Raffles Boston (40 Trinity Place) | 426 Stuart Street | Back Bay

nm88

Active Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2007
Messages
467
Reaction score
21
I've stayed at the Raffles properties in Cambodia and other Asian countries and those tend to be high-end renovations of British Colonial hotels. It will be interesting to see how they style a new-build hotel like this. Raffles is now owned by the Accel Group of France, which also owns the Fairmont Copley Plaza.
Which makes this a curious choice - destroy the sort of building (arguably) they would normally seek out in other locations. I blame the Saunders for the generic building soon to take its place and wear the company emblem, but why do this? I understand why Boston? That makes sense. But to claim this new design as equal to their brand? I'd be curious to know more...
 

odurandina

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2015
Messages
5,328
Reaction score
250
The real crap show is/was/will be 380 Stewart St.
388' of fermented elk poop, and BB Station moose turds.
 

nm88

Active Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2007
Messages
467
Reaction score
21
Hopefully, that won't happen. I understand Hancock has changed its mind.
 

odurandina

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2015
Messages
5,328
Reaction score
250
^^Everyone wants to see BB Station to reach its potential. imo, the office tower
design is along some range of mediocre to crazy when compared to BP's solid
to show-stopper rep around the country. The dull planning (overall) of this,
caused me to turn about 140°--to now hoping it doesn't get started.

Architects must get pissed off at the general public, when we fail to see the
immense thought/ details/ nuances that involves planning projects of the magnitude
required below a ~420' height limit.

Even so, did Boston Properties challenge Pelli Clarke Pelli to come up with
a better office bldg? From the renders, it gives an impression like, lazy/ cheapness.
The office tower is a part of a once-in-a-century opportunity to do something
worthy of Back Bay and the South End.

Other cities are getting spectacular architecture. Is the lack of height stopping this?
Can't this be better instead of too often, pissing off even people reasonably open
to development?
 
Last edited:

kmp1284

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
1,936
Reaction score
76
Which makes this a curious choice - destroy the sort of building (arguably) they would normally seek out in other locations. I blame the Saunders for the generic building soon to take its place and wear the company emblem, but why do this? I understand why Boston? That makes sense. But to claim this new design as equal to their brand? I'd be curious to know more...
I'm all for preservation but this isn't a huge loss. It's not particularly noteworthy architecturally or historically and looking at the other historic hotels in Raffles' portfolio I don't think they'd want anything to do with this.
 

nm88

Active Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2007
Messages
467
Reaction score
21
^^Fair enough. Though I maintain "noteworthy" is not the only reason to save a building. (I know you're not saying that.) RAFFLES other properties are mostly, well, architecturally dramatic. Present company is more handsomely understated than dramatic, which is fine with me. It makes it a fine neighbor, even a respectful one. I like streets that reflect time, place and context.

I wonder if the new building will diminish views of one of our city's real masterpieces - Hancock Tower.
 

tmac9wr

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
1,417
Reaction score
14
I'm all for preservation but this isn't a huge loss. It's not particularly noteworthy architecturally or historically and looking at the other historic hotels in Raffles' portfolio I don't think they'd want anything to do with this.
I think it’s also worth noting that while they’ve remodeled historical buildings in other cities, and something similar would vibe well in Boston, this particular location is in the shadow of the Back Bay Station Garage. It’s also in a relatively low foot traffic area, which would be another strike against it. Building a tower will make it much more recognizable, which is probably the more appropriate way to enter the North American market.
 

nm88

Active Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2007
Messages
467
Reaction score
21
One last time and I'll stop. Most RAFFLES buildings are iconic. This will not be their equal. This will not be iconic. Tall, yes - and a tower may be what they had in mind. But a bland tower, no matter how tall, is still bland.

Travelers familiar with this revered brand will likely find this rendering a surprise. My guess, a disappointing one.

I continue to worry how we slowly nibble away at the architectural legacy of our city, morsel by morsel, with commonplace designs such as this.
 

tobyjug

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2007
Messages
3,255
Reaction score
41
Always thought that this nice academic Renaissance revival building was very similar to the 20s and 30s buildings that give Rome so much of its character. It’s replacement is very boring...
 

stick n move

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
6,655
Reaction score
887
One last time and I'll stop. Most RAFFLES buildings are iconic. This will not be their equal. This will not be iconic. Tall, yes - and a tower may be what they had in mind. But a bland tower, no matter how tall, is still bland.

