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.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.
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...).The Sudbury similarly fills a gap that diminishes the JFK's overall negative impact.
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.
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.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.