The Sudbury (Bulfinch Crossing Residential Tower) | 50 Sudbury St | GCG Phase I | Gov't Center

Beeline -- some nice close-ups
It's really looking as if this part of Bulfinch will be in its final stages before much of anything happens on the State Street Building
 
It's actually kind of sad to think that a lot of these great views of the tower from the North Station area and other points north will be obscured so soon! With that said I would rather have that State Street Tower ASAP than the unimpeded view of this. That's the building that will tie the whole area together and ultimately make it feel like a true extension of the downtown skyline.
 
^^Yes. With its reduced size & street wall + the glass office tower + mixed use residential/hotel/retail complex + THIS/ all nearly smothering it--the overall impression of the garage will be far less egregious than before, and more urban. Not "proper" in a lexicon of 2010~20's planning, but sown into the fabric of the Downtown area in a far less unnatural way. The cladding of 50 Sudbury not only looks good, but functions as go between linking a modern tower to the incredible ugliness of the old Garage – (a bargain). i never realized the choice of materials would be used in quite such a way, (or if others did) when it first appeared.

Before the project is done, it might challenge the Hub on Causeway as our favorite improvement/s for Boston in the cycle.
*2 highrise projects receiving praise > (3) 200m skyscrapers
!!
 
Last edited:
I definitely like that we are adding some glass towers, but not too many. A good skyline does need a few, but too many gets old fast. I think the skyline is growing in a very natural way while keeping a diversity of colors materials and textures.
 
AC50F966-B3DD-4486-BEF8-F03B10468882.jpeg
78642ADB-B0C1-4C4B-B6D8-A6356968E3FC.jpeg
 
Proportions that make a highrise look better/taller, in Boston?
62ebwq3n_400x400.jpg


The materials have grown on me and this will look even better paired with its all glass, office counterpart.
 
this is one that absolutely shines in person, rather than in pix (although it's none too shabby in photos, either).
 
That angle shot: 50 Sudbury makes the JFK towers actually look good--the same way
the Pru & 1 Dalton now (together) make R2D2 look (almost) good in the neighborjhood.
Never envisioned any such thing was possible.
 
odurandina said:
That angle shot: 50 Sudbury makes the JFK towers actually look good--the same way
the Pru & 1 Dalton now (together) make R2D2 look (almost) good in the neighborjhood.
Never envisioned any such thing was possible.
Click to expand...

We keep seeing this -- a building gets better just from the surrounding neighborhood improving. I still don't like the Tip O'Neil building, but it is much less offensive now that the street wall is completed by Hub on Causeway. The Sudbury similarly fills a gap that diminishes the JFK's overall negative impact.
 
chrisbrat said:
Yes, the second best building in the city (admittedly, a subjective list) and one that people literally travel here to see (not subjective. fact) sure has a "negative impact" (eyeroll...).
Click to expand...

This is a list that put City Hall as the #1 best building the city. So, yeah, "eyeroll" is 100% appropriate when it comes to this list.

By the way, the #5 building on that list is now slated for demolition. The Boston Landmarks Commission calls it one of the "most notable commercial buildings of the early 20th century." Too bad they didn't do more to try saving it.
 
well i acknowledged it (and any qualitative list of art) is subjective, but to dismiss a gropius masterwork as "negative impact" is pretty rigoddamnstupid imho.
 
I like the JFK Building myself, but I also coincidentally went through that same list this week and found the order of many of the buildings to be arbitrary and ridiculous.

On another note, I concur with the way that certain new buildings can make existing buildings seem better, or at least fit in better with the neighborhood. A key example IMO is Atlantic Wharf, which provided the necessary step-down to the Intercontinental Hotel from the Fed. I thought the hotel stuck out like a sore thumb (a "cool" sore thumb but still didn't seem right) when it was first built. It now blends in 100x better with the Atlantic Wharf tower next door.

Regarding this tower here, it actually helps the JFK/Saltonstall/McCormick/Courthouse cluster blend in better to downtown from a skyline perspective. It used to just kind of trail off with these 4 buildings, but now it's all part of one (almost) continuation out to North Station.
 
chrisbrat said:
well i acknowledged it (and any qualitative list of art) is subjective, but to dismiss a gropius masterwork as "negative impact" is pretty rigoddamnstupid imho.
Click to expand...
There's no need for the ad hominem. You were in a better place when you tried to argue that a clearly flawed list of "best buildings" was germane to the discussion or that the fact the building is well visited (well of course, I mean it is a place where people obtain services, duh it's well visited). Once you went to calling my opinion god damn stupid, you lost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top