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

DZH22

Superstar
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
10,165
Reaction score
21,720
I think I like the glass on this more than the JHT...
This is the #1 problem with allowing glass towers right next to the JHT. One has glass from the 1970's, the other glass from the 2020's. We are basically making our best tower look worse in comparison.

Not to mention, the whole purpose of JHT to begin with was for the glass to reflect the more historical city surrounding it! This never should have been allowed. The Back Bay Garage buildings will only make things worse. There's an ongoing issue where the city's overall aesthetic just isn't taken into consideration with many proposals, for instance creating a new blob plateau by North Station where everything is the same height.

I for one am tired of the blue-glass tower trend. It used to seem a lot more special when we only had a sporadic few glass buildings (JHT, Exchange Place, and later 111 Huntington) but now we are approaching the tipping point and our city will be worse off for it.
 

type001

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2006
Messages
1,669
Reaction score
145
Yep, too bad. I immediately thought of this from back in the day when Bloomberg allowed for 15 Penn Plaza to move forward despite people not wanting it to distract from the ESB

Council OKs New Neighbor For Empire State Bldg – CBS New York (cbslocal.com)

However, CBS 2’s Sean Hennessey reports Mayor Michael Bloomberg scoffed at the notion that the Empire State Building shouldn’t face a new competitor in New York City’s skyline.

“One guy owns a building, he’d like it to be the only tall building. I’m sorry that’s not the real world, nor should it be,” Bloomberg said.
 

DZH22

Superstar
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
10,165
Reaction score
21,720
Yep, too bad. I immediately thought of this from back in the day when Bloomberg allowed for 15 Penn Plaza to move forward despite people not wanting it to distract from the ESB

Council OKs New Neighbor For Empire State Bldg – CBS New York (cbslocal.com)
It's not about the height here, it's about the specific cladding. You could put this right across the street from the Hancock and I wouldn't complain at all. (except for the red key part)

1641589898785.png

 

393b40

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2012
Messages
2,116
Reaction score
1,153
Yep, too bad. I immediately thought of this from back in the day when Bloomberg allowed for 15 Penn Plaza to move forward despite people not wanting it to distract from the ESB
Bloomberg wasn't wrong tho for the ESB. Either you move forward or you decide your cities skyline is a museum piece (which isn't necessarily a bad thing). NYC should never fall into that category. On the other hand, Paris went the opposite way after Tower Montparnasse. Paris on the other hand has a massive CBD outside of it and is basically powered internally by tourism.

I don't think Boston can be dictating too much. Cities aren't meant to be timeless even if it upsets us sometimes to see a new building ruin our favorite view.... at the end of the day, they're just buildings.

Bigger problem for me is that the JHT is a thoroughly antiurban structure for being in the middle of one of the most pedestrian friendly areas in the country. Between the wind amplification is creates and the three blank sides it does nothing to engage the actual people in the city.
 

jdrinboston

Active Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2011
Messages
641
Reaction score
423
Serious question: What is the limit of the city's legal authority to reject a building application on the grounds that it utilizes a glass façade that would look too different from an adjacent building with a glass façade? Wouldn't a rejection on those grounds be prima facie example of an "arbitrary and capricious" regulatory decision?
 

type001

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2006
Messages
1,669
Reaction score
145
Bloomberg wasn't wrong tho for the ESB. Either you move forward or you decide your cities skyline is a museum piece (which isn't necessarily a bad thing)...
I completely agreed with him. By the same logic, the ESB would have never been built if people didn't want the Chrysler Building to be overshadowed.
 

DZH22

Superstar
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
10,165
Reaction score
21,720
Serious question: What is the limit of the city's legal authority to reject a building application on the grounds that it utilizes a glass façade that would look too different from an adjacent building with a glass façade? Wouldn't a rejection on those grounds be prima facie example of an "arbitrary and capricious" regulatory decision?
It seems like every initial proposal is asked for some type of revision. What's so hard about saying "we'd prefer claddings that aren't just blue glass right next to the Hancock" especially before the first renders even show up? Just say "we have enough blue glass, please propose something different" and we'll get those different proposals.

We already get too tall, too dense, too busy, blah blah blah. Just add too blue into the mix with the rest of the general criticisms.

Frankly, for once in my life I'd love it if they said "it's too fat, it will wall off the neighborhood, please make it taller and thinner."
 

jdrinboston

Active Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2011
Messages
641
Reaction score
423
We already get too tall, too dense, too busy, blah blah blah. Just add too blue into the mix with the rest of the general criticisms.
But those are all routed in objective calculations that can be applied to regulations. "Too much blue glass" would seem to encroach onto the territory of "personal taste," which I would argue begins to tread toward "arbitrary and capricious."
 

393b40

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2012
Messages
2,116
Reaction score
1,153
Speaking of glass, I'd love to see some different colors... I love the green on the Vertex building. An Amber glass building would be fun. Black glass... there's a lot of options to play with.

One of the Wintrop Square proposals had green glass and I fucking loved it.
 

nm88

Active Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2007
Messages
548
Reaction score
151
When two historic enterprises - owners of world-famous, standard-setting properties - come together to build, one hopes, one even expects, an icon.

The glass here is the least of the problem.

The Saunders family and the Raffles organization have let us down.

No matter how successful the interior programming, it’s simply another glass tower. Undistinguished, no matter its color.

The blandification of Boston. And, I reckon, ultimately, a diminishment of their brands.
 

stick n move

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
8,533
Reaction score
4,995

DZH22

Superstar
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
10,165
Reaction score
21,720
The original proposal was just a copy/paste of San Francisco's Salesforce Tower..
This was proposed before Salesforce. It was around the same time that they were chopping down Tower Verre from 1250' to 1050' (and they allow tons of junk at full height and Tower Verre was lost in the crowd before it was even finished). This building is taller, wider, and has a less pronounced crown. I think it was only 60-something stories for over 1200'! Personally, I think that makes a skyline look bad because the low floor count totally throws off any sense of scale, especially in a building this tall. However, at this point, NYC is going completely bonkers so even 1200' will only blend in and be far from dominant.
 

393b40

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2012
Messages
2,116
Reaction score
1,153
The blandification of Boston. And, I reckon, ultimately, a diminishment of their brands.
It's not like Boston has ever been known for standout architecture. Don't confuse its ornate 19th and 18th century buildings for interesting architecture, they were about as generic and boring back then as we think of this newer stuff today. This is just continuing a bland-streak that has been present in the city since the Puritans crossed over from Charlestown.

The only truly interesting piece of architecture the city has in it is the Mother Church. That thing is grand.
 

atlantaden

Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2006
Messages
2,418
Reaction score
1,261
It's not like Boston has ever been known for standout architecture. Don't confuse its ornate 19th and 18th century buildings for interesting architecture, they were about as generic and boring back then as we think of this newer stuff today. This is just continuing a bland-streak that has been present in the city since the Puritans crossed over from Charlestown.

The only truly interesting piece of architecture the city has in it is the Mother Church. That thing is grand.
Wow, I heartily disagree with the exception of your opinion of the CS Mother Church being a grand piece of architecture.
 
Last edited:

Top