Shreve, Crump & Low Redevelopment | 334-364 Boylston Street | Back Bay

Czervik.Construction said:
Unfortunately, it would look like 432 Park Ave.
Click to expand...

Hah! You're right:

1726033954699.png
 
Walking by it today, there is something about the glass that is deadening. It doesn’t reflect the adjacent buildings or sky well, and it doesn’t have the transparency of something like the Apple Store cube.
 
RandomWalk said:
Walking by it today, there is something about the glass that is deadening. It doesn’t reflect the adjacent buildings or sky well, and it doesn’t have the transparency of something like the Apple Store cube.
Click to expand...

In urban architecture, there a "givers and takers".

Lyrik, Rowes Wharf, the BGI Tower completing on the Seaport are all "givers" - - they enhance their surroundings and are truly gifts to the City of Boston.

This is an obnoxious "taker". In one of the most pedestrian/tourist heavy spots in the city, it does nothing to engage the humanoid. It is an inward looking fortress.

There is no amount of tax deductible philanthropy that Ron Druker can make to undo this. Sadly, more people will view his long-term legacy by this than for any of the very good charitable donations he's made around the city. This building is what it is and will be for many decades to come.
 
Last edited:
The building to me looks like square black holes encased in white-ish plastic.
 
RandomWalk said:
Walking by it today, there is something about the glass that is deadening. It doesn’t reflect the adjacent buildings or sky well, and it doesn’t have the transparency of something like the Apple Store cube.
Click to expand...
It gives the vibe of floor after floor of soul sucking cube farms.
 
RandomWalk said:
Walking by it today, there is something about the glass that is deadening. It doesn’t reflect the adjacent buildings or sky well, and it doesn’t have the transparency of something like the Apple Store cube.
Click to expand...

The frustrating thing to me is that the renders clearly advertised a very transparent and translucent window style. And since the windows are such a dominant part of the architecture, it has a huge effect on the overall appearance and is just a major downgrade. If the windows are dramatically different than what the City approved, I sure hope the City follows up with enforcement on it.

2020_04_24_Druker_350_Boylston_Hero_Final_v2.jpg
 
Smuttynose said:
The frustrating thing to me is that the renders clearly advertised a very transparent and translucent window style. And since the windows are such a dominant part of the architecture, it has a huge effect on the overall appearance and is just a major downgrade. If the windows are dramatically different than what the City approved, I sure hope the City follows up with enforcement on it.

2020_04_24_Druker_350_Boylston_Hero_Final_v2.jpg
Click to expand...
The city has the authority to deny a COO but they very rarely use it and certainly will not here.
 
I know it’s still under construction, so the backdrop is dark steel instead of a lighter interior. However, I don’t think that accounts for all the difference between the render and reality.
 
RandomWalk said:
Walking by it today, there is something about the glass that is deadening. It doesn’t reflect the adjacent buildings or sky well, and it doesn’t have the transparency of something like the Apple Store cube.
Click to expand...
Taketern's photo of the southeast corner supra shows there is some reflectivity in the glass. The original SC&L building had a generous amount of glass. That building was designed to be used as a commercial school for young women at a time when interior lighting was transitioning from illuminating gas to incandescent bulbs.

The tenant may also have requested a darker glass. The notion, as conveyed by the rendering, that every office would be a showroom to delight business voyeurs was absurd.
 
RandomWalk said:
I know it’s still under construction, so the backdrop is dark steel instead of a lighter interior. However, I don’t think that accounts for all the difference between the render and reality.
Click to expand...

I came here to say the exact thing.
 
JeffDowntown said:
It has been 2 decades, but the city did just that with the Hotel Commonwealth. In 2003 BU had to shell out $2 million to replace the façade that did not match the approved plans.

STAFF EDIT: Replacing hotel facade wise – The Daily Free Press

dailyfreepress.com dailyfreepress.com
Click to expand...
Thank you for digging up this article. This struck me:

"In a case that proves appearances can be crucial, Boston University is fronting $1.9 million to make the Hotel Commonwealth’s façade look less like a plastic Disneyland structure and more like a four-star hotel that will fit in with its Kenmore Square surroundings."

As far as fake facades go, does anyone actually do them better than Disney? They have plenty of Second Empire inspired facades splintered around their parks.

And you know who designed most of them? You got it -- RAMSA.
Sory of off topic, RAMSA is currently designing a hotel in Charleston, SC. A city known to be scrupulous in its design standards and attention to detail:

https://www.ramsa.com/projects/project/north-market-hotel
 
Last edited:
bdurden said:
Thank you for digging up this article. This struck me:

"In a case that proves appearances can be crucial, Boston University is fronting $1.9 million to make the Hotel Commonwealth’s façade look less like a plastic Disneyland structure and more like a four-star hotel that will fit in with its Kenmore Square surroundings."

As far as fake facades go, does anyone actually do them better than Disney? They have plenty of Second Empire inspired facades splintered around their parks.

And you know who designed most of them? You got it -- RAMSA.
Sory of off topic, RAMSA is currently designing a hotel in Charleston, SC. A city known to be scrupulous in its design standards and attention to detail:

https://www.ramsa.com/projects/project/north-market-hotel
Click to expand...
Fisher Pricey might have been more apt - although I do remember the outrage over this and having never been to Disney, the term certainly fit what my imagination came up with 20 years ago.
 
bdurden said:
Thank you for digging up this article. This struck me:

"In a case that proves appearances can be crucial, Boston University is fronting $1.9 million to make the Hotel Commonwealth’s façade look less like a plastic Disneyland structure and more like a four-star hotel that will fit in with its Kenmore Square surroundings."

As far as fake facades go, does anyone actually do them better than Disney? They have plenty of Second Empire inspired facades splintered around their parks.

And you know who designed most of them? You got it -- RAMSA.
Sory of off topic, RAMSA is currently designing a hotel in Charleston, SC. A city known to be scrupulous in its design standards and attention to detail:

https://www.ramsa.com/projects/project/north-market-hotel
Click to expand...
I think the reference at the time was to Michael Graves' PoMo (stuff) the Dolphin and Swan. Basically cartoon caricatures of architecture.
 
Even the re-do wasn't that great. In the first iteration, the actual materials looked NOTHING like the renderings, which were OK......if even a bit Disney fake. However, the cheap materials and tacky installation is what really killed it in my opinion. They made it better, but still not great.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top