30 Dalton St. Residences | Back Bay

BussesAin'tTrains said:
Obviously each renovation project is different, and each new construction is different. That said, a gut-job renovation of an historic structure, whether it's by efficient, capitalist captains of industry or government hacks, is going to take a long time. Compare this project, which is a new construction and is rising rather quickly, with the Godfrey project in DTX. A much smaller building, but a gut-job renovation that's taken 2 1/2 years.

Really though... comparing a 110 year old bridge rehab to historic standards, and an underground subway station gut job, with a pretty bread and butter mid-size tower project is comparing apples and oranges. Govt vs private sector aside.
Click to expand...

Yes, a comparison is apples and oranges as you say; I did not intend to create equivalency, but I can see where you would think I was. Of course, whether renovation is inherently more time-intensive... umm...maybe. Are they digging/redirecting tunnels, creating new infrastructural systems, and facing surprises (e.g., uncovering a lost civilization? Jimmy Hoffa?), or just refurbishing/updating within the context of mostly known knowns? It could be the former--I don't claim to know and I don't underestimate the significance of working on these projects (esp. Longfellow Bridge that has to keep operational throughout). But it seems that other (even more historic) cities get major projects done faster with fewer excuses and (moving on) it's nice to see a significant building going up so fast. Datadyne's govt vs. private sector observation seems more convincing than your assumption that renovation is always more difficult.
 
Framing goes up fast. Unitized Curtainwall goes up fast. Then it will look done-ish for about a year while all the finicky stuff gets done. I predict in about 6 months people will be wondering why this project is stalled and not open.

All projects of any size take between 14 and 18 months to complete. Large projects can take longer.

cca
 
The crazy thing is that this project broke ground 11 months ago and has already topped out.
 
22028272855_12bd32d768_b.jpg
 
The glass looks good so far but I'm much more concerned about the other side overlooking the CSC that is not 95% glass.
 
Not sure why people have been calling this "topped off" for the last couple weeks when it clearly isn't.

From 10/11







 
I know there are many here who don't agree with me, but I walk past this every day and think that this is a big win - a fantastic facade, great massing/shape, and much more clearly defined streetwall on this formerly wind-swept corner. Is it a showstopper? No. It's a background building. But that's exactly what need more of - and anyway, this will be right next to One Dalton.
 
It's impressively slim from the side. It reminds me of Millennium when it was that height. The difference of course is that Millennium more than doubled the height after that, reducing the appearance of how fat the building looks longitudinally. Agreed on the notion that 10 stories more would have balanced the proportions out nicely.

Also agreed on that it looks & feels better in person when you're experiencing the building from the ground within the urban context.
 
We need more "background" buildings? That comment is hard to stomach when there are D-list cities like Cleveland, Oklahoma City, Indianapolis and Charlotte that have taller buildings than anything in Boston. (Obviously I'm leaving out NYC, Chicago, LA, SF, Seattle, Philly, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Minneapolis...all with taller buildings than anything here).
 
We need more "background" buildings? That comment is hard to stomach when there are D-list cities like Cleveland, Oklahoma City, Indianapolis and Charlotte that have taller buildings than anything in Boston. (Obviously I'm leaving out NYC, Chicago, LA, SF, Seattle, Philly, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Minneapolis...all with taller buildings than anything here).
Click to expand...

Who cares? Seriously. Is Skyscraper City leaking onto here?

We should build tall to compete with dumps like Cleveland?
 
^^^^^^^^
Spot on!


dotdude78 said:
We need more "background" buildings? That comment is hard to stomach when there are D-list cities like Cleveland, Oklahoma City, Indianapolis and Charlotte that have taller buildings than anything in Boston. (Obviously I'm leaving out NYC, Chicago, LA, SF, Seattle, Philly, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Minneapolis...all with taller buildings than anything here).
Click to expand...

Yeah, but get down to the street level in most of those towns (NYC, Chicago are the big exceptions) and it's dull, lifeless, largly empty of humanity. Boston's urbanity and energy on the street more than makes up for it's lack of height.
 
Honestly, it's not about the height but the design. Most of the towers built or being built here wouldn't stand out even if they were tall. Essentially, most of the design didn't get much further than the massing models.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top