The Kensington | 665 Washington Street | Downtown

Re: Residences at Kensington

Big? More like a naked man swimming from snapping turtles in a cold pond.
 
Re: Residences at Kensington

The smell of baked bread? Lost to the use of "she" to denote a building? A small penis in cold water? All this because some old run-down porn palace was scrapped off Washington St. and in it's place rose "a sad pathetic nearly unbearable reality"? We are now to be cordoned off and held to ridicule if you express a positive opinion on a n y t h i n g? What has happened to this place? It is now all about being the most biting or clever. To discuss and give space to all points of view has been overturned by the primping, posing, pin-head set? Take solace people in the fact that the City of Boston and this humbled though original forum member will sail on undeterred. Should you find no relief in this there is always Celexa!
 
Re: Residences at Kensington

A nice dose of perspective Pdoc.
But if you wish the posts focused more on objective architectural opinion ... fire away. What's positive about this building beyond the fact that it replaced a lesser use and adds some density? Shouldn't that be the MINIMUM criteria for anything being built in any healthy city?
 
Re: Residences at Kensington

The density is great, the building and it's purpose an improvement over the old. New people living downtown can't hurt. But that can not be voiced here. I was more concerned with the tone and direction this forum has taken. I use to come here to escape explore and learn. Now I find myself staying away, turned off by the crowd and it's positions. Funny it is this very feeling of lose that has spurred me to start posting again.
 
Re: Residences at Kensington

I need to hear your POV, pdoc....please post. I tire also of the snarkiness at times, sometimes it's funny, sometimes annoying...but keep posting! This building may not hold a candle to some of the dramatic NYC scrapers being built, but I agree that the population density it will provide can only improve the general area, esp. the edges of Chinatown and Kneeland St. I did notice in the rain the whitish cladding took on a creamy hue. I would like to think we could also express the positive we see in buildings, esp. those being erected in this very protracted recession (which I predicted would take 10 years to come out of... we're halfway there...there's still much more to come when the Fed. raises rates).
 
Re: Residences at Kensington

Responding to pdoc816 comment "The density is great, the building and it's purpose an improvement over the old."

One of the issues I have about the redevelopment of the combat zone over the past 15 or 20 years is that the city seems to have encouraged/ condoned the demolition of historic commercial buildings merely because their current use was xxx orientated. I think wiping out buildings due to the current use is poor policy, especially, when the porno bookstores and theaters were in decline anyway due to porn on the internet.

Don't get me wrong, I think additional density helps here and elsewhere in downtown Boston. However, although this neighborhood is probably cleaner, safer and busier now compared to 20 years ago, it has lost aesthetic appeal IMO.
 
Re: Residences at Kensington

The Gayety/Publix was never a porn theatre. It was a grindhouse, showing cheap second- and third-run double features.
 
Re: Residences at Kensington

Ron your right. I was thinking of the buildings cleared for the Archstone building. However, in regard to the Gayety demolition, I recall the redevelopment was proposed as a package to take by eminent domain and demolish the glass slipper strip club. I think the glass slipper brought suit to try to prevent the destruction of the Gayety. I'm fuzzy what happened next - if the Glass Slipper moved or whether the glass slipper was dropped from the Kensington development site. Anyway, the Gayety may have fallen victim indirectly as a result of a push to clear the combat zone of sex related businesses.
 
Re: Residences at Kensington

The Glass Slipper building was demolished for the Kensington project, but the Glass Slipper business then moved across Lagrange Street next to Centerfolds, where it still is today.
 
Re: Residences at Kensington

Thanks for filling in the details. I think elements of the Chinatown community were on board with razing buildings in the combat zone in order to rid it of sex related business. The problem with this strategy was two fold, loss of historic buildings, which they may or may not have cared about, and the fact that the strip club just moved. It's like that whack a mole game, tear down a building and the strip club popped up elsewhere. The chinatown community probably wasn't thrilled with resiliance of the glass slipper.
 
