Raffles Boston (40 Trinity Place) | 426 Stuart Street | Back Bay
- Thread starter stellarfun
- Start date
stick n move
Superstar
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 11,118
- Reaction score
- 15,014
I never even noticed that building before but thats a perfect example of why Boston isnt running out of room anytime soon. Theres hundreds/thousands of shitters that can be demolished and redeveloped, the revere and state transportation building being two of the most obvious. Plus theres the hurley…etc. and thats all after the pike parcels, random lots, and the last of the garages go.
Can they implode the Sheraton and Hilton hotels up the street from this? I'd say those qualify.
The Hilton next to 1 Dalton?? That was only built like 10 years ago! It's barely noticeable on the skyline and certainly not offensive. The Sheraton is drab and dated-looking and I would say a reskin would do wonders for it and the Back Bay skyline.
RandomWalk
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2014
- Messages
- 3,026
- Reaction score
- 4,270
The Hilton was built in the 1980s, but they stuck the glass element on the corner in the early 2000s
HenryAlan
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 3,901
- Reaction score
- 3,755
No, that's been there a lot longer than that. We looked at their ball room as a potential reception facility for my wedding, back in '97. You might be thinking of 30 Dalton, which is not the Hilton.
Oh yea sorry, I was actually thinking of the newer glass building next door to the Hilton, I'm not sure what it's called but I think it's a condo tower. That old Sheraton next door in that cluster is indeed also gross. I was actually thinking of the larger Copley Sheraton as a candidate for reskin and forgot about the even uglier, smaller one near Dalton St. The Hilton with the added glass element isn't terrible and fine for what it is. Both of the Back Bay Sheraton towers need serious updating or demo.
While the exact look of Back Bay Station remains to be seen, and the potential for disaster is high, I never thought of this (Raffles) as anything other than a fancied up midrise glass box. Not a "skyline changer" by any means. The views towards the river will be guarenteed forever though, and that is where the money's at.
Who knows? Given the footprint of the garage, there is space to create something interesting...maybe something that has some color/lighting to it that would distract from the "blobness" and enhance the skyline.
Top 3 worst buildings in Boston. Absolute dog shit for the location. Perfect place for a 12 story high-end boutique hotel. To think they just gut renowed 5 years ago.
The design already exists and is on the cusp of wrecking the Back Bay skyline. It's going to totally block the Hancock from so many angles within the city.
That's a bad thing? Don't get me wrong, I like the Hancock, but let's not act like this proposed development is really going to detrimental to the Back Bay. Unless of course you were joking with you post.
Blocking one of the cherry views of probably the finest -- and certainly the most iconic and well-respected in architecture circles -- skyscraper is a bad thing, yeah. Unless of course you were joking with you post.
Last edited:
To each their own. How will this ruin the views of the Hancock from the Charles river?
I wasn't joking. A ton of angles of the best (tall) building in town will be blocked by one of the worst. There's no reason a 400' building should ever be that wide. Also, why all the blue glass around the original blue glass masterpiece? It's a huge negative, even worse than 888 Boylston wrecking the postcard view of the Pru/111 Huntington from across the street. This building is going to be gross and aesthetically detract from the Back Bay's grace and class.
I don't think this design survives. If it was built at that moment, perhaps, but after the other "stacks of books", don't see it. But like I said, you added more color, or interesting lighting, even this design could be an interesting geometric counter point to the shear verticality of the Hancock.
I agree regarding how wide the proposed building is being less than ideal. I guess I was more or less wondering if you feel any sort of development, north of say 250' would diminish the views of the Hancock? How did you feel about the canceled Simon Tower across the street?
Suffolk 83
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 2,976
- Reaction score
- 2,319
It's a wall that will block the Hancock completely from many places southwest, particularly within the city. One example of a high profile spot is the southwest corridor path. The Simon tower was like 1/3 the width of this. The Simon tower wasn't a giant fat wall. I am very consistent that aspect ratio matters and that these wide, wall like buildings are the true boogeymen of Boston. Taller, thinner towers offer sightline permeability and contribute to the views around them, as opposed to just obscuring those views.
IMG_2521