Avalon North Station | Nashua Street Residences | West End

I'm hoping that when it's 100 percent complete, with all glass, "trim," balconies, lighting, etc. that I'll feel differently, but I really dislike this tower. It seems most feel it's sort of "meh" filler type stuff that's neither amazing nor offensive and I hope that I ultimately have that take. I'm not banking on it, though. This is straight-up fugly and, while something similar 1/5 the height squirreled away off of 128 in Waltham or something wouldn't really have an impact, at this scale and at this entryway to the city, Avalon straight-up sucks. It's not as offensive as 1 Fed or Mass Ave Towers b/c... what? They're "just" ugly boxes, whereas this is two ugly boxes squished together, with a (slightly) angled roof that will be lit up, and may have better street interaction? I'm just surprised that this aggressively bland and cheap-looking building's getting such a free pass when other developments which seem way less obtrusively negative get shredded by folks on this forum.
 
Perfectly acceptable. i'm fine with this. For those who share your opinion, the a/r is good here. And, it should be getting 3 nice neighbors soon.

We have far worse elsewhere (not really an excuse). But, you want to talk serious egregious, 88 Boylston Street, Fiduciary Trust/175 Summer St, Sheraton; N/S towers Back Bay, 10-12 story Charles River Park garbage, and other universally accepted horrors.
 
Last edited:
chrisbrat said:
I'm hoping that when it's 100 percent complete, with all glass, "trim," balconies, lighting, etc. that I'll feel differently, but I really dislike this tower. It seems most feel it's sort of "meh" filler type stuff that's neither amazing nor offensive and I hope that I ultimately have that take. I'm not banking on it, though. This is straight-up fugly and, while something similar 1/5 the height squirreled away off of 128 in Waltham or something wouldn't really have an impact, at this scale and at this entryway to the city, Avalon straight-up sucks. It's not as offensive as 1 Fed or Mass Ave Towers b/c... what? They're "just" ugly boxes, whereas this is two ugly boxes squished together, with a (slightly) angled roof that will be lit up, and may have better street interaction? I'm just surprised that this aggressively bland and cheap-looking building's getting such a free pass when other developments which seem way less obtrusively negative get shredded by folks on this forum.
Click to expand...
The two reasons I don't shred this as much as I did on the Kensington, 30 Dalton, and 888 are 1) this tower doesn't suffer from an identity crisis like the first two. The facade is rather consistent on all sides while Kensington and 30 Dalton literally look like different buildings depending on which side you look at. And 2) the proportion is much better as a result of it being taller. 888 Boylston would look so much better if it didn't resemble so much like a glass cube toast.
 
I agree with KentXie on this one the height really helps the proportions as well as the consistency in the facade and the precast appears to be higher quality there is a distinct lack of off color panels and they just appear more substantial than the Kensington. I would actually associate this tower more with the Avalon building that was constructed a few years ago at the Pru.
 
Don't forget that this tower is located on a super awkward lot. No matter how you approach this building it will always be tucked behind something. Add in the fact that it's in a less-than-glamorous part of town and it makes sense that we're holding it to a lower aesthetic standard than buildings going up Downtown or in the Back Bay. Yes, it's very prominent from the highway, but the flip side of that is that it's next to a highway. And it'll stand less prominently once the neighbors, all of whom are on better lots, move in.

I'm happy with the way it makes the best of its location and adds housing stock and density. As far as looks, I'd describe it as "solidly good enough".
 
^^Yes. Some don't like the cladding. A newbie might come to town, look at Avalon tower and say, "The Boston Garden has a highrise sticking out of it. Brilliant!" (assuming the tower was included when the arena was built)... Is that the effect Avalon was looking for? Possibly.
 
I already pipe for the elephants -- no longer to walk the ramp

events17637.jpg
15367293548_ee0d560a26_b.jpg
 
Some have called for a redo of the O'Neill Bldg.

Seems adequate enough, and will mix reasonably well with the new towers.
 
odurandina said:
Some have called for a redo of the O'Neill Bldg.

Seems adequate enough, and will mix reasonably well with the new towers.
Click to expand...