Re: Residences at Kensington

pdoc816 said:
The density is great, the building and it's purpose an improvement over the old. New people living downtown can't hurt. But that can not be voiced here. I was more concerned with the tone and direction this forum has taken. I use to come here to escape explore and learn. Now I find myself staying away, turned off by the crowd and it's positions. Funny it is this very feeling of lose that has spurred me to start posting again.
Click to expand...

I think one of the reasons you don't hear these opinions expressed very often is that we take them for granted. Of course density is good. Of course more people are good. I don't think you'd find many here who disagree; For the most part, developers and city planners in Boston seem to agree, too, and there doesn't seem to be much need for outrage against tearing down buildings for parking lots or expressways anymore. Given all of that, it's exhausting to keep repeating these mantras ("density good, cars bad") amongst ourselves. It's a caveat that's unnecessary here.

The more contentious topics are the costs in aesthetics and scale that come from poorly-executed buildings, even if they are, to some degree, meeting some of our requirements for an improving city. That's why discussion is so "negative" and focused on these critiques - we've moved on from ensuring the city isn't merely non-autocentric to hoping it can do so without trashing its existing historic fabric or crowding the skyline with fat eyesores.
 
Re: Residences at Kensington

Well I must admit the responses I've received this morning have all been a pleasant surprise. I for one feel that we have a great bunch of guys all joined together by our love for what I know to be the best city in this country. The photography alone speaks to it's fine pool of talent. For me the glass is always half full just because it's Boston. Now if only I could get that signature tower built downtown!....and some middle-class housing this side of New Hampshire.
 
Re: Residences at Kensington

When I first read your posts I thought you were shilling for the developer. Sorry I drew the wrong conclusion.

This building's form is poor, a repetition of the Archstone saddlebag gimmick of trying to make one poorly conceived shape look like two mediocre ones. The detailing is weak. The quality of the materials is bargain basement.

I walk by it almost every day; perhaps it looks better in photos, but in the neighborhood it looks very poor indeed. As for the impact on the skyline about which you enthused, I'd put it in the same category of Tremont on the Common...clutter at best.

Perhaps its beauty is in the eye of the investor, as a profit center. But as for the architecture, like Bart Simpson once said, until now I didn't know it was possible for something to suck and blow at the same time.
 
Re: Residences at Kensington

tobyjug said:
As for the impact on the skyline about which you enthused, I'd put it in the same category of Tremont on the Common...clutter at best.
Click to expand...

As uninspired as this building is, comparing it to Tremont on the Common feels overly harsh. That's the biggest piece of shit-garbage in the city.

Also, the Kensington WILL have a greater impact than that. It actually plugs a hole in the skyline (albeit fairly poorly) and will help further bridge the gap between the financial district and back bay skylines. All ToC does is block superior buildings from being seen from the common (and partially block them from the river).

If anything, I would compare the skyline impact to something like the Sheraton.
 
Re: Residences at Kensington

DZH22 said:
If anything, I would compare the skyline impact to something like the Sheraton.
Click to expand...

Faint praise indeed. Your comparison is apt, but both comparisons put the building in its proper peer grouping, an association that is blush worthy, not gush worthy!
 
Re: Residences at Kensington

Atleast were not getting more of these.

EQUITYbostononepost.jpg


or this

kveus7901b.jpg
 
Re: Residences at Kensington

I actually really like the Devonshire, but maybe because I'm just old enough to remember when that style seemed sleek and futuristic.
 
Re: Residences at Kensington

Does anyone recall where the name of this building came from? I don't think it's the name of any street that was ever in this neighborhood.
 
Re: Residences at Kensington

The Post Office Square building pictured has always seemed nasty.

Re: the Devonshire: I assume its named after Devonshire Street, on which it sits. I kind of like the Devonshire, although the aluminum foil covering seems to dent pretty easily at street level. A redo of the materials on floors one thru five would help. Used to belong to the Sky Club on the top floors. The enclosed roof top swimming pool and jacuzzi were really nice at sunset.

Perhaps you meant "Kensington"? I guess "Gaiety Towers" had too much of a niche appeal.
 
Re: Residences at Kensington

I was referring to Kensington, which is the topic of this thread. Maybe it's named after a Mr. Kensington who owns it, but I have my doubts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top