South Station Tower | South Station Air Rights | Downtown

I don't think it's real at all, and my post was meant to be extremely sarcastic, because those renders were dropped a few years ago and never mentioned again. There's a thread for these parcels, here:

DOT Parcels | 25-28 Kneeland Street | Chinatown

Hmm thats interesting, not sure how I feel about it yet. Compared to the backside we now have a good idea of what the proposal looks like in total. Definitely was not expecting the front of the tower to look so drastically different compared to the 93 facing side. Was expecting a thinner...
archboston.com

ANYWAYS, South Station is still filled with miserable industrial holes that SHOULD be developed, whether around the steam plant, as air rights, or accelerating the next phases of the SST development per se. Extending the hospitable frontage of Atlantic down towards the offramps would be very welcome.
 
Justbuildit said:
I don't think it's real at all, and my post was meant to be extremely sarcastic, because those renders were dropped a few years ago and never mentioned again. There's a thread for these parcels, here:

DOT Parcels | 25-28 Kneeland Street | Chinatown

Hmm thats interesting, not sure how I feel about it yet. Compared to the backside we now have a good idea of what the proposal looks like in total. Definitely was not expecting the front of the tower to look so drastically different compared to the 93 facing side. Was expecting a thinner...
archboston.com

ANYWAYS, South Station is still filled with miserable industrial holes that SHOULD be developed, whether around the steam plant, as air rights, or accelerating the next phases of the SST development per se. Extending the hospitable frontage of Atlantic down towards the offramps would be very welcome.
Click to expand...
Yes, those parcels should be developed.

But they won't be until MassDOT acknowledges that hazardous waste sites do not have development potential until they are cleaned up. (Unless you plan to put a casino complex there.)
 
JeffDowntown said:
It is a pretty important little power plant. It provides the steam for the 29 miles of district steam power looping around downtown Boston. Provides HVAC via steam for over 230 big buildings and institutions in the city (Tufts Medical Center, MGH, ....).

Vicinity is working on decommissioning the building, and replacing the steam generator with an electric steam boiler powered from off shore wind. But the mini power plant site itself is a hazmat mess -- no one wants to touch the cleanup to develop the site.
Click to expand...
super informative post -- thanks!
 
JeffDowntown said:
Yes, those parcels should be developed.

But they won't be until MassDOT acknowledges that hazardous waste sites do not have development potential until they are cleaned up. (Unless you plan to put a casino complex there.)
Click to expand...
...Would love to see something creative here, like MassDOT selling "HAZMAT Bonds" to finance the site clean-up to make these sites sale-able...then, split the cost of repaying the bonds between the winning developer and themselves. So, yes, needing to help pay for clean-up would be part of winning the development rights, but it wouldn't be 100% on the developer and there'd be the timeline advantage of the site being build-ready much sooner, yet, that the developer would still help defray the cost of clean-up. Meanwhile, MassDOT could simply use the sale windfall to pay off their portion of the bond debt.
 
I thought the hazmat was here, not on those parcels next to the steam plant.
IMG_4107.jpeg


Isnt that why its raised up, because they put all the hazmat there and then put a cap on it? I know I read that before when those towers were proposed here.
IMG_4106.jpeg


They put it out in no-mans land on purpose so that way its not really affecting the normal street life of the city, its out in the middle of a million highway ramps.
 
The further you get away from the building, the better it looks. In that sense, contra the review, it meaningfully contributes to the skyline.
 
SteelyTom said:
The further you get away from the building, the better it looks. In that sense, contra the review, it meaningfully contributes to the skyline.
Click to expand...
Agreed. We shouldn't aim for "oh that one angle looks great," but IMO they did nail the Dewey Sq front on view. It's very cool looking/ almost surreal.
 
I don't dislike SST at all, and like it far more than many here (or the author of that article). Wish it was as ambitious and exciting as One Congress, though. One Congress sprouting out of the S. Station headhouse rather than what we have would be far more impressive. I don't mind that SST is glass and I don't wish it was like Key Tower -- I just wish it was a little... more.
 
Charlie_mta said:
I agree with the article. The tower is an aesthetic disappointment, in that it doesn't complement the look of South Station all that well. A more classic looking tower, such as the new Key Tower in Cleveland, would have been better IMO, even without its spire.
View attachment 67588
Click to expand...
I'd like to see something like Key Tower on a plot that could actually support height. This was originally proposed at 700' in Hartford and even that looks kind of stumpy with the spire. (although less stumpy than pretty much the entirety of Boston)

1760044134527.png


However, something similar 800'+ in Back Bay, by North Station, or even in Kendall/Lechmere area would be an absolute gift. I just think with the strict FAA heights at South Station we wouldn't have been able to have a proper version of the above designs. On the other hand something like Minneapolis' Wells Fargo Tower may have worked here, but again that's a full 100' taller than what was allowed at South Station.

1760044295563.jpeg
 
chrisbrat said:
I don't dislike SST at all, and like it far more than many here (or the author of that article). Wish it was as ambitious and exciting as One Congress, though. One Congress sprouting out of the S. Station headhouse rather than what we have would be far more impressive. I don't mind that SST is glass and I don't wish it was like Key Tower -- I just wish it was a little... more.
Click to expand...
I feel like the previous version with its extra set backs and better proportions was the ticket.

1760079931677.jpeg


It even had a slanty roof which looked a little better on the skyline imo.
1760080270605.jpeg


Not a lot of setbacks in boston, I feel like this was the right amount. Either way still satisfied with what we got overall for the most part.


Speaking of the angles though yes this one is iconic imo
1760080125906.jpeg


But the one they chose for wikipedia looks super wonky for some reason
1760080171325.jpeg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top