The Kensington | 665 Washington Street | Downtown
- Thread starter KentXie
- Start date
atlantaden
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 31, 2006
- Messages
- 2,575
- Reaction score
- 2,535
Re: Residences at Kensington
It was love at first sight! Simply, strikingly, beautiful! For me, as a kid, she was the Marilyn Monroe of all buildings! She still is!
It was love at first sight! Simply, strikingly, beautiful! For me, as a kid, she was the Marilyn Monroe of all buildings! She still is!
stellarfun
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,612
- Reaction score
- 1,352
BostonUrbEx
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2010
- Messages
- 4,340
- Reaction score
- 127
Re: Residences at Kensington
You can see this from the Public Garden, and today was the first time I got a real good look at it with my own eyes. I'm sorry, but this thing truly is a piece of shit. We need sexy, tall towers built on all four sides. ASAP.
You can see this from the Public Garden, and today was the first time I got a real good look at it with my own eyes. I'm sorry, but this thing truly is a piece of shit. We need sexy, tall towers built on all four sides. ASAP.
AmericanFolkLegend
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2009
- Messages
- 2,203
- Reaction score
- 219
Re: Residences at Kensington
Permitting is 1-2% of dev cost. Labor costs are as high or higher in NYC and San Fran. So are freebies.
We get shit buildings because Boston is stuck with a culture that stifles/abhors new, bold, tall development. The fact that the tallest as-of-right areas in Boston are 400 feet is a joke. It's not economic viability. It's zoning viability.
Permitting is 1-2% of dev cost. Labor costs are as high or higher in NYC and San Fran. So are freebies.
We get shit buildings because Boston is stuck with a culture that stifles/abhors new, bold, tall development. The fact that the tallest as-of-right areas in Boston are 400 feet is a joke. It's not economic viability. It's zoning viability.
Re: Residences at Kensington
Just trying to understand this better, but as I see it the BRA and developers should be focusing more on urban density then the coveted 800 footer that establish a "(1) unique, (2) predominant city". As far as I'm concerned, Boston has established itself as both far before a skyscraper was even possible. Don’t get me wrong, I would love some height here, but I’m not disappointed in our current, and near future development.
Just trying to understand this better, but as I see it the BRA and developers should be focusing more on urban density then the coveted 800 footer that establish a "(1) unique, (2) predominant city". As far as I'm concerned, Boston has established itself as both far before a skyscraper was even possible. Don’t get me wrong, I would love some height here, but I’m not disappointed in our current, and near future development.
SeamusMcFly
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2008
- Messages
- 2,050
- Reaction score
- 110
Re: Residences at Kensington
To that, I would say. The buildings only need to be 20% higher, and your density grows by the same amount. The impact on the skyline would do nothing. A 340 foot building becomes 400, a 290 foot building becomes 350. From afar, this would affect little (particularly as they would still be dwarfed by any actual highrises), and would not come near the 600 - 800 foot "towers" we clamour for.
I'm coming around somewhat to buildings like this. They're not great, nor are they awful. What I like is that they are different, but not just because they are different. They are different in that they are not trying to match some sort of Bostonism. The great thing about buildings is the differences, particularly the generational differences. I love the time machine that buildings can be as you walk from neighborhood to neighborhood or block to block.
This building doesn't try to do too much. There's no bolt ons. It's not a Pontiac from the 90's with a bunch of plastic glued on to be sporty compared to the Chevy. It's just a residential high rise, that contrats well with some surrounding buildings, but blends into the area quite nicely.
I'd also say, any kind of "signature tower" in this location would be much more odd and eye jarring than this inoffensive effort.
Anyways. By all means, carry on with whatever one liners or labels you can come up with to entertain yourselves.
To that, I would say. The buildings only need to be 20% higher, and your density grows by the same amount. The impact on the skyline would do nothing. A 340 foot building becomes 400, a 290 foot building becomes 350. From afar, this would affect little (particularly as they would still be dwarfed by any actual highrises), and would not come near the 600 - 800 foot "towers" we clamour for.
I'm coming around somewhat to buildings like this. They're not great, nor are they awful. What I like is that they are different, but not just because they are different. They are different in that they are not trying to match some sort of Bostonism. The great thing about buildings is the differences, particularly the generational differences. I love the time machine that buildings can be as you walk from neighborhood to neighborhood or block to block.
This building doesn't try to do too much. There's no bolt ons. It's not a Pontiac from the 90's with a bunch of plastic glued on to be sporty compared to the Chevy. It's just a residential high rise, that contrats well with some surrounding buildings, but blends into the area quite nicely.
I'd also say, any kind of "signature tower" in this location would be much more odd and eye jarring than this inoffensive effort.
Anyways. By all means, carry on with whatever one liners or labels you can come up with to entertain yourselves.
AmericanFolkLegend
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2009
- Messages
- 2,203
- Reaction score
- 219
Re: Residences at Kensington
If you say so. Must be the same thing for Washington DC and London.
FYI, last year downtown Boston office rents were significantly higher than downtown SFO. So San Fran must be a low cost of living space with limited taxes and no unions for your ROI argument to make any sense.
Or maybe it's zoning.
If you say so. Must be the same thing for Washington DC and London.
FYI, last year downtown Boston office rents were significantly higher than downtown SFO. So San Fran must be a low cost of living space with limited taxes and no unions for your ROI argument to make any sense.
Or maybe it's zoning.
HenryAlan
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 3,685
- Reaction score
- 3,243
Re: Residences at Kensington
Agreed. People who say Boston is a small city, lacking economic vitality, have never been to the sort of cities that actually warrant such a description.
Agreed. People who say Boston is a small city, lacking economic vitality, have never been to the sort of cities that actually warrant such a description.
Brad Plaid
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2013
- Messages
- 1,310
- Reaction score
- 1,557
Re: Residences at Kensington
The problem with a building like the Kensington is that it helps to encourage "mediocrity creep". Bit by bit, over time, lower standards are accepted then become the norm. This won't be the case for every new building of course, however look at the American house: vinyl siding, vinyl doric columns, vinyl picket fencing. 50 years ago it couldn't have been imagined, today no one bats an eyelash.
The biggest issue I have with Kensington is the color inconsistency of the pre-cast. If it had been planned from the start to have lighter and darker panels it could have been an interesting facade. But to design it using panels all the same color, then try and save a few bucks by putting up off-color panels that create random blotches, is the very definition of mediocrity creep. The prime offender in this though is NU's International Village.
The problem with a building like the Kensington is that it helps to encourage "mediocrity creep". Bit by bit, over time, lower standards are accepted then become the norm. This won't be the case for every new building of course, however look at the American house: vinyl siding, vinyl doric columns, vinyl picket fencing. 50 years ago it couldn't have been imagined, today no one bats an eyelash.
The biggest issue I have with Kensington is the color inconsistency of the pre-cast. If it had been planned from the start to have lighter and darker panels it could have been an interesting facade. But to design it using panels all the same color, then try and save a few bucks by putting up off-color panels that create random blotches, is the very definition of mediocrity creep. The prime offender in this though is NU's International Village.
SeamusMcFly
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2008
- Messages
- 2,050
- Reaction score
- 110
Re: Residences at Kensington
Do you own one of these shirts too?
Do you own one of these shirts too?
Boston02124
Senior Member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 6,825
- Reaction score
- 5,971
Re: Residences at Kensington
