Hey, there! Log in / Register
Going up over downtown
By adamg on Thu, 09/17/2015 - 1:10pm
Adam Castiglioni watched the ceremonial last bucket of cement for the Millennium Tower rising to the top today.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Really?
That a concrete bucket not a beam! Where do you see a beam?
The Mayor even announced that it was the "last bucket of concrete"!
Palm meet face!
Shows you what I know
Fixed, thanks. Yeah, I looked at that and didn't see a beam, but figured it must be hidden in what looks like some cardboard packaging (or maybe a cardboard model of a space capsule).
Well typically the "topping
Well typically the "topping off" is the last beam, painted white, with christmas tree and flag, so you're not really wrong. This building is a different form of construction where they are pouring concrete everything, so it is a slightly different "topping off", but same general concept.
The last Shank?
Why are they pouring concrete over Alex Beam - isn't he ready to retire? Shouldn't they be interring some other useless columnist. I'm confused!
Donald, is that you?
Must be nice to be totally perfect and never make any mistakes.
Faceplam indeed.
A novel concept, poured in place
concrete. Maybe you've seen it on this old house.
While a layman I a fascinated
While a layman I a fascinated by architecture. In trying to decide what I think of the building I am impressed with how different it looks from different vantages.
It's kind of needle-like and I will wait until it's done, but my initial impression is positive.
It's positive impact on the neighborhood, especially compared to the hole, is already profound. I like that a lot.
One thing I like
Is that it apparently has windows that actually open.
I'm digging the building
I'm digging the building despite the fact that they closed the Franklin Street Downtown Crossing exit because of this building. Why is it gonna take them a whole damn year to build a new one? Its takes forever now to get out of the orange line there and thousands of people can look forward to this hassle for many months to come.
As I understand
the exit is closed to allow Shoppers Park to be entirely redone, not actually the T exit. I agree about the nusance factor--that's the exit I use, but I am hoping the new park will be worth it. The changes to Summer Street as a result of this project are great so I have pretty high expectations.
the T exit
The whole headhouse has been demolished. They plan on putting up something different. From the renderings I saw, it looked like a huge staircase that people can sit on.
I wish I could remember where I saw the renderings of it.. (maybe it was here?)
I just don't see why putting
I just don't see why putting down a few pretty bricks is gonna take almost as long as putting up a 50+ story building.
Summer Street is indeed nice, and would be even better if they kept more cars out of there. Hopefully Franklin will be pedestrian friendly but I doubt it.
In the last week I have seen
In the last week I have seen two cars get tickets for somehow ending up on Washington St. in DC. Does that count as a crackdown?
Not a fan
Up close - kind of a cool building - like so many other buildings in Boston - as a standalone project.
However, take a walk down Comm Ave or Newbury- it is surprisingly "in your face" - hopefully it will be a little less noticeable once those klieg lights are removed. I drove down Comm Ave today. A year ago if you shot a picture toward the east, other than the cars you might think you were looking at a picture from 1890. Take that picture today and it looks like there is a death star rising over the city.
Just visited Chicago and took one of their amazing architectural river tours. They are keenly aware of the "contextual" nature of their architecture - and my guess is that this would have been thought of in the planning process and the building never would have been permitted to be built so tall in Chicago.
Perhaps some day I'll grow to like the contrast of old and new (as I do appreciate the juxtaposition of the Hancock Tower with the hotel and church), but for now every time I see that building looming in the distance it makes me a little sad for my neighborhood that my city didn't have the foresight to consider the impact of such a large project on the visual landscape.
Same building, different perspective:
Completely disagree Stevil. It's precisely its visibility I find refreshing, and I like the way it stands out among the drab upended shoeboxes that characterized the financial district towers of the sixties and seventies (hello One Beacon). It actually looks better than the renderings. When I walk down Washington Street, I already appreciate the contrast between the old red brick South Meeting House and the glassy tower that looms in the distance behind. Of course my viewpoint is arguable because it basically comes down to aesthetics. I'll admit that Millennium Tower is disruptive to the historic tableau for which Boston is famous, but I don't see this as a bad thing, simply the sign of a growing vibrant city. The old and new can coexist, and the city need not be a museum. In Paris the towers of La Défense rise behind the Arc de Triomphe; in London, The Shard and the Gherkin are close to the dome of Saint Paul's. In neither case do they detract from the historic structures, but instead add the latest layer to the accumulation of centuries of the built environment.
