Northeastern eyes dorms

Re: parcel 3 funding

cityrecord said:
And I'd suggest you spend some time looking at the zoning maps, current development proposals and driving around Roxbury rather than sitting at a desk looking at Virtual Earth. I'd also suggest that you not put words in my mouth like "Wow, there's so little land left to build on!" which wasn't my point. My point is that your use of at least one of the pictures (and there are similar problems in the other pictures, only not as extreme as the example I used) is intellectually dishonest and the equivalent of showing a picture of Boston Common and claiming that Boston has plenty of room for downtown development.
Click to expand...
Actually, it's your use of that picture that's intellectually dishonest, because you're using what by your own words is an extreme example to argue the general case. And if I spent some time on Virtual Earth looking at downtown Boston I would not claim that there's plenty or room for development. Not even on the common, since the views would show its a park and not an empty lot.

cityrecord said:
As to your claims of low density in Roxbury, density can be measured any number of ways and furthermore you're claiming low density relative to what exactly? The North End of Boston? Weston?
Click to expand...
The South End. I made it very clear right at the beginning what I was comparing by posting a picture of the South End near Ruggles and one of Roxbury also near Ruggles. Maybe you should reread everything I've written and make sure you understand it before you go on the warpath. If you missed something that obvious God only knows what else you missed.

Anyway, I don't think anything productive is going to come out of this discussion so I'd just as soon end it.
 
From the latest Courant:

nu_dorm.jpg
 
I'm not sure why, but my immediate reaction to that photo is "Yuck!"

Aren't the surrounding buildings mostly red-brick brownstones? Northeastern should at least try to make their building fit in, in style if not not in scale.
 
...

looks like the Symphony Towers crapped it out.

but if its streetlevel includes retail and other active uses, it'll be alright. it'll take alot more than this building to fix whats currently there (and yes, I do beleive it needs fixing)

This is also a good location for dense housing.
 
...

Ron,

If I'm picturing this area correctly, there are actually alot more parking lots in this area than any "red brick brownstones".

This view confirms that:

Nupost-t2-02.jpg
 
OK, I was thinking of the area a few blocks to the east, near St. Cyprian's church. Still, that's one ugly building proposal.
 
That is UGLY!

The last three buildings completed by NU (first photo courtesy of kz)

img0190kl7.jpg


DSC_1384.jpg


DSC_1414.jpg


Where the heck did this ugly proposal come from?!?
 
Northeastern used to be known for its "ugly" campus. They've made tremendous steps forward in the past few decades. The Ruggles proposal threatens a return to the bad old days.
 
btw- The exposed cellphone tower right across the street in front of the police station is a blight to that area.
 
briv said:
From the latest Courant:

nu_dorm.jpg
Click to expand...

A poor copy of Steven Holl's Simmons Hall:

d91485a2.jpg


Police Headquarters is lousy reinterpretation of this Peter eisenman building in Berlin:

eisenman_02.jpg
 
From The Northeastern News:


New halls approved, to net 1,800 beds
Samantha Egan
Issue date: 1/10/07


Last month, the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) approved Northeastern's plan to construct two new residence halls, which together will provide 1,800 beds.

According to the building plans, one of the new residence halls will be located on the corner of Tremont and Ruggles streets. The other will be located near Cullinane Hall on St. Botolph Street.

Fred McGrail, director of communications and public relations, predicted construction would start "fairly soon, in a month or so." The buildings are set to be completed in fall 2009, although these dates are not definite. McGrail said the starting date will depend on the weather in the next month and if the ground remains unfrozen.



Link
 
so where are the NIMBYs? A dorm is a fine thing, but that design will blight the neighborhood for decades to come.
 
Agreed. Many building proposals just need a little tweaking to look good (crown on 111 Huntington), but this one needs a miracle to look decent
 
I agree these buildings are very austere, but I have some difficulty passing judgment on any residential building without knowing at least a little bit about the interior layout. They're dorms, not the most fertile ground for innovation (MIT's Baker House notwithstanding), but perhaps there's something redeeming inside? The glazed atrium-like spaces make me curious...Is Rawn the architect?
 
Pretty much, yes. I don't know what Northeastern wants to do with these dorm rooms, but I'd imagine the rooms are rather large. West H, the high rise, holds 400 people in really big apartments in a slender 16 floor (only 11 floors have residential) building. This is 22 stories and MUCH wider.

I think they could have done MUCH better, especially considering what they have done in the past
 
To make it clear, I'm objecting only to the new proposal. The three already-built dorms, pictured a few posts above this one, look fine to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top