14 West Broadway | South Boston

We will never be free of Alucobond.

I think another color than black would better suit the spandrel panels on the main facade. The dark brick color would have looked nicer with navy or even a deep violet. Dark brown and black is sort of ho-hum.
 
Was there ever a moment's consideration (assuming it's practicable) to having either this or the hotel include a new entrance to the subway station, so that, for instance, the inbound 9 bus wouldn't have to take a left onto A St and circle around the block?
 
cadetcarl said:
We will never be free of Alucobond.

I think another color than black would better suit the spandrel panels on the main facade. The dark brick color would have looked nicer with navy or even a deep violet. Dark brown and black is sort of ho-hum.
Click to expand...

Why praytell would we ever want to be free from it? What is an alternative?

(I love this conversation ... lets go)

cca
 
In the spirit of totally unfair debate moves, I'm going to move the goalposts--I should have clarified that I find its use as the primary cladding element really cynical, and usually accompanied by other cost-saving moves.

As a designer I know it's useful. Use it all the time for undersides of things, or between things, or to wrap small things. But "this building is made of aluminum panels" is the adult version of students who make their projects all "white architectural rendering material", except they should know better.

I never saw a building that looked like the response to the question, "what is the most elegant, craftsmanlike use of aluminum composite paneling?"
 
I'll save Stick the trouble of posting;

The transformation of this block has been TOTALLY awesomedd!
 
cadetcarl said:
In the spirit of totally unfair debate moves, I'm going to move the goalposts--I should have clarified that I find its use as the primary cladding element really cynical, and usually accompanied by other cost-saving moves.

As a designer I know it's useful. Use it all the time for undersides of things, or between things, or to wrap small things. But "this building is made of aluminum panels" is the adult version of students who make their projects all "white architectural rendering material", except they should know better.

I never saw a building that looked like the response to the question, "what is the most elegant, craftsmanlike use of aluminum composite paneling?"
Click to expand...

Of course I agree with all of this. In the recent past there was a thing called "plate aluminum" which was seen a sophisticated cladding material until it people realized that if you sandwiched a cheap core (plastic) in between two thin sheets you will get the same performance with different cost point. It got so cheap that everyone can use it. It is now incredibly useful. Cadet, you know all of this stuff but it is background for others.

Because it is ubiquitous and that any low income housing project can use it we think that it is trash. It just isn't. Its like every other thing. Like ... well brick. You can have a project that is garbage clad in brick ... but you can have something delightful also. It is a matter of how the designer uses it and how much craftsmanship the client can pay for. Take the Granoff Center at RISD for example. Same material we hate but with lots of craft imbued in it.

So ... don't hate the material ... hate how it is used. My only point in bring this up in this thread is that I think it is ok to use this material as a contrasting material to that precast/brick and the other precast/brick. I see nothing inappropriate about it and in this case I don't read it as cheap. That is the subjective part and I respect your opinion if it reads that way to you. If you were my client I would go to something else. GFRC, Corrugated Panels, or a contrasting brick (glazed, or different module) might work depending on cost.

cca
 
cca said:
So ... don't hate the material ... hate how it is used. My only point in bring this up in this thread is that I think it is ok to use this material as a contrasting material to that precast/brick and the other precast/brick. I see nothing inappropriate about it and in this case I don't read it as cheap. That is the subjective part and I respect your opinion if it reads that way to you. If you were my client I would go to something else. GFRC, Corrugated Panels, or a contrasting brick (glazed, or different module) might work depending on cost.
Click to expand...

I respect the fact that we both have differing, subjective opinions on this.

For me, the problems with Alucobond are:

Approach - Using composite metal paneling with depth (10 Farnsworth St.) can produce impressive results. Using it as flat panels has all of the aesthetic charm of vinyl siding.

In this case, it appears like they either ran out of money, or just slapped it onto those sections of the building as an afterthought because it needed some kind of material to cover that bit. It's incongruous and ugly. Even though it was probably carefully-planned, it gives the impression of laziness.

Ubiquity - Architects use it as a primary, or contrasting element in a huge percentage of designs we see. Its inclusion often appears forced, with little reason to support it being added except as a reflex. Often, flat panels will be dropped into the middle of a façade where it doesn't really belong to break-up an otherwise OK exterior.

To me, it comes across as a designer trying to spice-up their design with vanilla. Often, it would've been better without it. Sometimes it's OK to let a building façade be just one thing, or have a continuous pattern of quality materials over a large section. Which brings me to...

Appearance - Flat and featureless are not favorable traits when used over a wide swath of a building's exterior. This again is strictly a matter of opinion. There's something cold and soulless about Alucobond when used in this fashion.

For me, it provokes the same reaction as seeing a gigantic, expensive house wrapped in builder's special siding: I end-up feeling someone said "Well, we have to wrap it in something, I guess."

Persistence - In Boston at least, the design language has evolved very little this century. We're still seeing buildings that could've been constructed during GWB's first or second term. It's like seeing plans from 1978 rolled-out in 1994 - something that most people would find incomprehensible.

