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

Charlie_mta said:
I think someone on here said the white framing is actually limestone. Maybe this thing will look better if and when the whiteness weathers out a bit in a few years.
Click to expand...
When it was wet today, it looked much better for precisely this reason.
 
I like it, aside from the wraparound corner windows. I can't stand the way those look.
 
Last edited:
I dont hate it. It does feel stark at the moment but as mentioned its not done or weathered. I was just in Colombia and was fan-girling over modern buildings there but I think a key feature which really drew me to them was the abundance of roof/balcony plantings which really soften and highlight the modern architecture. Alas we are not in the tropics but I will hold out hope that signage and plantings will bring some more life to this soon.
 
goody said:
I dont hate it. It does feel stark at the moment but as mentioned its not done or weathered. I was just in Colombia and was fan-girling over modern buildings there but I think a key feature which really drew me to them was the abundance of roof/balcony plantings which really soften and highlight the modern architecture. Alas we are not in the tropics but I will hold out hope that signage and plantings will bring some more life to this soon.
Click to expand...
Signage like this would be an improvement:
1738779203545.png
 
The building isn't awful if it was in Waltham or something. It would look really cool hovering over the highway in one of those elevated office parks.

At the corner of the Public Gardens as the de-facto entrance to the Back Bay high spine area it's appalling.

Also, we lost more than 1 building here and not everybody seems to be honest about that fact. Some of you would see the city torn to pieces. I absolutely hate losing all these human-scaled blocks for featureless monoliths. For those of you who think it's an upgrade, I ask that you kindly leave Boston and don't let the door hit you on the way out. The proper solution here would have been a combination of preservation, facadectomies, and height (the shadow laws really have some nasty unintended consequences, look at what we lost).

1738781527363.png
 
DZH22 said:
The building isn't awful if it was in Waltham or something. It would look really cool hovering over the highway in one of those elevated office parks.

At the corner of the Public Gardens as the de-facto entrance to the Back Bay high spine area it's appalling.

Also, we lost more than 1 building here and not everybody seems to be honest about that fact. Some of you would see the city torn to pieces. I absolutely hate losing all these human-scaled blocks for featureless monoliths. For those of you who think it's an upgrade, I ask that you kindly leave Boston and don't let the door hit you on the way out. The proper solution here would have been a combination of preservation, facadectomies, and height (the shadow laws really have some nasty unintended consequences, look at what we lost).

View attachment 60003
Click to expand...
Enthusiastic agree. Anyone thinking otherwise is downright “moronic” (heya @curcuas!)
 
Czervik.Construction said:
I can't wait for this project to be completed so you all can shift to something new to complain about. I guess I could stop reading this thread, too. But why take responsibility for my actions? :p
Click to expand...
I actually like having a sacrificial punching bag thread actively going on aB. It kind of serves as a collector for all the angry comments so we can have normal conversations elsewhere. I mean, something had to take over when the Whoop project finished.
 
I like how there are tons of buildings with otherwise great exteriors that get interrupted by a jumble of ugly facade elements to liven things up, but when we do get the rare coherent design it's... this.
 
Arborway said:
I like how there are tons of buildings with otherwise great exteriors that get interrupted by a jumble of ugly facade elements to liven things up, but when we do get the rare coherent design it's... this.
Click to expand...
What used to be the worst case scenario (a jumble of ugly facade elements) is now the best case scenario.
 
Yea not having the wrap around windows alone would have changed the entire visual weight and mass of the building and made it a lot better imo.

Charlie_mta said:
Great photos ^, but the corner glass wrap-around windows bother me (photo by Beeline).​
img_7170-jpg.57327
Click to expand...

I wanted to see what it would look like so I did a very quick and very shitty edit on my photos app on my phone. There wasnt a good way to do the upper windows because when you put the corner column it creates a half sized window. Either way its a general idea.

IMG_1938.jpeg

IMG_1937.jpeg


I think having the corners filled in and having the frames be thicker making the windows smaller would have made this a home run due to the shape and limestone facade.
 
stick n move said:
Yea not having the wrap around windows alone would have changed the entire visual weight and mass of the building and made it a lot better imo.



I wanted to see what it would look like so I did a very quick and very shitty edit on my photos app on my phone. There wasnt a good way to do the upper windows because when you put the corner column it creates a half sized window. Either way its a general idea.



I think having the corners filled in and having the frames be thicker making the windows smaller would have made this a home run due to the shape and limestone facade.
Click to expand...
I thinned out the frames on the top windows
Image.jpg
 
Yea it wasnt built with the corner columns in mind so it makes an awkward situation with the windows on the top floors, but overall I def think it looks much better overall.
 
FWIW, it took me close to a minute to determine what the difference was in your 2 pictures in post 1195.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top