Skanska Office Tower | 380 Stuart Street | Back Bay

The gerbil tube is definitely permadead on this project given the ownership change. Thats a win... still, I hate it.

It’s frustrating to lose buildings like this for boring commercial architecture. Its one thing if the replacement was interesting or even tall but this is neither.

I have little confidence in Skansa coming back to the table with anything other than minor tweaks.
 
stick n move said:
A reminder of the proposal:

Current building
20175-68741.png


Proposal
380stuart1.0.jpg

20175-68730.jpeg

note above 2 renders are the newest proposal which no longer has the gerbil tube or half moon awnings on the sides only main entrance.

Older renders with gerbil tube, but tower is still the same.
290d6809c6a588e34e77e345cae4dab9
-UyBjR6sowbMyyqGCpuKdShkVFFeBTO370FarvGJh0xrGRtW3JEQDUnUlfdC3sNZUE9TclLxSPfJP1YXPfbtDUA8fbwHwUvcn2RZWm7TZwB7eDXOpmXluACpGfUbEsAOUosMuAP0

fIuzCDB.png

eRhSyjM.png

The awning to the right in above pic and left above that in the alleyway appear to have been deleted. Huge upgrade imo, looks decent with only 1 curved awning over the main entrance vs wings hanging out all over the base. Also no gerbil tube looks much better too by preserving the sightline down stuart. Its actually a nice proposal when cleaned up. Still not better than the existing building though.
Click to expand...

I'm concerned that what little we can see of the 'unawned' sides of the two new renders - - looks like simply a fortress block look (i.e., are there going to be windows and signs of life from the side pedestrian area, or will it simply be a wall of grantie?). The winged awning model at least had windows and life showing at the sides. Not a blank wall.
 
meddlepal said:
The gerbil tube is definitely permadead on this project given the ownership change. Thats a win... still, I hate it.

It’s frustrating to lose buildings like this for boring commercial architecture. Its one thing if the replacement was interesting or even tall but this is neither.

I have little confidence in Skansa coming back to the table with anything other than minor tweaks.
Click to expand...

What do you like about the current building (above the facade of the first story)?
 
I missed that it has a gerbil tube. I don’t like way they tend to deaden a street.
 
cden4 said:
Oh look another big empty glass lobby. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yes, but it is the only one on that block, so it's not like the glass menagerie in the Seaport. As I mentioned previously, I hate the over-glassification going on in Boston - - but, this is the one place where it actually adds to the street aesthetic and breaks up the sameness.

What would be better is if there were a restaurant or retail on that ground floor and not just a corporate lobby. However, I fear we all know the answer.
 
Last edited:
I know I'm probably late to the party here, but it's tough to muster up much enthusiasm for these modified glass boxes with slightly sloped roof lines anymore. 6 or 7 years ago, I'd be pretty jazzed for this, but now it just looks like everything else that's proposed. It's not bad looking, and probably a net improvement over the original, but... meh.
 
The major Nimbys at "One Back Bay" on Stuart St. are going to love it. Just an air-rights project away from being completely lost in the forest.

I generally hate it when the renders falsely represent greenery on the top or sides of buildings for pr purposes only to have the idea obviously VE'd out. For a change, I'd love it if they put some in here, for real. Trees at these "balcony" heights are obviously a bad idea, but there is a history here in Boston of vines on buildings. They could be anchored in planters on these ledges with lattices used to encourage "window sill" like growth. This building will certainly not be built cheaply, why not go all the way?
 
I don't hate the stacked staggered floors thing, but I am starting to get tired of seeing it.

The ground floor is vastly improved though! Get it done!
 
Okay, so we lose another Boston building - one that may not be historically or architecturally significant, but is clearly Boston and long been a good neighbor - for something that looks generically trendy and says nothing about its neighbors or Boston. I realize this has to happen from time-to-time. Change. Growing cities change. But this kind of trade-off is happening over and over.

Think about it...

Look up the block. Another generic glass box under way that speaks more of Tampa or Phoenix than Boston.

Someone please tell me, who is the adult in the room?
 
nm88 said:
Okay, so we lose another Boston building - one that may not be historically or architecturally significant, but is clearly Boston and long been a good neighbor - for something that looks generically trendy and says nothing about its neighbors or Boston. I realize this has to happen from time-to-time. Change. Growing cities change. But this kind of trade-off is happening over and over.

Think about it...

Look up the block. Another generic glass box under way that speaks more of Tampa or Phoenix than Boston.

Someone please tell me, who is the adult in the room?
Click to expand...

Reframe your perspective to when that “Boston” building was originally built. There was someone at the time commenting that it wasn’t a real Boston building - it speaks more of Buffalo or Cincinnati.
 
The loss of a proper cornice is what bothers me the most about contemporary architecture. Instead we get a large rain screen forehead hiding the rooftop mechanicals.
 
If you want shiny glass box with curved corners and no stack of books, you can look to 1 and 2 Manhattan West for what it might look like. This is 2 Manhattan West U/C. I prefer the Skanska building over this one.

51266382917_60d9c0ef99_z.jpg


This is the sister building, 1 Manhattan West. It has a cool, pillar-free lobby, and curved corners, but other than that it is just 1000 ft of glass.

48553741097_03e64cc1bb_z.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top