Dorm Tower @ Emerson College | 1-3 Boylston Place | Downtown

4 thoughts adrift in the horse latitudes.

1. Springfield wants their infill back.

2. 218' of safe, sterile, dull, value engineered steel, concrete and rebar.

3. This is why Boston will never surpass San Fransisco...

4. Friends of the Public Garden: "Hey, Greg. Thanks buddy."
 
odurandina said:
4 thoughts adrift in the horse latitudes.

1. Springfield wants their infill back.

2. 218' of safe, sterile, dull, value engineered steel, concrete and rebar.

3. This is why Boston will never surpass San Fransisco...

4. Friends of the Public Garden: "Hey, Greg. Thanks buddy."
Click to expand...

Gotta love what was destroyed to build this, too.
 
odurandina said:
4 thoughts adrift in the horse latitudes.

1. Springfield wants their infill back.

2. 218' of safe, sterile, dull, value engineered steel, concrete and rebar.

3. This is why Boston will never surpass San Fransisco...

4. Friends of the Public Garden: "Hey, Greg. Thanks buddy."
Click to expand...

This 1 building is the reason Boston will never pass san francisco? Boston will be fine.
 
It is a dorm tower.... I didn't have high expectations for this in the first place, and yes, being a college building isn't a good excuse for crappy design/materials, but you can't expect the best either.
 
I feel like we've already seen this building 15 times in the last 10 years
 
This building is boring as all get out, but really, given where it is, did anyone expect some sort of architectural marvel? From what angles, (for those who live/work in the area), can you actually SEE this building? From someone who does, I will tell you... not many. Emerson is a good school, but not a particularly wealthy one. They are trying their best to relocate their students into dorms, and this is what we get. All in all, I will give it a C, which is what it takes to graduate from Emerson.
 
stefalarchitect said:
It is a dorm tower.... I didn't have high expectations for this in the first place, and yes, being a college building isn't a good excuse for crappy design/materials, but you can't expect the best either.
Click to expand...

Eh... not a good excuse when this guy's on the other side of the Common:
suffolkdorm.jpg


https://www.flickr.com/photos/suffolkuniversity/sets/72157625493496280/

^^ Suffolk University's Nathan R. Miller Residence Hall. Certainly softens the view on that side of downtown:
https://goo.gl/maps/EHdf4RjQ5MM2

fits in nicely at the base, too:
1280px-Suffolk_University_Nathan_R_Miller_Dorm.jpg
 
Cortes said:
This building is boring as all get out, but really, given where it is, did anyone expect some sort of architectural marvell?
Click to expand...

Well for better or for worse, they built this crazy cube out in la like a year ago:
Emerson-LA-11.jpg
 
34f34f said:
Eh... not a good excuse when this guy's on the other side of the Common
Click to expand...

Suffolk is a law school with connections up the ying-yang. Money. Emerson is a school with a bunch of people dressing up and playing pretend. No disrepect to Emerson, my ex-lady graduated from it and their communications department is top notch, but the difference is stark when it comes down to the ability to raise funds for construction projects.
 
Cortes said:
Suffolk is a law school with connections up the ying-yang. Money. Emerson is a school with a bunch of people dressing up and playing pretend. No disrepect to Emerson, my ex-lady graduated from it and their communications department is top notch, but the difference is stark when it comes down to the ability to raise funds for construction projects.
Click to expand...

Let's not toot Suffolk's horn too much...

20Somerset_web2.jpg
 
Cortes said:
Suffolk is a law school with connections up the ying-yang. Money. Emerson is a school with a bunch of people dressing up and playing pretend. No disrepect to Emerson, my ex-lady graduated from it and their communications department is top notch, but the difference is stark when it comes down to the ability to raise funds for construction projects.
Click to expand...

It did have the ability to raise funds, until its pathetic Board let its' PR consultant ruin the school.
 
Dormitories (residence halls) are cash cows.

They are even more of a cash cow when their construction can be financed out of institutional cash-flow.

They are somewhat less of a cash cow when the institution has to bond for the construction; financing costs eat into the revenue.

And they are even less, when the institution contracts with a private party to construct and operate the residence hall. (E.g., Northeastern. IIRC, its a measure of how much a dorm is a cash cow that I believe NU gets ownership of the privately built dorm in 25-30 years (and the end of its depreciated life) at no cost.)

College and universities place a premium on:
* Low maintenance
* Durability and a long useful life. Harvard is only now doing extensive renovation of the 'river houses', and these were built starting in 1930.
* Aesthetics and 'frills' to the extent that such add significantly to the cost, and reduce the net revenue, are frowned on.
* In many instances, university-owned housing has to be competitive with off-campus housing, so there is every incentive to fill the dorm rooms. If it costs a student $3-4,000 more a year to live in an architecturally spectacular residence hall, maybe they won't.
 
stellarfun said:
Dormitories (residence halls) are cash cows.

They are even more of a cash cow when their construction can be financed out of institutional cash-flow.

They are somewhat less of a cash cow when the institution has to bond for the construction; financing costs eat into the revenue.

And they are even less, when the institution contracts with a private party to construct and operate the residence hall. (E.g., Northeastern. IIRC, its a measure of how much a dorm is a cash cow that I believe NU gets ownership of the privately built dorm in 25-30 years (and the end of its depreciated life) at no cost.)
Click to expand...

Maybe...but shouldn't a mature cost-of-capital treatment view these as rough equivalents? I.e the opportunity cost of tying up cash flow in out-of-pocket financing should be in the same ballpark as the interest rate on paying for it through debt financing?

The real answer, of course, is that the real money is in selling the naming rights (pre-tax, natch) to a narcissistic alumni donor anyway.
 
CSTH said:
Maybe...but shouldn't a mature cost-of-capital treatment view these as rough equivalents? I.e the opportunity cost of tying up cash flow in out-of-pocket financing should be in the same ballpark as the interest rate on paying for it through debt financing?

The real answer, of course, is that the real money is in selling the naming rights (pre-tax, natch) to a narcissistic alumni donor anyway.
Click to expand...

Some colleges and universities don't seem to worry about opportunity costs. Looking at Amherst's balance sheet, as of June 30, 2015, it had $132 million in cash and cash equivalents, and it had spent about $170 million to operate the college for the 2014-15 academic year.

And its not that Amherst doesn't have debt, it paid over $17 million in debt service last year. But I think Amherst prefers to debt-finance buildings that are not revenue centers, like a library or a lab building. Amherst collected $22 million in room and board (from 1800 students), so a student's room 'rent' might be $9-10,000. Which would be a nice net income stream if such were undiluted by debt payments.

And you are correct about naming rights, but I think most schools would prefer naming rights (and associated gift(s) go to academic and athletic facilities, which don't always pay for themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top