Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

This isn't a rant, well ....maybe it is a bit, but it's deserved !! WOW !!!!!

I know architecture is subjective ... and everyone can be a critic, but this is literally the ugliest building I have ever seen !!!

How can a project of this size and cost end up like this?

It's like each member of the team seems to be fixated on a certain element/design idea, and they're all jamming them in, regardless if they go together or not.

I'm also wondering if they are so caught up with this thing, that they're seeing the trees, but not the forest ? They need to step away completely for a few weeks, gets some fresh eye's and look at it again.

I've never criticized Boston, Handel or Millennium Partners, for the most part I think they all do great work, but how can they not see how bad this thing is !!!

Even if you have to live with new massing, tone the thing down.. it's just way to busy with to much going on !!!!!! And.... tone it down big time !!!

Making it simple/clean, doesn't mean making it ugly !!!
 
Last edited:
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

One thing I would like to see changed is the way the wavy pattern shifts every 5-6 floors. It might look cleaner and more vertical if it didn't shift at all. It would be hard to look worse.

The different ways the haphazard glass reflects the sun might end up being a little too bananas.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

This isn't a rant, well ....maybe it is a bit, but it's deserved !! WOW !!!!!

I know architecture is subjective ... and everyone can be a critic, but this is literally the ugliest building I have ever seen !!!

How can a project of this size and cost end up like this?

It's like each member of the team seems to be fixated on a certain element/design idea, and they're all jamming them in, regardless if they go together or not.

I'm also wondering if they are so caught up with this thing, that they're seeing the trees, but not the forest ? They need to step away completely for a few weeks, gets some fresh eye's and look at it again.

I've never criticized Boston, Handel or Millennium Partners, for the most part I think they all do great work, but how can they not see how bad this thing is !!!

Even if you have to live with new massing, tone the thing down.. it's just way to busy with to much going on !!!!!! And.... tone it down big time !!!

Making it simple/clean, doesn't mean making it ugly !!!

i agree wholeheartedly. i recognize i'm repeating myself, but this is the ugliest design i've ever seen anywhere and it will NOT be harmless filler. if built as currently designed it will ruin the skyline and take boston down many notches. this is an embarrassment and an insult. if the city lets this steaming pile of dogshit get built as-is then (again, i'm repeating myself) it'll be the worst disaster since razing the west end/scollay square. i've never, ever seen a more disgustingly gross building proposal. if this is what's stuck with as the final design i wish we could've kept the condemned garage. this will ruin boston.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

i agree wholeheartedly. i recognize i'm repeating myself, but this is the ugliest design i've ever seen anywhere and it will NOT be harmless filler. if built as currently designed it will ruin the skyline and take boston down many notches. this is an embarrassment and an insult. if the city lets this steaming pile of dogshit get built as-is then (again, i'm repeating myself) it'll be the worst disaster since razing the west end/scollay square. i've never, ever seen a more disgustingly gross building proposal. if this is what's stuck with as the final design i wish we could've kept the condemned garage. this will ruin boston.

I don’t particularly like the design either, but this and several other comments are way over the top. If this is really the ugliest design you’ve seen anywhere, you haven’t been looking around all that much. This will ruin Boston? Please the level of hyperbole regarding this design is ridiculous.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

I don’t particularly like the design either, but this and several other comments are way over the top. This will ruin Boston? Please the level of hyperbole regarding this design is ridiculous.

Not sure the extreme angst is bluster. Accordia at 702', South Station Tower at 677' and 1 Bromfield at 709' would have accomplished the near undoing of the ugly, brown fatness. The 3 skyscrapers would have had a wonderful balancing effect to make the ugly fat, 70's buildings look far better.

This thing effectively ends any hope of that; The current render for 115 Winthrop Sq spins its wide side twice (2 axes). There will be no escape from its massive fatness from any vantage point in the City.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/21/realestate/park-avenue-interrupted.html

Park Avenue, Interrupted

By CHRISTOPHER GRAY DEC. 19, 2014

One of the great preservation battles from the time before the New York Landmarks Preservation Commission was not about architecture at all, but about the views consumed by the Pan Am Building of 1963. The giant, defiantly modern octagonal tower blocked the view from upper Park Avenue past the filigree of the 1929 tower-topped New York Central Building at 46th Street. Now a new building is changing the Park Avenue skyline, the developer Harry Macklowe’s perfectly square apartment tower at 56th Street.

The view south on Park Avenue in the 1870s was of the open end of the huge train shed behind Grand Central, a vast, iron-arched thing that looked like a European train shed. By 1911, by which time the railroad had put its tracks underground and demolished the train shed, the north end of the new Grand Central was a plain-vanilla limestone facade, clearly anticipating development to the north.

That came in 1929, with the completion of the New York Central Building, now the Helmsley Building, at the foot of Park between East 45th and 46th Streets. Designed, as was the station, by Warren & Wetmore and now a beloved landmark, it was not particularly well received. In 1928, Harry F. Cunningham wrote in The American Yearbook that the lacy 34-story tower, 560 feet high, rejected modernism so thoroughly “it marks one of the greatest steps in the present backward tendency shown in American Architecture.”

