The Kensington | 665 Washington Street | Downtown

Re: Residences at Kensington

I have to agree with many posters. This design screams bottom line. A shame really. I am no great lover of the Archstone building across the street but it is a great way of comparing and contrasting something that has thoughtful design and detailing (regardless if you like it or not) and something that simply does not.

Mediocrity it is.

cca
 
Re: Residences at Kensington

The Archstone top (it's definitely a crown not a hat) is the best part of the building. It has some personality at least.
 
Re: Residences at Kensington

Archstone and this both really cheapen the city.

Looking forward to the day they're both torn down, with buildings utilizing high-quality materials put up in their place. That'll happen in our lifetimes, right, guys? Right?
 
Re: Residences at Kensington

I'm hoping that the Millennium towers get a facelift before I die of old age. They're just so icky.
 
Re: Residences at Kensington

My posts get deleted by some uptight, provincial, humorless Bostonian. It's why I left the city.
 
Re: Residences at Kensington

Just out of my own ignorance and curiosity, what are some current examples of projects around the country that are using high-quality materials and don't "cheapen" their cities? Sounds like people just bitch about BOSTON, but is it a Boston problem, or a national reality of contemporary construction & design?
 
Re: Residences at Kensington

There are tons of really terrible, shitty towers erected monthly in NYC. The difference is that there are a few, large, standout high-quality projects (particularly in places where people look at and care about the skyline) that divert your attention from the rest.
 
Re: Residences at Kensington

BussesAin'tTrains said:
Just out of my own ignorance and curiosity, what are some current examples of projects around the country that are using high-quality materials and don't "cheapen" their cities? Sounds like people just bitch about BOSTON, but is it a Boston problem, or a national reality of contemporary construction & design?
Click to expand...

You'll find cheap architecture everywhere, but Boston goes the extra step of actively discouraging anything that isn't a "background building". Anything that might draw attention from something like a patch of grass is too much for the city.

Which sets the bar so low you might as well not even try.

Though even in Boston you'll find structures that break the mold.

The new Spaulding Rehab hospital is a brilliant work of art. A hospital that looks less like a hospital than many new residential and office projects.

The only explanation I can come up with for the MassArt dorm tower is that it got approved by an intern while the entire BRA was out sick. I'd argue that it enriches rather than cheapens the city. And it's covered in Alucobond, of all things. It shouldn't have happened and it shouldn't work, but it did and it most certainly does.

But if you'd like to see some more architecture in that vein, check this out.

Not a fan of the antiseptic white interior, but it's an amazing design.
 
Re: Residences at Kensington

The reason the MassArt dorm building and Spaulding Rehab are nice are because they were built for nonprofit institutions that had priorities other than turning a quick profit.

Unfortunately, none of these institutions is going to build anything large or central enough to take attention away from all the "background buildings" crowding the skyline. And Boston doesn't attract the Qatari and Russian investors crazy enough to build some kind of speculative Shard-like monument.
 
Re: Residences at Kensington

czsz said:
There are tons of really terrible, shitty towers erected monthly in NYC. The difference is that there are a few, large, standout high-quality projects (particularly in places where people look at and care about the skyline) that divert your attention from the rest.
Click to expand...

Well New York is rather unique in the United States as far having no political qualms about building up, and having no trouble finding the capital to do so.

Arborway said:
You'll find cheap architecture everywhere, but Boston goes the extra step of actively discouraging anything that isn't a "background building". Anything that might draw attention from something like a patch of grass is too much for the city.

Which sets the bar so low you might as well not even try.
Click to expand...

So that's the culture within the BRA? No note-worthy projects? I can see the frustration of architecture-watchers around here then...

Between the BRA and the NIMBYs, it seems like developers are too scared of wasting their time and money to risk going big in Boston.

Still though, besides NYC, what cities in the States are currently seeing impressive build-ups of their skylines/great new architecture compared to the sort of quality in Boston?
 
Re: Residences at Kensington

BussesAin'tTrains said:
Well New York is rather unique in the United States as far having no political qualms about building up, and having no trouble finding the capital to do so.



So that's the culture within the BRA? No note-worthy projects? I can see the frustration of architecture-watchers around here then...

