Charlestown Infill and Small Developments

610 Rutherford Ave Sullivan Square. 22 units in a bad location, lots of idling traffic and emissions. Next door to the Graphic.

DSC_0370.jpeg
DSC_0372.jpeg
DSC_0383.jpeg
DSC_0367.jpeg
 
Brad Plaid said:
610 Rutherford Ave Sullivan Square. 22 units in a bad location, lots of idling traffic and emissions. Next door to the Graphic.

View attachment 3957
Click to expand...
The zero-visibility parking portal onto the spot where everyone accelerates out of the rotary is going to be a disaster- nevermind the Ubers. I hope they don't do something even worse like put a garage door in to slow down the entrance.
 
Prospect St/url] by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/131312451@N03/]Bos Beeline, on Flickr

IMG_3427 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr

IMG_3425 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr

Very nice renovation/restoration of engine #50 station.

IMG_3434 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr

IMG_3436 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr

IMG_3437 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr

IMG_3438 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr

And on the left we have a little sidewalk Birthday Party action.

IMG_3439 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr

Monument St by Bos Beeline, on Flickr

IMG_3444 by Bos Beeline, on Flickr
 
I so much like the old buildings more than the new ones. The plain boxy look in the new ones has run its course. Time to come up with a new style.
 
x 1,000,000

I get that human labor (and its ability to generate unique architectural elements) is relatively much more costly than it was 100 years ago. But it never fails to blow my mind that at a time when we have hundreds of years of architectural success stories to look at; when computer-assisted modeling exists; and when a vast array of previously unknown materials are at our disposal, we have degenerated, not progressed, in architecture.

It's time to throw out the entire cohort of today's practicing (and especially academic) architects and return to the human architecture that existed for millennia up until the post-WWII Bauhaus monopolization of architecture.
 
itchy said:
x 1,000,000

I get that human labor (and its ability to generate unique architectural elements) is relatively much more costly than it was 100 years ago. But it never fails to blow my mind that at a time when we have hundreds of years of architectural success stories to look at; when computer-assisted modeling exists; and when a vast array of previously unknown materials are at our disposal, we have degenerated, not progressed, in architecture.

It's time to throw out the entire cohort of today's practicing (and especially academic) architects and return to the human architecture that existed for millennia up until the post-WWII Bauhaus monopolization of architecture.
Click to expand...


I would highly recommend browsing some contemporary architecture on sites like Archdaily, Dezeen, Architectural Reccord, etc.
There's this really easy position to make by just walking around and observing the built environment (particularly in Boston). The older buildings (that remain) are more beautiful than the vast majority of most things being constructed now. It does look like the profession has lost its way.

But so much of it now is dictated by budgetary constraints and a shift in priorities/power structure of the Architect, Client, and now the dreaded Client Representative. The Architect as the Master Builder has been pushed out in all but the projects with the most relaxed clients and equally relaxed wallets.

There is still beautiful work going up today. No, most of it isn't traditional or ornament-focused. But the importance of form and material is still hugely important to architects and their work.

I'm with you in being disappointed with how little digital fabrication and automation has affected the trades of craft. One would think ornament would be more prominent now with the endless flexibility and speed of CNCing.
 
Charlie_mta said:
I so much like the old buildings more than the new ones. The plain boxy look in the new ones has run its course. Time to come up with a new style.
Click to expand...

I vote we go back to using masonry. Wood just has such a temporary feel to it and if it ages at all or if not everyone keeps up on paint the whole neighborhood goes to crap (my neighborhood). With stone if it ages a lot of times it looks even better. Even if they have to use precast because everything is about pinching pennies then so be it, precast done right can be good. Id like to see some better precast created also so people are more tempted to use it. If dorchester had been built in brick it would look so much better today than all of the shabby wood with peeling paint.
 
Navy Yard Power Plant and the Pier 5 RFP just dropped.

Power Plant:
Building 108 (Power Plant) is in the process of being demolished now by a contractor (paid for by the BPDA). It is a 40,000 sq. ft. property originally built between 1902 and 1904, Building 108 supplied nearly all of the electric power needed at the Charlestown Navy Yard, and may have restricted use due to contamination. Development has to be coordinated with the National Park Service, which occupies Building 107. The design is subject to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, the Charlestown Navy Yard Design Guidelines for Reuse for the Historic Monument Area, and the Charlestown Navy Yard Program for Preservation and Use. Per these guidelines, new construction must be contained within the volume of the original massing.

Pier 5:
167,000 sq. ft. of property with an 83,000 sq. ft. pier (not currently in usable condition and likely to be demolished). There is also a portion of the HarborWalk, and 75,000 sq. ft. of watersheet included as well. The pier was originally constructed by the US Navy in 1943.

 
Navy Yard proposals: “We were excited to get these proposals and all three are for housing on the pier,” said McDaniel. “One was for affordable housing, including a grocery store and retail space on a re-built pier. The other two are floating residential communities. We’re really excited about those and will have to take a careful look at them as we don’t usually review that kind of project.” https://charlestownbridge.com/2021/01/21/three-lively-proposals-look-to-liven-up-blighted-pier-5/

1611336007385.png
1611336019910.png
1611336043538.png
1611336127481.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top