Not much was said about the new tower’s profile along the otherwise low-rise skyline. In 1927 Vanity Fair noted noncommittally that once completed, it would “entirely shut off the long familiar view of Grand Central Terminal.” Two years later, the magazine Architecture and Building, in a long review of the building, remarked on “the beautiful tower closing the vista of this broad Avenue in an imposing way.” Otherwise, the new bulbous silhouette did not attract much attention at the time of construction.

By the 1950s the idea of eclipsing Grand Central was in the air, and among the proposals was to replace the back of the terminal from 44th to 45th Street with a tall rectangular structure next to the New York Central Building, which was renamed the New York General Building around 1960. Among the proposals for what became the Pan Am Building was one preserving the view to the south from upper Park Avenue. But final revisions reoriented the building so as to block even a slim view to the south.

The Pan Am Building, now the MetLife Building, was completed in 1963. The enormous office tower was the subject of one of the biggest and most bitter fights over a construction project in New York history, possibly greater than the battle over the demolition of Penn Station. Critics charged that the building would attract crowds and traffic, and planners and architects who might have been afraid to defend the old-fashioned Penn Station jumped into the discussion.

The new beanstalk 432 Park Avenue; the Pan Am Building, now MetLife, is in the distance. Credit Victor J. Blue for The New York Times
Almost all went after the Pan Am Building because of its size and its height. But in 1962, The New Republic weighed in on its effect on the view, describing it as a “seven-league monster,” which, from the uptown side, “seems to take sadistic pleasure in dwarfing the rather cute gilded spire” of the Helmsley Building.

The writer, a fan of the modern architecture that had taken over Park Avenue below 57th Street, complained that “the vista is blocked; this is particularly sad for upper Park Avenue which, since the last war, has turned into the most exciting metropolitan thoroughfare modern architecture has yet created.”

But people become accustomed to things. For instance, Nathan Silver lamented the views blocked by the Pan Am Building in his 1967 book “Lost New York,” but emailed me the other day to say that, upon reflection, it “doesn’t louse up any views, particularly of the New York Central Building, which looks O.K. against it.”

Although Mr. Macklowe’s new 96-story apartment house at Park and 56th doesn’t block either the MetLife or Helmsley Buildings, its skinny shape is visible from the boroughs — and even neighboring states. Perhaps because the thing is so stunningly new and different, and still unfinished, it’s a little early for extended reviews by professional critics.

One exception is Aaron Betsky, writing in the magazine Architect in October. He likes it, even saying that although it oozes privilege and wealth, “it does so with an elegance, borne out of its simplicity as much as its height, that make it clear that it is still possible to make a beautiful skyscraper.”

On real estate and architecture blogs, opinion is not uniform, although a sizable number invoke the building as a vulgar gesture. That has some validity, but the sticking-up-in-the-middle quality of the building is also somehow reassuring, as were the World Trade Center towers, which, in their naked simplicity, could be seen for miles.

I see the Macklowe building down Park when I step out my front door at East 89th. In the morning, the pure square building, with its huge square windows, does have a Brutalist cast, but it also has a haunting aspect, like a painting by Giorgio de Chirico. Night is my favorite time, the deep blue of the protective film on the window glass giving the building a lonely, melancholy aspect, as if it were the only one of its type on Park Avenue. Which, for the moment, it is.
 
Last edited:
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

I happen to like some of those 70's buildings, and I think a lot of others do, too.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

I happen to like some of those 70's buildings, and I think a lot of others do, too.

Yeah. Simply breathtaking.

Boston_Skyline_from_Memorial_Drive_Cambridge_6D2B1783.jpg
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

i mean, as far as skyscrapers and high-rises built in the '70s there are some gems -- JHT (obviously), Fed Reserve, 60 State St. -- and I even have some love for 28 State, One Boston Place, and the preggo building.

But stuff like One Beacon and One Federal -- they're big enough and Boston's downtown is small enough that buildings like that do not just "blend in to the background," but rather they largely define the skyline. 115 Winthrop is a great opportunity to further offer counterpoint to the stubby, brown aesthetic (just like MT did) and to squander that would be a truly shameful act.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

This is an insane post.

That area is very hidden. So I don't believe it would ruin Boston.
I'm not sure how it will look in the skyline.

If they build the new proposal it will definitely not fit into the downtown landscape of Boston.

I just don't understand the city, BRA logic for the entire bidding process for Winthrop garage. Why even have all those developers propose a bidding process only to take the high bidder and let him not build what he proposed.

Who are city representatives working on these contracts?
The city only has a few sites more to develop in the downtown core of the city.

WHY----I would rather them building something very conservative at this point on this site if they couldn't pull off the original proposal.

WE GOT HOODWINKED on this site
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

That area is very hidden. So I don't believe it would ruin Boston.
I'm not sure how it will look in the skyline.

