Winthrop Center | 115 Winthrop Square | Financial District

This one and MT, and SST are going to finally give us a decent sized Downtown skyline.
(SST what the ++++ is the holdup)?

Beton Brut said:
And while were on the topic, are you capable of discourse that hovers ever so slightly above insult and character assassination? Just curious...
Click to expand...

Fuckin A bubba!! We gotta teach these snowflakes who hurl endless insults to take a few back in their sandboxes without getting all their hurty feelers on.

Beton Brut said:
Not a world I spend much time in, to be honest. In the broader sense, the urban landscape isn't a back drop. In the world I inhabit, it's the dynamic habitat for an ever-evolving society. I've no problem with it being photogenic, but I also want it to be equitable, adaptable, and authentic.
Click to expand...

Great post. Now, how about the tall part of Boston gaining some Urban Breadth to take it's place next to the (truly brutal) tower spoiling the Church of Christ Scientist site? How does a delicious bouquet of mixed height 450~600' and urban density worthy of Back Bay at the Midtown Hotel row sound to you, Sir? :)
 
Beton Brut said:
In the world I inhabit, it's the dynamic habitat for an ever-evolving society. I've no problem with it being photogenic, but I also want it to be equitable, adaptable, and authentic.
Click to expand...

Well said, can you expand on the authenticity aspect? How does a new building/urban area in 201x/2019/202x gain authenticity? I remember there was a bit of discussion on this several months ago about Assembly.
 
Extracted from this post in the Assembly thread:

Beton Brut said:
Speaking urbanistically, "authenticity" is derived of an organic developmental process (i.e. the Back Bay, the South End, Davis Square). It's the confluence of planned and unplanned events over an extended timescale. It's an evolutionary, not a revolutionary process. Authenticity cannot be planned, because it's an acquired attribute - you don't take your boots out of the box with mud already on them. Architects, planners, and policy-makers can only imagine how a development of this scale will be used, but residents, visitors, and time will determine what it "means."
Click to expand...

Like statler, I don't know how to craft authenticity in this day and age, but I can recognize it.
 
DowntownDave said:
This, I imagine?

KiCUL0t.jpg


From Inventing the Charles River, pg. 340. The book talks about this idea (all buildings) being mentioned and discussed in the Globe amongst other possibilities. They've even gotten rid of that crummy Cross st. parking lot in the image.
Click to expand...



^My lord that render shows a terrible plan. They would have effectively privatized most of the new open space by confining it to private courtyards.
 
^^ A lot of that land was private before being taken by the state in the 40's/50's.
 
Beton Brut said:
Extracted from this post in the Assembly thread:



Like statler, I don't know how to craft authenticity in this day and age, but I can recognize it.
Click to expand...

Admittedly guessing (and it was a fun thought exercise), and similar to BB's sentiments:
I don't think you can have authenticity in a building created in a vacuum. I agree authenticity is likely a function of the interplay between buildings and their contexts/environments, in ecosystems where the different stakeholders are at harmony with each other (e.g., developers, residents, users/customers have some symbiosis and mutuality).

I would further postulate that the conditions for this are more likely when the developer(s)/proponent(s) have skin-in-the-game (e.g., are residents/users as well as developer; or, have stake in the community beyond mere investment transactions).

I can think of countless owner-operator examples where someone spent money rehabbing/renovating an existing structure for their own use...and the result felt authentic. But it is harder to think of brand-new construction examples, but let me try:

I would argue that District Hall in the Seaport is actually authentic, as it was purpose-built for/by those who wanted an innovator's workspace; its design is highly functional and not falsely embellished nor "optimized" for a super-quick ROI (but at the same time, is is not "expensive"). I might also argue that the new Liberty Mutual tower is authentic, as was the 200 Clarendon JHT and the Pru.

I guess my (working) theory is that structures purpose-built by proponents with skin-in-the game lend themselves toward this...
 
As someone who crosses the Greenway on a daily basis, a lot of the green space, especially on and adjacent the blocks with ramps, feel like a gimme - at best I'm still crossing a gussied up highway.

