Skanska Office Tower | 380 Stuart Street | Back Bay

Yeah not the greatest aesthetic on this. But it looks tall-ish aprox 350 feet and adds density around the Clarendon which is good.
 
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...

While it's not an ugly building, I think you're glorifying what exists here a little bit. From the front it's a handsome, but on the side it's pretty nasty and it's only made worse by a fenced off side yard which is half park, half utilities and blocked off from the public. The renderings don't show some Earth-shattering new building but it's good and, in my opinion, certainly better than what's there right now.
 
It's this building. The front is grand, but I'm pretty sure the sides/back were redone in the 1980's and look awful. I too would like to save that front face, but a lot of the damage has already been done. (on a rant tangent, this is why I advocate so hard for full facadectomies in exchange for extra height on top, to retain the street level presence while maximizing the return and skyline presence)

EDIT - Looks like just the 2 side walls were redone and the original back wall, in a state of disrepair, remains.
www.google.com

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
www.google.com www.google.com


1624633833198.png
 
DZH22 said:
It's this building. The front is grand, but I'm pretty sure the sides/back were redone in the 1980's and look awful. I too would like to save that front face, but a lot of the damage has already been done. (on a rant tangent, this is why I advocate so hard for full facadectomies in exchange for extra height on top, to retain the street level presence while maximizing the return and skyline presence)

EDIT - Looks like just the 2 side walls were redone and the original back wall, in a state of disrepair, remains.
www.google.com

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
www.google.com www.google.com


View attachment 14217
Click to expand...
It is very much a masonry area (including the new Liberty Mutual building). While I think Boston can get a little obsessive around masonry, this feels so alien--more so than the original. I think the quietness of the earlier version fit in better. It might be how they are rendering the glass as super blue and shiny
 
DwnTwnr said:
It is very much a masonry area (including the new Liberty Mutual building). While I think Boston can get a little obsessive around masonry, this feels so alien--more so than the original. I think the quietness of the earlier version fit in better. It might be how they are rendering the glass as super blue and shiny
Click to expand...

Turn around 180°
 
DwnTwnr said:
It is very much a masonry area (including the new Liberty Mutual building). While I think Boston can get a little obsessive around masonry, this feels so alien--more so than the original. I think the quietness of the earlier version fit in better. It might be how they are rendering the glass as super blue and shiny
Click to expand...
I find the uniform "insurance gray" of those Stuart Street blocks very oppressive. (Excepting 200 Clarendon)
 
It reminds me of the stack-of-books under construction at BU. The new rendering of the building doesn't fit the Back Bay architecture and neither does the old one. Maybe I'm in the minority but it really dislike it.
 
Last edited:
citydweller said:
It reminds me of the stack-of-books under construction at BU. The new rendering of the building doesn't fit the Back Bay architecture and neither does the old one. Maybe I'm in the minority but it really dislike t.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. Sadly, BU has been gradually forcing us, through its architectural choices, to exclude Bay State Road and that end of Comm. Ave, and environs, as NOT part of Back Bay, which seems now to end just east of Kenmore Sq.
 
I’m hoping the gold underside catches some nice light in the evening
 
rjacobs said:
The glimmer is much appreciated (and desperately needed), but the fact that the Raffles Boston/45 Trinity building ISN'T included in this render unfortunately reduces the glimmer to a half-glimmer at best... but here's hoping the near-future proves my skepticism to be wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure Raffles is in there. Look at the grey building surrounding by the 3 blue Back Bay Garage buildings, to the lower left of the Hancock. If Copley Tower comes back it would be a game changer since all the other Back Bay buildings in the works are under 450'. It's also the building I have most wanted built since it was proposed like 15 years ago!
 
DZH22 said:
I'm pretty sure Raffles is in there. Look at the grey building surrounding by the 3 blue Back Bay Garage buildings, to the lower left of the Hancock. If Copley Tower comes back it would be a game changer since all the other Back Bay buildings in the works are under 450'. It's also the building I have most wanted built since it was proposed like 15 years ago!
Click to expand...

(You're quite correct, DZH22; thanks for correcting my oversight. I've deleted my original post).
 
Booooring!!!!

IMG_9660 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
IMG_9663 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
IMG_9668 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr

Only detail of note.
IMG_9667 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
IMG_9669 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr

IMG_9674 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
This is the second building mentioned.
IMG_9675 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
IMG_9676 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
IMG_9679 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
IMG_9687 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
IMG_9632 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr

IMO the new tower would be a fantastic replacement and addition to Stuart Street.
 
Last edited:
I always appreciate and am grateful for Beeline's contributions. My comments, however, are less a defense of this (threatened) building than a concern about design decisions. Personally, I walk this street often and have never thought of it as boring. That's me. Partly, honestly, because I have walked this street for decades, since I was a kid. Memory infuses my experience. I understand that makes me, well, perhaps, an unreliable witness. So be it.

I like construction porn as much as anyone here. But I love my city more. And when we nibble away at what defines our city - this building, arguably, a tentative example - I worry.

Not every building has to be a stand-out. A Chris Rock says, "Someone has to play tambourine."
 
Last edited:
Although I understand why some people would dislike the building due to its bold and modern design, I don't feel like this building will take away from the city just because it's another glass tower. IMO this tower would be a welcome addition to the Back Bay skyline.
 
Last edited:
Too many glass shield Foster Grants everywhere is misanthropic. I prefer a city that CELEBRATES humanity, not one that separates from humanity.

I like the architectural design, just fatigued from the blue glass exterior sameness of so much going up the past few years
 
I like this a lot and in fact wish it was a bit taller to have more impact, but my concern is how redundant this plus the other stacked-book proposal around the corner at Back Bay station will look together. Will it be too much? Plus having the other one at BU (though you won't really be able to see them from each other in most views), is it gonna come across as like, "yea we get it Boston, you're the city of universities and education, books are everywhere..."?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top