Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
C'mon guys. Everyone knows that Boston tends to be more conservative with its architecture, especially of the skyscraper variety.
It's definitely been more apt to be adventurous as of late, but Boston is a city that's basically obsessed with historical character to this day, nearly to a fault.
The tendency to take a more conservative approach to modern architecture is not exactly a secret.
What makes Back Bag distinctive isn’t so much the buildings but the lack of buildings between the Pru and Hancock and the Downtown Core.
To the untrained eye Philly, Minneapolis and LA (if there isn’t the mountain in the background) look basically indistinguishable. I really don’t understand how Philly is killing this pill.
It’s like structured like a cartoon “downtown”.
Yea I mentioned md LA and Philadelphia earlier in this thread: but people disagree. I just don’t think people really are as familiar with Boston skyline for several reasons. I’ve never been really impressed with Philly’s myself. I’m being told buildings are distinct in Philly when really what I notice about Philly is the neon lights on some buildings that I like- but many cities do that. Still don’t understand how the three tallest buildings being over there —-> isn’t a dead giveaway if anyones actually seen the skyline.
Also the prudential and 11 Huntington are very distinct but no one’s willing to address that either. I dunno…
Yea I mentioned md LA and Philadelphia earlier in this thread: but people disagree. I just don’t think people really are as familiar with Boston skyline for several reasons. I’ve never been really impressed with Philly’s myself. I’m being told buildings are distinct in Philly when really what I notice about Philly is the neon lights on some buildings that I like- but many cities do that. Still don’t understand how the three tallest buildings being over there —-> isn’t a dead giveaway if anyones actually seen the skyline.
Also the prudential and 11 Huntington are very distinct but no one’s willing to address that either. I dunno…
The three Back Bay sore thumbs do immediately identify the photo as one of the Boston skyline, but the clumpy part downtown looks an awful lot like Philadelphia's did before One Liberty Place.
I think people are making their judgements on the ensemble, and Downtown Boston is the main ensemble.
There could be something to this. When people see a few clustered towers with pointy tops, they think "oh yeah. I've seen that somewhere." Whereas Boston's rolling skyline with lots of flat or slanted roofs doesn't really fit that stereotypical mold.
Philly has a more visually interesting skyline and gives of more of a classic big city look. But I'm not sure if it is more recognizable to everyday people who don't spend their time thinking about skylines. It lacks any world famous buildings or distinct setting like SF or Chicago. Many people would have a hard time placing it or view it as a small party of the NYC skyline.
What makes Back Bag distinctive isn’t so much the buildings but the lack of buildings between the Pru and Hancock and the Downtown Core.
What makes Back Bay distinctive is that there are no tall buildings at all between Boylston Street and the Charles River. It’s people-friendly. Not soulless office towers.
What makes Back Bay distinctive is that there are no tall buildings at all between Boylston Street and the Charles River. It’s people-friendly. Not soulless office towers.
Ive never understood this argument. Tall buildings arent unfriendly. It doesnt even make intuitive sense to me.
Manhattan and Center City are people-friendly. So is Downtown Crossing (minus the crime) and the Post Office square area.
What makes Back Bay distinctive is that there are no tall buildings at all between Boylston Street and the Charles River. It’s people-friendly. Not soulless office towers.
I guess the tall building argument is shadows and wind tunnels. Well 1. In the warm months shadows are very nice. And 2. Boston doesn’t have wind tunnels because there’s no grid. Seems like a grid issue not a building issue. What is actually pedestrian unfriendly to me are low- wide mega buildings that predominate in Kendall Square or Washington DC.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
