal? more public financing? less taxes? tax incentives? what the fuck is it? and could a mayor or a city council change reverse this course in boston to some degree quickly? Is it just because Boston is so historic and resistant to change? bigger corporations with more money?
This really grinds my gears. The guru's of the board need to show their stuff and enlighten me.
alright legit question.... why do buildings in other cities (ie new york, chicago) get built so easy? do people not care? are the nimby/community associations not powerful? is their version of the BRA so omnipotent? is the zoning completely different? Is it easy to change the zoning? what's the deal? more public financing? less taxes? tax incentives? what the fuck is it? and could a mayor or a city council change reverse this course in boston to some degree quickly? Is it just because Boston is so historic and resistant to change? bigger corporations with more money?
This really grinds my gears. The guru's of the board need to show their stuff and enlighten me.
Merper
Active Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 255
- Reaction score
- 0
....
Bostonboy: the thing is, that though it doesn't happen over night, if you slowly tear down these buildings for the sake of towers, its just a matter of time before you don't have any left (and then you're left with a bunch of new buildings, not unlike dallas or houston), so though in your eyes its just "one old building", its a slippery slope. There's plenty of space for new buildings (SBW, turnpike air rights, sw corridor, soutbay, kendall square, fenway, and plenty of parking lots and strip malls that could be better utilized), lets fill those up before we start talking demolition.
Which brings me to Bobby's concerns. A place like NY has VASTLY more real estate to work with, and not only that, but its for the most part fully built out and is therefore much more sensible to build upwards. Having said that, I don't doubt that NYC has plenty of nimbys protecting certain parts of that city, its just, as outsiders, i'm sure we don't hear about it. Of course, they still have plenty of construction going up anyways. In places further out west, or in the South, as newer cities, they likely have less to protect in the first place.
Its all a question of scale, and boston's scale is what makes it special in comparison to most other american cities. In my opinion its a worthwhile goal to protect and preserve that aspect of Boston. But that doesn't mean that the development climate in boston can't be improved. Incentives for building on parking lots, turnpike air rights etc should all be considered, with height allowed where prudent (kendall square, turnpike air rights) but proper scale kept in most places. The problem in my opinion is that there simply aren't any rules (or not the right type of rules) in place. Seems to me that in boston, development takes a case by case basis. Clarifying what can be built where would go a long way towards giving developers the financial stability to push projects through. Right now, development parcels fetch a high price because of the possibility of building big, and once purchased, the developer finds out that their desired project cannot be built as desired and we're left with "luxury condos" in cheap, short and squat block busters, or worse, with a parking lot (hayward lot?)
Of course, this should be the job of the BRA, but they simply don't do it.
Bostonboy: the thing is, that though it doesn't happen over night, if you slowly tear down these buildings for the sake of towers, its just a matter of time before you don't have any left (and then you're left with a bunch of new buildings, not unlike dallas or houston), so though in your eyes its just "one old building", its a slippery slope. There's plenty of space for new buildings (SBW, turnpike air rights, sw corridor, soutbay, kendall square, fenway, and plenty of parking lots and strip malls that could be better utilized), lets fill those up before we start talking demolition.
Which brings me to Bobby's concerns. A place like NY has VASTLY more real estate to work with, and not only that, but its for the most part fully built out and is therefore much more sensible to build upwards. Having said that, I don't doubt that NYC has plenty of nimbys protecting certain parts of that city, its just, as outsiders, i'm sure we don't hear about it. Of course, they still have plenty of construction going up anyways. In places further out west, or in the South, as newer cities, they likely have less to protect in the first place.
Its all a question of scale, and boston's scale is what makes it special in comparison to most other american cities. In my opinion its a worthwhile goal to protect and preserve that aspect of Boston. But that doesn't mean that the development climate in boston can't be improved. Incentives for building on parking lots, turnpike air rights etc should all be considered, with height allowed where prudent (kendall square, turnpike air rights) but proper scale kept in most places. The problem in my opinion is that there simply aren't any rules (or not the right type of rules) in place. Seems to me that in boston, development takes a case by case basis. Clarifying what can be built where would go a long way towards giving developers the financial stability to push projects through. Right now, development parcels fetch a high price because of the possibility of building big, and once purchased, the developer finds out that their desired project cannot be built as desired and we're left with "luxury condos" in cheap, short and squat block busters, or worse, with a parking lot (hayward lot?)
Of course, this should be the job of the BRA, but they simply don't do it.
JimboJones
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2007
- Messages
- 935
- Reaction score
- 1
Yes ...
Yes, Merper's got it right. Smaller size, more dense, more historic districts.
You could build whatever you want in West Roxbury.
Downtown? Not so much.
Cost of building is high (real estate, raw materials) that developers build high - which is why they get such resistance.
Maybe?
Yes, Merper's got it right. Smaller size, more dense, more historic districts.
You could build whatever you want in West Roxbury.
Downtown? Not so much.
Cost of building is high (real estate, raw materials) that developers build high - which is why they get such resistance.
Maybe?