Chronic misuse of a design element is not done any favors by the fact we can't seem to break out of a tired cycle of doing the same things the same way over and over again.
 
Doesn't it seem this building sings '1970s.'

Could go for some more 10 Farnsworth treatment as a soft demarcation between the Seaport and Southie (already too late)... and anywhere near i-93 Freeway in Southie, South End and Dorchester. It would be interesting to see on some apts going to 140~200' height.





update;

Arborway said:
It's like seeing plans from 1978 rolled-out in 1994 - something that most people would find incomprehensible.
Click to expand...

Oh, i didn't even read your post (as i'm on my tiny cell and scrolled right by after glancing at "10 Farnsworth")!

Going back and reading all. That's a balls on accurate description.

or maybe; 1 Beacon and the McCormack made a baby!

All of that said, i don't dislike this building. Compare it to the not-so-great thing next door, i like it even more.

Imagine 1 Beacon's curtain wall getting a redo; hybridized w/ the McCormack and end up exactly as this, and preserving it's 1970s heritage. I'd be thrilled.
 
Arborway said:
I respect the fact that we both have differing, subjective opinions on this.

For me, the problems with Alucobond are:

Approach - Using composite metal paneling with depth (10 Farnsworth St.) can produce impressive results. Using it as flat panels has all of the aesthetic charm of vinyl siding.

In this case, it appears like they either ran out of money, or just slapped it onto those sections of the building as an afterthought because it needed some kind of material to cover that bit. It's incongruous and ugly. Even though it was probably carefully-planned, it gives the impression of laziness.

Ubiquity - Architects use it as a primary, or contrasting element in a huge percentage of designs we see. Its inclusion often appears forced, with little reason to support it being added except as a reflex. Often, flat panels will be dropped into the middle of a façade where it doesn't really belong to break-up an otherwise OK exterior.

To me, it comes across as a designer trying to spice-up their design with vanilla. Often, it would've been better without it. Sometimes it's OK to let a building façade be just one thing, or have a continuous pattern of quality materials over a large section. Which brings me to...

Appearance - Flat and featureless are not favorable traits when used over a wide swath of a building's exterior. This again is strictly a matter of opinion. There's something cold and soulless about Alucobond when used in this fashion.

For me, it provokes the same reaction as seeing a gigantic, expensive house wrapped in builder's special siding: I end-up feeling someone said "Well, we have to wrap it in something, I guess."

Persistence - In Boston at least, the design language has evolved very little this century. We're still seeing buildings that could've been constructed during GWB's first or second term. It's like seeing plans from 1978 rolled-out in 1994 - something that most people would find incomprehensible.

Chronic misuse of a design element is not done any favors by the fact we can't seem to break out of a tired cycle of doing the same things the same way over and over again.
Click to expand...

Very thoughtful and well articulated response. I cannot disagree with anything you have said. As someone who makes these kinds of choices every day I would just ask for you to understand that this material gets HANDED to designers today like brick got handed to most designers in the 1800s. Its a given. Some try to elevate its effect (10 Farn.) some just have to move on. The point is that it is useful, does the job, can be made special with vision, talent, and resources. Just like our friend the brick.

cca
 
cca said:
Very thoughtful and well articulated response. I cannot disagree with anything you have said. As someone who makes these kinds of choices every day I would just ask for you to understand that this material gets HANDED to designers today like brick got handed to most designers in the 1800s. Its a given. Some try to elevate its effect (10 Farn.) some just have to move on. The point is that it is useful, does the job, can be made special with vision, talent, and resources. Just like our friend the brick.

cca
Click to expand...

So, apart from 10 Farnsworth, what are some other examples of Alucobond being elevated beyond just flat panels? I'll admit I don't pay much as much attention to the materials being used in other cities' projects, but I don't notice Alucobond being used in the same manner as it is so often used as flat panels in Boston.
 
The veined marble entrance adds to the seventies look to is as well. Alucobond does feel out of place at this "industrial" intersection into Southie. Lead coated copper may have had a more industrial look to define the area.
 
We are a City of Development, not a city of gorgeous buildings, gilded with architectural detail and magnificence. That place would be New York--where architectural expression is exploding everywhere.

By contrast, our construction is VE'd by within the framework of an economic model based loosely in socialism and the ball and chains of institutionalized corruption. We can't build tall enough to add the appropriate value to each city block to reach economic breakaway achieved in New York, San Francisco, LA and Chicago. Despite recent improvements, we are still incredibly stuck in the mud of our old ways. It's not theory; it's reality, and not the least unrelated to why we failed to land Amazon. We are a city of development, and we're damn fortunate to be even that.

Massachusetts and Boston are dysfunctional. This fact is manifest most blatantly by the absurd difficulty for the young people to grow up and eventually settle here ....and by the T, which continues to languish, grossly underfunded. i doubt this state of affairs will end anytime soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top