Forest City/MIT Project @ University Park | 300 Massachusetts Ave | Cambridge

SeamusMcFly said:
Westy, as you should know by now, I am very much in tune and involved in many of the ongoing projects in the MIT area.....Nothing wrong with the building, and there is something to be said for having a small number of students in a building. They don't all need to be huge. But, by all means, build more and bigger ones plus keep this. Or, as Fattony says, repurpose or even add onto the existing building.

Being pleasant to walk by is paramount in this area, because so few are. This one being handsome, makes 300 seem that much better. Also, if they dropped a lab in here, we'd lose the tight streetwall, as we can be certain there would need to be a separation at that point.

Stop chopping down to build new, when there is so much open already. Fill those in first. Not a difficult concept. It's also cheaper.

Why is it 'necessary' to retrofit the building just because it doesn't meet the standard for new dorm construction? It's not new construction. Upgrades can easily be made to certain systems. Turn it into graduate housing. Any number of options exist before demolition.
Click to expand...

Seamus -- as you undoubtedly know MIT closed Bexley [another old building on Mass Ave] because of the "just because it doesn't meet the standard for new dorm construction" issues. MIT undergraduate dorms take a serious amount of student abuse and need to be renovated from time to time. The older and seemingly less non-quirky the greater the potential for floor-wide water fights, etc.

Anytime that you do a major renovation on an old building all the standards for new dorm construction have to be addressed. One of the things [beside the name] which made Random popular [I've got this from two of my brothers who resided there back a couple of decades ago] is / was its quirkiness and a lot of that specifically meant non-compliance with many of the standards for new dorm construction.

Recently [opened in Fall 2011] Maseeh Hall became the newest MIT undergrad dorm -- it was created by repurposing, at a very significant cost, the old [130 year old structure originally a hotel / apartment complex] which was known as Ashdown House for nearly 70 years when it was a graduate dorm. It took more than 5 years [including some effects of the Great Recession on funding] to complete the extensive restoration / repurposing.
 
whighlander said:
Seamus -- as you undoubtedly know MIT closed Bexley [another old building on Mass Ave] because of the "just because it doesn't meet the standard for new dorm construction" issues. MIT undergraduate dorms take a serious amount of student abuse and need to be renovated from time to time. The older and seemingly less non-quirky the greater the potential for floor-wide water fights, etc.

Anytime that you do a major renovation on an old building all the standards for new dorm construction have to be addressed. One of the things [beside the name] which made Random popular [I've got this from two of my brothers who resided there back a couple of decades ago] is / was its quirkiness and a lot of that specifically meant non-compliance with many of the standards for new dorm construction.

Recently [opened in Fall 2011] Maseeh Hall became the newest MIT undergrad dorm -- it was created by repurposing, at a very significant cost, the old [130 year old structure originally a hotel / apartment complex] which was known as Ashdown House for nearly 70 years when it was a graduate dorm. It took more than 5 years [including some effects of the Great Recession on funding] to complete the extensive restoration / repurposing.
Click to expand...

Again. Familiar with the formerly named Ashdown house as I did the due diligence report on that one while at a different company. It was of course graduate housing then, and disgusting.

However, not meeting a standard, is not the same as not meeting code. You make exceptions. Or you repurpose It. Knocking down the Random in the name of progress or meeting a standard is not a good idea.

Also, a dorm is a dorm. MIT dorms are not special in anyway compared to others. They are not up against any special abuse no matter how smart the students. I know you're an MIT guy, but they are jot the beginning or the end when it comes to universities.

You cannot give me a reasonable justification for knocking down random hall or whatever it is called, and price is definitely not going to get MIT any sympathy. You would have seen that had they tried to knock down ashdown.
 
Seamus -- the original Ashdown while run down and worn -- had as they say, "good bones" [having once been a luxury structure circa 1900] and the location was exceptional -- the ideal place for a new undergraduate dorm

Random, as a building, is relatively old for Mass Ave down by MIT -- circa 1910, but hardly distinguished -- indeed before it became an MIT dorm, the buildings [282 and 290 are two independent buildings with a common wall] were used as a rooming house

In the past, it apparently had a few tenants who were destined to become famous. At the dedication party, Louis Smullin (then head of the EE department if I remember correctly) said that he had lived in the building while he was a student, and I believe he said Claude Shannon had lived there as well.
Click to expand...

Inaugurated as dorm in 1968, it was temporary emergency housing to help deal with the mid 60's undergraduate housing crunch. The name Random Hall comes a bit round-about -- the story provides a quote about the facility
http://web.mit.edu/random-hall/www/History/publisher-objections.shtml
The events leading up to the present situation took shape in September when the future residents decided to name their dormitory Fasset House. Dean Wadleigh, however, was widely quoted as stating emphatically, "I'll be damned if I will support a move to put a first class name on a second class facility."
Click to expand...
as a result the students named the place Random House until the publisher complained ... its been Random Hall ever since

92.jpg

Some addition information about the building comes from a Tech story almost 2 years ago [ Friday, March 8, 2013]

randomhouse.jpg

Part of Random Hall’s façade recently came loose on Wednesday, March 6, and the rest will need serious repair. The white-painted brick wall, once the interior wall between 282 Massachusetts Avenue and a building formerly attached to it, will also need to be braced since it was never intended to be an exterior wall. Repairs are planned to begin during Spring Break and are expected to continue for two to three weeks.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Not sure why your arguing, and really not sure why I'm arguing back.
But. Yes, by todays standards, it is quite distinguished. I know this is all highly subjective.

The eye test tells me, this from an aesthetic standpoint, human scale standpoint, et.c, is better than what would potentially replace it.

Build on vacant lots, you have plenty of them. Rehabbing this building to current dorm standards may be expensive. But, knocking down and rebuilding is much more expensive than building on a vacant lot.

Repurpose if it cannot absolutely continue as an undergrad dorm. But, by no means knock it down in the name of meeting that standard. That is not sane.
 
This things need a diet from the terra cotta pie. I didn't realize more would be framing the rounded glazed portion. I know it's supposed to be contextual, but without any detailing at the Windows, it's just overwhelming along the street.

Still fits in better than might have been assumed I guess based on scale. The added retail will be a big boost to this stretch.
 
Walked by this Thursday- really enjoying its presence from the street. It's massive in a good way, and that curved corner (as seen in BeeLine's photo above) is very nice.
 
Downburst said:
Walked by this Thursday- really enjoying its presence from the street. It's massive in a good way, and that curved corner (as seen in BeeLine's photo above) is very nice.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the massing feels just about right. I wonder how it'd have looked if they had extruded maybe another 50-100m tower up out of the shape of its utility hat.
 
Wow.

I do not find this aesthetically pleasing at all ... but I am quite attracted to it. (I think my wife knows this feeling).

cca
 
+1, it has strong lines and good proportions. Also it varies itself enough to break any monotony but keep its restraint unlike a Van Ness building which I think went too far
 
cca said:
Wow.

I do not find this aesthetically pleasing at all ... but I am quite attracted to it. (I think my wife knows this feeling).

cca
Click to expand...


I chuckled pretty hard at this - well done
 
Sometimes the truth is just funny.

cca
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top