Graduate Junction (MIT West Campus) | 269-301 Vassar St | Cambridge

Gameguy326 said:
Disagree. Simmons, the daycare center, the metro warehouse, the new undergraduate dorms, the theater arts building, the Hyatt, the athletics buildings, and even Tang are all colorful, varied, and somewhat geometrically interesting. It's just the cluster of this, Westgate, and a few other old brick buildings far west that are...bleh.
Click to expand...

I don't think my statement above came out quite right.

My point was that aB's reaction to a couple of inoffensive and (admittedly very) nondescript dorm buildings is a bit ridiculous. I surmise that there was/is no strategy to make these dorms on Vassar architecturally notable in the first place, given it is a low-traffic area for people outside of the campus community, and given context of a function-takes-precedence-over-form stretch of the campus. I can, in the same breath, agree with posters who are disappointed by the un-notableness of these structures while also defend MIT for having a reasonable strategy here. Also, given the approval of these designs is all-but-guaranteed and there are no abutters to impress or convince, there was minimal investment in gorgeous (i.e., exaggerated) renders like we're used to for projects which need to make their case to an (angry) community. The renders were horrendous, for example, for the new undergrad dorm on Vassar, but the in-person experience is totally fine: there are a few interesting details, the materials are reasonable quality, etc: very few undergrads will be disappointed in that dorm.

I am saying that "MIT swung and whiffed" is the wrong description here. MIT did not "swing" on these projects in the first place, and that's totally fine. I feel like some of those posters have not spent much time on the west end of Vassar street.

Finally, in agreement with your point, I also disagree with posters that MIT doesn't care about architecture and/or can't execute it. The 2010 Media Lab expansion, the new Sloan School Bldg (Bldg. E62), the main campus Bldg. 2 renovation, the currently-in-process Hayden Library renovation, the E52 renovation, mit.Nano, Bldg. 46, etc, etc, etc, show that MIT certainly cares about and can execute excellent architecture. They simply have a dorm strategy that posters on aB aren't keen on.
 
I think they look fine. Im sure that in the normal AB circle of life theyll be hated when the renders come out, then once built well see the “these arent so bad” comments start coming in like they always do. Especially here because its more a situation of not meeting expectations vs being an actually terrible design.
 
Gameguy326 said:
Disagree. Simmons, the daycare center, the metro warehouse, the new undergraduate dorms, the theater arts building, the Hyatt, the athletics buildings, and even Tang are all colorful, varied, and somewhat geometrically interesting. It's just the cluster of this, Westgate, and a few other old brick buildings far west that are...bleh.
Click to expand...
There is a distinct difference in the financial arithmetic between Undergraduate Dorms [a profit center] and Graduate Student Housing [a cost Center]

When an undergrad comes to MIT they pay tuition and if they live on campus they pay MIT for housing them

In contrast -- When you bring a graduate student to study at MIT as opposed to some state U where the legislature pays for Graduate Teaching Assistants -- essentially every MIT Graduate Student is on campus to do research for some research group headed by a more or less senior Professor. For each graduate research assistant there is some research contract [typically with a US. Gov't Agency] which pays for the total cost of the student. This total student cost includes: equipment, services such as supercomputing, access to journals, materials. travel to meeting and off-campus facilities and then the housing and living stipend for the student. Hence if you can keep the cost of housing the student to a minimum then you can have more money for research. -- and maybe even more students. More graduate students means more research papers and that then means even more money for research.

So if you are building graduate student housing -- you want to keep the costs to a minimum
 
The grad tower at Site 4 surely isn't a minimized cost; that building has a lot that could've been VE'd, including a massive cantilever, advanced facade, and overall award-winning design and quality. Even if you see it as a minimized cost, it's still an example of higher-caliber design at 'minimized costs.'

I'm not familiar with the entire process, but if an external agency is funding the total cost of the student, MIT could benefit from spending more on housing to grab/command a higher housing stipend in their contract, thus bringing the money back to them. I believe graduate comp sci and engineering students are getting $3000/mo. stipends.

I'm also not entirely sure money was the issue here - otherwise, they could get someone other than KieranTimberlake, who likely charges a higher fee/percentage than an average firm producing a similar design.
 
stefal said:
The grad tower at Site 4 surely isn't a minimized cost; that building has a lot that could've been VE'd, including a massive cantilever, advanced facade, and overall award-winning design and quality. Even if you see it as a minimized cost, it's still an example of higher-caliber design at 'minimized costs.'

I'm not familiar with the entire process, but if an external agency is funding the total cost of the student, MIT could benefit from spending more on housing to grab/command a higher housing stipend in their contract, thus bringing the money back to them. I believe graduate comp sci and engineering students are getting $3000/mo. stipends.

