The Aubrey | 149-153 Newbury Street | Back Bay

1614462300080.png
\

Why not just title this slide "how the community made this building increasingly generic beyond belief", I think we should've stopped at iteration 3, that was a tasteful combination of old and new...

Feb 22 presentation: https://bpda.app.box.com/s/43cye9oh57ps4y09mxn3biielxo7fg5h
 
Generic is right. This is now more boring than anything on that block, especially sad considering it's a corner block. It arguably fits in less now - the bay spacing has been 'randomized,' and it's much less clear they're bays in the manner it was clear from the first 4 iterations.

I would have taken #2.

What do they mean by "decrease presence and weight of public space along alley?" Code for "we don't want anybody hanging out here? Homeless, shoppers, residents included?" The patio-like space with benches and trees has been reduced to a bike rack. Can't say I've seen many requests by the community for a decrease in open space...
 
Newbury Street, a uniquely Boston landmark. We can only hope the new mayor holds the design community to a higher standard than this.
 
See, that’s the problem with my following this site. Now, 30 years in the future when this thing has been fully built and occupied and whatever, I won’t be able to walk by it without stopping and thinking “#3 would've looked way cooler”. 😂
 
HelloBostonHi said:
View attachment 10663\

Why not just title this slide "how the community made this building increasingly generic beyond belief", I think we should've stopped at iteration 3, that was a tasteful combination of old and new...

Feb 22 presentation: https://bpda.app.box.com/s/43cye9oh57ps4y09mxn3biielxo7fg5h
Click to expand...
From fascinating, to interesting, to tolerable, to ugly/boring, to less boring. Once again a building that could have enlivened a commercial street is damned with faint praise. They already allowed the unusual Nike store which is a fake facade hiding a several-story atrium of displays.
 
Just look again at that 5 render progression. How can anyone who loves cities NOT be depressed?

It went from something that interacted with and WELCOMED humanoid pedestrians to something that bellows "Go away".

If I could coin a word, I would call it Misanthropitecture. (but someone probably has done it already)
 
NABB and BBAC are risk-averse entities controlled by elderly people trapped between dueling orthodoxies that together are rigidly stifling. The first, driven by an old-school interpretation of modernist tenets, dictates that anything faux historic or ornamental is verboten - that would be unacceptably "inauthentic." The second orthodoxy is that nevertheless that any new construction must "fit in." The tension between these orthodoxies dictates the most bland, insipid structures possible, and the BPDA and most project proponents are usually only too happy to oblige, presumably leaving the architects who proposed iterations 1-3 sobbing in their cubicles.

The various iterations of Druker's Shreve replacement went through a very similar cycle. Never mind the pending loss of the characterful buildings that are there, the render progression of the proposed development went from vaguely interesting to entirely lifeless, supposedly after "architect" consultant commentary.

The irony, of course, is that despite its strictly controlled scale, conservative palette, and the inevitable nod to "bay windows," a building like this doesn't actually fit in - it serves instead as a sad reminder of how much richer and livelier (and yes, ornamental) the original buildings further down the block are. And at the same time, this building does manage, despite itself, to be faux historic - not echoing its 1880s neighbors, of course, but rather its 1980s infill predecessors. The latest iteration here is essentially indistinguishable from Back Bay buildings from 1 to 40 years ago. It's as if time has stopped!

Surely there must be a handful of architects or urban design enthusiasts under 65 years old living in the Back Bay who could jolt some life into NABB? If you are going to insist on being "modern," what's wrong with a welcoming architectural gesture like the "A" entrance proposed in the first three iterations above? Otherwise, if you are going to insist on "fitting in," why not go full Prince Charles and re-create a building of 140 years ago? How about a thoughtful reconstruction of, say, the original S.S. Pierce building (1887-1958)? Either would be miles better than what we're going to get.
 
Good lord. What a depressing progression. Just imagining the architect getting more and more frustrated with each BPDA review, losing any semblance of the original design intent, and full on giving up at #4/5.
This city is a joke sometimes.
 
I think these all suck. We have so many good architects in town who can work within the constrains of a historic district and make good buildings. Who ever is designing this shouldn't be.
 
^I tend to agree. There was nothing special about the first rendition of this and it only devolved with each subsequent revision. Start over.

This would be a prime corner for a retro through back -- a second empire style building (in the vein of what Robert M Stern is doing with many NYC developments).
 
Short of the ultra swank house built recently elsewhere in the Back Bay, developer budgets won’t yield creativity on a rectilinear lot.
 
DwnTwnr said:
I think these all suck. We have so many good architects in town who can work within the constrains of a historic district and make good buildings. Who ever is designing this shouldn't be.
Click to expand...

I thought the 3rd one was compelling AND fit the context of the area well. IMHO, that would have been a real winner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top