Higher Standards
The mayor wants to put a big stamp on the skyline. But if we aren’t careful, a big ambition could become a big eyesore.
Mayor Tom Menino’s 1,000-foot skyscraper/monument to himself inches closer to reality this spring as the city begins soliciting proposals for the prime downtown parcel on which the tower would be built. Regardless of whether we actually need such a building—a very open question—the call is expected to draw sketches from around the world. But just by talking to area architects, it’s already possible to discern the outlines of the coming debate on what the future tallest building in Boston should look like.
Many agree that the tower should mesh well with Winthrop Square at the sidewalk level. Some earth-friendly features would be nice, and brick is out of the question. Beyond that, the ideas diverge. Cambridge architect Jinhee Park favors a tower clad in a skin of material (etched glass, maybe) that would have a textured look by day and that would appear different when lit up at night. Paul Lukez, an MIT prof who also owns a design research firm, would fashion a traditional base that gives way to a delicate and transparent top whose profile would change depending on the viewer’s perspective. For the tower’s surface, he can imagine an electronically charged screen that responds to things like sunlight or temperature (à la the dinky lights in the old Hancock Tower).
For all the stylistic flourishes worth considering, the real quarrel will likely center on the shape of the thing. David Hacin of Hacin + Associates says designers should play with twisted or curved plans. Be careful with the ultramodern or trendy touches, warns Frederick Kramer of ADD Incorporated. “A beautiful needle,” he says, “is a beautiful needle.” A building of this prominence is the ultimate high-wire act. One false step could lead to a conspicuous architectural catastrophe—a warning we hope is not lost on those who inhabit our truly unsightly City Hall.
Many agree that the tower should mesh well with Winthrop Square at the sidewalk level. Some earth-friendly features would be nice, and brick is out of the question. Beyond that, the ideas diverge. Cambridge architect Jinhee Park favors a tower clad in a skin of material (etched glass, maybe) that would have a textured look by day and that would appear different when lit up at night. Paul Lukez, an MIT prof who also owns a design research firm, would fashion a traditional base that gives way to a delicate and transparent top whose profile would change depending on the viewer’s perspective. For the tower’s surface, he can imagine an electronically charged screen that responds to things like sunlight or temperature (à la the dinky lights in the old Hancock Tower).
For all the stylistic flourishes worth considering, the real quarrel will likely center on the shape of the thing. David Hacin of Hacin + Associates says designers should play with twisted or curved plans. Be careful with the ultramodern or trendy touches, warns Frederick Kramer of ADD Incorporated. “A beautiful needle,” he says, “is a beautiful needle.” A building of this prominence is the ultimate high-wire act. One false step could lead to a conspicuous architectural catastrophe—a warning we hope is not lost on those who inhabit our truly unsightly City Hall.
Originally published in Boston magazine, May 2006
