Northeastern eyes dorms

Renderings are just images. The red is staying, otherwise it would be white or whatever color it was in the renderings.
 
Ron Newman said:
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.
Click to expand...

This was Ron's reaction to the (white!) rendering in January, 2007.

Ron, the splotchy red is your fault!

Just kidding.
 
This hulk is beginning to make the projects across the street look good.
 
is there supposed to be some kind of pattern to the window colors or is it totally random?
 
kmp1284 said:
This hulk is beginning to make the projects across the street look good.
Click to expand...

I was just thinking, I never noticed but this project is quite contextual with those projects. (So THAT'S why it looks like crap!)
 
Sorry, what were you all expecting from this? It's utilitarian, but it has its flourishes. It's girthy, but that's good for the area; it adds an instant dash of urban flavor. It holds to the street far better than any projects. And the brownish red matches the city's lowrise pallette, a criterion of the "new Boston style" and a sigature of 45 Province. So could someone please articulate why they find it so damn fugly?
 
bostoncitywalk said:

Click to expand...

The panels don't match in color, and they're too damn big for the inconsistencies to look charming like they would with something made from regular brick.

Also, the matte finish doesn't so much make me think of stone or concrete as it does a thin baked clay surface that would shatter if tapped with a screwdriver. Flimsiness, perceived or real, is a major no-no in my book.

Lastly, I don't like those metal panels next to the windows. The alternating pattern is a design cliche of the moment and I simply don't like it.

I have no complaints about the massing, although I noted before that it seems silly for NEU to allow space for a widening of Ruggles St. on their buildings north of the Orange Line, while this project pulls right up to the existing road bed.
 
That last photo kind of reminds me of this:

Simmons_Hall%2C_MIT%2C_Cambridge%2C_Massachusetts.JPG
 
If the exterior material had been different, this project would have been far better. Even something like 45 Province, not real brick, but at least something that gives the impression of it. The whole thing just looks cheap. Other than that, I have few gripes with this building.
 
In a few decades we'll be tearing down these cheap-looking buildings and asking ourselves "What were they thinking?"
 
I doubt they'll be tearing these down within a few decades, but we'll still be saying "what were they thinking?"
 
^ Looks like the Deaconess Garage and some say, just as comfortable.
 
^for some reason I used to love that garage when I was a little kid....and the Fortress building when the lock is on
 
^^ Me too for some reason. Isn't that strange.
 
Haha I was just about to say the same thing. Ever since I was a kid I've associated Longwood area with that garage...
 
i commend the way the building comes up and meets the streets (so far anyways) and for that reason alone its worthwhile, and better than before, but its ugly. The pics don't do it justice imo, its much uglier in person. Those red panels almost look like plywood (and yes, flimsy lookin') and the mismatching colors is quite offensive in real life.
 
It's Storrow Drive, and the Harvard building isn't technically on it; it's on Soldiers Field Rd. (which is the extension of Storrow past Western Ave.) Anyway, the Harvard building, with its tiered windows and bold cantilever, offended people in the right way. The Northeastern building seems to offend people in the wrong way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top