Between the BRA and the NIMBYs, it seems like developers are too scared of wasting their time and money to risk going big in Boston.

Still though, besides NYC, what cities in the States are currently seeing impressive build-ups of their skylines/great new architecture compared to the sort of quality in Boston?
Click to expand...

Oh I don't know...

Chicago
San Francisco
Philadelphia
Miami
Seattle
Atlanta
Charlotte

Just go on wikipedia, look for the link for list of tallest buildings for each one, scan the list for towers built within the last 5 years, and compare it to the crap we built in the last half decade. Note that the last time Boston built a tower over 400ft was back in 2004. Russia Wharf is probably the only saving grace in the city.
 
Re: Residences at Kensington

Well buildings completed in 2008 and 2009 were started pre-recession, so I wouldn't consider those "current" as far as economic conditions are concerned. You're right, all those cities listed took part the building boom in the mid/late 2000s (as far as height is concerned) and Boston largely did not. I'm also asking about quality of materials besides height. One of the big complaints I hear about Boston is the materials used. Is this more a function of local regulations and politics, or a general issue with developers these days?
 
Re: Residences at Kensington

BussesAin'tTrains said:
Well buildings completed in 2008 and 2009 were started pre-recession, so I wouldn't consider those "current" as far as economic conditions are concerned. You're right, all those cities listed took part the building boom in the mid/late 2000s (as far as height is concerned) and Boston largely did not. I'm also asking about quality of materials besides height. One of the big complaints I hear about Boston is the materials used. Is this more a function of local regulations and politics, or a general issue with developers these days?
Click to expand...

Again look at the list and look at the materials they use for those towers compared to our shoddy pre-cast alucobond materials that we use.

I'll admit that we somehow managed to construct MP III, MassArt Tower, LM, and the two new Fan Pier towers that are somewhat of better quality. The rest are just plain bad.
 
Re: Residences at Kensington

Ok, but WHY is the question? Is it a local problem with Boston, or developers? Both? Regulations can restrict height and usage, but why should developers value-engineer with sub-par materials?
 
Re: Residences at Kensington

BussesAin'tTrains said:
Ok, but WHY is the question? Is it a local problem with Boston, or developers? Both? Regulations can restrict height and usage, but why should developers value-engineer with sub-par materials?
Click to expand...

BECAUSE, height restriction means a cap on revenue which means something has to be cut and in Boston's case, quality. Or they turn it into a fat box, i.e. Fan Pier. Furthermore, prolonged fights with activists tends to cost developers mucho dinero.
 
Re: Residences at Kensington

I thought at least the few bottom stories, as "illustrated" in the plans would be darker, and they are. But that stuff covering them like tissue paper! What an insult to the China Trade next door! I'll be pinching my nose whenever I go past this building because of those first stories and the street scape. What a shame.
 
Re: Residences at Kensington

BussesAin'tTrains said:
Ok, but WHY is the question? Is it a local problem with Boston, or developers? Both? Regulations can restrict height and usage, but why should developers value-engineer with sub-par materials?
Click to expand...

KentXie did a good job of summing it up. For these buildings to be profitable and of high quality there needs to be a certain amount of space...so when there's a demand to cut the building in height, the design quality of the building will always suffer whether it be in the form of a value-engineered design, a chode-like box, or a value-engineered chode-like box.

We all look at cities like Houston and say "why the hell would we want to be like them?" and I whole-heartedly agree...but why wouldn't we want to have the same quality of skyscrapers as a city like Chicago? We're obviously a much different style than Chicago and we're never going to have a skyline like them--which isn't a bad thing--but we should try to take some tips from them in how they go about building tall buildings. They more/less don't care about height but encourage better design...and they get it.
 
Re: Residences at Kensington

If there is one city we should truly be trying to emulate, it's London. The heights, designs, and materials used on their new buildings show a courage and commitment that has gone by the wayside in Boston.

The Leadenhall is going to be the best new tower of 2013. The glass cladding is shown on previous pages. It's unbelievable. http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=100543240#post100543240
 
Re: Residences at Kensington

London is the capital, largest, wealthiest and most dominate city in the UK by a wide margin. Boston is maybe the 8th or 9th most important city in the US.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top