Skanska Office Tower | 380 Stuart Street | Back Bay

The one positive I see is it is an easy building to retrofit more storefronts into as the small arches can become entrances and the front lobby could just be shrunk down some, but that probably won't happen for a long time if it ever does happen.
 
Hmm...there's been lots of wishing for curves and plenty of complaints about glass boxes. This is not a box and it certainly has curves.
 
chrisbrat said:
yeah i don't get all the hate, either.
Click to expand...

First and foremost, I don't believe any of these criticisms should halt redevelopment. I don't like the building, but that's not a reason it shouldn't be built. Things that piss me off:

  • Street front is corporate lobby only.
  • Replaces a classic (Pre-WW2?) commercial building.
  • Bland glass box with rounded corners (Wooooo!).
  • Innappropriate density for the location.
 
meddlepal said:
Things that piss me off:

  • Street front is corporate lobby only.
  • Replaces a classic (Pre-WW2?) commercial building.
  • Bland glass box with rounded corners (Wooooo!).
  • Innappropriate density for the location.
Click to expand...

I agree with all but the last one - in what way is it inappropriate to have a building of this height and footprint in the heart of the downtown spine?

Count me in the camp of people who also doesn't have a problem with the building on the whole. As a lay person, but not a stranger to design, detail, and aesthetics, I can see the arguments people are articulating about the street presence, but I don't buy this argument for congruity with its neighbours.

I love the contrast of this building. To me, the crown adds visual interest to that part of the skyline. Contrasting with its neighbours adds to the dynamic of a living, growing city. I also don't really see Dubai being reflected in this building; to me what makes Dubai so ugly and gaudy is the design of buildings in aggregate and the city as a whole.

Someone mentioned being able to design a better street presence on a used napkin...I'd love to see that.
 
I'm annoyed that this site isn't getting something 800-900 feet high. Somewhere between Charles Street South and Massachusetts Avenue would be ripe for the next crop of tallest towers in Boston, and this block is smack dab in the center of that all.
 
When this, 40 Trinity, Copley and 1 Dalton are added to Stuart/Huntington the lower spine is going to look nice. Manhattan-esque.
 
^ Don't forget the potential (inevitable?) Back Bay station redevelopment.
 
My friends, lest we forget, Stuart Street is one of the least interesting streets in the entire Back Bay. Hands down, my least favorite; it has all the charm of a service alley, as far as I can tell. So: I'm glad this building will add some visual pizzazz. And, it looks like they have included more retail/restaurant at street level in this iteration.
 
Stuart Street should be the next major development area, with a few large skyscrapers finally "knitting" together the Back Bay and Downtown skylines.

There are quite a few plots that are solid candidates for (re)development. If you ask me, this really isn't one of them.
 
^There's a suggestion in that presentation that one of 380 Stuart's neighbors, 350 Stuart St, could someday be redeveloped into a high-rise: is that pure speculation or is there a project proposal lurking out there of which I am unaware?
 
I didn't follow you on this one. You think it is too dense? It has stellar transit access...
Click to expand...

Not dense enough. My bad. I was tired.
 
bayvillagebrahmin said:
http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/getattachment/c334af1c-ce1f-47a8-80b0-34e6315de8d6

For anyone who wanted to see the presentation. First time I've seen a night view. Will say the roof deck looks pretty sweet.
Click to expand...

Bayvillage -- it should be more tapered and taller

instead of 20+ it should be at least 35 stories with its top even or above the Weather Beacon right at about 500 feet

Otherwise just like the Liberty Mutual which failed to be taller and thinner at the top -- the new John Hancock is just not going to be very visible from a distance
 
For all of you who want this to be taller...I think this building maxes out the Shadow on the Common law, which is a state law, not zoning....call your legislator....
 
Screen%20Shot%202015-11-05%20at%201.51.16%20PM.png


I will rally against this so hard. Just say "NO" to Sol LeWitt wall drawings in lobby renderings!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top