The Clarendon

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stern's Bromton does appear to be pretty high quality. Stylistically, though, I find his Tudor Gothic interpretation to be halfhearted and cynical. The roofline of the street facade screams for some kind of proper termination, but Stern deliberately ignores this. A simple cornice or copingstone could have made a world of difference. I guess once a Postmodernist, always a Postmodernist.
 
czsz said:
Um, yes, I would, and people have - without hurting their families. The need to earn a profit does not imply the need to maximize it. Hypothetically (and even historically), businessmen could have motivations other than - and not mutually exclusive with - feeding their families or even getting rich. Maybe someone wants to leave a more beautiful world behind. Maybe someone just wants more beautiful buildings attached to his/her name.
Click to expand...

The Empire State Building and Chrysler Building are two good examples of this balance.
 
Developers used to seek to make a profit and while constructing something iconic which would create a lasting legacy in the public eye. Sometime after the Seagram building, which was iconic as a unique building at the time despite the cookie cutter aesthetic one could lump most curtain wall skyscrapers in with it now, the developers got out of the legacy building mindset. Outside of Europe and certain parts of Asia, there doesn't seem to be the long term mentality of development.

I don't know if the large turnover rate in building ownership, regular corporate mergers breaking down the value of identity, the disposable culture which evolved as part of post 1950s modernism or a combination of all these factors is responsible. It is now very rare for a company to build an iconic building any longer, unless the company has existed for over fifty years.
 
It's an interesting discussion that of profits vs. legacy/iconic buildings. I think Lurker touched on it nicely-- where in this age of "here today, gone tomorrow" and mega-mergers, most companies are looking for functionality rather than aesthetics. Sure there are exceptions, but for the most part the HQ of a company needs to serve the purpose of only conducting business operations and not creating a statement.

There are a few rare instances where the head of a company seeks to not only build a new Headquarters but also to leave a lasting impression on the area in which they build it. See Belkin with his TransNational building.

Looking at certain (st)architects you know when you hire them that they're going to be designing something different (for the most part) and "iconic" if you will. You don't hire these guys to build a dorm or a box skyscrapers. Less and less of these buildings are being found in the US now, so maybe it's something that has come and gone here. Or maybe we're due for another boom. I think it's kinda sad in a way, that whenever anything is proposed that's "different" there's huge excitement over even if aesthetically it's not pleasing. Just because we're so starved for creativity, we'll take anything but another box, boring brick, or terracotta sided building.
 
I know I take this pix too many times but this is how I see it(while driving down the pike) 5-11-09
074-4.jpg
075-2.jpg
not much of a building from Storrow Dr.
058-1.jpg
 
Since this building looks so much like a dollar sign, this building is now Ted DiBiase approved!

ted-dibiase.jpg


"Everybody's Got a Price!"
 
And...... about the Clarendon.... it is NOT FULLY done yet! Isn't it?

Let's just wait and see for the REAL crown or pinnacle or, simply, the TOP of the tower.
Hey, beauty can happen!
And IT IS NOT THAT BAD!
 
10 bucks says this guy is the alter-ego of one of our more esteemed forumers.

Dude, you should save some of this stuff. After-cast? No-cast? I'll catch you on the avant garde.
 
I've been to Puma City many times in the past week, but that is definitely not me.
 
I don't know what that guy's talking about. I personally love after-cast.
 
The building is topped off, but is the top supposed to light up at night when it's all said and done? I can't find where I read it, so it could be another building. Anyone know for a fact?
 
^ Great shot.

Take a look at the two sucktastic mid-rises on the northwest corner of Boylston and Clarendon. Can Ron Druker demolish and replace these instead of SCL? The corner of Boylston at Dartmouth is equally awful.
 
Sadly those two duds replaced beautiful Gothic buildings, worthy enough to be published in the architectural journals of their time, which complimented Trinity Church quite nicely.
 
Beautiful pix! The Clarendon blends in nice at this angle,I agree those two low rises should be redeveloped and the SCL should be restored, Lurker any pixs of those lost Gothic buildings?
 
Lurker said:
Sadly those two duds replaced beautiful Gothic buildings, worthy enough to be published in the architectural journals of their time, which complimented Trinity Church quite nicely.
Click to expand...

Sadly too is the fact that Boston has lost so many beautiful old buildings that can never be replaced. It's truly heartbreaking to look at some of the photographs on the Boston Historical Society's site and realize just how much irreversible damage has been done to this once magnificent old city. All of us have to fight now to preserve what little is left worth preserving.
 
Meadowhawk said:
Sadly too is the fact that Boston has lost so many beautiful old buildings that can never be replaced. It's truly heartbreaking to look at some of the photographs on the Boston Historical Society's site and realize just how much irreversible damage has been done to this once magnificent old city. All of us have to fight now to preserve what little is left worth preserving.
Click to expand...

This is why we have NIMBYs. They ain't so bad, really.
 
'cept the NIMBYs are fighting to save the grass in parks from dreaded shade, and strip malls in Allston, and their views, while buildings like Shreve go unheralded.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top