MIT Stephen A. Schwarzman College of Computing | Kendall Square | Cambridge

Just demolition for now right? Is there a rush to get this building down? There's no design available to the public currently, meaning its still a while before this thing can start rising..
 
stefal said:
Just demolition for now right? Is there a rush to get this building down? There's no design available to the public currently, meaning its still a while before this thing can start rising..
Click to expand...
Stefal

I'm guessing its all dependent on Mr Schwarzman's money -- how much of the $1000M or so being pledged to the overall College of Computing Project
is tied-up in Amazon or Microsoft shares, etc.
 
Courtesy of BLDUP
MIT_College_of_Computing_Facade.png

MIT_College_of_Computing_Front.png
MIT_College_of_Computing_courtyard.png
MIT_College_of_Computing_front_courtyard.png
MIT_College_of_Computing_front_street_view.png
MIT_College_of_Computing_Kendall_View.png
 
Covering the grand junction ROW even more... hmm. I guess that means were stuck with street level crossings forever.
 
Wow it's...so boring. I'm not saying it has to be Stata, but I feel like that corner, with building 46 and Stata, should embrace bolder architecture.

stick n move said:
Covering the grand junction ROW even more... hmm. I guess that means were stuck with street level crossings forever.
Click to expand...

I don't see why this would mean we're stuck with street level crossings forever? This building was never the limiting factor on that.
 
There is provision for a future second track for the Grand Junction.

There is exactly one classroom and one lecture hall. Most of the space is set aside for researchers, and research teams. This is less an academic building and more a specialized research institute.

MIT (and the donor) are not spending money to make an architectural statement; its a backwater area in any event. IMO, Gehry's Stata is wasted architecture because of the site, its like a specimen jar on a high shelf.
 
To be fair, Stata Center was much more prominent before they hid it with building 76.
 
Two thoughts on this one:
1) I am a sucker for multi-story entry halls with grand staircases
2) There's more to the Vassar-facing facade than first-glance at a low res render conveys; the glass/sunscreen appears to be overlaid in a fish scale-like 3D pattern. Given that most of this parcel is boxed in, it's the front that matters most and I think they did well with it.
sw1.png
 
I'm only okay with the design because it's not offensive. I would've liked something a little more bold for what's shaping to be a $1 billion world-class AI research center, if it's going to be a brand new/blank slate building with an interior program that can have a lot of flexibility.

They claim the scaling on the front facade to be a sustainability effort, heating the interior during the winter and maintaining the temperature during the summer. Not sure how effective it will end up being over a regular curtain wall, but I agree its an interesting idea.
 
Gameguy326 said:
Wow it's...so boring. I'm not saying it has to be Stata, but I feel like that corner, with building 46 and Stata, should embrace bolder architecture.



I don't see why this would mean we're stuck with street level crossings forever? This building was never the limiting factor on that.
Click to expand...

Because theres already two buildings built over the tracks that would have to be altered to allow a viaduct if that was determined to be a way to get past the grade crossings, now there will be 3 buildings that extend over the tracks.
 
stick n move said:
Because theres already two buildings built over the tracks that would have to be altered to allow a viaduct if that was determined to be a way to get past the grade crossings, now there will be 3 buildings that extend over the tracks.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but I think Building 46 was already problematic enough, no? There isn't enough clearance there for a viaduck.

Why not a trench/overpass? Seems much more doable.
 
Gameguy326 said:
Yeah, but I think Building 46 was already problematic enough, no? There isn't enough clearance there for a viaduck.

Why not a trench/overpass? Seems much more doable.
Click to expand...

Cant do a trench because the red line is right there.
 
stick n move said:
Cant do a trench because the red line is right there.
Click to expand...
Ohhh....really deep tunnel then? Yeah, I agree that this is trickier than I thought, then...

But, I think building 46 already made a viaduct impossible.

It is still possible to build a road overpass there, though it makes turning difficult/impossible.
 
I believe f-line said that the buildings over the ROW have an agreement that they will move the mechanicals that were built over the tracks if the mbta needs the room. Thats why I was saying that adding this complicates it even more and makes it much less likely to ever happen.
 
stick n move said:
I believe f-line said that the buildings over the ROW have an agreement that they will move the mechanicals that were built over the tracks if the mbta needs the room. Thats why I was saying that adding this complicates it even more and makes it much less likely to ever happen.
Click to expand...

I think if the plans and sections are indicating that there is a future second railway in the ROW, I would surely hope that they've considered/talked with engineers or the MBTA on the requirements for their building to meet should a future second railroad occur. I hope that's what the 'assumed' clearance indicates. If not, that's a huge oversight.

1610579608784.png
1610579728360.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top