Skanska Office Tower | 380 Stuart Street | Back Bay

Interesting that people at the Clarendon aren't freaking out/suing to stop development like 40 trinity pl.
 
from the article

The BCDC praised the design team's creativity in creating a tower on a small mid-block site but encouraged them to think in more detail about the building's top as it had with the ground level.

Andrea Leers, a BCDC commissioner and founding principal of architecture firm Leers Weinzapfel Associates Architects Inc., said the tower's top had the look of a "slightly Star Trek-ish looking pod up there."

"I'm being playful," she continued, "but the top of the building warrants as much thinking and looking as the bottom. … There's something that seems not as elegant as the bottom right now."
Click to expand...
 
They're right the top is atrocious. The lobby is horrible, the crown is horrible, and the glass in between them looks really nice. It has potential if they just drop the weird gimmicky stuff which they're starting to with the gerbil tube.
 
Is it just me or is the BCDC becoming more involved than it used to be? I've been on this forum for over three years now and it seems like only recently have I been seeing the name "BCDC" come up with such regularity. What I'm saying is that, even though so much has gotten approved in the past three years, I've only seen the BCDC get involved in most if not all projects in the past couple months. Is this a new improvement to the system from the Mayor's office?
 
timsox6 said:
Is it just me or is the BCDC becoming more involved than it used to be? I've been on this forum for over three years now and it seems like only recently have I been seeing the name "BCDC" come up with such regularity. What I'm saying is that, even though so much has gotten approved in the past three years, I've only seen the BCDC get involved in most if not all projects in the past couple months. Is this a new improvement to the system from the Mayor's office?
Click to expand...

I too noticed this recently and was wondering what's up.
 
The BCDC has been involved in all significant projects for many years, usually without much publicity. What's new is the amount of coverage given to BCDC deliberations. Perhaps this is a result of the City's efforts to be more transparent.
 
Catherine Carlock at the Boston Business Journal started attending the meetings when she started working for the magazine. She posts images and updates after every meeting. I think this is part of the new attention.

https://twitter.com/BosBizCatherine
 
Love to see the BCDC denouncing the hideous roof and suggesting further design changes. This piece of property and location on Stuart deserves 1. Something more similar in shape to the street 2. Something more simplistic and less obscure. I think of:
bryant-park-nyc-spring.jpg


1095 Avenue of the Americas in Manhattan (Blue building on the left). Yes the color is similar to the Hancock (I would develop with a darker tint, more navy blue), but I think this type of building is what we need in this spot. Funny thing is that this building is 644 feet with the added portion to the top! Obviously this design is shorter.
 
Wow, the lobby of the JH proposal looks like a 60's space-age airport terminal entrance and the roof thing and overall shape of the building makes it look like a paper shredder.
 
Czervik.Construction said:
Wow, the lobby of the JH proposal looks like a 60's space-age airport terminal entrance and the roof thing and overall shape of the building makes it look like a paper shredder.
Click to expand...

I didn't see it until someone pointed this out to me the other day, but it actually looks exactly like a Keurig.
 
Ok, how does NYC build highrises next to parks like in the pic above? (I believe that's Bryant Park). No shadow laws in NYC?
 
atlantaden said:
Ok, how does NYC build highrises next to parks like in the pic above? (I believe that's Bryant Park). No shadow laws in NYC?
Click to expand...
Most NYC residents accept the fact that they live in a city, but there is a growing minority screaming about shadows on Central Park in the dead of winter from new towers going up around there as well.
 
bayvillagebrahmin said:
1095 Avenue of the Americas in Manhattan (Blue building on the left). Yes the color is similar to the Hancock (I would develop with a darker tint, more navy blue), but I think this type of building is what we need in this spot. Funny thing is that this building is 644 feet with the added portion to the top! Obviously this design is shorter.
Click to expand...

Gotta say, featureless blue box. We've got plenty of those. The Hancock does the look much better, because Cobb brilliantly used a trapezoidal footprint.

Much like the Boston Garden, I get the frustration that this isn't taller, but I'm just not seeing what's so ugly about it. It's interesting, and the top will stick out a bit when viewed from the Common.
 
Equilibria said:
Much like the Boston Garden, I get the frustration that this isn't taller, but I'm just not seeing what's so ugly about it. It's interesting, and the top will stick out a bit when viewed from the Common.
Click to expand...

Petrified attitudes to change. Pearl clutching and fainting are very popular, centuries-old Boston pastimes.
 
Equilibria said:
Gotta say, featureless blue box. We've got plenty of those. The Hancock does the look much better, because Cobb brilliantly used a trapezoidal footprint.

Much like the Boston Garden, I get the frustration that this isn't taller, but I'm just not seeing what's so ugly about it. It's interesting, and the top will stick out a bit when viewed from the Common.
Click to expand...

My point with the pure rectangle is that it fits Stuart street. The rounded Space Ship doesn't. I consider myself a traditionalist, and think it would look better.

Keep it the same color as the Hancock III's draft design (silverish) and incorporate the roof into something more angled/unique. From that height (400 ft give or take) you've got a pretty good view SE.
 
bayvillagebrahmin said:
My point with the pure rectangle is that it fits Stuart street. The rounded Space Ship doesn't. I consider myself a traditionalist, and think it would look better.

Keep it the same color as the Hancock III's draft design (silverish) and incorporate the roof into something more angled/unique. From that height (400 ft give or take) you've got a pretty good view SE.
Click to expand...

I agree, it honestly looks like a glass dome you put over fruit on your kitchen counter... a pure glass box would more than satisfy this areas architectural landscape.

I am not saying that we cant ever build something new and innovative but this design simply does not fit in the landscape.
 
Just playing devils advocate here. Why is it as far as I can tell assumed that a building not matching the exact or very close to the current character of a neighborhood bad?

That is an assumption or ideology that can paralyze evolution in a neighborhood quite easily by saying the other buildings here are glass boxes or masonry in an Art Deco, PoMo early 20th century commercial style so that is all that will be accepted here now. It is too limiting. That process of deciding if a building is appropriate is too limiting imo a better way to decide if a building is appropriate is to evaluate if it respects and contributes to the pedestrian environment and if it is well designed and has had thought put into the design decisions.

On this design I don't hate the top I think it needs some improvement and tweaking but has potential adding some angularity to the curves maybe a contrast of both curves and angles to reference the John Hancock tower and pull in some new vocabulary could be really good. The part I really dislike the most is the base which really needs to get rid of the massive lobby and put the retail entrances on the street not in the lobby.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top