(P.S. Now I'll undermine my argument by also admitting that in a fit of megalomania, I'd have the Tour Montparnasse (Paris), the "walkie-talkie" (London), AND the Revere hotel demolished!
Broken Process
Fair opinion - and perhaps different aesthetic tastes. Like many buildings in Boston - in a vacuum they can be interesting and attractive. But the contrast with other cities and the planning/design process is apples and oranges. La Defense is a planned area of tall buildings. The Gherkin - and all buildings in London are not permitted to interfere with specific sight lines when viewing St. Paul's. Even the Hancock Tower was specifically designed to look a certain way in the context of its surroundings (and the Christian Science tower designed to echo/bookend it). This is the kind of contextualization from the Chicago school that makes their bolder architecture - and on occasion in the past some of ours - work so well.
The building was never "planned" to be that tall. The original building was significantly shorter and when development stalled the mayor simply asked the developers how big the building had to be to make money (like many projects around here). I do not recall any discussion of sightlines, incursion on the historic fabric or any such issues. In my experience, the BRA is either not sophisticated enough or perhaps more forgivingly not motivated to carry on an intelligent discussion about these issues. Their goal is to spur development period (secondary to their primary goal which is to perpetuate their own existence). Chiofaro's tower is a perfect contemporary example. He overpaid for the property and now wants the city to "pay" by granting permission to build a building that doubles down on the mistake that was the Harbor Towers while most planners would tell you that a building more in line with others along the Greenway would be more appropriate.
Again - by itself it's a reasonably attractive building. But if it succeeds and gains architectural approval in the long term, it will be by accident, not design.
Alright,
You're definitely more of a contextualist than me, but I appreciate your thoughtful observations about what ought and what ought not to be built in Boston. I do recall an earlier, shorter iteration of Millennium Tower's design that included a wing over the Filene's/Burnham building. I think the current design better preserves the integrity of the old structure, though I realize the added height helped to recover the square footage lost from the elimination of that wing. The gaping pit that marred downtown so conspicuously for too long was such an embarrassment to the Menino administration that there was surely an impetus to get something built there, process be damned. So I concede that Boston's design and review protocols compare unfavorably to London's or Chicago's more curatorial approach. Nor do I dispute your assessment of Don Chiofaro's waterfront proposal: considering the preexisting zoning restrictions and the fierce opposition of the abutters, a single tower of 600 feet granted by the Walsh administration seems like a pretty good deal. If Mr Chiofaro can't make a profit with that, then yes, he did pay too much for that ugly garage.
Speaking of Chicago, I now wish I had taken that tour when I was last there. The attitude toward height in the Loop and adjacent areas is amusingly opposite to the prevailing ethos here in Boston: skyscrapers are overwhelming monstrosities that block out the sun and create dark canyons that turn into wind tunnels. In Chicago--a city that has a pretty strong claim to inventing the skyscraper (don't tell New York), it is the soaring expression of American ingenuity, our manifest destiny made tangible in stone, steel, and glass. I was kind of looking forward to The Spire before that plan collapsed and left a pit by Lake Shore Drive the way Vornado did with the earlier Millennium proposal here. Mind you, once one leaves the Loop and ventures out to say Pilsen, Lincoln Park, or Bucktown, the reaction from Chicagoans to any development, residential or commercial, higher than four storeys will make you wonder whether there's any difference between them and Bostonians.
Planning
I'm a financial planner by profession. I look at problems like this as a big puzzle - and the pieces have to fit and relate to one another so I look at architecture much more holistically.
By the way - we always need more sensible commentary like this on Uhub on topics like this - please register and weigh in regularly! Your input would be welcome out here.