GrandMarc Residence Hall (YMCA) @ Northeastern U | 291 St. Botolph Street | Fenway

I guess the mantra should be: when in doubt, just go glass!

11832463174_933012e78a_b.jpg


Later, as it was getting dark...

11832167766_49f153070f_b.jpg


11831775694_2109e2ca92_b.jpg


11831309185_af59489659_b.jpg
 
As long as they're putting glass around the unfinished area, I think it will accent nicely.. but only time will tell
 
Czervik.Construction said:
Who picked the color of that precast? Talk about sticking out.
Click to expand...

The color actually matches one of the NEC buildings on St. Botolph Street (I should have taken a picture when I was there last week.) It is a smaller building, directly across from the Matthews Arena. I suspect someone "thought" they were "blending in".
 
In case y'all need more to (very understandably) tear apart, here's the St. Botolph side:







I live across the street from this project and see it every day. It doesn't get any better. The precast color bothers me more than anything else, however. It really is vile. The Y deserves better behind it than this:

 
yeah the lack of depth or detail on the backside is what gets me. i don't hate it though.
 
As several others have noted, what's most disappointing here is that Northeastern for many years had a track record of initiating some of the best architecture in the city. Then came Kyu Sung Woo's dreadful homage to public housing projects (International Village). Now this. Granted that they must be working on tight budgets, in this case with a financial partner, but it's sad that their horizons have been so obviously lowered. That International Village "fits in" with the housing projects and this "fits in" with the Symphony towers is taking contextual architecture to an absurd extreme.
 
I would consider Northeastern's planned science center to be a much better barometer of what its architectural goals/standard are. Now if that gets VE'd to death then I think you complaints are much more valid.
 
StillInTheHood said:
As several others have noted, what's most disappointing here is that Northeastern for many years had a track record of initiating some of the best architecture in the city. Then came Kyu Sung Woo's dreadful homage to public housing projects (International Village). Now this. Granted that they must be working on tight budgets, in this case with a financial partner, but it's sad that their horizons have been so obviously lowered. That International Village "fits in" with the housing projects and this "fits in" with the Symphony towers is taking contextual architecture to an absurd extreme.
Click to expand...

For the hundredth time: Northeastern had nothing to do with this. The thread title really needs to be changed to end this confusion. NEU is just the leased tenant for this building for the time being. It is built by a developer, not Northeastern.
 
If you don't think that Northeastern didn't have the power to address the design of this then ... well, I hardly know where to start, but I'll try.

This wasn't simply built on spec and Northeastern happened to come along and rent it. The original-original plans were for a group dorm unaffiliated with an institution, but Northeastern was signed as the tenant before the design was finalized and approved or the first shovel was turned. Their direct involvement was in fact critical to approval.

Some time ago, my then-employer signed on as lead tenant (not sole tenant, mind you, and a ten year lease) in a five story office building financed by an independent developer, and you can bet that we were involved in the design and layout down to the location of the flowerpots. Many, many hours with the architects. I could cite hundreds of other examples, this is the norm, not the exception.

Same applies here. If Northeastern had pushed for better design they would have gotten better design. Mind you, I am not suggesting that their economics or those of their partner would have permitted a building wildly different in scale or general massing. But relatively modest improvements that would have had a trivial impact on the overall build cost could have made a big difference. It is flat crazy to suggest this was beyond Northeastern's control.
 
To defend NU, perhaps they asked the developer to build it with better materials, etc., but were probably given the, "welllll, we couuuuld, but that will cost you" routine. That probably made NU settle on the end product.

That said, although NU is leasing the building, it is basically their building. When you lease a car or apartment, it is your car or apartment, even though you don't technically own it. The community will associate this building with NU.
 
Thanks for photographing that angle... is that Worcester Square in the foreground?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top