Northeastern eyes dorms

I disagree...This project is uninspiring from a purely architectural perspective but I think it succeeds urbanistically. I like the massing and I like the way it relates to the street. Where One Western follows a conventional modernist/corbusier anti-urban tact. This project, however, is fully urban. It maintains the streetwall and has an open, groundfloor, retail presence. To me that makes up for its myriad aesthetic shortcomings.
 
Here, it's all about the materials and the execution. NU had an interesting design, and crippled it with cheap materials and dispiriting execution. More of a wheelbarrow than a Vespa.

One Western has the exact opposite problem. Inappropriate design, driven by tired ideological conventions (and a dumb client?). The execution is very nice. I expect better from these guys.

I think it was Seneca who said: "The workmanship was better than the subject matter."
 
ehhh...I'm certainly no great fan of the materials but I think it will look and wear better than people expect.

In terms of failures that we've witnessed in the past five years I would put every building constructed in the seaport district (excepting the ICA) ahead of this project.
 
KentXie said:
I know that but Bubbybu stated that the NEU dorm tower is the new Ryugyong tower. I'm just saying that there are other towers that are even uglier, not just limiting it to dorm towers, but any towers.
Click to expand...

There are ugly towers in Boston. The BU Law tower is not one of them.
 
bdurden said:
There are ugly towers in Boston. The BU Law tower is not one of them.
Click to expand...

That's your opinion, not mine. To me, the BU law school is among the ugliest buildings in Boston due to the weird blocky concrete shape, the random smokestack, and the ugly windows. Not to say the new NU building isn't ugly (it sure is) but if I have to choose, I pick the NU tower over the concrete mess that is the BU Law Tower. Although I am an NU student, there is no bias since I first saw the tower while I was 10 or so and thought it was the ugliest thing ever.
 
The BU law tower is absolutely beautiful. It has no qualms of just being "out there," and makes a striking impact for BU's (now one can say "official") skyline. It's pure Brutalism in the vertical form, can't get much better than that.
 
Last edited:
bdurden, I'm with you. I like the BU Law Tower very much. I find it very interesting and intriguing. I also like City Hall (except for the "ground" floor) and the Hurley building (can we please have some functional plazas instead of parking lots!). Just because it's concrete doesn't mean it's bad.
 
ablarc said:
These days, Brutalism just don't get no respect.
Click to expand...

It's a "setting" thing and many times a guilty by association thing. I would have a lot fuzzier feeling for City Hall if it weren't for the desolate wasteland it sits on or the neighborhood that was destroyed to build it. It actually has very little to do with the architecture of it. Across town, the Christian Science Center stands in stark contrast... it's a prime example of how wonderful Brutalism can look when contrasted with certain buildings and set on an effective public space. It also wouldn't hurt if people didn't equate Brutalist structures with concrete parking garages and prisons as a result of the similar materials. My girlfriend told me that city hall looks like an "elaborate place to park the car." We've all seen what a different climate can do for Brutalism too; just look at the Geisel Library ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geisel_Library ) or the Salk Institute in the San Diego area ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salk_Institute )
 
ill meet you halfway.....

I love city hall I loathe BU law
 
ablarc said:
These days, Brutalism just don't get no respect.
Click to expand...

It's probably because I see it as the opposite of art-deco which I love and believe it is one of the ultimate design style. While art-deco focuses on details, setbacks, and are very organize in design, I find Brutalism as the opposite with it's raw concrete jagged edges and cold features. But that's just my opinion and not all Brutalism is bad. I am quite fond of the Christian Science Building.
 
All three brutalist structures that have been alluded to are, at best, sculpturally successful. They exist as iconic pieces of structural art. But they are disasters from an urban point of view and they are loathed by their occupants. I'll take urban success over city wrecking sculpture every day of the week.
 
Are the Christian Science buildings really 'loathed by their occupants'? Certainly the Boston Five Cents Savings Bank building is not loathed by the customers or employees of Borders Books.
 
There are brutalist structures that work better than many art deco buildings in their context. Look at the Borders store on Washington Street. It's a prime example of how brutalism's sometimes-embrace of transparency can be much better for the street (and upstairs tenants) than traditional architecture (tiny-windowed art deco buildings can be no fun to live or work in by comparison). The Harvard Education School library achieves some success along these lines as well.

It's become apparent that people tend to be comparing apples and oranges with brutalist and traditional buildings. Most brutalist buildings are institutional - libraries, city halls, administrative offices. Most well known deco skyscrapers are commercial. Monumental government buildings almost always make an effort to distinguish themselves from their surroundings, whereas many art deco skyscrapers are woven into dense environments by virtue of being products of high real estate values. There is no end to neoclassical courthouses that aren't really fun to walk around, because they meet the street with blank - albeit slightly more detailed - walls. Jane Jacobs devotes a whole chapter of Death and Life to attacking the Columbia campus in New York on that basis.
 
Last edited:
Ron Newman said:
Are the Christian Science buildings really 'loathed by their occupants'? Certainly the Boston Five Cents Savings Bank building is not loathed by the customers or employees of Borders Books.
Click to expand...

I work at the CS building and the occupants neither like it or hate it.
 
The three structures that were alluded to were: BU law school, Hurley, city hall. I agree, Christian Science and 5 Cent Savings are enormously successful in every regard.
 
sidewalks said:
The three structures that were alluded to were: BU law school, Hurley, city hall. I agree, Christian Science and 5 Cent Savings are enormously successful in every regard.
Click to expand...

The original poster alluded only to the ugliness of the BU Law tower in comparison to clumsy new NEU dorm. I suspect it is "loathed" by its occupants for the same reason it is too often criticized for it's style. As ablarc said, it just don't get no respect!

The failure of the BU Law tower is the plaza that sounds it. Clean that up and you take the building out of isolation.
 
How can one clean the BU plaza up? It seems like a central "grounds" for the university where people meet; how can one make it more urban? It isn't very big, and it also creates an symmetrical effect with the church in the middle and the two symmetrical lowrise buildings on each side, with only the BU law tower departing from this symmetry. Maybe build another tower on the side opposite the law tower? I think there's a parking lot there currently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top