Osurandina -- the O'Neil is right after the Hurley in my list of "When the Revolution Comes -- Yo Goin Down"

;)




If ever there was an appropriately named building -- its a near formless bloated gasbag of a blob much like its namesake

ONeill_Building_Government_Center_Boston_31.png







Note the above was simply for humourous allegorical purposes and nothing was implied about any person living or deceased
 
You kidding? Fatman himself is singlehandedly responsible for launching the political career of John Kerry.... O'Neill put him on Iran Contra.
 
Last edited:
whighlander said:
Odurandina -- the O'Neil is right after the Hurley in my list of "When the Revolution Comes -- Yo Goin Down"
Click to expand...

That low half of the building could get the wrecking ball for a mid-rise.

I don't think you'd be getting a highrise there.

btw, what do you all think about the office park/ concrete/wraparound window style that was so popular in the '80s @ 1 Devonshire Pl, Dewey Square, Westin/Marriot/Copley Pl and the O'neill Bldg and elsewhere?

ONeill_Building_Government_Center_Boston_31.png
 
Last edited:
odurandina said:
You kidding? Fatman himself is singlehandedly responsible for launching the political career of John Kerry.... O'Neill put him on Iran Contra.
Click to expand...

Osurandia -- Damn -- to think that I can't buy Heinz Ketchup because of the Tippling Point :p
 
odurandina said:
That low half of the building could get the wrecking ball for a mid-rise.

I don't think you'd be getting a highrise there.

btw, what do you all think about the office park/ concrete/wraparound window style that was so popular in the '80s @ 1 Devonshire Pl, Dewey Square, Westin/Marriot/Copley Pl and the O'neill Bldg and elsewhere?

ONeill_Building_Government_Center_Boston_31.png
Click to expand...

Odurandia -- Krappy Bastardization of the Prairie Style

By the way -- except for special cases such as National Security requirements, I don't think that the Federal Government should be an owner of office buildings in the midst of cities -- let em rent
 
Well, that's definitely a sensitive issue with respect to moving them over to the 1 Congress office tower while their new highrise would be built. They might require being the only tenant of the building.

But, that opens the possibility of bombing the site with a 10 megatons of explosives (boom). Which, of course, can't happen soon enough.
 
odurandina said:
Well, that's definitely a sensitive issue with respect to moving them over to the 1 Congress office tower while their new highrise would be built. They might require being the only tenant of the building.

But, that opens the possibility of bombing the site with a 10 megatons of explosives (boom). Which, of course, can't happen soon enough.
Click to expand...

Odurandia -- move the Federal Bureaucrats into the old McCormack P.O. and Court House in P.O. Square -- its got lots of spare space -- I think only the Federal Backruptsy Court is using its 600,000 sq. ft. -- and it even looks appropriately semi-Stalinist for the federal Bureaucracy
Boston_Post_Office_and_Courthouse.jpg


The level the Tipler and build tall and thin -- the antithesis

same prescription for the Hurley -- level it and build tall and thin
 
Do we have any buildings with spare space where Fed already has offices and available capacity or can 'quickly' be made to comply with DHS building security requirements?

I know Fed rents out of 1 WTC, but that was built with 1993 and 2001 in mind from the start and has a terrible despotic street presence (which doesn't really matter since it's basically a monument; tourists will be the ones milling about at the street and will be the ones oogling over the height and the louvered glass facade; and the office workers will mostly enter/exit the building through the WTC Transport Hub connections below).
 
DigitalSciGuy said:
Do we have any buildings with spare space where Fed already has offices and available capacity or can 'quickly' be made to comply with DHS building security requirements?

I know Fed rents out of 1 WTC, but that was built with 1993 and 2001 in mind from the start and has a terrible despotic street presence (which doesn't really matter since it's basically a monument; tourists will be the ones milling about at the street and will be the ones oogling over the height and the louvered glass facade; and the office workers will mostly enter/exit the building through the WTC Transport Hub connections below).
Click to expand...

DigSciGuy -- I think the ole McCormack Building might be a candidate -- especially after GSA spent a whole bunch of money strengthening the roof so that they could install a whole bunch of emergency generators [well protected from sea level rise]

It currently only houses the Federal Bankruptcy Court, a Court Library and a bunch of storage space
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top