Skanska Office Tower | 380 Stuart Street | Back Bay

whighlander said:
Jp -- perhaps you are new to the forum -- I will call your attention to the lack of urban sprawl of say Paris [la Ville de Paris pas La banlieue est le territoire qui entoure un centre-ville -- "les suburbs"] -- despite the near total lack of any buildings [other than churches] which could be called skyscrapers -- the historic City of Paris with its 2,265,886 people living on 105.4 sq km or 40.7 sq mi yielding a population density of 21,498/km^2 or [55,6732.2/mi*2

This is more than essentially four times as dense as the City of Boston with its 655,884 people [circa 2014 based on 2010 census] living on 48.43 sq mi or 125.41 sq km [not including water] for a density of 13,340/mi^2 or 5,151/km^2
Click to expand...

Although, it is theoretically possible for Boston to be much denser without height, in practice the Paris analogy is only of limited use. Paris is built out with a dense vernacular of tightly packed 5-7 story apartment buildings. In Boston, only a tiny portion of the city is comparable, namely North End, Beacon Hill, and the apartments around the Fens. The vast majority of Boston is built out in style that is dense by US standards, but below Paris/Madrid. We aren't going to (and shouldn't) demolish entire triple decker neighborhoods to rebuild them at North End densities.

Further Boston is basically a built out city. So we are really talking about how do we best "infill/redevelop" the very limited amount of underdeveloped land left. As a practical matter, development in Boston has to pass a two part test: 1) it has to be compatible with the neighborhood to get legal approvals and 2) it has to pencil out financially to get funding (which rules out many neighborhoods with out a lot of gentrification and displacement first).

The first impediment severely limits what can realistically be built in probably 95% of the city. IMO, it is far more realistic (and compatible) to get an "extra 15-20 stories" in the high spine area of Boston than to get a extra 15-20 stores out in the neighborhoods.

Now in isolation, one underbuilt building isn't the end of the world. But, chronic underbuilding over the past decade has been chewing up the finite amount of developable land in central Boston at a much faster pace than had Boston been a little more willing to use height in key places.
 
Hard to really tell from only these 2 renders but the design itself seems acceptable. It's unfortunate the stubbiness makes this look bloated. A taller, thinner iteration could be quite elegant but, because Boston, the amputated at the knees proportions will likely prevail.
 
This building looks like it belongs more in the Seaport, not the Back Bay.
 
I bet the stubbiness/height limit is a function of the shadow on the boston common legislation, which is a state law that's not that old...even if they wanted it to be taller it couldn't be.
 
I'd like it taller but the height is consistent for the area; there's a cluster of buildings there at this same height.
 
I found it funny that Jon Chesto at the Globe (or his copywriter) says that Manulife wants a third "iconic" tower in the Back Bay. From the initial rendering, there's nothing special about its design, no?
 
I walk past 380 Stuart often. I like its sturdy, unpretentious, old-Boston attitude. Is it noteworthy? People would probably say no. But it makes a good street wall, is pleasant to walk past and feels appropriate for the neighborhood. That's not such a bad thing.

Given the choice, I'd prefer to keep this good neighbor than built another faceless glass box, with or without curves, with or without height. How the company that built two Boston icons could feel this is more of the same is, frankly, beyond me.

However, Hancock has been a good corporate citizen and, truth is, we can't keep everything as much as we may want to. Perhaps, as suggested, a Russia (whoops!) Atlantic wharf solution might be considered here?

I would rather we keep the Dainty Dots and the 380 Stuarts than build the sort of things we build in the city these days. Dull ever-so-slowly diminishes the fabric of our special city.
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
No, but it is their fault for the boring design.
Click to expand...

I would like to see an example of something with the same footprint and floor space that is economically viable. I don't doubt it exists, I would just like to be enlightened.
 
I know this is fantasy, but I wish JH would at least present 2 proposals:
the current one and an alternate Russia Warf-style one that converts the existing building to housing and then builds a comparable office tower on top of the historic base.

If the powers that be nix the preservation and housing element to limit shadows..so be it. But, it would at least highlight the trade offs involved.
 
Last edited:
Too bad this thing is not going to be in the 38-42 story range.......

I really enjoy comments like this one:


ParksLover08/05/15 03:18 AM
Glad I don't live downtown. All this overbuilding would be getting on my nerves. Maybe it's time for a recession -- in the construction industry at least.
 
If only there was some kind of Sub-Urban or Radically Undeveloped Rich Agricultural Land (or, R.U.R.A.L. for short) for certain people to inhabit... hmm.....
 
GW said:
Something's not right here. The Globe article says the new building will be 380 feet tall, 44 feet more than The Clarendon, and 40 feet more than 500 Boylston, but the render doesn't seem to represent that accurately.
Click to expand...

I think the 380 that you are referring to is the address number on Stuart St, not the height.

EDIT: I stand corrected, the article mentions it.
 
type001 said:
If only there was some kind of Sub-Urban or Radically Undeveloped Rich Agricultural Land (or, R.U.R.A.L. for short) for certain people to inhabit... hmm.....
Click to expand...

+1
 
type001 said:
I think the 380 that you are referring to is the address number on Stuart St, not the height.

EDIT: I stand corrected, the article mentions it.
Click to expand...

The Clarendon is about 387' tall, with 33 floors and an average floor to floor height of 10'8" my guess is the developer is shooting for the same height as the Clarendon since they are directly next to each other and the precedent has been set, this being said i feel like the deep pockets of some of the Trinity place haters (who live at the Clarendon) will have equally negative opposition for this building...
 
Last edited:
Interesting photos. How old is this building? It looks like it might have received a facadectomy at some point in the 80s or 90s. That side wall is SO PoMo with the shapes and the curved glass!
 
One of the articles I read stated it was built in 1924.
 
I'm guessing it was a party wall and it got the POMO treatment in the 80's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top