awood91
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2006
- Messages
- 456
- Reaction score
- 471
What's up with the spiny/spikey cover over the 2nd floor patio?
It’s a canopy, I suppose
What's up with the spiny/spikey cover over the 2nd floor patio?
What's up with the spiny/spikey cover over the 2nd floor patio?
Thanks!it looks like a... totally normal pergola? with, like, plants growing on it and stuff, as per design?
I agree with you but Dubai was designed for that very reason. In a sense, the economics did call for it, specially to diversify the city into a tourism mecca. I'm also hesitant to call it Vegas-esque; much of their skyscrapers are designed to reflect cultural roots.Tall and skinny where it's not demanded by location and/or economics is just architectural fetishism that quickly turns Vegas-esque. Not twisting the knife, but Dubai is the perfect example of that...
Slimmer doesn't get you tenants...
Taller at the same width would have made the proportions appear slimmer. As long as Boston is continuing to churn out Class-A office space, I don't see what harm would have been caused by this being 100' taller. Too many projects just cater to NIMBY's and instinctively chop 10%+ of the height between the initial proposal and the revisions. In this case, it prevents what might be the best new tower in the city from standing out further. Overall the whole city is just a bit stubbier and a lot fatter than it coulda/woulda/shoulda been.
I don’t think the FAA would have allowed much more height at this location.
what a great spot to view this thing. whenever they finally finish the big "fin" it's gonna look spectacular.