My concern there is echoed with the park planned here. The street wall is certainly closer here than at the Greenway, so I don't think the square will end up feeling as 'naked' as parts of the Greenway.

As for 'authenticity', I agree with this ^

With the addition/renovation of The Exchange at the Bank of America building and 225 Franklin's lobby renovation to include Intelligentsia Coffee (and more recently a perplexing mix of Instagram-worthy furniture), I feel like there's a real opportunity for this space to have a similar feel of activity... during the business day. Unless they go out of their way to cater to nonprofits to use the space on weekends and have a healthy program of art and activities during the day, it'll feel just as empty on the weekends. Get Venture Cafe to run it! Either way, I think we have some good recent examples of contemporary 'authentic' spaces and I'm not too worried about 'The Great Hall' if it can get food stalls to stay open on weekends with at least limited hours and keep the space active in off-hours.

My bigger worry is how/whether they're able to deal tastefully with folks dealing with homelessness in the winter. It's something I've seen the Starbucks on Winter Street have to deal with this year as they're ushered out of the shelters during the day for cleaning. I think this speaks to a bigger issue with downtown needing a space for these folks to access warmth, services, and personal hygiene during the day.
 
bigpicture7 said:
I guess my (working) theory is that structures purpose-built by proponents with skin-in-the game lend themselves toward this...
Click to expand...

Your theory is a good one, and I'd add to it the idea of repurposed space. Ben Thompson in his original plan for Quincy Market clearly understood that placemaking had at least as much to do with the vibe and atmosphere as it did with what was on offer. How very much we've forgotten (as business owners and customers) in the ensuing 42 years...

The community of brewers in greater Boston seem to have the clearest understanding of self-generating synergy between product and place, with the best example at Night Shift in Everett.

The problem with the Great Hall is that it "sells" us something we've seen too much of, and that most of us can't afford. It offers an image with no content behind it. It's a shiny response to an empty (and potentially unsatisfiable) requirement.

Reflecting back on my original question, "considering contemporary priorities and values what is 'civic space'? What is a 'grand public gesture'? The people who need this are the least likely to ever set foot in the building - kids who need help doing homework, adults who need better job skills or financial literacy. The Great Connector "connects" a city street with a pocket park. I think we need multiple modes of connection between people and solutions.

And suddenly we're having a sociology discussion...My apologies...
 
DowntownDave said:
This, I imagine?

KiCUL0t.jpg


From Inventing the Charles River, pg. 340. The book talks about this idea (all buildings) being mentioned and discussed in the Globe amongst other possibilities. They've even gotten rid of that crummy Cross st. parking lot in the image.
Click to expand...

Great book btw. If you're the kind of person who spends any time at all on aB, you should own a copy....
 
Beton Brut said:
The problem with the Great Hall is that it "sells" us something we've seen too much of, and that most of us can't afford. It offers an image with no content behind it. It's a shiny response to an empty (and potentially unsatisfiable) requirement.

Reflecting back on my original question, "considering contemporary priorities and values what is 'civic space'? What is a 'grand public gesture'? The people who need this are the least likely to ever set foot in the building - kids who need help doing homework, adults who need better job skills or financial literacy. The Great Connector "connects" a city street with a pocket park. I think we need multiple modes of connection between people and solutions.

And suddenly we're having a sociology discussion...My apologies...
Click to expand...

I think this is the bigger problem considering the context and the adjacent neighbourhood that still lacks a welcoming civic space. Chinatown just had a BPS branch reopen, but that's not nearly enough. JVS runs a career center next door at 75 Franklin, but that's not nearly enough. I still think this could be successful if MP tapped an org like Venture Cafe to run it if they used this space to align their interests with social good.
 
View from my new office. Gonna have a perfect view of this as it goes up!
KJWt1PTr.jpg
 
Anybody at all surprised we haven't heard anything about an office tenant on this yet? Given Millennium's MO, I would have figured we'd have some sort of announcement or at least strongly sourced news article about the pending signing of a blue chip tenant.
 
True. And you can say the same for SST and One Central Wharf.

Both seeking main tenant/s for the lower floors....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top