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,999
- Reaction score
- 1,738
I think that the reason there is so much hubbub about building in Boston is because it is small. Like Merper said NYC is built out and the only place to go is up. But I can tell you that there are places and buildings that people fight over just as much as people do in Boston. There was a tower proposed in the Upper East Side that was flatly refused.
But also I think that Boston is much more aware of its history than New York so we are much more concerned, for better and worse, over new developments.
But also I think that Boston is much more aware of its history than New York so we are much more concerned, for better and worse, over new developments.
B
BostonSkyGuy
Guest
Re: ....
I agree. Skyscrapers are great and they are fun to talk about and (most of the time) great to see in the skyline but that's not what a city is about. You can't just tear down every old building because it's old and because you want something newer, bigger and flashier.
See that's the problem with Boston. There's plenty of land that can be developed and where people want to develop. Look at Winthrop Square, Columbus Center, etc. as examples. The building process in the city is so painful with the BRA and NIMBY's and other groups going against projects that it's just not worth it to build in Boston for most developers/companies.
You can't really blame them either. In a city like Houston, Atlanta, or those other sprawl-heavens you can build much easier (and cheaper) than Boston. Boston can keep its history but that's all we're going to have unless the process of building is totally rethought out.
Edit: I didn't finish reading your whole post (the last paragraph) until after I wrote this. I agree 100%, you hit the nail on the head Merper.
Merper said:
I agree. Skyscrapers are great and they are fun to talk about and (most of the time) great to see in the skyline but that's not what a city is about. You can't just tear down every old building because it's old and because you want something newer, bigger and flashier.
See that's the problem with Boston. There's plenty of land that can be developed and where people want to develop. Look at Winthrop Square, Columbus Center, etc. as examples. The building process in the city is so painful with the BRA and NIMBY's and other groups going against projects that it's just not worth it to build in Boston for most developers/companies.
You can't really blame them either. In a city like Houston, Atlanta, or those other sprawl-heavens you can build much easier (and cheaper) than Boston. Boston can keep its history but that's all we're going to have unless the process of building is totally rethought out.
Edit: I didn't finish reading your whole post (the last paragraph) until after I wrote this. I agree 100%, you hit the nail on the head Merper.
Re: ....
the buildings don't make the city thrive.
as an analogy, look at the difference between MIT and Harvard -- MIT (on the whole) has been an ugly place with an incredibly dynamic culture (i've heard a rumor that 1 in 7 jobs in the US is impacted if not created by MIT affiliates -- not sure i believe it, but...) in contrast Harvard is bucolic (on the whole) but in many ways staid vis MIT. on the other hand, tearing down Widner Libary to replace it with a Stata or a Building 22 is probably not the answer.
we aren't creating any more of our past -- and we haven't come close to filling up the parking lots yet. if all that was here was grass and trees i couldn't give a good goddamn what got built -- the people's energy is what makes boston great. however, why would you want to scrap a world class city in order to improve it at the margin?
and a comparison with Houston or Atlanta? Really? Not sure i get that... but maybe we could start by experimenting on San Francisco, Washington, or Seattle and see how it goes...
BostonSkyGuy said:
the buildings don't make the city thrive.
as an analogy, look at the difference between MIT and Harvard -- MIT (on the whole) has been an ugly place with an incredibly dynamic culture (i've heard a rumor that 1 in 7 jobs in the US is impacted if not created by MIT affiliates -- not sure i believe it, but...) in contrast Harvard is bucolic (on the whole) but in many ways staid vis MIT. on the other hand, tearing down Widner Libary to replace it with a Stata or a Building 22 is probably not the answer.
we aren't creating any more of our past -- and we haven't come close to filling up the parking lots yet. if all that was here was grass and trees i couldn't give a good goddamn what got built -- the people's energy is what makes boston great. however, why would you want to scrap a world class city in order to improve it at the margin?
and a comparison with Houston or Atlanta? Really? Not sure i get that... but maybe we could start by experimenting on San Francisco, Washington, or Seattle and see how it goes...
Bobby Digital
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2007
- Messages
- 222
- Reaction score
- 0
I already had my own thoughts formulated I just wanted to hear what others thought... question, if ny is so vast (obviously) why is it so built up yet boston isn't?
Thats getting more at my point... is Boston a world class city anymore? was it ever? How many people outside NE think we are a world class city?
Obviously we dont want to be Houston. and no tall buildings dont make a city world class, but i cant see how it can hurt.
IMO the developement and approval process needs to be streamlined severly. get rid of all that red tape. groups of 50 people in neighborhood associations on the whole should not stop projects from getting built.
and the sprawl havens are Miami, Tampa, Jacksonville more so today IMO. Houston and Atlanta seemed to be more in the 80-90's.
Thats getting more at my point... is Boston a world class city anymore? was it ever? How many people outside NE think we are a world class city?
Obviously we dont want to be Houston. and no tall buildings dont make a city world class, but i cant see how it can hurt.
IMO the developement and approval process needs to be streamlined severly. get rid of all that red tape. groups of 50 people in neighborhood associations on the whole should not stop projects from getting built.
and the sprawl havens are Miami, Tampa, Jacksonville more so today IMO. Houston and Atlanta seemed to be more in the 80-90's.