Avalon North Station | Nashua Street Residences | West End

DZH22 said:
OH GOOD GOD! If you look closely enough at the white panelling in this daytime rendering, it's like a direct copy of Waterside Place! Nooooooo!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Avalon does pretty good work I doubt it will turn out that bad.
 
stick n move said:
avalonbay-nasua-street*600xx556-834-0-0.jpg


http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/real_estate/2014/10/avalonbay-breaking-ground-today-on-north-station.html?s=image_gallery
Click to expand...
Fixed IMG URL

avalonbay-nasua-street.jpg
 
coleslaw said:
Avalon does pretty good work I doubt it will turn out that bad.
Click to expand...

That's true, I'm all over that Jacob Wirth building in particular like a pig in slop. It's turning out much better than the (daytime) renders indicated. As long as the materials are high quality, this should come out OK.

It's still a frightening proposition. Waterside siding with a Kensington top.
 
It's better than the first rendering- the darker glass does good things for it. And I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt because Avalon usually churns out developments that are (somewhat) above average...

...But I won't be surprised in the slightest if it ends up looking terrible.
 
Downburst said:
It's better than the first rendering- the darker glass does good things for it. And I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt because Avalon usually churns out developments that are (somewhat) above average...

...But I won't be surprised in the slightest if it ends up looking terrible.
Click to expand...

Same the view of this shown in some renders for the garage tower looks better than the angle we always see in my opinion though.
 
It looks like Kensington if Kensington didn't have an identity crisis and if it had a baby with the W hotel..
 
Frank Gehry said:
Let me tell you one thing, in this world we are living in, 98% of everything that is built and designed today is pure shit. There’s no sense of design, no respect for humanity or for anything else. They are damn buildings and that’s it.
Click to expand...

Yup
 
DZH22 said:
OH GOOD GOD! If you look closely enough at the white panelling in this daytime rendering, it's like a direct copy of Waterside Place! Nooooooo!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Looking closely at the render, you seem to be right, it looks like the white and dirty white (gray) panels that seem to be randomly placed on Waterside. I hope they choose better panels, and I still have no idea why the Waterside developers thought that would be a good look.
 
It looks like only the spandrels are gray, making the facade look like long white vertical lines with grey spandrels adding a little depth to the windows, which i think actually could break up the monotony and come out good.
 
stick n move said:
It looks like only the spandrels are gray, making the facade look like long white vertical lines with grey spandrels adding a little depth to the windows, which i think actually could break up the monotony and come out good.
Click to expand...

yeah, doesn't look random, in my opinion the worst part of waterside place and the YMCA (the two worst new developments).
 
The daytime render looks like the Ritz Carlton Boston Common and Waterside Place had a fender bender at the lane drop on the old elevated artery.

Too bad the feds would never allow the O'Neil building to be torn down and Nashua St reconnected to Causeway St. That would allow the awkward triangles to be recombined into a rectangular lot.
 
They're moving the FBI to Chelsea. Why couldn't they vacate this location?
 
I realize the FBI isn't in that bldg, I'm wondering why we should assume that that any organization is inseparable from a location. There has to be circumstances under which the Feds would vacate the O'Neil. The statement was that the Feds would never allow the bldg to be torn down. Given the current tolerance for height at this location - I'd be surprised if someone didn't try to figure how this could work.
 
We've probably got to get through some more of the lower hanging fruit before anyone wants to take on the complexity of moving the Feds out of the O'Neil and redeveloping that spot. Eventually though, it'd be great to get rid of that building. It's by far the worst thing around there. Even the stuff in the West End is better.
 
underground said:
We've probably got to get through some more of the lower hanging fruit before anyone wants to take on the complexity of moving the Feds out of the O'Neil and redeveloping that spot. Eventually though, it'd be great to get rid of that building. It's by far the worst thing around there. Even the stuff in the West End is better.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to combine the Federal workers in a new "Government Center" location somewhere outside Downtown but still with transit access. I know that they're actively looking to become tenants in all their offices and get out of the ownership business, but I wonder how good a tenant they are? On the one hand, they'll probably never vacate unless you make them, so they're guaranteed revenue, but I doubt the rent's that good.

Point is, are they attractive enough to some developer to justify, say, cleaning up the Wynn site if the casino law is killed next week? That site could probably fit a few 20-story Federal buildings, and security's a breeze!
 
It would be interesting to combine the Federal workers in a new "Government Center" location somewhere outside Downtown
Click to expand...

We could have our very own La Defense.
 
underground said:
We could have our very own La Defense.
Click to expand...

Sort of, except that while ugly above ground level, the urbanism in La Defense isn't nearly as bad. Not as much security, and corporations locate there as well.

I'm envisioning tall office buildings in a park, just where no one actually has to go there except the employees. :)
 
nico said:
I realize the FBI isn't in that bldg, I'm wondering why we should assume that that any organization is inseparable from a location. There has to be circumstances under which the Feds would vacate the O'Neil. The statement was that the Feds would never allow the bldg to be torn down. Given the current tolerance for height at this location - I'd be surprised if someone didn't try to figure how this could work.
Click to expand...

Some might say the FBI has offices there, but I won't.
If a developer made an offer to the GSA (which administratively "owns" the building) that covered the cost of the building, the relocation, an interference with operations factor, and a profit factor, who knows? Why a "profit factor"? Because a large portion of GSA operations is not funded by Congressional appropriation, but by an "eat what you kill" approach toward leases to other agencies and by procurements for other agencies.
So if someone thinks it is economically feasible to tear down the building, step on up with a deal.
 
tobyjug said:
Some might say the FBI has offices there, but I won't.
If a developer made an offer to the GSA (which administratively "owns" the building) that covered the cost of the building, the relocation, an interference with operations factor, and a profit factor, who knows? Why a "profit factor"? Because a large portion of GSA operations is not funded by Congressional appropriation, but by an "eat what you kill" approach toward leases to other agencies and by procurements for other agencies.
So if someone thinks it is economically feasible to tear down the building, step on up with a deal.
Click to expand...
Many of the Federal agencies that are tenants in the O'Neill FOB are those with a lot of interaction with the public, so any new site has to be readily accessible via mass transit.

In today's security environment, the O'Neill would not have been located where it is, so no future site where the building sits right on the street.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top