I'm also not entirely sure money was the issue here - otherwise, they could get someone other than KieranTimberlake, who likely charges a higher fee/percentage than an average firm producing a similar design.
Click to expand...
Stefal -- when a Prof makes an application for a grant assuming as is usually the case that its competitive -- you can't just lump on cost and assume that the agency with pickup the tab

Generally [unless its an unsolicited proposal]:
  1. The agency say an element of DOD, NIH, DOT, NASA, NOAA, DHS, DOE [these are the major agencies who do a lot of funding of University Research and Development] issues a request for a preliminary proposal [often called a Broad Area Announcement]
  2. Prof who wants to be a Principle Investigator often collaborates with other Profs at similar-level U to write a preliminary proposal which includes in addition to what they plan to do and how, how long, etc., -- the projected costs:
    1. Senior People costs -- that would be % of salaries of faculty and maybe senior research staff
    2. Junior people costs -- Posdocs and graduate students based on standardized salary and benefit schedules
    3. Overhead -- the U takes a slice for generally provided services such as libraries, janitors, heat, lights, guards, accounting, HR, etc.
    4. Contracted services such as supercomputer time
    5. equipment
    6. materials
    7. travel
    8. payments being made to other participating institutions
    9. possibly accommodation and travel for some other participants such as a Prof on a sabbatical
    10. Other, which might be a bit of a contingency and "slush fund" [although the Feds don't like these much], etc.
  3. The agency reviews all the submissions and makes a preliminary announcement of an award [obviously this step may take quite a bit of time and might even involve some negotiations]
  4. The Prof PI and Agency then do the formal negotiation and sign the contract [often some person like a VP for research at the U does the signing]
  5. Prof executes and reports on the work
  6. the Agency may ask for follow-on proposal
  7. etc.
If in the midst of this -- if the Prof says to the VP for Research by the way I'd like to put my folks going to work in CERN at the Four Seasons Hotel des Bergues one of the best hotels in Geneva -- there would be some push-back
so the $ gets squeezed fairly tightly

No one will increase the cost of housing a graduate student beyond what is needed to make sure that you are getting the best available students
 
A fairly substantial exterior redesign on this one:
www.cambridgema.gov

PB371

special permit application
www.cambridgema.gov www.cambridgema.gov

Looks like a much more varied, textured, and brighter facade. No longer all red brick.

A few random examples from above (link):
vd1.png


vd2.png


vd3.png


vd4.png


vd5.png
 
Wow, it looks SO much better.

My only complaint is it lacks the fluorescent colors the rest of that street has.
 
stellarfun said:
From the MIT website, MIT is not the developer. Does this indicate a private sector entity will build and manage the residence hall, and students' room charges will be paid to the developer?

Completion in 2024.

https://capitalprojects.mit.edu/projects/west-campus-graduate-residence-w87-w88
Click to expand...

No, it's part of the normal gradual res life system at MIT, and is listed there on their webpage too:

Renovation, Renewal & New Construction Projects (G) | Division of Student Life

studentlife.mit.edu studentlife.mit.edu
...and they have created a dorm-specific page for it: https://studentlife.mit.edu/west-campus

I think they are just contracting with those folks as a partner in this project ("working with..." is the language on the capital projects page)
 
bigpicture7 said:
No, it's part of the normal gradual res life system at MIT, and is listed there on their webpage too:

Renovation, Renewal & New Construction Projects (G) | Division of Student Life

studentlife.mit.edu studentlife.mit.edu
...and they have created a dorm-specific page for it: https://studentlife.mit.edu/west-campus

I think they are just contracting with those folks as a partner in this project ("working with..." is the language on the capital projects page)
Click to expand...
American Campus Communities describes various roles for the student residences it is associated with: Developer, Manager, Owner.
https://www.americancampus.com/abou...oncampus=1&offcampus=0&sortBy=&sortDirection=

Its role in Northeastern's Lightview is characterized as developer, manager, owner. Perhaps for MIT, the role will be developer, or developer and manager.
 
stellarfun said:
American Campus Communities describes various roles for the student residences it is associated with: Developer, Manager, Owner.
https://www.americancampus.com/abou...oncampus=1&offcampus=0&sortBy=&sortDirection=

Its role in Northeastern's Lightview is characterized as developer, manager, owner. Perhaps for MIT, the role will be developer, or developer and manager.
Click to expand...

Interesting.Thanks for digging this up. It's clear from their site that their role varies across the different dorms they are involved with, with them owning some of them themselves, but with them developing or managing others that the schools retain ownership of.
 
bigpicture7 said:
Interesting.Thanks for digging this up. It's clear from their site that their role varies across the different dorms they are involved with, with them owning some of them themselves, but with them developing or managing others that the schools retain ownership of.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the upcoming development of the Volpe site will be putting more than enough design and construction tasks on the plate for MIT's in-house facilities management staff.
 
Blurry picture of what might be the sampler, and another picture of the steel going up. From 11/9.

steel.JPG
sampler.JPG
 

Attachments

  • sampler.JPG
    sampler.JPG
    1.1 MB · Views: 44
king_vibe said:
For the love of God, just align the windows!
Click to expand...

Huh? This building has one of the most prominent and bold linear window grids we've seen recently:

vd2-png.13421


If you are referring to that one end cap that has the offset square windows, I think that is a gentle homage to Simmons Hall next door, shown here in @BeeLine 's photo upthread:
52210113841_584eb619c7_b.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top