On The Dot | 505 Dorchester Avenue | South Boston

Screen Shot 2022-03-22 at 12.27.37 PM.png

Walking directions from about the midpoint of the parcel to Andrew station. Insanity.


Edit: Not to mention a 10 minute walk from Newmarket if pretty minor station improvements were made.
Screen Shot 2022-03-22 at 12.37.44 PM.png
 
Last edited:
All 4 buildings reduced to under 200', with 2 of them originally as high as 249' and 259'. What exactly is that supposed to accomplish, other than a squatter, more monotonously proportioned development?

Scott said:
What's your point? There is 88 more units.
Click to expand...

I think the OP's point is what they stated: "a squatter, more monotonously proportioned development."

Seems like a legitimate complaint to make on a forum about architecture and urban planning.

Even the Volpe development team in Cambridge explicitly emphasized that staggering building heights (fostered by a greater range and dynamism of height) would help avoid the drab effect of monotony.

Street level and livability are incredibly important, but creating a vibrant city above the street-level is not insignificant.
 
rjacobs said:
All 4 buildings reduced to under 200', with 2 of them originally as high as 249' and 259'. What exactly is that supposed to accomplish, other than a squatter, more monotonously proportioned development?



I think the OP's point is what they stated: "a squatter, more monotonously proportioned development."

Seems like a legitimate complaint to make on a forum about architecture and urban planning.

Even the Volpe development team in Cambridge explicitly emphasized that staggering building heights (fostered by a greater range and dynamism of height) would help avoid the drab effect of monotony.

Street level and livability are incredibly important, but creating a vibrant city above the street-level is not insignificant.
Click to expand...

It absolutely is insignificant:

logan-armstrong-hVhfqhDYciU-unsplash-2-2048x1365.jpg






Aerial-view-of-Amsterdam-Netherlands.jpg


edinburgh-new-town-promo.jpg


Look at all those stumps!
 
BronsonShore said:
It absolutely is insignificant:

logan-armstrong-hVhfqhDYciU-unsplash-2-2048x1365.jpg






Aerial-view-of-Amsterdam-Netherlands.jpg


edinburgh-new-town-promo.jpg


Look at all those stumps!
Click to expand...
I think you’re making a joke, but there’s a huge difference between uniform height that’s 3 to 5 stories tall (human scaled, not oppressive, and not monotonous, as is typical of most European cities), and 15 to 20 story tall stumps, particularly with wide footprints, which, like the seaport district, are oppressive and monotonous.
 
king_vibe said:
800 PARKING SPACES
Click to expand...
I see your point, but I also see the other side, wherein most people (probably the overwhelming majority) want to have a car. Until we're in a society with really good transit or pooled vehicles, that will be the case.
 
DZH22 said:
All 4 buildings reduced to under 200', with 2 of them originally as high as 249' and 259'. What exactly is that supposed to accomplish, other than a squatter, more monotonously proportioned development?
Click to expand...

More housing units occurred. That is FAR more important,than how it looks from 10 miles away.
 
Last edited:
And the name is cringy bad, worse than Whoop
 
I'm a broken record (I know). No person has ever moved/visited/worked/played in a city because of its skyline.

We are the most walkable city in America. Skyscrapers almost never enhance Boston's diverse, eclectic street-life. Most often they present as landscrapers that diminish complexity.

Personally, I'd rather worry about street life than a view from the ocean.
 
Last edited:
Czervik.Construction said:
Looks like they did the massing and elevation visuals in an XLS spreadsheet. Gets the job done.
Click to expand...
Does it though?
Multiple occurrences of a taller building being drawn shorter than a building it is labeled as taller than. Just matched floor counts.
Maybe to make the resi look taller in sections?
Instead of misleading folks, why not just actually build more resi, and they will be taller than the labs?

Looks good in union sq...
 
You may be right. I was thinking it was a last-minute decision to add and they had a junior staffer to quickly whip this up in 20 minutes.

SeamusMcFly said:
Does it though?
Multiple occurrences of a taller building being drawn shorter than a building it is labeled as taller than. Just matched floor counts.
Maybe to make the resi look taller in sections?
Instead of misleading folks, why not just actually build more resi, and they will be taller than the labs?

Looks good in union sq...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top