W Hotel | 100 Stuart St | Theater District

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: W Hotel

The one on the SE X- pressway is a Family Food Bank facilities,waste of a good site IMO
Click to expand...

That's right next to southbay, not really a great location if you ask me
 
Re: W Hotel

Friggin Ben Affleck and Matt Damon tearing down that building... douchebags.
 
Re: W Hotel

Does anyone know how many floors there are to go with this project? It hasn?t topped out yet ? has it??
 
Re: W Hotel

This isn't a landscraper, It's too thin. The building across the street, the State Transportation Center, is a landscraper.
 
Re: W Hotel

vanshnookenraggen said:
The building across the street, the State Transportation Center, is a landscraper.
Click to expand...
It is.

vanshnookenraggen said:
This isn't a landscraper, It's too thin.
Click to expand...
If it's thin, it's OK that it goes on largely unmodulated for a block? When you're on the sidewalk beside it, do you sense that it's thin? :cool:

(Should Drucker just make his Arlington Street building thin? Would that do it?) ;)

van, check out the Transportation Building in a satellite photo; it's pretty thin except at the knuckle. :)

But you're right: it thinks thick.



Those balconies!
 
Re: W Hotel

I liked what KMP said!! Oh wait, that was deleted because some people are too sensitive. Down with censorship!
 
Re: W Hotel

Here is an idea of what The W is going to look like on Stuart St. In Rawn's original design the facade was supposed to zig-zag to help visually break down this, IMO, oppressively monolithic facade. The zig-zag is missing from the final design, likely a victim of value engineering.

w.jpg


I wouldnt exactly call this a groundscraper, but it is a pretty badly proportioned tower--at least on the Stuart St side. Like most of the towers going up in Boston today (45 Province, Filenes) this building has one thin, elegant axis and one stubby, awkward axis. Twenty years ago all sides would have been fat and stumpy; maybe in twenty more we'll start getting towers that are elegantly proportioned on all sides.
 
Re: W Hotel

It might not be a landscraper, but it certainly has fat ankles.
 
Re: W Hotel

Four more stories (~64') and it would be a golden rectangle.
 
Re: W Hotel

how else would you design it? I mean, it was a rectangular parcel.. They're trying to squeeze everything they can out of it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top