If they build the new proposal it will definitely not fit into the downtown landscape of Boston.

I just don't understand the city, BRA logic for the entire bidding process for Winthrop garage. Why even have all those developers propose a bidding process only to take the high bidder and let him not build what he proposed.

Who are city representatives working on these contracts?
The city only has a few sites more to develop in the downtown core of the city.

WHY----I would rather them building something very conservative at this point on this site if they couldn't pull off the original proposal.

WE GOT HOODWINKED on this site

I 100% agree with you. But you keep stating this over and over.

We get it dude.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

I'm a little confused as to what people are looking for. If its simply a 70 foot shorter (per FAA rules) version of the original design I get that and would prefer it too. However, that wasn't exactly iconic in its own right. The notion that the city should piss away 153M bucks to get a slightly more appealing design smacks in the face of reality. You just don't do that or you should be run out of town by taxpayers with torches and pitchforks. The height limits, NIMBY payoffs, and small lot sizes are always going to dictate what the buildings look like downtown. If you want iconic you'll need to look at places like Back Bay and the West End where FAA limits and in some cases shadow concerns aren't as prevalent.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Winning bidder should have paid about $70~90M

and built a considerably more slender tower.



 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Winning bidder should have paid about $70~90M

and built a considerably more slender tower.

Again with that thing called "reality". The city is going to piss away 80M bucks to build a slightly different version of MT in downtown crossing, only a few blocks away? That is fiscal malpractice. The main reason this got built as high as FAA limits and overcame NIMBY's, shadow police, the legislature, Fossil Bill Galvin, etc is because of the amount the developer ponied up. Less money = less chance of anything getting build above 400 feet.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Again with that thing called "reality". The city is going to piss away 80M bucks to build a slightly different version of MT in downtown crossing, only a few blocks away? That is fiscal malpractice. The main reason this got built as high as FAA limits and overcame NIMBY's, shadow police, the legislature, Fossil Bill Galvin, etc is because of the amount the developer ponied up. Less money = less chance of anything getting build above 400 feet.

Not to mention its just another filler tower. Wasting money to build a slender tower surrounded by other towers is kind of pointless.

i agree wholeheartedly. i recognize i'm repeating myself, but this is the ugliest design i've ever seen anywhere and it will NOT be harmless filler. if built as currently designed it will ruin the skyline and take boston down many notches. this is an embarrassment and an insult. if the city lets this steaming pile of dogshit get built as-is then (again, i'm repeating myself) it'll be the worst disaster since razing the west end/scollay square. i've never, ever seen a more disgustingly gross building proposal. if this is what's stuck with as the final design i wish we could've kept the condemned garage. this will ruin boston.

We need an @ShitArchBostonSays Twitter account.

Anywho the area needs more residential density. Get it built.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

Not to mention its just another filler tower. Wasting money to build a slender tower surrounded by other towers is kind of pointless.



We need an @ShitArchBostonSays Twitter account.

Anywho the area needs more residential density. Get it built.

Yup. I get where NIMBY's are coming from because they're brainless trolls, but beyond that it astounds me how people apply zero logic to the financial windfall the city will reap for building a tower where other towers are. Municipal budgeting isn't easy with all the competing priorities. You'd like to give more money for the schools, police, affordable housing, fixing the roads, etc. Guess what - that all costs money. Building this building as proposed is going to benefit a lot of people unrelated to the actual project via the infusion of extra $$$ to the city's budget.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

They could you know, kept the facade consistent or cohesive instead of a jarring mash of what looks like three separate buildings. That wouldn't require them to sacrifice revenue.

But you keep doing you, which is make up lame excuses for architects' failure to make an effort to come up with a decent design. That's what the city of Boston have been doing for years and it shows.
 
Re: 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

It's absolutely fine to take issue with my hyperbole. I do "get" that if this goes up as currently proposed it won't *really* "ruin Boston."

Doesn't change the fact that this is a terribly unfair bait-and-switch in so many regards. Someone pointed out that the original design wasn't that great -- and I agree. It just wasn't this hideous.

Many "must-have" elements as outlined by the city have been ignored completely.

Any tower on this parcel was to have a public observation deck. Where's that?

This was repeatedly designated by the city as a spot where whatever gets built must be iconic. Iconic is the Oriental Pearl Tower, Empire State Building, Transamerica Pyramid, 30 St. Mary Axe. Can anyone here claim, with a straight face, that this thing is going to be "iconic"?

So, yeah: I was exaggerating for effect. But not all that much. I think the comparison to the PanAm/MetLife building is apt. Did that "ruin" NYC? No, but it sure fucked up that general area and -- as already stated -- to screw up a few blocks in Manhattan is proportionately way less of a crime than to do so in Boston, seeing as the Financial district is like 1/100th the size of Manhattan.

This will be a big deal, in a negative way, if no changes are made. And as just noted (reasonably), you could still reap the same profits with a more cohesive design.
 

Back
Top