MIT New 450-bed Residence Hall | 121 Vassar St. | Cambridge

With a view of an athletics field, basically a park, MIT has decided to build the smallest windows possible? And compounded it with a sterile facade. That thing is disgraceful.
 
The last three comments are seriously unfair. Clever, and amusing, but unfair. Let's just let this thing play out before we get all enraged. Too much can happen and will happen to waste your ire on this.

There are better things to shake your fists at.

cca
 
It's kind of like the Charles Hotel, but not as pretty.

Speaking of the Charles Hotel, I'm reminded of the headline from the late, lamented Weekly Week (a late 1990s local satirical paper, a la The Onion with the motto "Boston's only news source for redundant news"): "Qbert attacks Charles Hotel"
 
I wonder if MIT dorm architects are on a competition to upstage one another with how ugly their buildings can get.

This is a new level of ugly.

Just went through their website. These ass clowns should have their licences stripped.
 
I'm really glad beeline has captured and immortalized "WE RAGE"
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
I wonder if MIT dorm architects are on a competition to upstage one another with how ugly their buildings can get.

This is a new level of ugly.

Just went through their website. These ass clowns should have their licences stripped.
Click to expand...

Yea I don't get it, MIT has a healthy endowment don't they? Why does this look like THE cheapest building they could put up.
 
I mean I sort of like the MIT sata center. But this ugh.

Simmions hall kinda gives the impression that it's so ugly that it's kinda good.
 
It looks like the rendering artist gave up halfway through. Why is that facade so smooth? Is it brick or not? Or some garbage material like fake stucco?

Either way it looks like the unholy marriage of Stata, Simmons, and severely reduced expectations.
 
MIT is a superpower in the midst of profound change, currently mobilizing its forces. This land will someday be very valuable. This looks like a temporary/ disposable dorm project designed to add flexibility to their housing portfolio as they bring new dorms, and eliminate some of the older buildings including Eastgate. My guess as to why they're so stubby and plain, is they can be replaced by something substantial/ easily down the road. I put the over-under of these being up at about 13 years.
 
odurandina said:
MIT is a superpower in the midst of profound change, currently mobilizing its forces. This land will someday be very valuable. This looks like a temporary/ disposable dorm project designed to add flexibility to their housing portfolio as they bring new dorms, and eliminate some of the older buildings including Eastgate. My guess as to why they're so stubby and plain, is they can be replaced by something substantial/ easily down the road. I put the over-under at of these being up about 13 years.
Click to expand...

Institutions like MIT rarely (if ever) build throwaway anything.
Buildings are usually designed and built for a 50 year lifespan minimum.

Eastgate is coming down at roughly that 50+ year mark. It is also not part of MIT's undergraduate dorms. It is family housing (post graduate), and is being replaced bed for bed plus some by Building 4 at the SoMa project. The footprint then become a new lab/office building.

So no real flexibility gained there.
 
SeamusMcFly said:
Institutions like MIT rarely (if ever) build throwaway anything.
Buildings are usually designed and built for a 50 year lifespan minimum.
Click to expand...

100% agree. MIT isn't in the business of flushing money down the drain. Is anyone? Who spends (hundreds of?) millions of dollars on a building to tear it down in 13 years?
 
Who? MIT that's who. They have smart people up there. Not sure of the price tag on this. Change comes massively, even sooner than anticipated. MIT may be in a position to print money [and buy small countries] by then [they're printing money now]. In 8 to 10 years they might be ready to move on from this [or a portion of it going tall] – the loss not considered prohibitive. Was that the plan all along?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top