Travelers familiar with this revered brand will likely find this rendering a surprise. My guess, a disappointing one.

I continue to worry how we slowly nibble away at the architectural legacy of our city, morsel by morsel, with commonplace designs such as this.
The exterior yea, for the 3 seconds you walk up to the tower, but the interior is going to he nice.

 

Czervik.Construction

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2013
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
180
I think for new properties, Raffles wants sleek lux, like this design, rather than late 19th/early 20th Century Colonial Overlord. St. Regis is doing this, too. They have old stately properties, such as NYC, with the legendary King Cole Bar and they have the sleek modern, such as San Francisco.
 

elemenoh

Active Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
271
Reaction score
9
I think for new properties, Raffles wants sleek lux, like this design, rather than late 19th/early 20th Century Colonial Overlord. St. Regis is doing this, too. They have old stately properties, such as NYC, with the legendary King Cole Bar and they have the sleek modern, such as San Francisco.
Sounds very much like what Ritz-Carlton did in Boston when they sold off the Newbury St building after the completion of the Millenium building.

Raffles in the process of rehabbing a colonial resort hotel in Udaipur, India, where they will compete with Oberoi and Taj -- both of those hotels are huge, waterfront, colonial resort properties, so the new Raffles will be much the same.

The shiny new Four Seasons and Ritz-Carlton are the key competitors for Raffles in the Boston market, so it seems to make sense for them to build a shiny new tower here.
 

kmp1284

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
1,936
Reaction score
76
The shiny new Four Seasons and Ritz-Carlton are the key competitors for Raffles in the Boston market, so it seems to make sense for them to build a shiny new tower here.
And the Mandarin and the Four Seasons on Boylston, which I suspect will remain the preferred Four Seasons in Boston in the way that Park Lane has in London and 57th Street has in New York.

One last time and I'll stop. Most RAFFLES buildings are iconic. This will not be their equal. This will not be iconic. Tall, yes - and a tower may be what they had in mind. But a bland tower, no matter how tall, is still bland.

Travelers familiar with this revered brand will likely find this rendering a surprise. My guess, a disappointing one.
Let's not get carried away. Raffles as a chain has only existed since the late 1990s. It's merely one luxury brand within the giant Accor portfolio, much like what Ritz and St. Regis are to Marriott and Waldorf is to Hilton. They have a few amazing historic and iconic properties but at least half of their properties can be described like 40 Trinity as modern mediocrity.

Raffles is such a small and geographically limited chain that unless one only travels to the same few places they cannot be the kind of fussy brand loyalist that you describe.
 

tobyjug

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2007
Messages
3,255
Reaction score
41
Sounds very much like what Ritz-Carlton did in Boston when they sold off the Newbury St building after the completion of the Millenium building.

Raffles in the process of rehabbing a colonial resort hotel in Udaipur, India, where they will compete with Oberoi and Taj -- both of those hotels are huge, waterfront, colonial resort properties, so the new Raffles will be much the same.

The shiny new Four Seasons and Ritz-Carlton are the key competitors for Raffles in the Boston market, so it seems to make sense for them to build a shiny new tower here.
That makes a certain amount of sense. But the rehabs of the older properties are no joke, for example in the Oberoi in Kolkata the interior of the Raj era building is more modern than that of the newish Taj 3 miles away in Alipore.
 

odurandina

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2015
Messages
5,328
Reaction score
250
The shiny new Four Seasons and Ritz-Carlton are the key competitors for Raffles in the Boston market, so it seems to make sense for them to build a shiny new tower here.
This property is going to be pretty great for Boston.
The building that's going is a loss to a point--
But, there's really not a great argument for a podium.
The build site is more or less the top of the heap
that will allow many people to enjoy some of the best views of the City.

What do you all think about the club terrace up on the 18th floor?
Anyone wondering if it oft might be on the receiving end
of the high winds off the Hancock?
 
Last edited:

Top