^ Directly faces Copley Sq. and neighbors the BPL (visible from the McKim Building's courtyard). Concrete paneled, stubby, not very good at street level. It's crap, IMO. The cheapest most cynical kind of architecture. What do you think is good about it?
Granted, it could be worse. It just tries way little for its site for me.
Good massing, at least from the more prominent hancock/trinity direction, which does a good job of hiding its portly stature. Also does a great job of hiding AC & elevator machinery inside the pitched roof. I just see it as a well done postmodern condo. Certainly not a masterpiece, but good background architecture.
I dont want to hijack this thread with a discussion on Trinity Place's positive and negative attributes. But, I consider the building a parasitic building, much like many buildings nominated in this thread. It benefits from the cachet of its place while simultaneously diminishing that place -- certainly not contributing to it. Tremont on the Common is great example. It benefits from fronting the Common while simultaneously ruining the vistas from the Common. Trinity Place does likewise regarding Copley Sq., as do many crappy projects fronting the Harbor or the Charles or whatever civic place/park/great street.
Amazing to see how opinion on some of these buildings has shifted over the course of the decade. Trinity and especially 111 Huntington were met with extraordinary enthusiasm when they first went up.
I remember getting grief for proposing that 111 Huntington was a little vulgar in the context of the Pru complex. It does look very nice against the rowhouses of the South End when viewed from the Pru observatory, though.