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

mass88 said:
If you're saying that this should have been taller, I would agree. It would have been nice for this to be another 125-150 feet.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Another very tall tower so close to the iconic JHT would have diminished it's prominence. I would agree if the location was several blocks away, such as halfway between the Pru and JHT.
 
Last edited:
4/19
IMG_20220419_133401651_HDR.jpg
 
I've gotten some flak about my opinion, but the more pictures I look at with different angles, the more I don't like this. The height is not the problem, it's the color, it just blends into the Hancock and gets lost. I strongly feel that way from all the pictures above. Maybe, just maybe when it's finished something will happen to change my mind. Just my 2 cents. If anyone can explain how this is going to top out to accomplish what I'm talking about I would like to know. Thanks ahead of time if anyone can help me out here.
 
Yes, this building will be virtually invisible when seen in front of the Hancock. And, it could have been improved at ten stories higher with the hotel lobby on the 30th floor instead of at the bottom, or from its "sky bar" indentation space of which is not really that high, with a view of Roxbury. The ICH lobby in downtown L.A. sits on the 70th floor (you go down to your room, not up), and hotels in Tokyo (Royal Park and Conrad) feature lobbies at around floor number 30 too. I've been to these hotels (except the Conrad), and they are stunning experiences. You don't want to leave the lobby. Checking in is actually fun. The idea is to "wow" the guests with their first impression, with floor to ceiling window views of a bustling city, while sipping a cocktail. I don't even think Manhattan has this concept, does it? Raffles is simply another new building for Boston with semi-inhabited condos. The new Four Seasons fell short too. It's all about parking the money in condos. The new Omni is the best fun hotel in Boston now, or the Encore, if you don't mind being over there, in beautiful Everett.
 
I've always felt that reflective glass facades ought to be few in any city. The reason: they begin to reflect each other or just the sky and throw out of balance the texture of the skyline. I've noticed this in Houston and even in NYC. Too many have already sprouted in Boston. The saving grace for some of them is the building's shape (the new SSB), the use of texture (Winthrop Sq), height and shape (One Dalton), and the color of the mirroring and use of bold mullions (Exchange Pl). One Post Office Sq., when it finally is finished, will only stand out due to its boringly similar color to the MT and WS. The JH stands out due to its height and brilliant design and ought to be respected for those qualities and not crowded out by "me too" buildings. The SST will at least be situated in a corner of Boston that could use it. I'm afraid Raffles will be lost, not only due to its color, but also its stumpy height and obvious competition with JH. It would have been better if it were a shade of green or even a dark grey. Too bad.
 
Last edited:
OK. I'm assuming I'm going to get slammed for this, but it's a serious question on my part. In no way am I putting Boston down. (well maybe) When I first learned what Raffles is I learned the amazing cities that had them and frankly I didn't and still don't think Boston compares for various reasons. My biggest issue is location and you know what they say about that. That area is how shall I say, not that nice. There's not much going on and not a lot of things to do just outside the hotel. I now it's easy to walk or subway to whatever they may want, all I'm saying is it doesn't seem to fit, maybe it's just my uneducated opinion. I also still don't get why Boston is one of the few cities in the world with two Four Seasons. Is that busy or has Covid slow that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top